Thinking

The human personality, or if you will, some kind of our vanity, likes to hear him mentioned by people who are thousands of kilometers away compared to those (exemplary JWs) who live in the same city and no longer respond even with a simple greeting.
Although I must also say that there are one or two JWs who stopped contacting me 9 years ago, but still greeted me (with a smile but with restraint) during a recent meeting on the street.
The topics here are interesting, always. But I can confirm with pleasure that the general communication and expression of views, arguments and everything else that occurs in the discussions, clearly indicate the correctness of my decision that I made in leaving WTJWorg. Thank you all for that.  

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Do you have PROOF of your accusations….as far as I have seen over the years you dont……I am well aware that Jehovah is a reader of our hearts and minds…in my nearly fifty years…I should have been disfellowshipped many many times…what about you brother…have you always honestly been  pure in your heart and mind…….is anyone ?

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me.
Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and  Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them.
But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them.
You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point.
Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..
At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

Jesus associated with tax collectors, publicly known sinners, prostitutes, etc. Doesn't mean he condoned their conduct and actions. He was known for mercy and looking for repentance. 
It's true that there should not be close association which can lead to condoning and even sharing in the sins of someone. Some of us will show more judgment and some will show more mercy. Not everyone will find the same middle-ground. 
I thought these thoughts from a recent Watchtower were good:
*** w21 October pp. 11-12 pars. 14-16 We Serve the God Who Is “Rich in Mercy” ***
Sometime later, Paul learned that real changes had taken place. The sinner was truly repentant! Although the man had brought shame on the congregation, Paul told the elders that he did not want “to be too harsh.” He directed them: “Kindly forgive and comfort him.” Note Paul’s reason: “So that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.” Paul felt pity for the repentant man. The apostle did not want to see the man so overwhelmed, so crushed, by what he did that he would give up on seeking forgiveness.—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 11.
15 In imitation of Jehovah, the elders love to show mercy. They show firmness when necessary but mercy when possible if there is a real basis for it. Otherwise, it is not mercy but permissiveness. Are elders the only ones, though, who need to show mercy?
WHAT CAN HELP ALL OF US TO SHOW MERCY?
16 All Christians seek to imitate Jehovah’s mercy. Why? One reason is that Jehovah will not listen to those who fail to show mercy to others. (Read Proverbs 21:13.) None of us would want Jehovah to refuse to listen to our prayers, so we carefully avoid developing a hard-hearted spirit. Rather than turn a deaf ear to a fellow Christian in pain, we must always be ready to listen to “the cry of the lowly one.” Similarly, we take to heart this inspired counsel: “The one who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy.” (Jas. 2:13) If we humbly remember how much we need mercy, we are more likely to show mercy. We especially want to show mercy when a repentant wrongdoer returns to the congregation.
If a man continues in conduct that he is not sorry about, and he calls himself a brother, then close association could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as the congregation's acceptance of wicked conduct. I agree that we have to be careful about such things. A person who recognizes that they have no right to call themselves a brother and who appears sorry about the wrong will leave us in a position to make our own decision about what level of association might be useful for them and that shows a proper level of mercy. There are some things that will boil down to a matter of conscience, in my opinion. But no one else needs to hold my same opinion:
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.
 

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me.
Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and  Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them.
But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them.
You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point.
Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..
At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

He is.
Nonetheless, his example has helped me. I had a ‘take no prisoners’ approach when I first became active here. Nobody gonna saying nothin bad bout God nor the earthly organization on my watch. I was not free of ad hominem attacks. Nothing like you, of course, but I was not free of them. I was also given to sarcasm.  He reined me back that. Sometimes you have to see where people are coming from and why. If you address a topic, just address it. Just answer a question. If you employ any sarcasm at all, even though the rest of your answer is brilliant, the other person will zero in only your sarcasm, and the overall reply is lost. Of course, it still stands for members of ‘the public’ who frequent this fine site, but it also sets a bad example for them. I look upon almost with awe on how restrained he keeps himself when interacting with you, kicking back only when your adhominems and weird accusations become intolerable, and even then in a restrained way. Anyone else rather quickly collapses under your dark strangeness and throws themselves against the electric fence, like concentration camp inmates who have lost hope.
To be sure, I don’t share his interest in this particular matter of 607. If it is wrong, it will be changed. Probably, the rapid deterioration of this systems of things will make the point moot, anyway. And you can always say, ‘Oh, to blazes with it! ‘Generation’ means ‘era,’ and in that way get another 60 years out of it, if not more.
Why doesn’t he state his point just once or twice and move on? I think it is quite clear that is what would happen if not for you. He states a point in a scholarly way. You apply accelerant and make sure the entire ‘public’ knows about it. In this way, you facilitate ‘apostasy’ far more than he.
It is crucial that you stop doing this.
Absolutely vital. The public should drop everything to figure it out. Start with the excellent book (my latest) ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ available at Amazon, and most ebook retailers. Take note of the metadata:
“Those of the Enlightenment laud the “human experiment” that is democracy, Jehovah’s Witnesses laud the human experiment that is worldwide family. Theirs is John Lennon’s brotherhood of man not rejoicing that there is above us only sky but instead seeking direction from that sky. A family all but solving racism, a family uniting nationalities and social classes. Who wouldn’t want a double-shot of it? But even a recent circuit overseer likened it to “one big, united, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family,” a phrase I suspect is not in any outline.

“Witnesses are ordinary folk, with all the foibles of ordinary folk, and sometimes a few extra thrown in since “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are ill do: I [Jesus] came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

“What drives the Witnesses? Examine what faces these ordinary folk who star in a world-stage role that is alternately noble and strange. Some challenge is external: “A large door that leads to activity has been opened to me, but there are many opposers.” Some challenge is internal: “We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels.” Translation: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

“Either way, “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you . . . as though a strange thing were befalling you,” says Peter. Don‘t be puzzled. Tackle it head-on. Start with the pure bonus, ‘Things that drive you crazy about the faith--and how to view them,’ for the goal is to endure: “When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?” says Jesus. ‘Not if we have anything to do with it,’ reply ever increasing enemies.

"If errors were what you watch, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand?” asks the psalm. Is watching errors not the mission statement of today’s culture, typified in its media? Nobody stands as their enemies magnify, enhance, and even concoct evil reports—see it play out on the internet with any public figure, “admiring personalities,” until they destroy them. Ought Christians play that game?

"Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness,” says Paul. Three times the apostle entreated God to remove a “thorn in his flesh” Nothing doing, God said. I look better when you are flawed. If brilliant people achieve brilliant things, it’s easy to see why. But when flawed people do it . . .”
“Tips on the ministry within. How did Witnesses fare in the face of COVID-19? How to regard ever-present conspiracy theories that ripple through society? And what about those overlapping generations? How long can they overlap? What is at stake? What facts on the ground identify the times? Venturing to the edge of the universe, rewriting the textbooks, and dressing down the god of good luck is all in a day's work. Meet Mephibosheth, that faithful man of old whom nobody can pronounce his name at the New System Dinner Table. A bad boy turns over a new leaf, a theodicy that works, and my favorite circuit overseer finish up the offerings.”
It is essential that people read this work.
(I have a collection or two of the Bill Watterson cartoons ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ Some are named things like ‘The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.’ Watterson said he chose such titles because few things could be less essential than a collection of cartoons. I admit, I tease you a bit when so many things with you are ‘essential, and ‘crucial.’)

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

In good times, and bad times, in times easy and times hard, I have relied on the JW-Archive as a sounding board for many things, and appreciate the forbearance when I have ranted and raved about all sorts of things, even from the Librarian, who often deleted my posts, with cause.
I have come to the conclusion that logic and reason is not the end-all that I had aspired to, and that all things being considered, it would have been better for me to be "Brother Watchtower", than the man I have become.
I am 73 years old, and I probably do not have time to change .... realistically, but for 14 billion years I did not exist, and I don't remember it bothering me any.
My Wife Susan, and my sons and daughter will fulfill whatever unfulfilled dreams I had, as the stars I could reach ... were just starfish on the beach.
With whatever time I have left, it is going to be my life's challenge, so I bid each of you so long, and hope you stay closer to Jehovah than I did. 
....and like Forest Gump said "... and that's all I am going to say about that."
Goodby.
 

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius.
*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.)
 
Turns out that Adam Rutherford used the same scriptures and evidence I have used to reach the same Biblical conclusion, but he "adjusts" it by two years, for his own reasons.
I added the same image from his Vol 3 as above, but this time to highlight the dates 585 to 515 on the right under the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple.
 

Still traveling. Sunday's talk was "Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom" by Brother West from East Shelby Congregation, which is just a couple of towns over from @Pudgy. Made me wonder how he is doing. Anyone heard from him? I have never followed @Pudgy on the forums, but from his Profile it looks like he has still shown no activity here since May 6th. 
Back to the topic. 
I have no idea about apostates relying on the Babylonian Chronicles, but I see that Adam Rutherford relies on them in exactly the same way that COJ does. No difference. What COJ does a bit differently, is to ALSO rely on 100% of the astronomy readings . A.Rutherford can only rely on a few of them because he has chosen to disregard all evidence that gets in the way of his two-year adjustment of the entire Neo-Babylonian period.
This means he can rely completely on the accuracy of the regnal lengths found in Ptolemy's writings, and all the contract tablets, and ALL the different segments of the Babylonian Chronicles. That's because they don't include the actual BCE years, just the relative chronology. Rutherford uses Ptolemy's regnal lengths, but does not incorporate the actual astronomical dates that Ptolemy associated with those years. That would have given him 538 for the first year of Cyrus not 536 -- and would have given him 604 for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year 602 that Adam Rutherford uses. Rutherford takes what the Watchtower has called the supposed "absolute" and "pivotal" date of 539, and changes that date to 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. So much for absolute dates!!
COJ exactly agrees with the Watchtower for this date (539) because both sources (COJ and WTS) use the astronomy evidence for all the years from Nabonidus down through most of the Persian period. That includes Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses.
So although Adam Rutherford rejects the Watchtower Chronology, to keep 1914, he still ends up supporting Russell (and Barbour's) chronology as far as he can. It's easy to see why:
Barbour and Russell derived 1914 primarily through calculations related to Israel's "double" and not through counting 2,520 years from 606. The use of the “7 times” was a secondary method for calculating 1914, and it wasn't even based on Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy of Daniel 4. The primary method was based on counting 40 years from 1874 to get 1914. When the "7 gentile times" of Leviticus was used as a further support, Barbour knew he had to find a major event from 606 BCE. A quick check of Rev. Bowen's chronology in Rev. Elliott's famous book looked like it had dated the destruction of the Temple in 606. Perfect!
But Adam Rutherford knew that counting  back from 1914 actually leads to 607. And he had easily seen that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king until 605, which was two years later. So his 18th year would have been 587 per the received evidence. For his own reasons, Adam Rutherford made that even worse by changing that period another two years so that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would have been 585 BCE, not 587 BCE. 
So. Adam Rutherford had a new problem trying to support Russell's 1914 because he now had to find a DIFFERENT event for 607 BCE. For this event he did exactly what many Bible commentators have done. He did what COJ would also later do. He knew that 607 was BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, and went with Jeremiah 25:10-12 and made it the "Fall of Assyria" using the date between 609 (Harran) and 605 (Carchemish). 607. Perfect!
All you need is a major Biblical event for 606 or 607 and let interpretation do the rest. So that 1914 can still work for you as the culmination of 2,520 years before that 1914 date. 

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years 

Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. 
True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. 
The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. 
And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: 
What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you?
You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts.
 That's correct. Thank you.
A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.
 

It's clear that Pastor Russell and the groups he proudly led had no association. Even today, these independent Bible Students continue on their own path, with some even embracing Adventism, as was the case in Pastor Russell's time. This does not mean that Russell was heavily influenced by Adventism, but rather that he found certain aspects intriguing enough to investigate. The false claim that Pastor Russell was an Adventist is an apostate vision, and today's Bible Students who support Russell's perspective will ardently defend this truth.
However, my statement remains valid. Not a single apostate has taken the trouble to mention that Brother Adam Rutherford, who is unrelated to Joseph Rutherford, made reference to the Babylonian Chronicles in his book volume 3.
It is irrelevant if certain Bible Students associate him with their long-forgotten alliances. What truly matters is what is referenced in all of his books. Personally, I own eight of them, and they all consistently refer to AD 1914 and how it marked the culmination of the Gentile Times, just as Russell had mentioned.
So, that's for the update. I'm sure someone else will find it interesting.
John and Edgar Morton had their own comprehensive ideology, which Pastor Russell only briefly mentioned in one of his publications. I recall it being a three-paragraph long piece. However, it is important not to overemphasize the influence of the Morton's ideology on Pastor Russell, as his primary interest lied in the Great Pyramid. He merely utilized the pyramid to validate certain biblical interpretations through calculations. It is crucial to note that Pastor Russell did not extensively engage with the pyramid schemes that others were involved in.
Of course, he visited the Great Pyramid, but that's not the point. The associations were "independent", meaning they would think and act independently in the best interest of their respective churches. Although this sometimes conflicted with Russell's own views, he never sought to impose his authority over others.
The key here is whether people are truly interested in the truth. For instance, if someone is genuinely interested in the truth as presented in Adam Rutherford's books, they should make a point to read all of his published works.
By examining the historical events, one can clearly understand the significance of the year 1776, which contrasts the alternative perspective of 1799 as a significant date. It is worth noting the inclusion of both 1917-1918 and 1914, as mentioned by the person in question. It is important to avoid distorting their words or manipulating their ideas.
I found it quite interesting when Adam depicted the British Empire as the savior of the Jews in 1914. Referring to Britain as "Israel" and the Jews as "Judah" adds a poetic touch to the story.
Anglo-Saxon Israel or Israel-Britain -- Adam Rutherford -- 1939
Snippet:
"It is important to notice, too, that since the Great War of 1914-1918 Great Britain (Israel) and the Jews (Judah) have occupied the Holy Land together, the latter being under the guidance of the former,"
 
 

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG [ http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm ] Adam Rutherford was a Bble Student
This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid.
But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.  

NKBoswell Comment:
It seems that your position is based on personal observation rather than published information. I have had similar experiences with individuals who have read the comments of C.T. Russell was in the Overland Monthly as the Pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. He offered a profound comparison, suggesting that the release of the Jewish people from Palestine in 1914 effectively liberated them from their gentile bondage. I found that comparison quite fascinating.

Bible Students:
II.--Hope Long Deferred Now Reviving
BY C. T. RUSSELL
"For the present we content ourselves with the bare statement that, according to the Bible, Palestine will be flourishing with a large population of Jews at the close of the year 1914. The Scriptures indicate that the gathering will be "out of all nations," and with considerable wealth and general prosperity. We are not to
understand that this means that all the Jews of the world will go to Palestine, but that some of the most pious and zealous from every quarter will gather there. At that time will occur what the Bible terms "Jacob's Trouble," in conjunction with a world-wide trouble, financial, religious, political, social, eventuating in anarchy, and, later on, in Israel's exaltation as the earthly exponent of Messiah's spiritual Kingdom."
NKBoswell Comment:
Here, Russell explained how Jews from around the world would be gathered to reestablish the nation of Israel. This vision became a reality when Israel became a state. However, his initial observation of Jewish freedom in 1914 is indeed accurate.
I am inquiring about this because Pastor Russell favored the year 606 BC over our revised date of 607 BC. This viewpoint is also substantiated in volume 2. Nevertheless, I am familiar with the explanation for the year difference, which is both satisfactory and well elucidated by our brothers.
Bible Stidents:
CHRONOLOGY--Beginning of the Trouble in 1914.
Q70:3:: QUESTION (1905)--3--Why should the trouble begin with 1914?
ANSWER--I answer that the reason we expect it to begin there in the full sense is that the Father laid out the plan of this whole age. Here Bro. Russell gave a long talk on the
"Times of the Gentiles" showing that their lease of {Page Q71} power began in 606 B.C. and will end in the fall of 1914, which can be found in detail in Vol.2, of the Dawns.
NKBoswell comment:
You also mentioned Adam Rutherford as a potential cause for public confusion about Christian association. Could you please provide more details?
 

A better question is: what motivated nearly ZERO brothers that we know about to stand up for the Bible's view? What motivated brothers after they began following Russell, to study the pyramids and write extensively, even visiting the Great Pyramid and writing books about it, in full support of faulty mathematics, and faulty astronomy? What made them so gullible? What motivated The Bible Students Monthly (in the issue just prior to the one you showed earlier) to make exorbitant claims that this pyramid was the ORACLE of Jehovah? Why did no one seem to question it at all until the very day that Rutherford came out in the Watchtower and said it was from Satan?  

None. That's my point. If someone is just about to come into the truth, and they ask their study conductor if it's true that this or that controversy really happened, or if it was true that when Brother Jackson testified at the Australian Royal Commission on CSA really said that Proverbs isn't really talk about corporal punishment. Then what happens when the study conductor says, "No, Brother Jackson was never asked to testify, or we would have heard about it in the Watchtower or on JW.ORG." (This supposedly actually happened, although the original question was only about whether he testified at the ARC, not about corporal punishment.) Now, who is spreading disinformation??? 
The likelihood of "stumbling" a new one may be even stronger when we outright deny something through ignorance of controversial issues. That person who asked the study conductor about something, and the study conductor spread disinformation in response. Now we have a possibility that the one studied with can just easily pull up the video, and he will begin thinking that JWs are some kind of cult who will deny reality. And the study conductor may begin wondering "why such important information was hidden from us." Now we have TWO persons potentially stumbled, when just being aware of the situation could have easily resolved the whole thing, and Brother Jackson's words could be better defended in context.
When we are so quick to deny anything negative out of ignorance, we not only look bad, we can easily cause others to stumble, especially when we consider how easy it is for people to find controversial information online. I think there will come a time very soon when any question can be asked of an AI LLM and it will quickly spit out ALL sides of the answer to a question, pro and con. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to suppose that only OUR own preferred side of a controversy will be available to interested persons. 

What motivated brothers in the past to stand up for Pastor Russell and correct the misconceptions surrounding pyramology? Some brothers took it upon themselves to directly address the issue by personally funding the placement of a pyramid stone near Pastor Russell's grave. Unfortunately, there was misinformation circulating that claimed the Watchtower had acquired and installed the stone.
"Pastor Russell
was always firmly opposed to all forms of occultism, as will be discussed in greater detail in the section on Pyramidology later in this chapter; and he never knowingly employed any mystic symbols in his ministry and teachings."
"PYRAMID USAGE. Finally, we need to comment on yet another absurd charge in connection with the Pyramid. This was made by David Reed, who attempts to build a case on the alleged usage of questionable forms of pyramidology in the Pastor’s over all ministry. First, he cites the fact that a seven-foot-tall stone pyramid was used in the Society’s Rosemont Cemetery near Pittsburgh to mark the location of burial plots for members of the Bethel staff, including Pastor Russell, and then writes."
Another misconception that was circulating at that time involved the confusion between the "name" Rutherford and another Rutherford who was involved.
"A monthly publication, Pyramidology, by Dr. Adam Rutherford of New Castle, began in 1941. The Forest Gate Church (London) Bible Monthly was published 1936-1985. Phillys Stracy compiled an evening devotional book, Songs in the Night."
This insider knowledge may seem irrelevant today, as it reflects people's confusion in the past about the language used by others. However, it is important to acknowledge that we cannot make well-informed judgments about those conditions since we were not alive during that time. Whether Pastor Russell found the pyramid scheme intriguing but useless, or if later under Rutherford it was condemned as the devil's work because of the usage by other Christian denominations, none of these matters as it holds any significance now.

What positive outcomes can be achieved by spreading disinformation? You are the one responsible for manufacturing these controversies, unwilling to accept the truth when it is presented. Let's consider the example of the Russell comment and the apocalyptic rumors about the end of the world. You are well aware that Russell had to issue a full-page disclaimer to counteract the misleading ideas propagated by certain individuals, just like the Watchtower eventually did for the year 1975. However, you persist in promoting a false narrative, continuing to fuel this controversy. So, what beneficial response are you hoping to achieve with your personal denial?
This controversy is purely a product of your imagination, not of the Bible students, the Watchtower, or Jehovah's Witnesses. It has already been clarified, so it requires a nonconformist diehard to keep revisiting this deceit. Therefore, what is the benefit of airing this nonsense in public? Who stands to gain from this other than apostates?
What relevance does any of that have to do with the remarkable progress achieved by the Watchtower since gaining full control in 1950? Do the events of 1933, which a sister found controversial, truly matter? Did she fully grasp the significance of what she was reading? It is true that 60% of Bible students were in the process of relearning, while 30% did not adhere to Pastor Russell's ideology and chose to leave, leading to a separation from the IBSA. History shows that. However, what does this ultimately prove? Merely having access to dubious insider information does not hold much weight, especially when your own credibility is questionable.
Does today's Watchtower endorse pyramidology just like Brother Rotherford failed to endorse in his tenure as the head of the Bible Student Association under the publishing house the Watchtower? What was the true motivation behind the pyramidology that you personally find distasteful? It aimed to present an alternative perspective on chronology, which even Pastor Russell himself found intriguing but not essential. Those were Pastor Russells thoughts about it, regardless of what you dream up to refute his actual words by misrepresenting them, just like you did with "the end of the world in 1914" apostate fiasco.
What positive lessons can be derived from inaccurate information? You are eager to persuade others to adopt your perspective, so demonstrate how one can benefit from learning from misrepresentation. Instead of accepting your lack of credibility and deceitful conduct, how can one actually learn from your experiences? If tarnishing your reputation is your aim, then congratulations on a job well done as a role model.
Before criticizing others, it would be wise to reflect on your own actions. It seems that you are quick to judge others, especially me, while disregarding your own anger when you ban someone. Why do you continue to ignore this?
Matthew 7:3-5 English Standard Version
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
 

Yes. But as I said, if there is a good answer to anything controversial that you or I or others bring up here, then that answer appears right here, online, where the original controversial point has probably been rehashed in other places with or without an answer. Also, if there is no viable answer to the controversy, then the issue has been brought up and persons who are interested in truth ("making sure of all things") will know that there is no answer to it (yet). That's also good information to have so that we don't go around deceiving people inadvertently. 
For example, let's say that someone claims that "Pyramidology" was presented as truth to householders as late 1933, nearly 5 years after it was declared "from the Devil" and two years after most Bible Student associations and individuals began identifying themselves as "Jehovah's witnesses." This point was brought up to me once (by a Bethel sister, who was a proofreader, no less) and I was asked to question the writer about making a small change in the "ka" book which referenced this point of organizational history incorrectly.  This book ("ka") was about to be reprinted for the mid-week Book Study. I claimed to her that her statement was false. But she showed me the 1928 through 1933 "Informants" which she had copies of. This was something controversial to her and she knew it, and she wanted someone else to pass the question back to the writer. 
To be sure, she was skewing the emphasis on pyramidology to make the point more memorable. The "ka" book reference never mentioned pyramidology, only the date when the Society stopped selling the Studies in the Scriptures series. 
Should we all have ignored the issue? This book was going out to the public. I placed several copies of this book myself. Interested persons would attend the Book Study. In the end, it was decided that the sentence would not be corrected. But does this mean no one should have questioned? Should no one have tried to "make sure of all things"?
But I also learned that the people who get angry over such things, when the answer is not in favor of their interests, are the ones who KNOW there is no answer, or don't want to admit the answer. That's why I'm not concerned about bringing up controversial things publicly. There is nothing secret that will not be made known. 
And I've found that online the anger is most often from those who, deep down, realize that they don't like the truth. But I always remember Proverbs 6:17; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 31:5: ". . . Jehovah, the God of truth."

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…