Patiently waiting for Truth

You are in good company.
22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

I found this quote from a Wt. when researching,
"Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,” published in the July 15, 2013, Watchtower, thrilled us. (Matt 24:45-47) It was explained that the faithful slave is the Governing Body, while the “domestics” are all those who are fed spiritually, whether of the anointed or of the “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What a delight it is to learn such truths and to teach them to new ones!  w15 3/15 p. 8-9
One set of scriptures apparently prove that these false prophets are the faithful and discreet slave.  How thrilling!
 
 “You have spoken arrogantly against me,” says the Lord.
“Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’
14 “You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the Lord Almighty? 15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’”
Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other, and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored his name.
17 “On the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.  Mal 3:13-18

JWs have this habit of using David and his grave sin, as an example to excuse their leadership’s sins.  With David though, we have his documented expressions of great remorse spoken to God.  We have no expressions of remorse from any Wt. leader, only their examples of either hiding their sins, or making excuses for them.  I find it ironic that past articles in the Wt. will tell the story of a murderer being “saved” by the organization and he is received with open arms into the congregation. Wouldn't this past murderer be the example of repentance and not the example of sin?
Not so, with David.  He is usually shown up for his sins and never for his extensive documented request to God for repentance.  Likewise, the organization keeps a record of sin on all members, yet God in his mercy will forget our sins – only if we come to him in sincere repentance. 
Sinning against the Holy Spirit, the unforgiveable sin, has been committed by the organization since Rutherford, possibly before. (Matt 12:31) Ray Franz spoke truth, but he was disfellowshipped – considered dead in the eyes of God. (Luke 12:11,12; Matt 10:20) This has happened throughout  Wt’s history to anointed ones who had the Holy Spirit poured into their hearts.  Spiritual blood is on the hands of Wt’’s leadership. (Matt 23:33-36; Rev 17:3-6) Jesus spoke truth and he was killed for it, and they said he had a demon. I have been accused of the same thing here. (Matt 10:25)   It is a twisted concept that the leadership is righteous while unrepentant for their sins, yet any anointed priest who stands for truth and exposes lies, is the unrighteous one.  (Mark 3:28-30)
No, God does not consider the sins of a priest (if Russel was anointed) as forgotten, if he is never repentant before God and apologetic for the damage he has done to those whom he has taught.
No matter how much of what appears to be truth that he may have produced, he is still a bad “tree”.  (Matt 7:15-20)
 
 
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-worst-sin-wt-has-done.html

That is so funny considering the topic you've made here and the length of your first comment. 
You seem concerned about people's attitudes and about people 'grumbling'. 
I'm more concerned about the way JWs bring shame on God and Christ. 
 

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

So, don't be a hammer. Be sensible and look at both sides of every coin. 

This would probably be a seperate topic but I'd like to hear / read you thoughts on these men above mentioned.
David, adultery and murder, premeditated it would seem.  Moses lost his temper / self control maybe ?
But tell us about  the 'sins' of the others.  They were chosen by Jesus, to do a job. 
I've often read on here that the disciples / apostles 'were just as bad', but I've never seen real examples. 
Russell maybe chose himself, then called himself righteous ??   
I see the GB in that same light. Well maybe they choose each other, but then call themselves the F&DS and say that 'God and Christ trust them'.  That's a bit like calling themselves righteous.  It seemsto follow a pattern. 
To be honest i care not about Russell in himself. I do find what you write interesting and that you do so much research. 
I find fault in the GB/ Org using Russell as part of it's history, because I think Russell would be totally adainst the JW Org. And I'm still interested in knowing more about the division, as the IBSA seems to still exist today. 
So to me the Watchtower,  JW Org or now the CCJW (whichever aka suits people) is a totally different thing to the 'religion' that Russell started. It would seem that Rutherford 'stole' the Watchtower, whether legally or not i don't know. And it would also seem that Rutherford was 'not a pleasant man'. 
Maybe Rutherford will be your next topic ?  Thank you for sharing all previous info'. Have a good day. 
 

This would probably be a seperate topic but I'd like to hear / read you thoughts on these men above mentioned.
David, adultery and murder, premeditated it would seem.  Moses lost his temper / self control maybe ?
But tell us about  the 'sins' of the others.  They were chosen by Jesus, to do a job. 
I've often read on here that the disciples / apostles 'were just as bad', but I've never seen real examples. 
Russell maybe chose himself, then called himself righteous ??   
I see the GB in that same light. Well maybe they choose each other, but then call themselves the F&DS and say that 'God and Christ trust them'.  That's a bit like calling themselves righteous.  It seemsto follow a pattern. 
To be honest i care not about Russell in himself. I do find what you write interesting and that you do so much research. 
I find fault in the GB/ Org using Russell as part of it's history, because I think Russell would be totally adainst the JW Org. And I'm still interested in knowing more about the division, as the IBSA seems to still exist today. 
So to me the Watchtower,  JW Org or now the CCJW (whichever aka suits people) is a totally different thing to the 'religion' that Russell started. It would seem that Rutherford 'stole' the Watchtower, whether legally or not i don't know. And it would also seem that Rutherford was 'not a pleasant man'. 
Maybe Rutherford will be your next topic ?  Thank you for sharing all previous info'. Have a good day. 
 

That reminds me of the Steve Martin comedy routine where he starts out with a sly voice and a giant grin that goes from ear to ear……
… “And I’m gonna tell you how to make a MILLION dollars ….. and never pay taxes”.
“And I’m gonna tell you how to make a million dollars and never pay taxes“.
“Yes I’m going to tell you how  to make A MILLION DOLLARS, and NEVER pay taxes.”
FIRST ……… get a million dollars.  ……….…….

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

You are strange JWI. As I've said before, you write something then you basically apologise for it. 
We all know that Almighty God, and Christ, read hearts. I cannot imagine God or Christ using Russell, going by what you've written. 
 
Um I don't see much about being humble there. And you seem to have proven that Rusell commited lots of purposeful sin.
What can one say. By what you are telling us, Russell used what was supposed to be, God's way of 'getting His message to people, the Watchtower, to smear his wife's reputation.  What does that say about this man ? 
Um, sounds familiar. The GB come to mind. Real estate comes to mind. 
if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. Yes indeed. 
Well Russell wasn't a JW, but the GB do seem to be like Russell . Self centered in seems. 
 

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

It wasn't me that did the blaming of their own people. Hypocrits 
I'll just place this here again. 
 
It must take a very dull or almost dead conscience to remain a JW. 

That is so funny considering the topic you've made here and the length of your first comment. 
You seem concerned about people's attitudes and about people 'grumbling'. 
I'm more concerned about the way JWs bring shame on God and Christ. 
 

You spend a lot of time worrying about other people's affairs. I think you'd be better off looking in the mirror.

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

So, don't be a hammer. Be sensible and look at both sides of every coin. 

It wasn't me that did the blaming of their own people. Hypocrits 
I'll just place this here again. 
 
It must take a very dull or almost dead conscience to remain a JW. 

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

That is so funny considering the topic you've made here and the length of your first comment. 
You seem concerned about people's attitudes and about people 'grumbling'. 
I'm more concerned about the way JWs bring shame on God and Christ. 
 

Why do you spend so much energy worrying about the affairs of other people?

It wasn't me that did the blaming of their own people. Hypocrits 
I'll just place this here again. 
 
It must take a very dull or almost dead conscience to remain a JW. 

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

So, don't be a hammer. Be sensible and look at both sides of every coin. 

An Edler once said to me ' Things written in the Bible are there for a purpose, not just to fill up space'.
The overlapping generation is NOT written in the Bible. But the other things are.
The probelm is, the GB / Leaders / helpers of the Watchtower / JW org, just cannot be humble. They cannot just say 'We don't know'.   They are always pretending there is 'new light', which is funny as they now admit that they are not inpsired by God's Holy Spirit. so yes, they destroy their own credibility.