Juan Rivera

Truth means "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Not whitewashed, partial truth, and not just the "spin" that tickles our ears.
That's everyone's own business whether they would rather know the whole truth, or ignore the truth, or assume that others can and should prioritize for them what they need to know as "the truth."
But, for me, I think we would be hypocrites to sing songs like we just did this last week. (Make the Truth Your Own), the comments on Colossians 2:8, etc., etc. Most of our meetings contain small reminders that we need to "love" truth. It shouldn't matter where it takes us. Actually, it should matter. And it should matter, even more, that some people don't want us to go where it takes us. 
It's difficult for most of us to admit that the "Watchtower religion" has been a cult in the past. (In the more pejorative sense of the word.) The Watchtower publicly admits that this is true, claiming that many of the Bible Students were cult worshipers of Charles Taze Russell. We know that Rutherford said he determined to rid the Watchtower of the personality cult that worshiped Russell. He called this "creature worship" because they were worshiping a man. But we also know that, for many years, Rutherford himself was part of the same cult, and even bragged in 1916 that Russell's enemies would soon have to come and "worship at his feet."
But, in general, I think Rutherford finally did a pretty good job replacing the cult members with persons who were looking for practical Bible truth, and not just for a man to do their thinking for them. But many persons, even Watchtower writers, have confused God and the earthly organization. And, this idea might surprise many, but I think that F.W.Franz gave evidence that he remained as a "cult" member until he died. He loved being seen as the the primary Rabbi --The ORACLE, they called him-- and it went to his head as he tried for his entire career to revive interest in dates, chronology, numerology, Jubilees, new truths (prophetic interpretations), parallel dispensations, the pre-eminence of the truly anointed, etc. I think his influence created cult members out of several ordinary Witnesses. I believe that my great-grandfather (from even before F.Franz was at Bethel) was a "cult" member in the organization until the 1960's when he died, even though my other relatives were (and are) regular JWs, and not cult members. I'm pretty sure that C.Woodworth was a cult member until the 1950's when he died. I know that when they searched out documentation and photos for the Proclaimer's book, they were astounded at the "cult" material still available in Witnesses' archives, including F.Franz himself.
And many Witnesses, today, are tempted to look at 8 men exactly the way that Bible Students looked at Russell. The way we defend or dismiss the material from our past history can be an indicator as to whether we too have succumbed to cult thinking. Even the way we defend current material that came out of long-standing traditions of the past can also be an indicator. I can talk to Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists for hours and recognize almost immediately which ones are in a "cult" and which ones aren't by the manner in which they defend Ellen G White or Joseph Smith when glaring problems are pointed out.
(Job 31:26-28) 26 If I saw the sun shining Or the moon moving in its splendor; 27 And my heart was secretly enticed, And my mouth kissed my hand in worship of them; 28 Then that would be an error deserving punishment by the judges, For I would have denied the true God above.

I appear to be behind the times here.
Mike & Kim I know of from a video I watched of them on YouTube, where they seemed a bit too silly and flippant (perhaps even tipsy?). But their information was lousy, and they were promoting this idea that elders were destroying necessary CSA evidence, when they were really misinterpreting "good practice" counsel from the WTS about record-keeping.  Maybe they have done their homework on other videos, but I won't waste my time because I don't trust them based on the random one I watched. P. Asare I have never heard of. John Redwood is related to John Cedars, who is somehow related to Lloyd Evans, as I saw these names on JW Survey. I downloaded that site to read later, but I did read all the headlines from the site, just never got back to it. Average Joe I have never heard of. Bill Bowen is the former elder who put his face behind "Silent Lambs" which intended to expose CSA crimes among JWs. I understand that Barbara Anderson worked with him to get it started and get it named but that Barbara Anderson didn't trust his motives or his personality and backed away from it. (I have read much of Anderson's site, and the name comes up often when I search Google on several different historical and CSA topics.) WiFiBandit sounds very familiar but I do not know from where. (I suspect this is a Jehovahs-Witness forum participant. I don't care much about the work of most ex-JWs for purposes of testing their claims, or defense against their claims, unless I'm convinced that they have done their homework, and are not prone to taking things out of context. For this reason, I have purchased 2 books from M.J.Penton, 1 from C.O.Jonnson, and 2 from E.C.Gruss. (I also have two books from R.Franz that I picked up online as free pdfs. I also picked up a book called Apostles of Denial from archive.org, which is also from E.C.Gruss.)
Otherwise, I pretty much ignore current online sources because I think they tend to get their info from other sources anyway, and misinterpret or misrepresent what they said. For this reason I won't bother with those who don't do their own work, when it comes to claims we should test for ourselves.
Compared to people who appear to have gone to original sources and documented their work, I'd guess that most of these online personalities are probably just repeating things. Any of them, including the authors I mentioned, might also have had bad motives. We should expect that this taints their own conclusions. But it's worth looking at their work, especially if a lot of it is true, regardless of their own motives or conclusions. Perhaps we'll look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

Do you have any new orders for me, o wise one, JWI?
Sheesh.

I cannot help but agree with most of your post except for the above quote. I feel this is an opinion 😃

As it turns out, I have been assigned the #4 talk this week on how Paul described certain fellows few have heard of as “a strengthening aid” to him, as one taking the lead in the work at the time.
Whether I can use you as a modern-day example is dubious.

Your post was worth an up-vote just for this one point alone (about not participating in warfare). In general, it's my own favorite when discussing why Witnesses have a right to claim "authority" and "high ground" over other religions who feel we should have no right to try to convert others, or imposing our own view of the Bible as better than theirs. Other doctrines like Trinity and Hellfire are up there too, but this one should appeal most closely to the true practice of Christianity. Wisdom is proved righteous by its works.

I don't think that title is a bad mantra at all.
If you are looking for perfection, that's great. If you are expecting perfection, then you will be without any kind of brotherhood at all, and Christianity requires a brotherhood.
Everyone will be different. For me, it's not so difficult. Just review all the topics that you are sure of, at least sure enough so that you can express agreement. Emphasize these. On all other topics just say to the study or householder that 'among Jehovah's Witnesses you will find that most of them accept this particular interpretation of the topic, but that it is a difficult topic for many to understand and if they don't understand it or accept it, that a good understanding of the topic may come in time.' Remind them that Jehovah is more concerned with motivations and our love for one another than any particular teaching or specific action. This is clear from Jesus:
(Matthew 7:22, 23) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Matthew 25:34-40) . . .“Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (John 13:35) 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”
Once you know which things you want to emphasize in your ministry, then focus on those things. My motto, difficult as it is for me, attempts the following:
(Philippians 4:8, 9) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. We have a lot more freedom in our personal ministry than you imply. The most difficult times will likely be the times when you will be inevitably be asked to take on more responsibility. To hold the title of elder, for example, or to take on the assignment of certain talks that must hold strictly to an outline. But the Witnesses still offer a brotherhood in which it is very possible and enjoyable to succeed in a humble ministry of helping others related to you in the faith. For me it is a brotherhood in which I find friendships and a fellowship of believers who will not kill one another in wars, who will not threaten with violence, who will not judge one to a fiery hell, and who see God as a knowable, loving entity we can approach, and who generally share in a common sense of morality. Imperfect? Yes! But who knows? One might even be able to be a force for good from within without really trying. 

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

I appreciate your position on these chronology issues. I held on to some of them just as strongly as you from the time I was four until I was nearly twenty-four. I might have still been hanging on to them, even now, if it weren't for the fact that my assignment at Bethel put me right next to a member of the Governing Body (B.Schroeder) who had his own questions, and who also lashed out at others who had questions about them. While looking for solutions to some of these same questions, I became friends with other researchers, especially three non-GB brothers who had been the Writing Department's team researching articles for the "Aid Book" (now "Insight"). Some of them had been asked to look over the initial manuscript from an elder in Sweden, who had done a lot of research himself. The brother who assigned my research projects only showed me portions of it, and I didn't see the whole thing until another Brother, (F.Rusk) let me see it as he was working on it. This brother (Rusk) also gave the main part of my wedding talk (with the vows), and one of the brothers from the Aid Book research team also gave 30 minutes of my wedding talk.
But this manuscript, now a book, was of very little interest to me, because it was mostly about archaeological reasons not to try to "anchor" anything on 607. I was only interested in Bible topics, and didn't really think that counted. I don't think I would have necessarily discovered any of this on my own, and therefore I probably wouldn't even be here if it were not for discovering that several members of the Governing Body, and several members of the Writing Department also had doubts and questions about 1914 and related chronology issues, from a Biblical perspective.
So, now that you have impugned and imputed motives for me, I will let what you know what my real primary motives are:
Love of the Truth, Love for the whole association of brothers, A clean conscience, Of course, I realize you probably don't believe this, and further, you probably could not admit that you believed it if even you knew it was true. I'd prefer to assume that you are like me, when I was in your shoes, and preferred not to think about such questions, and assumed that anyone who asked me to think too strongly about such questions was some kind of apostate.
But, I can also explain why I have presented what I have on this particular forum. A conversation or presentation of information about the topic, still cannot happen in a normal congregation setting. This doesn't mean that it is not important to question. It is your Christian duty to question every claim, at least if you wish to be noble-minded.
I think that most of us who are willing to open up about these questions online all realize that we can't do this in our congregations, and yet we also realize that it is important to question. In a forum like this, where ideas can be exchanged, and challenged, we are also able to question without the same kind of effect that it would have inside the congregation. That's because no one needs to believe that we are sincere, if they don't want to. It's easy to dismiss any challenge by just saying things like: "I don't believe it;" "I don't want to look at the evidence;" "I think anyone who questions such things is probably an apostate." No one need be stumbled, because such information and questions are already all over the internet. 
Yet from the perspective of a Witness who has such a question, on a forum, they can ask any question and it is technically no different from any other person on the street asking such a question. Someone can say Trinity is taught in the Bible, and we can either defend our belief, ignore it, assume the person is sincere, assume the person is insincere, assume they are an ex-JW who has gone back like a dog to his vomit, assume they are just like a neighbor we met in service last week, assume they are dishonest, assume they are honest --- the point is that it doesn't matter. They are online, and we are online too. Therefore we are all subject to the rough and tumble world of online discussion -- a forum for ideas.
We can't claim we are stumbled by a non-Witness we meet at the door who could ask the very same question. Yet, they might have read about our belief in an apostate book or from an apostate site. In fact, a sincere non-JW we meet at the door, may be sincerely curious about whether or not something he or she read or heard is true or not. We could always just say: "Oh, we don't answer that particular question because it was once asked by an apostate." We don't think of doing that for questions about hell-fire or Trinity, or neutrality yet many of us are instantly inclined to respond like that if the question is about 1874, 1925, 1975, pyramids, miracle wheat, Hitler.
In fact, I've noticed that we are usually quite willing to discuss 1914 and its repercussions on other doctrines until WE start realizing that the questions are difficult. At that point, we tend to assume the question is no longer sincere, but is some kind of attack. And that's only based on the level of difficulty. We don't generally start lashing out and making accusations when we feel that our foundation is more solid, as it is on Trinity, hell-fire, neutrality, war, etc.
Now I admit that I made it easy for anyone who is uncomfortable to back away from the conversation when I mentioned the "deception" that invariably accompanies chronology doctrines, especially as time goes on, and no one wants to display their dirty laundry. This is a surprising point to a lot of people but it's easy to find the evidence. How many times have you heard or read something in the Watch Tower publications that sounded like this:  "Decades in advance, the Bible Students as Jehovah's Witnesses were known at the time, announced that 1914 would see the start of a great time of trouble." This has never been true. Decades in advance, 1914 was seen as the END of a great time of trouble not the beginning.
The July 15, 1894, Watch Tower said:
"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
Granted, an adjustment to the doctrine occurred one decade prior to 1914, but not "decades" and it was not consistently held to for that entire decade in any case. This could be an honest mistake, even though it has been made at least a dozen times, but it still deceives people into thinking that it's a true statement. However, if we KNOW this, then we should renounce any association with such a claim for the sake of our conscience:
(2 Corinthians 4:2) But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God.
However, my main goal here is not to highlight the "deceptions." These occur almost naturally and should be expected. My goal is to open up the discussion so that if it is wrong, or I am going down the wrong track, I can be corrected. If there is more to learn on the subject (and for me there is more to learn on any subject) the ideas are out there for anyone who is concerned to add to the discussion, and point out what's wrong. If we have questions on such a serious subject we should not keep them to ourselves, and we should not hold back from asking. We should test every expression, even if we feel it is as good as inspired. (1 Jn 4:1; 2 Th 2:2) It would be underhanded for us to keep such things hidden.
(Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.
I was also hoping to find others who might be willing to discuss some of these issues out in the open, and this has already occurred. There are several people who appear willing to discuss it further and I am very interested learning from their views. (Especially on Revelation 11 and 12 with @ComfortMyPeople since I think he has given this more thought than I have.) If you are not interested any further on this type of discussion, and that's your choice, of course.  But I'm sure you'd have something worth considering if you did participate.

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 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. God allows false teachings to be taught to those seeking truth. There is no perfectly true knowledge for all teachings today. We will continue to grow and distinguish right from wrong. We will continue to refine dross from gold.
Yes. God is allowing the Governing Body to teach false teachings as far as we know. There are continuous changes, and therefore continuous admissions that what was previously taught was not completely true, therefore "false." The teachings are not as important as the desire to do God's will. The imperfect and flawed attitudes are not as important as the desire to do God's will. This is why Jesus could say:
(Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds. . .  

I can't answer your question directly. But I will give my opinion that Jehovah did not direct Russell at all on these particular matters of chronology.
You can safely ignore the rest of this post, as it is just going to be my own ramblings about how I come to this particular conclusion and still have respect for what Russell did, without discounting Jehovah's ability to work through any person.
This is a question that I wish had come up under a different topic. Without a set of clear visible miracles, belief in guidance from God is a matter of faith. I believe that Russell had faith that he was guided from God. I don't believe we are supposed to have faith in people when it comes to religious matters. So you get right to the heart of the matter with your question.
Russell may have had guidance from God on several matters. It may be because of a certain type of guidance from God that he viewed traditional religion through a certain filter, looking for a more sensible and rational God. It may have the right time in the late 19th century to meet a religious demand for a more sensible and rational God. This motivation could have worked in either direction. He was a product of wonderment at the quick strides that apparently allowed science to overtake religion in the United States. Or, Jehovah needed persons like him to begin promoting something that would attract good-hearted Christians to coalesce at such a critical stage in history.
In either case, we know that Russell felt a motivation and an overall direction that might have led him to read the Bible, or listen to religious preachers and teachers with that certain "filter" that moved him to choose, not just one doctrine, but a set of unrelated doctrines that quickly shook up traditional Christianity.
He picked a lot of these doctrines from Second Adventists even though most of Adventism had been recently shamed and very few wanted to be associated with Adventism. He picked a lot of it from "Age-to-Come" doctrine, even though the Age-to-Come teachers rejected him. Adventists, having been shaken, disappointed, and embarrassed in the 1840's, 1850's, 1860's, and most recently in 1873 and 1874 had already been making themselves more and more unwelcome in traditional churches as they kept updating their constantly failing end-times beliefs. These end-time groups were more apt to look for alternative doctrines from the traditional churches, and many had become non-Trinitarian, and many had become non-Hellfire believers, non-Immortal Soul believers, non-combatants, etc. Adventists hadn't developed these teachings themselves, necessarily, but were also picking them up from rogue Baptists, rogue Episcopalians, rogue philosophers, etc. The way I read the stories of several semi-successful Adventists is that they had to include a strong non-chronology angle to their doctrines rather than merely promoting another date. (Seventh-Day Adventists are a good example.)
We might assume that, sooner or later, of course, one of these groups was going to hit on something that would attract some special, additional attention. (Kind of like the way a good idea, a song or video or even a false conspiracy can "go viral.") Or someone would soon hit on a specific eclectic mix of doctrines that would be seen as Truth. Or a set of these doctrines would merely land in the lap of a skilled orator, writer and promoter. Or some combination of the above.
All we can see is the end result of Russell's eclecticism. And we might have faith that Jehovah took a specific interest in Russell's talents. He had a talent for speaking, writing, and used them to shake up traditional Christianity by promoting that collection of Bible doctrines that gave a very different, but refreshing look, to Christianity. Were these doctrines really random and the ones that made no sense would finally just "shake out" from the mix? Or did Russell just happen to have a good heart and a love for God that allowed him to read the Bible with a filter that helped him weed out many of the traditional doctrines that were not rational?
Depending on the significance we attach to some of the specific doctrines that Russell ended up promoting in tandem that no one else was promoting, we also might consider that Jehovah was guiding at least some of his decisions and efforts.
There are many ways, through faith, to look at the way Jehovah directs our efforts. We can't speak for others, but we know that we can rightly have faith in this "direction" even if it doesn't lead to a perfect outcome. People pray for a spouse, find one, and just know it was Jehovah's will at the time. People are about to make a terrible life choice and are steered in another direction. A driver of a car may swerve to avoid a person and hit a tree, unharmed. Not a perfect outcome, but it was still good "direction." When Russell moved away from some strongly entrenched traditional church doctrines, he may have steered into a few problems, too.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

I listened to the Introduction and the first two videos completely and I found that every statement made in these 3 videos was absolutely true. I haven't listened to the fourth one yet (Part 3), although I can make some assumptions from the title as to what it will say. 
Naturally, I reject the idea that Jehovah will destroy those who do not accept false doctrines and false prophetic explanations. I agree that it was arrogant of the Governing Body to indicate that this is what God will do if you don't accept doctrines that turn out to be false.
Then again, I still believe Jesus was correct when he said that there would be no literal walls or fences between the true wheat and the counterfeit wheat. Various church denominations would be a perfect analogy to fences in a field where true wheat grew in one section of a field and false wheat grew in other sections. Therefore, I don't believe that the denominational distinction that sets us apart is the actual criteria that makes us Christian and the rest of the world false. I believe that Christians are Christian because of what is in their heart.
I see the Watchtower organization as an entity to support a certain chosen type of ministry. Let's say that a church decides that it will focus on the ministry of healing the sick, and another one focuses on a ministry of providing shelter to the poor. That first church might build hospitals and may therefore form a governing body to direct the work of finding places where hospitals can be supported, where doctors, nurses, builders, etc, can be recruited, and how much they could afford to pay these doctors and other personnel. Something like that might happen with a church that wants to focus on providing shelter for the poor, or soup kitchens, or distribution of clothing, etc.
But the Watchtower organization is an entity that chose to focus on the ministry of teaching (and worldwide distribution of teachings). Perhaps in some sense the "ministry of teaching" can be expanded to include: (1 Corinthians 14:6) ". . .either with a revelation or with knowledge or with a prophecy or with a teaching?" By this, I mean, interpretation of existing prophecy, not the gift of prediction or newly revealed knowledge. Similarly, for purposes of setting priorities in the times we believe we are living, certain teachings would be seen as being more important than others, and more worthy of publication and distribution. Therefore, this ministry needs a governing body to set priorities, just like a supposedly less religious ministry that focuses on building houses for the poor, or bringing aid to persons suffering from natural or man-made disasters.
Those who would really focus in earnest on a teaching ministry would likely come up with a set of teachings that might seem unique to other denominations. This might attract persons of other denominations, and it might create resentment and rejection, too. Also, a governing body of such a ministerial undertaking might easily begin to see themselves in the role of the original Twelve Apostles, which can be very dangerous and create an unbalanced haughtiness. The more they focus on correct teaching, however, the more they should see these very dangers and learn to avoid them.
But I see this particular type of ministry as an important one. It is a true Christian service to other Christians and would-be Christians. I think that Jehovah's Witnesses in particular have found evidence for teachings that make it easier for people to understand God and Christ:
Trinity, for example, is a very confusing way to think of God, and makes God less approachable. I can see it as a service, therefore, to Christians and would-be Christians to present the view of God and Christ that the Witnesses have done. The same goes for Hellfire. This is (and should be) a confusing doctrine to Christians because it puts something in the mind of a loving God that makes no sense if we are created in God's image. A focus on an earthly hope attracts many who understand our unworthiness to stand before the person of God, including many who have a humble, down-to-earth attitude in our relationship with God. Neutrality and non-participation in divisive, nationalistic warfare is another point that JW's promote as a teaching that flies in the face of the usual teachings that churches succumb to during wartime. We may not have a full understanding yet of these particular doctrines and many others, yet it is still a ministerial service. (I doubt that every person who spoke up with a prophecy or to speak in a tongue or translate in the first century was always correct.) So as long as we are not too haughty about them, these teachings provide a service to other Christians -- a ministry. They can shake us out of long-standing traditions that might be blinding us to the ability to change our views when a better understanding is found.
I could go on and on about various doctrines that might start out as kind of a mess (dates and pyramids and false prophecies about 1925, and 'millions now living' etc). But they continue to uncover things out of the storehouse of the Bible, things both old and new.
In the past people (individual scholars) like Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry have accepted a teaching ministry. (Not to mention Gesenius, Strong, Westcott, Hort, Liddell, Thayer, etc.) JWs are very indebted to these scholars that came before them. In our case, we also try to make a teacher out of every person identifying themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This creates a unique ministry which becomes more valuable to Christians and would-be Christians as we continue to get better at it.
So just because we have a "Governing Body" it does not mean that the Bible said that the one true religion would need a Governing Body. It's just that the particular ministry we wish to focus on happens to work more effectively and efficiently with a Governing Body. If we take such a ministry seriously we will want to try to match the organizational structure of the first-century congregation, and most Witnesses think this is an attempt to match the idea of the apostles who focused on teaching while others focused on distribution. The Watchtower itself is just a kind of "business" arm to help "market" the publications more efficiently, and up until very recently the Governing Body was associated with the board of directors of this supportive business arm. More recently, near the turn of this century, this was seen as something that should be changed and several of the changes since then are massive improvements over the prior teachings. The attempt to  re-interpret the history and mis-represent that history is a common human failing, and we are going through this right now. But I do not associate with Jehovah's Witnesses because the current "Governing Body" claims to represent human or spiritual authority. (Galatians 1 & 2 show why this is condemned.) I associate with JWs because I've enjoyed my association, find people who are sincere about wanting to participate in a legitimate and important ministry,  and I get constant reminders to watch myself and my teaching.
(1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you
(Colossians 3:15, 16) 15 Also, let the peace of the Christ rule in your hearts, for you were called to that peace in one body. And show yourselves thankful. 16 Let the word of the Christ reside in you richly in all wisdom. Keep on teaching and encouraging one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs sung with gratitude, . . .
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
 

“The Witness organization has said that it does not instruct parents not to associate with their disfellowshipped children. But they have produced a video of specific circumstances in which a parent ignores a phone call from one of them. What to make of this? Detractors will say that they are lying through their teeth with the first statement. I think not. I think they should be taken at their word—parents will reach their own decisions on the degree of contact they choose to maintain, since they can best assess extenuating circumstances. It becomes their decision—whether they find some or none at all. Specifically, what the Witness publications do is point out that there is no reason per se that normal counsel to avoid contact with those disfellowshipped is negated simply because there are family connections. That is not the same as “telling” families to break contact. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is important.
“That statement finds further support in the many Witnesses who have departed and subsequently report that, though they were never disfellowshipped, they still find themselves estranged from the family mix. Effectively, they are "shunned" without any announcement at all, evidence that a "cult" is not telling parents what to do, but it is their appreciation for Bible counsel that triggers that course. The specific mechanics of avoiding associations with those who have spun 180-degrees on prior spiritual convictions may be arguable, but the general principle is not. When no verbal direction is given, Witnesses defer to the general principle, so it becomes plain that it was the general principle all along, rather than the commands of eight tyrannical men at headquarters. “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” says Paul, referring to two polar-opposite worlds and those who would choose between them.”
 

I know this was to Srecko, but I was thinking the same thing. It's nice to have a unified message. And to answer the next part of your points, I think that this particular forum provides a answer, of sorts, to see the expected results of such an experiment.
It could be chaos, but need not be. All of us can have our own opinions as long as we respect the doctrines promoted by the the Governing Body. The Governing Body would be respected for the number of years they have spent in Bible study and teaching and therefore "worthy of double honor."
There are many ways to manage both personal opinions and respect the currently accepted doctrines held by the majority. One way is for all of us to try to remember to always make sure people know we are expressing our own personal opinion even if we personally have absolutely no doubt about the correctness of that opinion. Many people have already come on this forum in the last few years, presenting themselves as JWs, and all the while making sure predictions about end-time events they expected in the next few months. All of them will surely be just as wrong as everyone else has been for these last 2,000 years.
And if we are just exploring an opinion we should be clear that we are anxious for others to share any clarifying, supporting, or non-supporting evidence to add to the discussion.
The Governing Body should also be willing to express any current doctrine in terms of its probability according to the best evidence they have accepted, and if they are rejecting more evidence than they accept, they should explain their reasons for rejecting the majority of the known evidence. The Governing Body has already done this on several minor teachings, and I always find it refreshing. In other words, every single doctrine we have, need not be expressed as an unchangeable dogma. Everything can be expressed as a current belief based on the evidence we currently accept. There would NEVER be an embarrassment over the past, and the new level of open-mindedness would result in more input from persons who run across new evidence all over the world. 

I don’t ‘like’ @JW Insider‘s comments too much because he usually manages to slip in a bit of mischief that I’m not too sure about, even if I don’t immediately spot it, so I don’t want to leave a track record as an ally. Having said that, Man! is he ever making good sense here...and the patience displayed...the angel on my right shoulder is saying: ‘Why can’t you be like that, TrueTom?’

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

@JOHN BUTLER,
I see that the news is starting on this so the documentation can't be far behind.
https://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/article_e20e2330-eeeb-5f0f-a4e8-d8bcbababd85.html
From the 69 page appeal brief from the Watchtower to the Montana Supreme Court it is made fairly clear how the corporations operate from a practical legal perspective.
In this particular case the relevant parties are summarized as WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, both as appellants and third-party appellants.
All three of these major parties are referred to as "entities associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses."
For legal purposes the brief defines: "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“CCJW”) (a New York nonprofit corporation that assists Jehovah’s Witnesses)." (p.2,3)
and:
"Watchtower (the faith’s New York entity that retains the attorney who gave legal advice to congregation elders)." (p.3)
It is typical in recent lawsuits to treat all Watchtower-related corporate entities as merely "advisors" in support of Jehovah's Witnesses or "the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses." In a larger sense these advisors provide logistical support for assemblies, meetings, property ownership, donation and financial management, preaching, research, writing, printing, and distribution of religious media. Similarly, the Governing Body are also treated as another "entity" of advisors for spiritual guidance that supports the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.
(To some, this would obviously hearken back to the time under Russell and Rutherford, when the congregations, i.e, "ecclesia" or "companies," were more independent.)
In the brief, the WATCHTOWER is merely treated as the source of legal advice and legal counsel. "[E]lders of a local Montana congregation sought advice from legal counsel to know whether they had a legal duty to report." (p.2)
This recent separation of CCJW from Watchtower of New York and Watch Tower of Pennsylvania has allowed attorneys for the Watchtower to argue that outsiders have mixed them up and therefore made legal errors. For example, from the brief:
The court erroneously held that the attorney in New York violated
Montana’s reporting statute and that Watchtower was vicariously liable. The
court erroneously held that elders at CCJW in New York violated Montana’s
reporting statute and that CCJW was vicariously liable. [emphasis by WTS] p.3
This was considered by the WTS attorney to be a fatal error and therefore could continue:
And even
assuming the attorney who advised congregation elders misinterpreted the
reporting statute, a good-faith misinterpretation of a statute is not “actual
malice” and does not justify $31 million in punitive damages. [Emphasis mine.]
Although spiritual oversight of Jehovah's Witnesses, includes the Governing Body, there is now a good reason to leave the various corporations out of the mix. This way the Governing Body can legally claim to not be under the direction of the Watchtower, nor of the CCJW. The local congregations, although more closely associated with the CCJW, can also be treated as separate from these corporate entities:
Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses receive spiritual oversight and
pastoral care from a group of local elders who are “clergy” under Montana law.
An expression that was very common in the brief referred to "established Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and practice" without a need to acknowledge that this has historically been "established" through communication with Watchtower Society entities (where the money is kept). Instead, the connection to the CCJW can be admitted now as the legal conduit through which doctrine and practice is established, and CCJW is a source of spiritual advisement, just as the GB are. 
Congregation elders throughout the United States receive spiritual
guidance from elders at CCJW in New York. CR 77, Ex. C ¶7; Ex. G ¶7;
Ex. H ¶4. CCJW, a New York non-profit corporation headquartered in New
York, supports the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. CR 77, Ex. G ¶¶5-7.
Congregation elders confidentially communicate with elders at CCJW to
receive spiritual counsel and guidance. [p.8]
In other words, it's true that local congregations get advice from the CCJW which is spiritual advice, also confidential due to clergy privilege, but that the legal advice comes from the Watchtower, and this is effectively confidential due to something akin to attorney client privilege. This is clarified on page 9:
Watchtower, a New York nonprofit corporation that supports Jehovah’s
Witnesses, maintains a legal department. CR 77, Ex. Z: 39:7-40:8. While
congregation elders turn to CCJW’s Service Department elders for confidential
spiritual guidance, they call Watchtower’s Legal Department for confidential
legal advice. . . . CCJW is not owned or operated by, and
does not own or operate, Watchtower. At all relevant times (p.9)
CCJW (not Watchtower) communicated religious policies and procedures to
local elders. (p.10)
On this basis alone, as the court acknowledged blame in much higher proportion to the Watchtower (80 percent) and CCJW (15 percent) and the local congregation (4 percent) and the mother (1 percent), the WTS attorneys would therefore wish to show that the award was incorrect.
Other attempts to remove culpability and liability from New York entities were argued throughout much of the rest of the brief. For example:
Fourth, the elders with CCJW and the Watchtower attorney who learned
about the abuse all live in New York. Their duty to report is governed by New
York law, not Montana law. A state “has no authority to mandate reports by
adults or agencies in other states.”

But satisfaction brought it back, haven’t you heard? Is a pressing matter because the more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity. So why do you hide behind a moniker?. Why hide if Jehovah values transparency, honesty and speaking the truth and makes us accountable for it? 
Self-awareness and Experience.  Feedback from Others. It triggers an emotional response. People can change and develop empathy and reflect on their behavior. Understanding the mechanics of condescension. Because they can still interpret tone, body language, and context to identify condescension. 

I’m curious, George. Why do you hide behind a moniker? I can think of several reasons why others do it, including their own admissions, but what is the rationalization for your persona? 🙏 @George88
 
@TrueTomHarley JWI mentioned that he was involved in several other projects and activities. I haven’t been active lately, because there’s just too much content and input worth browsing here.
Many miles sent me a message about a month ago that I had a knee jerk reaction to because I took as condescending, but it was most likely done in good faith. Hope he is doing good and can continue despite his pain and convictions about the blood issues.

I would 100% embrace my theory that he is himself a disfellowshipped person exacting revenge but for the strong possibility of mental illness. 

While you were away, some speculated that George is himself disfellowshipped and is taking his revenge by creating the most judgmental and unpleasant persona possible, and trying to present it as the way Witnesses are.

Okay, we have reached the point where discussion starts to fragment and can go in that direction for a time until the Librarian (the old hen) looks up from her bottle and charges over to scream at her pupils turned unruly. Let’s branch into something closely related about our ‘apostates.’
While they may not be lazy, they certainly are deceitful. They push for all it is worth the idea that all you have to do is disagree with the GB and you will be expelled! Well, what do they disagree with them ABOUT? It’s amazing how many of them go on to embrace the homosexual lifestyle or become activists in this or that aspect of the greater world, newly determined to fix whatever they think is wrong with it. 
Essentially, they don’t like the idea that Christians should be separate from the world. That is being ‘insular’, they charge, which has become the greatest of all sins. It’s not exactly a ‘gentleman’s disagreement’ that can’t even be tolerated, as they charge.
In fact, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with this or that aspect of theocracy. But they also put it in perspective. They know that in any organized arrangement there will be some things that don’t go your way. They also are modest enough to know that maybe it is they themselves who are wrong. We are, after all, being taught by Jehovah . Everyone knows from Day 1 God does not run it as a democracy.