Many Miles

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.
That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.
And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.
That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.
And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing.
I mean, really. Think back to 1957, when people readily complied with all things without complaint. Back when my dad would shear my hair like the barnyard animals he grew up with, leaving just a little tuft in the front like a hood ornament. He blew his stack when the Beatles came along and I tried to grow my hair one millimeter longer.

I know.....

I'm with you. I don't oppose anything biblical. But we must take care not to frame a biblical statement as a "foundation" to include something that's not inherent to what the text actually says.
An example of this is the text of Genesis 9 where Noah is to told "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."
1) This was said of living animals that could be killed for food.
2) This was not suggesting that Noah could not make medicinal use of blood of these animals, so long as that medicinal use did not include eating that blood. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
3) This was not said of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause, which are non-soulical. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
4) This was certainly not said of transplanted human blood donated as a preventive or therapeutic medical purpose. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
Our publications have applied a broad brush to the text when the text, as read literally, is said of a certain blood, which is blood of living animals. Out of respect for the life (soul) of an animal, an animal's flesh was not to be used as food unless the animal was killed, and in that case the blood of that killed animal was not to be eaten. To say the text means more is to transpose an idea onto the text.
 

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 
"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"
"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

I appreciate that information. I've still heard it in a talk too, but I don't recall if it is any any of the latest outlines. I remember some bros in correspondence like Bro Malone and Bro Pritchard. I can't imagine their reaction to a memo that would say please don't quote any publications before a certain date unless you adjust the wording to such-and-such. It would have given away the "deceptive" use of the quotes when there was already an argument brewing over these statements in the early 80s in writing. I got the feeling that Service & Correspondence wasn't privy to all the arguing going on in writing.
I was nearby when I heard commotion that turned out to be Brother Greenlees yelling and throwing (slamming) a new summer convention publication down on the desk of one of the writers in an office shared by Bro Lengtat and Bro Napolitano. It wasn't specifically about this particular issue, but was partly over the fact that the publication didn't highlight the true importance of 1914 nor the visible Organization. The anger was also over the fact that none of the publications for that summer made these most important points and the fear (I think) that some might get the impression it was left out on purpose.  
I think that Service/Correspondence was mostly oblivious to these kinds of arguments. I don't know that for a fact, but there was a good amount of interaction between brothers in Writing, but I rarely heard about much face-to-face interaction between Writing and Correspondence except through question memos and then memos responding with "guidance" outlines. One brother, Pritchard, I think, said that he started out using the files to merely copy the previous letter on the topic, but that only someone else would send a memo request for updated guidance. I'm guessing that if there was a letter in the file on the topic, it could go back decades.
I have a feeling you know more about this process, so I'm hoping you'll clarify if you know.

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

He also admitted he was wrong and it seemed there was a bigger work that lay ahead that someone else other than he would address .
he never forced anyone to beleive his chronology…they could beleive or not beleive…he didn’t think any less of them…and he still considered them his spiritual brothers.

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.
 
It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.
 
It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

Who has to cite scripture to know Armageddon did not occur in 1914?

Right. Worse, the supposed "God-Inspired Truth" that the society cited from The World Magazine as a fulfilled extraordinary prophecy turned out to be false, because what Russell had actually predicted, Armageddon, did not come in 1914 as foretold.
The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from capitalizing on the fantastic media coverage that article brought to their front door. The society is still riding that pony to this very day.

The society has wrapped a great deal of its theology around the year 1914. Even the 1919 teaching you allude to stems from the 1914 date. I won’t go into tremendous detail here, but it’s worthy of note what put legs on the teaching so that it got the traction it was assigned by the society.
In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”. This chapter is primarily designed to steer individuals toward JWs as the source of ‘God-inspired truth’. Within that chapter the last section is titled “The Greatest Evidence of All”. There, being introduced as ‘the greatest of evidence’ is this paragraph:
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8 Ever since the momentous events of that year, so accurately foretold in the Bible alone, the whole world system of things has been in its “last days.” (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993129?q=%E2%80%9Cfulfilled+an+extraordinary+prophecy%E2%80%9C&p=par )
At the time, the article cited here published by The World Magazine really stirred tremendous interest in the teachings of Charles Russell. The article got prominent position on pages 4 and 17 of the magazine, and it feature one of Russell’s intriguing line graphs of the ages.
But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.
The article in question is dated August 30, 1914. Hence at the time the publisher had no idea how 1914 would turn out. But we know today. We know for a fact that Armageddon did not occur in 1914, which is what Russell and the Bible Students had foretold.
What this means is:
1) “The Greatest Evidence of All” is based on a claim of fulfilled prophecy made in secular publisher in The World Magazine. This is what put legs onto the 1914 "prophecy". A secular publisher.
2) And, the “The Greatest Evidence of All” is no evidence at all about truth, because, as it turns out, prior to 1914 what Russell actually predicted for 1914 (Armageddon) did not come true. The would-be prophecy was false. So, something that we know was false is cited as 'the greatest evidence' for truth. That's a lot to take in!
That’s what the ellipsis dots camouflage. And it’s about a flagship teaching of the society.

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.
Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.
I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.
When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.
Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.
Compare these two articles:
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099
In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.
Those internal articles are just the tip. 
People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.
In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.
 
 

I was following the society's guidelines, which is just another lame way of saying I was just following orders. I regret it to this day.
The mortality was due to anemia that was completely treatable with donor blood, only the products rendered from whole blood were on the society's list of things that could not be taken. That's why they died.
Thank you for saying that. And, for my part, I don't intend to sit on truth thinking saying out loud what should be said out loud somehow is a bad thing. Wounds inflicted by a friend are faithful.

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.
Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.
I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.
When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.
Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.
Compare these two articles:
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099
In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.
Those internal articles are just the tip. 
People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.
In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.