Evacuated

It may be for many that this is a new understanding.
However, the thought has been expressed with varying degrees of clarity over the years. I thought this quote from the 2003 WT  in a discussion of John 15:8 was pretty clear:
*** w03 2/1 pp. 20-21 pars. 9-11 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***
9 To answer properly, we need first to understand what constitutes Kingdom fruitage. Would it be correct to conclude that bearing fruit means making disciples? (Matthew 28:19) Does the fruit that we would bear refer primarily to individuals whom we help to become baptized worshipers of Jehovah? No. If that were the case, the situation would be deeply discouraging for all those dear Witnesses who have been faithfully proclaiming the Kingdom message for years in less responsive territories. Why, if the Kingdom fruit that we bear is represented only by new disciples, such hardworking Witnesses would be like the barren branches in Jesus’ illustration! Of course, that is not the case. Then, what is the primary Kingdom fruitage of our ministry?
Fruitful by Spreading Kingdom Seed
10 Jesus’ illustration of the sower and the different types of soil points to the answer—a heartening answer for those who witness in less productive territories. Jesus said that the seed is the Kingdom message found in God’s Word and that the soil represents man’s figurative heart. Some seed “fell upon the good soil, and, after sprouting, it produced fruit.” (Luke 8:8) What fruit? Well, after a wheat stalk sprouts and matures, it produces as fruit, not little wheat stalks, but new seed. Likewise, a Christian produces as fruit, not necessarily new disciples, but new Kingdom seed.
11 Therefore, the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities. Since the seed that is sown is the word of the Kingdom, the fruitage must be a manyfold duplication of that seed. The bearing of fruitage in this case refers to making expressions about the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14).
Where there is a bit of a change of emphasis is the inclusion of this footnote on p.14 in the 2018 WT article:
While “bearing fruit” also applies to producing “the fruitage of the spirit,” in this article and the next, we focus on producing “the fruit of our lips,” or Kingdom preaching.—Gal. 5:22, 23; Heb. 13:15.
This in itself is not new, but does appear to contradict the statement in para 11 of the 2003 article (the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities), and is a return to the thought expressed in a number of earlier (ancient) articles which include the "fuitage of the  sprit" with the "fruitage of lips" as appropriate evidences of active Kingdom seed. For example:

*** w83 8/15 p. 23 par. 14 United Fruit Bearers ***
they must “keep bearing much fruit.” This they do by producing Christlike qualities of the new personality, including “the fruitage of the spirit.” (Galatians 5:22, 23; Matthew 28:19, 20; Colossians 3:5-14) But to be really fruitful they give active expression  to such qualities by sharing in the work of preaching “this good news.” (Matthew 24:14)

*** w60 9/1 p. 537 par. 6 Awake Worshipers in the Time of the End ***
 However, the one who hears the Word of truth and gets the sense of it really does bear fruit of a right kind. He brings forth in his life fruitage of Christian qualities, referred to at John 15:8, and which brings glory to the Father. He is consistent in offering “to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.” (Heb. 13:15) 

This inclusion of the fruitage of the spirit along with the preaching was reintroduced in WTs in 2004 and 2011:
*** w04 1/1 p. 9 par. 4 Let All Declare the Glory of Jehovah ***
4 Jesus Christ told us how to glorify God. He said: “My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8) How do we bear much fruit? First, by sharing whole-souled in preaching the “good news of the kingdom” and thus joining with all created things in “telling” about God’s “invisible qualities.” (Matthew 24:14; Romans 1:20) Moreover, in this way we all have a share—directly or indirectly—in the making of new disciples who swell the chorus of praise to Jehovah God. Second, we cultivate the fruitage produced in us by holy spirit and strive to imitate Jehovah God’s superlative qualities. (Galatians 5:22, 23; Ephesians 5:1; Colossians 3:10) As a result, our daily conduct glorifies God.
 
*** w11 4/15 p. 18 “The Fruitage of the Spirit” Glorifies God ***
The fruit Jesus mentioned includes both “the fruitage of the spirit” and “the fruit of lips” that Christians offer to God by means of the Kingdom-preaching work.—Heb. 13:15
So it is all really another confirmation of Jesus's words at Matt.13:52:
“That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
?
 

That sentence might have just pinpointed the issue. Russell collected a body of teachings and promoted them with faith and vigor and a sense of urgency. Jehovah doesn't forget his work and the love he showed for him. Neither should we.
(Hebrews 6:10) For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. But we should not be trying to defend him as a person in such a way that we rationalize the false teachings. For most of my life I fell into the same trap of saying, yes he was wrong on this or that, but we can ignore it because of the greater good he did. I had to wonder why I am defending him as a person. He may or may not have been a good person, we can't judge. I believe that in the main he was a very good person. And when I had read through the old Watch Tower magazines, I realized that the majority of his work was still quite useful and valuable for Christians and would-be Christians. (As opposed to "The Finished Mystery" aka "The Seventh Volume," for example, for which the great majority of it is worthless and false.)
But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected.
(1 Timothy 1:10) .and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching (1 Timothy 1:5-7) 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. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
One of the great problems, in my opinion, of course, is that when Bible Students and Watch Tower readers heard what Russell taught and thought, they might think: Russell might have many things wrong but who is to say?
For example(s): Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the value of the Great Pyramid to our faith. Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the times and seasons (eschatology), and built up a whole doctrine around a debate over words like "parousia" that had come up as a means to avoid admitting the complete failure of a false prophecy.
Now we may still agree with some of these teachings, but some of them were clearly wrong, and many Bible Students apparently accepted them without question: He might be wrong, but who is to say? But Jesus, in Revelation 2-3 had said that it was up to each of us to say: individual Christians and Christian congregations. Just as Paul said that even if it were apostles or angels who declared something not in line with the truth they had learned, THEY, as individuals were responsible to reject the teachings even of those who were called and seen as apostles.
(2 Corinthians 11:5) 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing. (Galatians 1:8 ) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:17) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was,. . . (Galatians 2:5, 6) 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. (Revelation 2:2) . . .put to the test those who say they are apostles,. . . When Paul said: "O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence . . .?" (Galatians 3:1) he knew it included some of the 12 original apostles of Jesus himself, or what we might call the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem. The Galatians were so enamored by their position and how they were so highly regarded, that Paul needed to remind them that even if it were an angel out of heaven, they shouldn't listen. Did Paul mean that everything that came out of Jerusalem and the teaching of the apostles was "evil"? Of course not! He just used it as an example to prove that they should have been more responsible to pick and choose as mature persons:
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, we have the same issue. The "Governing Body" provides us with a wealth of valuable and nourishing spiritual food. They admit that they aren't inspired and that might even be wrong on some doctrines. But we generally go about with the attitude: They might be wrong on some things, but who's to say? In such a case, it's clearly our own faith, reasonableness and conscience that must come into play.
(1 Timothy 4:6-16) 6 By giving this counsel to the brothers, you will be a fine minister of Christ Jesus, one nourished with the words of the faith and of the fine teaching that you have followed closely. 7 But reject irreverent false stories. . . 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

I think we are all on the same page regarding the need to avoid creature worship, "pet" theology, going beyond what is written, and all the other pitfalls that those who have time and inclination to study more than the standard spiritual fare must be alert to. Paul's warning about the puffing and clashing effects of knowledge are more vaild today than ever due to the sheer availability and volume of information on Bible teachings we have access to.
This could just as likely read "I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the theories of @JWInsider; rationalisations of @GoneAway etc. (And I know who you really are!)".
Both the Bible and modern history is full of the glaring mistakes of those who nevertheless love Jehovah. And yet the Bible account speaks of one of the most error prone as still (looking back) having a "complete heart", (1Ki.11:4), and that assessment by one before whom no man could stand if errors were what he watched for, (Ps.130:3).

Yes it is. And this is (should be) of particular concern if such a "perceived attack" is absorbed by someone who lacks the necessary resources to evaluate the information. The labelling of such as "Contraversial" whilst presenting in the public domain is hardly an adequate safeguard. Remember, what is committed to internet stays on internet.
There is no doubt in my mind  that Jehovah's Witnesses are who they say they are, and that the current arrangement for directing the organisation is perfectly acceptable to Jehovah and Jesus (the Head of the congregation). I don't personally have the advantage of being raised in a 3rd generation witness family with an anointed and Bethel pedigree. I literally came off the street to become a witness, and am now the oldest in a large family that has a minority serving Jehovah. However, all I have in the truth, I have fought for vigorously because I recognised the life-saving nature of the information when I read my first Watchtower (which. incidentally. was a single sheet from a magazine being used as rest room "tissue" in a squatted property I happened to be staying in!). So I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me now!
Having a forum like this is a great source of background and additional information on a whole range of topics (to which you make a great contribution). It is also an opportunity to air views or sharpen argument on subjects that would definitely be considered far too "left of field" in a normal congregational setting, in fact would probably result in a rather undesirable labelling.
However, I still think that there is a need to avoid stabbing thoughtlessly at Jehovah's servants (Pr.12:18). And to ensure that all we say or propose is appropriately seasoned with salt (Col.4:6), that it has a tendency toward building up and not tearing down (2Cor.13:10). And we need to strongly promote the idea that sticking with Jehovah's organisation and it's Governing Body today is as vital as was sticking to the faithful Israelites, with Moses and Aaron etc in charge, in the wilderness years. After all, it was a slant on the same information and experience that made the difference as to who actually did survive at that time....wasn't it? (Nu.11:5; Nu.13:26).

I agree with the other scriptures you have contributed. Exactly along the lines I was thinking too.
Russell had many things wrong but who is to say? We have the benefit of so much today compared to the pioneering work done in those early days on the basis of what they knew. The courage and determination shines through regardless of any of the tarnishing error in the thinking displayed.
I wonder what the passage of 100 years or so will do to the understandings we hold so dear today? May we be there to share the laughter!

Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturally warranted. --   Gone Away
Based on Gone Away's digest, I am adding two cents. (I have not been able to read all.)
Russell, like Paul, sacrificed a lot for the good news. However he was clearly wrong if he appeared to be roping himself into that unique sacrifice that Jesus gave.
No other person could have done it.   The person had to be one who could replace Adam, a man made perfect by God.  (Deut 19:21)  None of the anointed is perfect in the flesh, though righteousness is credited to them. 
No imperfect man could give a ransom for another imperfect man.
(Psalm 49:7, ? None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him,  8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach);
  (Romans 6:8-11) 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.
 No one of the anointed can say he has no sin, so that he could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins.
 (1 John 1:8-10) 8 If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us.
 (1 John 2:1, 2) My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.
 No other human sacrifice is required.  But God is well pleased with our bearing Kingdom fruit, including the fruit of lips
 (Hebrews 13:15, 16) 15 Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that make public declaration to his name. 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 ==== 
Perhaps Russell had a similar feeling to Paul?
 (Galatians 4:19) my little children, for whom I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.
Similar thoughts (in my opinion):
 (2 Corinthians 11:28) 28 Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day: the anxiety for all the congregations.
 (2 Corinthians 11:1, 2) . . .! 2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ. . .
 Ephesians 4:11-16) And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.
N.B. Russell's knowledge was imperfect, but gave him enough zeal to make a start in the restoration of true worship; at one point the apostle Paul's knowledge was imperfect too, though greatly superior to Russell's but he did very well in spearheading the work when redirected by Jesus and his letters are still guiding us today. However, Paul said he was looking  as though through a metal mirror but eventually would know accurately and face-to-face. Very encouraging!
(1 Corinthians 13:12, 13) 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

These kind of remarks (Russell's) might seem rather vainglorious without consideration of the context of his statements.
For example, this one:
The Lord at the time indicated would especially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages.” (Watchtower, April 15. 1904, p. 125.)
might indicate on face-value that Russell was arguing in favour of himself being viewed as "the faithful and discreet slave" (Shock! Horror! Arrogance surely!).
But on examination it appears that Russell was wrestling with the same problem of doctrinal understanding experienced in far more recent times. That is, if the faithful and discreet slave is to be viewed as the body of the anointed, how then can how it be said to be providing that same body with food at the proper time? His prolific output of spiritual food at the time made it likely difficult to view other than an individual (himself) in that role. Yet he does not seem to indicate an arrogant self evaluation, if only by the fact that he suggests the slaves reward for faithfulness "should not be understood to apply to future glories and honor, but merelv to a more general charge or stewardship as respects the dispensing of the Lord’s “goods” or truths due to be protected or disbursed during the remainder of this “harvest” time. In other words, the steward through whom the Lord will dispense present truth in this “harvest,” will, if found vigilant, humble, faithful, be continued in the stewardship and be used of ttie Lord more and more in the service of the household - down to the close of the “harvest.” " (Ibid.)
The passage of time has provided us with a much better grip on this concept. We have dispensed with the idea of an individual slave, also the clumsy notion of a composite that feeds its individual members, and settled on the more wieldy notion that those taking the lead within the anointed have overall responsibility for the Bible educational program, with a 1st Century parrallel.
So to the applying of a range of what appear to be exclusively Christological descriptors to the anointed Christians, including Russell himself.
Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturaly warranted. 
His, what for me can only be described now as, "rather religious ramblings" are a reflection of what Paul called "partial knowledge" 1Cor.13:9. We have an infinitely better understanding of all of these concepts today so it is remarkable that  those 19th Century Christians were able to do what they did in promoting an examination of the Scriptures independent of the religious mainstream of their day, and in pulling together and focussing the energy of those who responded. Unless, of course we allow for the favourable influence of the Creator and His Son in recognition of their determined sincerity and love of God.
On the basis of what we know now, it might well seem incredible that anyone could have proclaimed "This is the truth!"  if we look at many of these teachings in isolation. But we must not forget that the dispensing of basic doctorines such as those relating to "the Ransom", "hellfire", "immortal soul", "religious clericalism", along with eschatolgical expectation regardless of the speculative elements, including the concept, however unclear, that one could be destined to serve as a heavenly king-priest with Jesus, and things like these would have made a sufficient impact to move many in the face of Christendom's spritual torpor. And that even if other more "mysterious" notions went a little over their heads.
This insight into past belief I find to be extraordinarily encouraging, when one gives it some thought. However, this does not seem to be a generally held view because there are those who see such information as faith-damaging and prefer a revisionist approach.

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution).
Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers.
I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?'
In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible.
A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS.
Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37.
Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
[See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

Yikes.

When Jehovah outlined the consequence of her sin to Eve in the Garden of Eden, He said: "I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy" Genesis 3:16.
So childbirth would have been physically painful for perfect women, the possibility of that pain having existed prior to the sin of Eve. There is nothing to indicate that the case will be otherwise in the future. 
Of course the eventual absence of the effects of Adamic sin on the health of mothers, resulting in inherited and/or acquired factors causing  complications effecting childbirth will likely see that Jehovah, through the admistration of the benefits of Christ's ransom, will "greatly decrease the pain of...pregnancy".

Seems Paton published a first edition in 1880 prior to his defection. This edition was endorsed by Russell and was obtainable direct from the publisher or brokered through the WTS.
A second, revised edition was proposed in Aug 1881.  The text of the revision was objectionable to Russell, particularly a new chapter entitled The Atonement which was seen as implying a denial of Christ's Ransom.Both Russell and the original publisher refused further involvement with Paton. Paton then decided to publish the revised book himself. Paton gives the reason for his revision in a later issue of his magazine:
"Since sending out the first edition, by a careful examination of the Word, my mind had undergone a change as to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Atonement. I did not deny the Ransom, as some have positively affirmed, but only denied the correctness of their, and my own former theory of the matter. I now saw that the idea of Substitution, or that Christ died instead of mankind, was unscriptural and untrue, as we all die. The unity of Christ, as the Second Man, with the whole race, I saw to be the Apostolic idea, so that all died and rose in him. So this fundamental and vitalunion with Christ, as the basis of a practical and experimental at-one-ment with, or reconciliation to God, took the place of substitution in DAY DAWN, when revised." The World’s Hope. February 15, 1890. (Volume 8, number 4).

Seems Paton published a first edition in 1880 prior to his defection. This edition was endorsed by Russell and was obtainable direct from the publisher or brokered through the WTS.
A second, revised edition was proposed in Aug 1881.  The text of the revision was objectionable to Russell, particularly a new chapter entitled The Atonement which was seen as implying a denial of Christ's Ransom.Both Russell and the original publisher refused further involvement with Paton. Paton then decided to publish the revised book himself. Paton gives the reason for his revision in a later issue of his magazine:
"Since sending out the first edition, by a careful examination of the Word, my mind had undergone a change as to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Atonement. I did not deny the Ransom, as some have positively affirmed, but only denied the correctness of their, and my own former theory of the matter. I now saw that the idea of Substitution, or that Christ died instead of mankind, was unscriptural and untrue, as we all die. The unity of Christ, as the Second Man, with the whole race, I saw to be the Apostolic idea, so that all died and rose in him. So this fundamental and vitalunion with Christ, as the basis of a practical and experimental at-one-ment with, or reconciliation to God, took the place of substitution in DAY DAWN, when revised." The World’s Hope. February 15, 1890. (Volume 8, number 4).

@JW Insider This I will note because a source of my, Mr. Lite, among several of his sources CTR does not mention this (granted that his sources tend to be now dead-links since they are that old), never made any acknowledgment of this, well it was kind expected due how said source has been handled over the years.
Anyways, could it be possible also that Christian Teacher and Writer Henry Grew (1781-1862) also played a role in CTR being against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well? Grew's study in the Bible lead him to reject the teachings of mainstream Christendom, of which is practiced today by both mainstream and New Agers, which is, that he rejected the Trinity, Immortal Soul Doctrine (Immortality of the Soul), literal torment of Hellfire (Eternal torment) and a list of other things.
For people outside of the mainstream also share this view, if I may add.
A list of Grew's writings (there might be more, would have to check)
Christian Loyalty: A Sermon on Matthew XXII:21 Designed to Illustrate the Authority of Caesar and Jesus Christ (1810) An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824) A Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, and an Exhibition of the First Christian Churches (1836) The Practices of the Early Christians Considered (1838) A Review of Phelps' Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath (1844) The Intermediate State (1849), The Sabbath (1850) An Examination of the Divine Testimony on the Nature and Character of the Son of God (1855) An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians (1857) The Atonement (1859) Divine Dispensations, Past, Present and Future (1861)

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Could you give a reference for this one please.
This isn't really as controversial as it seems. The term "Christ" or "Messiah" was used scripturally  in the past of a number of priests, kings, prophets, (both faithful and unfaithful Israelite) and even Cyrus, a pagan king. It only becomes sensational when viewed against the great significance of the term when applied to Jesus Christ and also in the light of eschatological warnings regarding false christs. So Russell's musings on applying the term to the Christian congregation of anointed followers so clearly termed as the "body of Christ" in Scripture are quite understandable, especially when viewed against Peter's words at 1Pet.2:9.
That these "musings" should be blown out of proportion in the manner outlined by @JWInsider is for me a combination of what, very likely, was the effect of such statements in the mind of impressionable contemporaries. One only has to look at the reaction today of similarly impressionable folk today when "religious pronouncements" are made by those deemed as having the authority to do so. This must be coupled, I might add, with with some highly creative writing in observation of those latter 19th-early 20th Century beliefs.
As for the erroneous perception of Christ's parousia and the fanciful the chronology of late 1800s, is this as far-fetched as it appears at first sight?
Indeed, Jesus himself stated that he would be with his followers until the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt.28:20). And I think it would be safe to say that this statement would be applicable to his true followers only, in the light of Matt 18:20 and Matt.7:22-23. So it seems to me entirely plausible that sincerely motivated followers of Christ could be made aware of a presence of Christ, who, after all,  is the active head of the true Christian congregation, ( comp. Rev. Chaps.2&3), regardless of any errors members of that congregation made in the timing of their eschatolgy, and their interpretation of whatever was taking place at the time. What men believe is of no consequence to Jehovah or Jesus in terms of ensuring that their will is carried out. Correction of thinking can be carried out later, as long as the priority actions are in progress. Compare Prov.21:1:"A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.".
Hence the feasabilty of the following observation in connection with Charles Taze Russell and associates, both contemporay and subsequent:
?

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)

 

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Is it possible that in raking over old "manna" we are sure to find "worms"? Exodus 16:20.

Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.)
"The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in
Type and Prophecy."
The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . .  the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts.
" " " " cloth " 75 "
. . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list.  WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881:
  . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization ***
While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225):
The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said:
There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a  support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

You was right,  @Gone Away....  my type mistake, sorry  
Not  she, but  HE 
Greetings from our just very hot  North Germany ??????

It may be for many that this is a new understanding.
However, the thought has been expressed with varying degrees of clarity over the years. I thought this quote from the 2003 WT  in a discussion of John 15:8 was pretty clear:
*** w03 2/1 pp. 20-21 pars. 9-11 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***
9 To answer properly, we need first to understand what constitutes Kingdom fruitage. Would it be correct to conclude that bearing fruit means making disciples? (Matthew 28:19) Does the fruit that we would bear refer primarily to individuals whom we help to become baptized worshipers of Jehovah? No. If that were the case, the situation would be deeply discouraging for all those dear Witnesses who have been faithfully proclaiming the Kingdom message for years in less responsive territories. Why, if the Kingdom fruit that we bear is represented only by new disciples, such hardworking Witnesses would be like the barren branches in Jesus’ illustration! Of course, that is not the case. Then, what is the primary Kingdom fruitage of our ministry?
Fruitful by Spreading Kingdom Seed
10 Jesus’ illustration of the sower and the different types of soil points to the answer—a heartening answer for those who witness in less productive territories. Jesus said that the seed is the Kingdom message found in God’s Word and that the soil represents man’s figurative heart. Some seed “fell upon the good soil, and, after sprouting, it produced fruit.” (Luke 8:8) What fruit? Well, after a wheat stalk sprouts and matures, it produces as fruit, not little wheat stalks, but new seed. Likewise, a Christian produces as fruit, not necessarily new disciples, but new Kingdom seed.
11 Therefore, the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities. Since the seed that is sown is the word of the Kingdom, the fruitage must be a manyfold duplication of that seed. The bearing of fruitage in this case refers to making expressions about the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14).
Where there is a bit of a change of emphasis is the inclusion of this footnote on p.14 in the 2018 WT article:
While “bearing fruit” also applies to producing “the fruitage of the spirit,” in this article and the next, we focus on producing “the fruit of our lips,” or Kingdom preaching.—Gal. 5:22, 23; Heb. 13:15.
This in itself is not new, but does appear to contradict the statement in para 11 of the 2003 article (the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities), and is a return to the thought expressed in a number of earlier (ancient) articles which include the "fuitage of the  sprit" with the "fruitage of lips" as appropriate evidences of active Kingdom seed. For example:

*** w83 8/15 p. 23 par. 14 United Fruit Bearers ***
they must “keep bearing much fruit.” This they do by producing Christlike qualities of the new personality, including “the fruitage of the spirit.” (Galatians 5:22, 23; Matthew 28:19, 20; Colossians 3:5-14) But to be really fruitful they give active expression  to such qualities by sharing in the work of preaching “this good news.” (Matthew 24:14)

*** w60 9/1 p. 537 par. 6 Awake Worshipers in the Time of the End ***
 However, the one who hears the Word of truth and gets the sense of it really does bear fruit of a right kind. He brings forth in his life fruitage of Christian qualities, referred to at John 15:8, and which brings glory to the Father. He is consistent in offering “to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.” (Heb. 13:15) 

This inclusion of the fruitage of the spirit along with the preaching was reintroduced in WTs in 2004 and 2011:
*** w04 1/1 p. 9 par. 4 Let All Declare the Glory of Jehovah ***
4 Jesus Christ told us how to glorify God. He said: “My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8) How do we bear much fruit? First, by sharing whole-souled in preaching the “good news of the kingdom” and thus joining with all created things in “telling” about God’s “invisible qualities.” (Matthew 24:14; Romans 1:20) Moreover, in this way we all have a share—directly or indirectly—in the making of new disciples who swell the chorus of praise to Jehovah God. Second, we cultivate the fruitage produced in us by holy spirit and strive to imitate Jehovah God’s superlative qualities. (Galatians 5:22, 23; Ephesians 5:1; Colossians 3:10) As a result, our daily conduct glorifies God.
 
*** w11 4/15 p. 18 “The Fruitage of the Spirit” Glorifies God ***
The fruit Jesus mentioned includes both “the fruitage of the spirit” and “the fruit of lips” that Christians offer to God by means of the Kingdom-preaching work.—Heb. 13:15
So it is all really another confirmation of Jesus's words at Matt.13:52:
“That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
?
 

Must be He cries for joy? (If he isn't just protecting his eyes). Or is there someone not in the picture?