Ann O'Maly

But that isn't the point on page 20 of the book.  It's saying that it was in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence.  That isn't true.  That's why I asked if you would reword their sentence to make it tell the truth.  You seem to indicate that you do know it isn't an accurate statement yet you continue to try to uphold it.
Let's look again at the statement in "God's Kingdom Rules" on page 22:

Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. Notice that it is saying "long before 1914" -- it's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that they mean 10 years is "long before 1914"?
Also, do you see how you are characterizing the very publications Jehovah and Jesus would have been inspecting and evidently approving as "food in due season"?  I mean, I'm very glad you see how off-base those publications are, but to maintain that God reviewed them and considered them proper spiritual sustenance is contradictory.

Cheeky, yes. 'Plain nasty,' no. Hence the wink smiley. Nevertheless, you were trying to wriggle round the evidence from Watchtower history that showed the "Kingdom Rules" statement to be untruthful.
Why don't we add Harold Camping to the list of those validating BSs' and JWs' eschatological expectations too?
Unless one is a preterist, Christians generally believe in a future return of Christ, so how is it remarkable that Adventists and fringe Christian-based religions expect it as well?
The 'mouth of two or three witnesses' is insufficient to 'establish a matter' for you? How much testimony from the period literature would it take to convince you that the BSs had begun to discern the sign of Jesus' presence nearly 40 years earlier than 1914, according to their beliefs, thereby rendering the "Kingdom Rules" brochure inaccurate on that point?
Indeed he does.  However, as much as I enjoy and learn from reading JW Insider's posts, we have different styles and time availability. I'm a 'bullet point,' 'tl;dr' kinda gal who prefers cutting to the chase and using 10 words to express a thought rather than 100. 

Artwork: Gaia is making the definitive map of our Milky Way Galaxy
Europe’s Gaia space telescope has been used to clock the expansion rate of the Universe and - once again - it has produced some head-scratching.
The reason? The speed is faster than what one would expect from measurements of the cosmos shortly after the Big Bang.
Some other telescopes have found this same problem, too.
But Gaia’s contribution is particularly significant because the precision of its observations is unprecedented.
“It certainly ups the ante,” says Adam Riess from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland, US.
The inability to lock down a value for the expansion rate has far-reaching consequences - not least in how we gauge the cosmic timescale.
If the Gaia speedometer is correct, it would mean having to reduce the estimated 13.88-billion-year age of the Universe by perhaps a few hundred million years.
 
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37438458
 

Artwork: Gaia is making the definitive map of our Milky Way Galaxy
Europe’s Gaia space telescope has been used to clock the expansion rate of the Universe and - once again - it has produced some head-scratching.
The reason? The speed is faster than what one would expect from measurements of the cosmos shortly after the Big Bang.
Some other telescopes have found this same problem, too.
But Gaia’s contribution is particularly significant because the precision of its observations is unprecedented.
“It certainly ups the ante,” says Adam Riess from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland, US.
The inability to lock down a value for the expansion rate has far-reaching consequences - not least in how we gauge the cosmic timescale.
If the Gaia speedometer is correct, it would mean having to reduce the estimated 13.88-billion-year age of the Universe by perhaps a few hundred million years.
 
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37438458
 

Artwork: Gaia is making the definitive map of our Milky Way Galaxy
Europe’s Gaia space telescope has been used to clock the expansion rate of the Universe and - once again - it has produced some head-scratching.
The reason? The speed is faster than what one would expect from measurements of the cosmos shortly after the Big Bang.
Some other telescopes have found this same problem, too.
But Gaia’s contribution is particularly significant because the precision of its observations is unprecedented.
“It certainly ups the ante,” says Adam Riess from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland, US.
The inability to lock down a value for the expansion rate has far-reaching consequences - not least in how we gauge the cosmic timescale.
If the Gaia speedometer is correct, it would mean having to reduce the estimated 13.88-billion-year age of the Universe by perhaps a few hundred million years.
 
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37438458
 

That's a pity. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. 
We can know what Bible Students did or did not discern in 1914 or at other times because their writings from those times are available to read. If you can find a Bible Student publication from 1914 or the years following that specifically connects the year 1914 with the start of Christ's presence, then please post it here. Otherwise, we have to conclude that the 'Kingdom Rules' book has made an erroneous and misleading statement.
 You cannot wriggle around it, Eoin. The BSs believed Christ's presence began in 1874 and, yes, that it was continuing through 1922 and beyond (duh). But this isn't what the 'Kingdom Rules' book claimed, is it? It claimed: "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence" and not "In 1914, the Bible Students continued to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence that began in 1874."
This is like using Armstrong's WWCG beliefs about what would happen in 1975 to validate the old JWs' beliefs about 1975. It's truly amazing that non-JWs also came to the conclusion that 1975 would be the end of the system of things, is it not? 
Anyway, the Bible Students were not looking forward to the Lord's Second Coming, because they thought he had already done so invisibly 40 years earlier. The Advent Testimony Manifesto also didn't have a year in mind for the close of the Gentile times - only that it would occur once Israel had been restored and converted. 
As for you being unpersuaded by what's written in Watchtower's period literature about what was taught and believed, well, 'a man convinced against his will ...' 
 

Allen,
Just point out what was said that you believed was wrong. No one is going to understand what your point is if you keep telling people they don't have their facts straight, and then, when you can provide any evidence at all, the source of that evidence invariably shows that what people have concluded was correct, and that you were making a false argument.
It's as if you are saying:
"Hey! You are all insidious and embarrassing fools if you don't accept that 2+2=5. I even have proof from an expert who knows it's true. I'll quote him here: "2+2=4" [Mathematical Society Quarterly, p.267]. See there! 2+2=5!!!"
If your words that I quoted from you at the top of this post were directed at me, please stop making general accusations that I am wrong, and then copying and pasting evidence* that indicates that I am right. I can't see any reason that anyone would do that!
*When I say "evidence" I mean the many sources you have quoted which are generally correct. I am not referring to any of the comments that you have often interspersed between them, because more often than not, most sentences of yours contains factual errors. Even your quote above mentions that Barbour was still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date while Russell was teaching that Christ's spiritual presence would last from 1874 to 1914. This is, of course, untrue. It was Barbour who came up with 1874 as the start of an invisible, spiritual presence (via B W Keith after failed expectations of a rapture in 1874) and Russell later agreed with this. Barbour was not still teaching 1874 as the rapture date, but by the summer of 1875 had already moved on to 1878 as the date for the rapture. 1878 was also the end of the Gentile Times for a while in Barbour's view. 

I figured that by the time I tried to respond to this Ann would have already responded, and I hope I am not jumping in where I'm not supposed to. To save time, I'll re-quote something I said earlier in the thread, although I'll put "[...]" in a few places to cut it down a bit:
When I had referred to 1922, I was thinking of the Cedar Point convention, too. But not because there were any changes to the 1874 chronology at that time. The "hint" was that one of the events, Jesus' kingship, was evidently being considered as starting in 1914 instead of 1878 even though nothing at all changed about his "presence" starting in 1874. (There is a possible mixed message here, since he also calls Jesus the "king of glory" present since 1874. The sense in which Jesus "becomes king" again in 1914 was likely a matter of "taking up his great power" in a new way at that time.)
If anything, this is an indication that Rutherford had just pro-actively dismissed an opportunity to discern the events of 1914 as a sign of his presence. Then again, he still might not have ever considered it yet, even as late as 1922. Nothing in the Cedar Point report says that he had even considered it yet, but even if he had then it means that he had obviously discerned 1914 NOT to be the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence. If there had been any "discernment" about Christ's presence in 1914 by then, then why not move Jesus' presence to 1914 if you thought enough about it to start to move the kingship from 1878 to 1914? Instead, as Ann points out, Rutherford explicitly keeps 1874 as the start of that presence.
Your argument seems to be that because he was still discerned to be present in 1922, that this could very well take us all the way back to 1914 at this rate. Well, this argument actually does take you back to 1914, because that's exactly what they believed in 1914 -- that Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874. In fact, it obviously also takes you back to, say, 1899. But if it takes you back to 1899 in the same way it takes you back to 1914, and 1922, then it means that nothing special was discerned in 1914.

I have taken what the current book is saying and researching it from the older publications.
The letter from the GB said to picture yourself there in 1914 when Charles Russell announced that the Gentile Times had ended. I researched Russell's writings and found out what his announcement meant to his audience.  Isn't that the logical place to go to in order to find out why his audience greet this news with such enthusiasm?
The current book says, "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence." That couldn't be true because in 1914 they had already discerned the sign of Christ's presence from 1874.  Where else would you look except in what they were publishing back then?
The current books says, "Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year." I went to what the Bible Students were saying long before 1914, and it was that it would END in 1914, not BEGIN.
Please research these things for yourself, and do that with ALL the references throughout this book.  

I'm sorry, Eoin, but this is very weaselly worded - whether you intend it to be so or not.
The Bible Students simply did not 'begin to discern' or 'distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses' in 1914 or in 1915 or in 1922* etc. that Jesus' presence started in 1914 because, as Holly has already pointed out to you, the Bible Students had already discerned that Jesus' presence had started in 1874. Bible Students 'began to discern' (or rethink the 1874 presence idea) long after 1914 
* The 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio convention and the famous call to 'advertise, advertise, advertise the King and his kingdom' re-establishes the Bible Students' firm belief that it was a fact Jesus' presence began in 1874. 

The 'Advent Testimony Manifesto' was a) in 1917 - not 1914, and b) the reasoning behind their thinking that Christ's return was imminent was down to the Balfour Declaration and the move to re-establish Palestine as the Jewish homeland which was understood as fulfilling prophecy about the restoration of Israel, the rapture of the church, and Jesus' physically taking his kingship in Jerusalem! Is this in any way representative of JWs' version of 1914's significance? 

I'm sorry, Eoin, but this is very weaselly worded - whether you intend it to be so or not.
The Bible Students simply did not 'begin to discern' or 'distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses' in 1914 or in 1915 or in 1922* etc. that Jesus' presence started in 1914 because, as Holly has already pointed out to you, the Bible Students had already discerned that Jesus' presence had started in 1874. Bible Students 'began to discern' (or rethink the 1874 presence idea) long after 1914 
* The 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio convention and the famous call to 'advertise, advertise, advertise the King and his kingdom' re-establishes the Bible Students' firm belief that it was a fact Jesus' presence began in 1874. 

The 'Advent Testimony Manifesto' was a) in 1917 - not 1914, and b) the reasoning behind their thinking that Christ's return was imminent was down to the Balfour Declaration and the move to re-establish Palestine as the Jewish homeland which was understood as fulfilling prophecy about the restoration of Israel, the rapture of the church, and Jesus' physically taking his kingship in Jerusalem! Is this in any way representative of JWs' version of 1914's significance? 

But the Bible Students and other people didn't begin to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence in 1914. The idea that Christ had been invisibly present didn't begin to be discerned by Bible Students until about 1930 (g1930, April 30, p. 503-4 - the earliest published comment "that Jesus has been present since the year 1914"). The rest of the world continued not to discern it.
 

Eoin, thank you for the page correction, but your disappointment should be in your own religious leaders who are being dishonest in relating WTS history to you.  Please research this for yourself.  In 1914 they were saying they had discerned Christ's presence as having started in 1874, not 1914.  It is a lie to say otherwise.  And they hadn't actually discerned it as having started in 1874 until Barbour convinced Russell of it in 1876.
They were wrong about 1874 and they are wrong about 1914.  Being dishonest about their history isn't going to change that.  You and all JWs should be carefully and diligently researching all of this as you study "God's Kingdom Rules" together, because this is a lie: "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."
The other lie is on page 22 where they say the following in paragraph 29: "Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year."
They were not saying it would BEGIN in 1914, they were saying it would END in 1914.
ZWT 7/1/1894 p.226: "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."
Here's the context, referring to 1914 as God's date:
In reference to Armageddon, ZWT of Jan 15, 1892 p.24-25, has the following about “the battle of the great day of God Almighty.”

   It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874.  The date of the close of that “battle” is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914.

This has been stated in the Watch Tower publications, but it might also be slightly misleading:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
This change to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence had been 1872-1873 and was moved to 1976 (then later changed 1975). 
[The person who did most of the outlining of the ka book was the same person who completely wrote the 1943 book, and the 1944 book, "Let God Be True."]
Those particular meanings that had been attached to 1874 were already assigned to 1914 before 1943, although not all of the significance attached to 1874 had been completely removed. The Watchtower apparently avoided any publicity about these changes so this happens to be the only specific mention of when this doctrine was changed. However, some of the changes were mentioned in 1925, and perhaps even a hint in 1922, but seemed not to "stick" until 1930/1.
Another change between 1943 and 1944 was the definitive change to the zero year problem that had resulted in keeping 606 on the books until it was changed to 607 after 1944.
*** re chap. 18 p. 105 Earthquakes in the Lord’s Day ***
Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239
Also, the mechanism behind the "1874 chronology" is what I have sometimes referred to by that term. The mechanism is the use of corresponding time parallels between the Jewish-era "advent" and the Christian-era "advent" and this remained in use even in the 1950's. Some of this remained with a slight adjustment to 1874 using 1878. And it was for the same reason that 1918 remained important. (The "temple inspection" had been 1878 and was moved to 1918, and 1918 had become the date for the first resurrection for related reasons.) 1878 was dropped as the beginning of a 40-year harvest as late as 1961 (evidently). And, lastly, the year 1918 which had also used the "1874 chronology" in this sense, was not dropped in about 2007 (evidently). The idea of the first resurrection in 1918 was once definitive, and has now become only "an interesting possibility."
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible
========added in a late edit rather than creating a new post====
These are footnotes in the Proclaimers book that help explain how some of the "parallels" worked:
*** jv chap. 28 Testing and Sifting From Within *** That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878. Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. (See Volume II, pages 99-101, 171, 221, 232, 246-7; compare reprint of 1914 with earlier printings, such as the 1902 printing of Millennial Dawn.) It seemed to them that this fitted well with what had been published regarding the year 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times. See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” [1943] chapter XI; “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Bible chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.  

Hello Anna,  Welcome. Hope you don't mind if I add a few points.
Russell never scrapped the 1874 date, ever.
The 1873/4 date was actually originally suggested as a possibility by "Father Miller" himself back around 1843/4, but many of the Second Adventists after Miller preferred looking to closer dates in the 1850's and 1860's. (Many others did what Miller himself did, and said they shouldn't be setting dates any more. The Seventh Day Adventists generally followed Miller's advice.)
Barbour had the advantage of having been promoting the 1873/4 date from all the way back when other date-setters were still focusing on those 1860's dates. This is what made Barbour's name most closely associated with 1874 among the remaining Adventist date-setters. (He was the only one left standing after the previous failures.) Therefore, after the the 1860's failure, this meant that Barbour had a newly "captive" audience of Second Adventists that would quickly number to around 15,000 subscribers in time for the initial 1873 date expectations. He had to start building up the numbers again after the two main failures in 1873 and 1874, but Barbour (via one of his "Herald" contributors, B W Keith, and prior to Russell "discerning" it) declared 1874 to be correct as the beginning of an "invisible" presence, and then set 1878 as the new date for Christ's return.
This is why it was so urgent for Russell to put money into publicizing 1878, and why he funded a much larger distribution of Barbour's "Three Worlds" in 1877 that spelled out the "times and seasons" aspect of the Lord's Return, while Russell himself wrote a smaller booklet that focused on the "object and manner" aspect of the Lord's Return. Russell did get his name put on "Three Worlds" as co-author, but I've read that he probably didn't add much of anything himself. But all of this was focused on preparing for 1878. 1874 was used as a foundation to prove that 1878 was urgent!
Russell says that when 1878 failed, Barbour started spouting some bad doctrine in order to create a "distraction" from the failure of that date. Russell said that 1874 was still right, and 1878 was still right, but that they had expected the wrong thing. Russell then funded the Watch Tower magazine due to the urgency of the 1881 date when he was sure that the Bride of Christ would be joined with Christ in heaven, while remaining Christians would participate in a 40-year harvest that lasted from 1874 to 1914. 
It's true, as Ann said, that the 1874 was dropped around 1930, but there were some ways in which the "1874 chronology" (based on a chronological year-by-year correspondence between Jewish and Christian events) remained for several years, even after 1874 itself was dropped. Note the last vestige of this chronology:
*** kr chap. 5 p. 50 par. 5 The King Shines Light on the Kingdom ***
The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven.
This 40-year harvest remained "on the books" up until 1961, but it had been slightly adjusted:
*** w54 3/1 p. 150 par. 5 Restoration of True Religion Today ***
Not until the Lord of the harvest gave the command could that be done. Corresponding to the events of the first advent, there is first an “Elijah” work performed, like the work of John the Baptist, to warn the people, trying to bring them to repentance. Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918
*** w51 7/1 p. 410 par. 6 ‘Time, Times and Half a Time’ ***
6 Now note further corroborative proof of this period of time: “I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (Rev. 11:3, NW) The “two witnesses” are the antitypical Elijah-John-the-Baptist work, and their being introduced at this time is important, for it helps us to understand Daniel’s prophecy. . . .  foreshadowed great works to be accomplished at this end of the system of things, and which were also to be done before 1918. . . . So it was antitypically with the work done from 1878 to 1918.
*** w52 2/1 p. 78 par. 7 Jehovah’s Theocratic Organization Today ***
But again we ask, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time?” In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple for judgment, there was a class of sincere consecrated Christians . . .
*** w60 10/1 pp. 606-607 The Great Wheat Harvest ***
What was foretold in the illustration of the great harvest has been taking place in our day,. . . Christ’s anointed followers have been separated from Christendom, and imitation Christians appearing among them are removed as weeds are removed from harvested wheat. . . . The history of Jehovah’s witnesses, particularly since 1918, verifies the accuracy of what Jesus prophesied. . . .  As the harvest period in the illustration . . . . The more than forty years [1918 to 1960] that have passed since its beginning is short when compared with the centuries that have passed since the congregation was planted.
 

What I posted from the 2014 book, "God's Kingdom Rules"........

  "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence." .....is not honest since it was not in 1914 at all but in 1876 that the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence as having begun in 1874......and, yes, Russell was convinced of 1874 by Barbour in 1876, which is why in 1879 he named his magazine Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence ---- he was heralding Christ's invisible presence as having begun in 1874.  And, as Ann has pointed out (thank you, Ann) that continued to be the WTS teaching clear thru 1914 and on into the 1930's.
So, in reality, Russell and the Bible Students missed BOTH dates of his invisible presence---the first by a couple of years and the second by 20 years or so.
What they were actually discerning in 1914 was that all of Russell's predictions about that year had failed miserably.  They were expecting to be raptured to heaven, that didn't happen.  They were expecting the Great Tribulation and Armageddon would be over, instead a world war erupted.  They were expecting the Millennium Kingdom to come, it didn't.  You can see the other things they were expecting from the seven proofs Russell had been teaching them since 1889---none of them took place either before 1914 nor after, nor any time since 1914.
So, no, the Bible Students had not begun to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence in 1914 and it is dishonest to say they had.  The religious leaders of the WTS should know this.

It became the Organization's date too until about 1930.

Hahahaha, Allen. Anyone can colorize a black-and-white photo with a purplish tint or any tint you like, really. A genuine color version of that particular photo does not exist. Smh.
And nobody here (Arauna) is denying the Holocaust, or that JWs/Bible Students were thrown into concentration camps, had to wear a purple triangle and were treated appallingly.
What I am pointing out is that the image purporting to be JW detainees at Auschwitz is actually an image from Sachsenhausen and it is unknown who the prisoners were.
Note the caption to the photo on this webpage: http://ww2today.com/13-december-1944-sachsenhausen-concentration-camp-new-arrivals.
They could be anybody - with an added observation that, as JW Insider mentioned, one of them was wearing a double triangle of different colors, one of them shaded considerably darker than the triangles the others are wearing.
In fact, if we put a color picture of an original uniform with purple JW badge into b&w, we get this:

See how dark the purple appears in monochrome. The prisoners' triangles in the OP image were a much lighter shade.
Uniform photo source: http://www.alst.org/pages-us/primary-documents/purple-triangles.html
 

I think it is very, very wrong to denigrate the great sacrifices that Jehovah's Witnesses made for their faith during the regimes in Germany, etc, during WWII. But we should still be careful about making use of whatever pictures we find, and trying to associate them with the Witnesses. It seems like it might even be Witnesses in some cases who have misused pictures of miniature Bibles they find online, and then claim that they were smuggled by JWs into the concentration camps. Anything is possible, but sometimes this borders on the same idea behind peddling artifacts of the martyrs during the "dark" and/or medieval ages.
I don't know anything about this picture, but I've seen it before and I am pretty sure it wasn't the purple triangle that was given to those who identified as Bible Students, Earnest Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. (I have heard from other Witnesses that these weren't always the same groups in the 1940's. Many of the ones who suffered persecution and even death rejected Brother Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society. I haven't checked out this claim yet, but put it here in case anyone has.)
The reason I say that this unlikely to be a purple triangle is that you can tell something about a color from its "value" meaning its place on a gray scale. Google is also good at this and a search on the photo returns " Best guess for this image: pink triangle concentration camp " Additional searches also link it with Sachsenhausen, not Auschwitz, as Ann has already pointed out.
Google probably guesses "pink" either because the value of the gray is much closer to the light stripe on the prison uniform and purple was much closer to the dark stripe, and it probably has been associated with "pink triangle" websites for a while. This would mean that these men were more likely homosexuals, although that color [pink] was also given to pedophiles and sex offenders of all stripes. There is another picture of a man standing just to the right of where the currently rightmost man is in this picture, who has an extra superimposed triangle that likely indicates that he is a Jewish homosexual. This also gives us evidence of the the gray value for yellow which shows up as lighter than the pink, which is as expected if the two colors were pink and yellow, and this provides even more evidence that the picture above is the pink triangle.
Note some of the related pictures here:
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge
 

I remember seeing Dateline and Panorama when they first came out in 2002 and feeling ashamed at how the organization didn't 'treat its flock with tenderness,' sweeping these appalling crimes under the rug. The Org's priorities were all skewed. The two shows hit home all the more because members of my own family had been molested by a JW who inveigled himself into the hearts of vulnerable single/divorced JW mothers who had young daughters. The perp was eventually disfellowshipped but was reinstated a short time later after having feigned repentance. Back in business. Another area; another hapless, single JW mother in his sights.
Has the Org's attitude to child sexual abuse within its congregations really changed since then? Sadly, only negligibly until 2012 after the Candace Conti case. From that time, secular courts and public inquiries have still had to drag the Org, with its resistant heels ploughing up the ground, into making any small, tangible changes in its policies and procedures ... and it has a long way to go yet to raise its standards to meet those of 'worldly' institutions.

Heartbreaking.

The BBC television show Panorama had an episode in 2002 that featured the pedophilia problems within the Jehovah's Witness religion. They interviewed molestation survivors that went to the JW elders for help, only to be told that they did not have the required "two witnesses" that the religion demands and so were told not to call the police but to leave it "in Jehovah's hands".
They travel to America and speak to then governing body leader Ted Jaracz, who coldly tells them that the Witnesses do not "go beyond the things that are written", a quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6.
They learn that the Watchtower Organization has a secret database with over 23,000 entries containing both accused and convicted pedophiles associated with Jehovah's Witnesses.

First definition for "grace" given by Merriam-Webster is:
unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
so it would appear not.

"Amazing undeserved kindness, how sweet the sound......"
Just doesn't work, does it.

I did. Did you? If you did so with any basic comprehension, you would realize that Russell was saying 'the world' as in 'Planet Earth' would "abideth forever" but that he was promoting the idea that 'the world' as people knew it would end. I.e. the world system of things, the institutions, the 'Gentile' governments would be crushed out of existence (in fulfillment of Dan. 2:44); there would be a period of world-wide anarchy; the ungodly would be done away with; and then a millennium of peaceful messianic rule would be ushered in. 
Look:

The only one looking foolish is you, Allen.