JW Insider

32 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

One of main positive way how to love people around you is not going to war for reasons because of many wars are started, for sure, but it is also  crucial to defend people who are under attack. How to accomplish these two?

Witnesses have never actually taught pacifism. So using violence in our own self-defense or in the defense of our loved ones is not forbidden. But taking sides in a nationalistic war is surely being a part of the world, and its desires. Christianity is based on the premise that very few will actually try to be true to all the loving principles highlighted in the Bible. Christianity finally fulfills the most important parts of the Law, including "you must not kill." But since true Christians are in a minority, there will always be plenty of less faithful Christians (and others) to fight these wars.

Let's say that India wants to go to war with Australia. True Christians, I expect, would hardly be a factor. India's military would lose no more than 1 percent of their potential defense to true Christians, and Australia would lose no more than 1 percent. This is absolutely no factor at all in the outcome of the war. (Which would no doubt become a proxy war for the largest superpowers who will ally themselves with each side anyway.)

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is JW Insider actually admitting to be an Elder here ? 

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Some of you guys tell stories of working with members of the GB and in the Writing Dept etc... . So you are not just ordinary 'run of the mill' JW's. A person doesn't go from being a 'member of a congregation' to being assistant to the GB.

Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 

This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.

But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No, it's deliberate. Need I quote some Watchtower publications to prove it?

I think it's a bit strong to claim you can prove someone's motive. There might be "evidence," but "proof"? I doubt it!

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That is entirely at odds with decades of Watchtower doctrine.

Many changes made have been entirely at odds with decades of WT doctrine, and this has more often than not been a good thing, both on doctrinal issues and in practices and procedures. There is a bit less focus on chronology, much less focus on classes and types and antitypes, and I think that some of this interpretation of the GB's motive comes from the fact that they are true believers in the end-time scenario they have been recently depicting. Therefore they can become a bit paternalistic and protective, which comes across as "list and obey." I don't think it's quite as "ulterior" as you keep saying.

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Don't mix Bible Student publications with Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The conversion was made in 1931. They officially moved to it in 1933. The control started in 1942. Officially, all JW publications began in 1950. . . . If history is going to be placed as an argument, get it straight.

CC, I understand how you think it "protects" the Governing Body's reputation if you don't allow any discussion of their past errors from before 1931, or even 1933, or even 1943, or even from before 1950. You stretch the truth here, but I understand your motive of trying to protect their reputation.

But you are really trying to protect them in such a way that we get a completely different view of them than truth, history, and reality offers us. I've always thought that cover-ups of any kind are dishonest, even if the motive seems praiseworthy.

In fact, the history of the Governing Body as the Faithful Slave, according to our CURRENT view, now goes back to 1919. They removed Russell from his membership in the exclusive committee, so I'll agree that discussing Russell's failings is not so relevant, even if it is important to show how easy it is for men to follow men. The last thing I'll say on that score (about Russell) is that the Watchtower NOW says that about 5,000 International Bible Students were active in 1914, and about 4,000 were active in 1919. In late 1916, it was admitted that THOUSANDS of Bible Students considered him to be, as a single individual, the entire "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This included Joseph Rutherford himself, and according to A H MacMillan, all the rest of the 'governing body' of that time, too. Rutherford even complained that Russell was being WORSHIPED, even though he was just another human, another creature. The Faith on the March book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose book, and the  Proclaimers book admits that there was a CULT of WORSHIP around Russell.

It's true that love does not keep account of the injury. But trying to cover up their past errors is therefore not an act of love. Love believes ALL things that are true, it does not hide the truth. Love shines through even when it "bears" and "endures" all these true things. Perhaps it's easy to forget the final part of this passage:

(1 Corinthians 13:4-7) 4 Love . . .  does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 . . .  does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Notice, that this point is made even clearer in 2 Corinthians:

(2 Corinthians 6:6-8) . . .by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God’s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report.. . .

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

Obviously I was being facetious.

Perhaps I was projecting so much from my own past experience that I didn't notice. There had been a time when I missed the nightly broadcast news and so just caught the monologue of Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. Then I realized that it was a whole lot funnier, but not much better than if Rachel Maddow had gone the extra inch to turn her show into stand-up comedy. If you could stand her style of extra long setups before each punch line, then she already was doing a comedy show.

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

Two things wrong with that:

1. In English, all those people in the past who worship Jehovah, were not Jehovah's Witnesses; they were Jehovah's witnesses. Note the smaller "w."

*** w58 4/15 p. 230 par. 11 A New Song for All Men of Good Will ***
God’s first prophecy through a man came through Enoch, the seventh man in line from Adam. Enoch was a man of faith in Jehovah God and so became Jehovah’s witness.

There is some ambiguity in such statements made before the 1970's, where the upper-case W wasn't used, even when referring to the modern-day religion of Jehovah's witnesses, except in quotes from others, or in titles, where such words are often capitalzed. Although it was funny looking at the bound volumes of court cases in the Writing Dept library where the titles embossed onto the books included the term "J.w.'s" not "J.W.'s"

2. The actual statements will sometimes make claims that "Jehovah's Witnesses" (uppercase "W") taught a certain thing before, during, or shortly after 1914 that they didn't teach. For example, more than 70 years before 1991, they were still teaching that Jesus had become king in 1878, not 1914.

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

Two things wrong with that:

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, there appears to be no way to generate a quote inside a quote. If you've figured out how to do this, then do enlighten me, oh great software wizard. I won't be holding my breath.

Just above this quote from you I took my own post and started highlighting at the "WT" in "WT have logic how" and continued selecting the text down to the word "that." When the "Quote Selection" option showed up, I clicked it and got the quote within a quote above. Of course, if the quoted portion takes up more than about 4 or 5 lines, the quoted portion will include a "Read More" option. Most of yours do that anyway.

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Agreed.

That was too easy. I think it's a trap!

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Actually I do. I get most of my news from comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show with Steven Colbert, etc. Far more reliable than plain old cable TV news.

Political talk rarely gets anywhere here, and that's understandable. But I just wanted to say that it bothers me that people still think that "news" from Saturday Night Live or Steven Colbert is any better than cable or network news. It's entertaining and funny, but it's still fed from the same commercial news sources. I've come to learn that even the so-called PBS, NPR non-commercial news sources are also strongly influenced by the same sources that are so easily influenced by the standard sources that push the "State" agenda, through Military Intelligence sources, State Department, Administration, and whichever side of the partisan line the collators and editors work from.

A case in point is the contradictory stance that news organizations take from administration to administration on Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Chile, Ecuador, etc.

These shows are a lot of fun, and they are especially fun when they represent the side the audience is already agrees with (usually progressive left), but the underlying "foundations" show that they just are just as duped as any cable TV network.

30 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

One thing that rubs me the wrong way is poor history.

Right. Don't ever make a mistake like this:

*** w09 3/15 p. 16 par. 4 “Be Vigilant” ***
Since 1925, Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that World War I and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that Christ’s presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914.

*** w01 11/1 p. 25 “Religious Tolerance Day” ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses have used various methods to spread the good news. For example, in 1914—during the era of silent movies—the Witnesses were showing the “Photo-Drama of Creation,” a motion picture and slide presentation that included synchronized sound.

*** w98 9/15 p. 32 The War That Destroyed the 19th Century ***
For over 120 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to 1914 as the end of what Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations.”

*** w93 5/1 p. 12 par. 7 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence ***
True to the prophecy, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the modern light bearers, have suffered persecution for the past eight decades.

*** w91 4/1 p. 7 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
Since 1914, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that, in spite of the persecution Jesus foretold—government bans, mob violence, imprisonments, torture, and many deaths.
In 1919 there were 4,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching this good news.

[8 decades from 1993 reaches back to the decade from 1910 to 1920]

*** w91 4/1 p. 5 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
In 1914, World War I started. Jehovah’s Witnesses of that decade were immediately on the alert.

*** w91 4/15 p. 6 When Will Lasting Peace Really Come? ***
For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming around the world the good news that Jesus Christ began to rule in God’s Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914.

And speaking of poor history, this last quote is saying that Jehovah's Witnesses began proclaiming this date for Jesus' rule as early as 1921 or before. The idea is that it was being taught in 1919, but this was not a clear teaching until about 1925.

23 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

It would appear that Mr Harley and JW Insider (I think) have a personal need to say that I am John Butler. 

I certainly do not think you need to say it, or act like him, or act different from him. For me, it's helpful to try to remember the things that were his greatest concerns, in case you are him. When TTH said you had been DF'd by the elders, I hadn't remembered anything like that about you here, and just thought we shouldn't be quick to judge. If you are JB, I'm glad you're back. There is probably some kind of catharsis that people can get out of these forums. Or perhaps its a way to clear our own thought and logic processes by putting ideas out here for people to respond to. If a persons wants to be here, then they are finding something useful here. I'm all for temporary cool-down periods if things get heaterd, but I don't like the idea that a person gets "banned for life." Especially not people who are looking for a way to find association again with people that once shared a faith or ideology. It doesn't matter if they are critical, as far as I am concerned. I like a challenge.

52 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He said something and then unsaid it, apparently.

I can't find a trace of it. Figured out from Ann's and JTR that it was something he said, but I really thought he would last this time.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

With John Butler being “DFed” (says JWI—something I did not know), I am once more heading in the direction that 4Jah2Me is really a reincarnation of him.

I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF. 

According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Quote

if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically.

 

Then you said:

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. . . . Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.

The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.

Unless I'm missing something, this includes contradictory logic. You said that if the WTS stopped DFing for apostasy the numbers would go down. But then your "evidence" is that the numbers go down when there is resentment when they continue to show authoritarianism by DFing for apostasy.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove.

Perhaps you've spent many years on forums where such persons tell their stories, and the cumulative effect makes you think this is very common. Pew Research provides some indication to me that most JWs who no longer believe strongly enough in the value of the Watchtower organization simply drift away. Most are not disfellowshipped at all. Even those who would have been disfellowshipped have apparently (mostly) realized that one need only drift away. Ones that want to make a statement may write a letter or make a scene somewhere (such as an online site or at a Kingdom Hall or Convention). These would be a small minority.

Technically if one isn't out to make a scene it's probably easy enough to answer the elders questions honestly and not be in any trouble. If I were asked "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" The answer would be an easy and straightforward "Yes!" Technically the same goes for the Governing Body, just as Jehovah is able to use any group of elders, or publishers for that matter. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus' name, there he is in their midst. And of course anyone who has doubts about a doctrine should be able to humbly admit that it is a matter of not being able to understand the current doctrine in question, but make it clear that you don't want to make an issue or cause contention inside the congregation. I'm guessing that a humble attitude would solve 90 percent of these problems that might otherwise lead to DFing.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.

For me, the acceptable replacement is a humble admission that after getting things wrong over and over again on chronology, that we simply follow Jesus' advice to give up on chronology. At least the kind of chronology that is used to try to predict the time period for the generation that will see the end-times scenario.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.

I agree that there should be a way to provide constructive criticism that isn't immediately seen as a kind of "running ahead" of the organization. Of course, if you look at all the ideas people get, you can understand that the Governing Body are afraid of the chaos it could unleash if everybody started writing about their own opinions. There are a few who have dropped by this forum with ideas that would make everyone cringe as they go off the deep end of mysticism, gnosticism, chronology, numerology, etc.

I hate to admit that I had absolutely no idea who Jay Hess was until I just now looked him up. I probably saw the name before, but I typically tune out those who spend so much time on Trinity, worship vs obeisance, etc.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own.

Disagree. We were talking about DFing for various forms of disagreement that the Society has traditionally treated as apostasy. I believe the Bible supports some of this DFing, as you seem to admit, too. We would also be individually responsible for our own "marking" and choice of "fellowshipping" avoiding "bad associations" even among those who call themselves a brother. But we don't IGNORE most forms of bad conduct. The elders are to watch over the flock, and give good counsel when they learn of bad forms of conduct. We shouldn't make up rules about six months of shunning, or one year of shunning. And no one should enforce shunning for another person. You make a good point that the right way to train a good conscience is to be allowed the responsibility of using that individual conscience -- but this does not mean that strong counsel and guidance should not be in order for those whose spirituality is drifting due to their conduct or their associations.

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

I am wondering whether you posed the same question, as was put to Schroeder, in a letter to the society, and if yes, what was their answer?

No. I have sent in a couple questions about parousia/synteleia and a question about other interpretations of Matthew 24, but never about Luke's version.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I'm not disputing the body of Christ

Good, because I know we've had that discussion before. Russell and his associates thought of this as a very powerful and important doctrine that gets partially repeated about a hundred times. Also, partly because they had not moved very far from the Trinity doctrine yet, they put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jesus was a God (their capitalization, not mine) and that this doctrine put them on the divine plane as Gods. The Watchtower spoke of the 144,000 as "God manifest in the flesh." Based on the way Russell understood the Scriptures he has used, this teaching actually makes some sense. But I know of no other religions groups who were teaching that not only represented the Christ, but who would go so far as to claim that Jesus alone was not the Christ, but that the Christ included his Bride members, the 144,000.

The Christ would therefore include Russell himself, while on earth in the flesh, as long as he remained faithful.

When the world sees you it sees a member of The Christ, not in glory, but in the flesh. R455

Now we appear like men, and as men all die, even as others; but in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods—partakers of the Divine nature (R473)

Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they think we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"—"partakers of the divine nature." When we claim, on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten to a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. . . . Thus there is a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons on the divine plane, being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief or first-born. [R474]

The Prophet like unto Moses, the great Law-giver, the great King, the great Mediator, will be the foretold "Seed of Abraham," in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed. . . consists of our Lord Jesus, as the Head, the chief, and all of his faithful elect Church as members . . . [R2859]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You are giving an impression, Russell thought he had that "guarantee" when no one on earth does.

I never mentioned or implied any kind of guarantee, because I never had that impression myself. So sorry if anyone got that impression. Russell taught that he and others like him were "perfect" and "justified" as long as they were faithful, but that no one had a guarantee. They all had to endure to the end. As you point out, in some quotes you provided, this was part of his "faithful and wise servant" doctrine: that although it was a single individual, that God would replace that individual if he proved unfaithful.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is what you are missing. You are projecting with a guarantee something Russell didn’t consider himself to be aside from being a faithful servant alongside the brotherhood.

I think you are still missing something here. I am not concerned at all with the any kind of "guarantee." That's something you added to this conversation. But it does seem you are trying to imply that Russell didn't even consider himself to be "that faithful and wise servant."

We know that would be a false impression. Just because he didn't publicly claim the title, doesn't mean he didn't make it clear that he was that individual. When he explained that it must be one human individual (at a time) and not a class, he added the idea that people might think him immodest for pointing this out, but he couldn't go against the obvious meaning of the Scriptures. If he didn't think it was himself, then why would he have though modesty should be a factor. He published letters that referred to himself as the "faithful and wise servant" often just called "that Servant." He was introduced at conventions with the title, and accepted the title without trying to correct anyone. And then the Watchtower printed the fact that during his life he had "privately admitted" to being that faithful and wise servant. The Watchtower admits that THOUSANDS of persons got this impression.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Just like AlanF, you want to cherry pick. However, tell your pal, JW’s were constituted in 1931 therefore any material he submits before that, belongs to the “Freedom Bible Students” or the “Associated Bible Students”, not the original “International Bible Student Association”. Pastor Russell was part of.

This information comes straight out of the Watch Tower magazine and publications. Straight from Russell's pen. And straight out of the Biography of Charles Taze Russell published by the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford. It also comes straight out of the speech that Rutherford gave at Russell's funeral. It would be very strange to claim that anything Russell or the Watchtower said before 1931 belongs to "Freedom Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." All JWs who have read the "Proclaimers" book are not going to be fooled by such a claim.

10 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I think the Watchtower words were ' make mistakes and err'

So in your eyes does that mean make mistakes and make mistakes  (which makes no sense) 

Or, does it mean make mistakes and deliberately do wrong ?  

You must be reading something into this that isn't there. The quote I think you were trying to remember is probably this:

*** w17 February p. 26 par. 12 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. . . .Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

You are missing the "hope" part of your understanding, which isn't in line with who Russell really was.

You haven't yet addressed the main question which I repeated for you, so I'm guessing that you ARE already aware that Russell taught that those of the "high calling" were included in "The CHRIST."

I have no idea what it means to be "missing the 'hope' part of my understanding." Are you saying that Russell said things which were not in line with who Russell really was? Did he only hope to be the faithful and wise servant, when he claimed to be the faithful and wise servant? Did he only hope to be God's mouthpiece when he said he WAS God's mouthpiece?

If not, please explain. I don't want to twist your words.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Try reading the book correctly. Russell mentions how the 144, 000 are part of the kings going to heaven. A prospect of him being one of them, not that he made a guarantee he was. No different with that of the GB, they have a heavenly HOPE. If your going to distort Watchtower history like AlanF, at least try to appear intelligent.

When AlanF distorts Watchtower history, I'll call him out on it. But you have said that I did not read Russell's book correctly. You pointed out how, but you were wrong about it. Russell did believe he was of the High Calling and therefore found it appropriate to refer to those with him sharers in "our High Calling," an expression he used dozens of times. He even explained how, while faithful, he was "perfect" and acceptable and justified in this calling:

Therefore because God has a "better thing" for us—our high calling to joint-heirship with Jesus Christ our Lord,. . . . so when we come to realize that we are justified we esteem it a privilege to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service." It is acceptable because it is holy; it is holy because it is justified; it is justified because Christ died.

To your second question I reply: It certainly is true, as you say, that none but perfect beings can keep God's perfect law, and I will go further and add that none but perfect beings are acceptable with God.   But as we have just proved we are perfect beings, being justified by Christ Jesus and therefore are acceptable with God by Jesus Christ. [R193]

But although you incorrectly addressed a minor point, I notice you avoided the actual point that I made, that Russell, for example, thought it was proper for those of the High Calling to be referred to as "The CHRIST" ("The Savior" "The Mediator" etc.)

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Try reading the book correctly.

Of course he mentioned how the 144,000 are part of the kings and priests going to heaven. And of course he knew of the possibility that he might personally not be "guaranteed" to be remain among that number. But he never said anything about NOT being a part of that number while he was writing articles, sermons, books, etc. In fact, the Watchtower's own BIOGRAPHY of Russell said that he privately admitted to being the "faithful and wise servant." 

Even more, Russell said:

but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual (R3355)

Who do you think this particular individual was supposed to be referring to?

This servant, if found faithful, would be intrusted more and more with the distribution of every feature of Present Truth as represented in the parable, by his being given the dispensing of the food in due season to the household. (R3356)

Can you think what person for as long he was being found faithful, considered himself to be dispensing every feature of Present Truth to the household of faith?

. . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost . . . . (R3356)

Who might Russell think it is? Hmmm. We don't have to worry about it, he tells us directly:

No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. (R3821)

Of course, I think you knew this already.

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

Oooooh I gots itchy feet to answer all of Alan's arguments. But I won't butt in. Alan still has to reply to mine...

Feel free. I can't really stay on today anyway. I might keep the computer open and access from a remote desktop on my phone, but I won't really be putting enough effort into answering. If you do feel like taking on AlanF's argumentation, have him sign a waiver that he'll read your whole answer before responding to it. Ithinks sometimes he just assumes what you must have said even if you didn't say it. Hold his feet (if you dare) to the fire, if you will. (Especially if your own itchy feet are contagious.)

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:

(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ." The Christ was not just Jesus, but the full 144,001. Therefore, it was even possible for those who considered themselves of the 144,000, the Bride, the Higher Calling, to refer to themselves as:

• "the Christ"
• "the Saviour"
• "the prophet greater than Moses"
• "eternal Father"
• "the Mediator"

FWF was said to have often hinted in the 1940's and 1950's that this doctrine was still in effect. It was one of the reasons that "great crowd" were not invited to the Memorial for several years. But in the 1960's the Watchtower clarified that the expression "The Christ" could not refer to the rest of the 144,000. Even after that point however, books written by FWFranz, including "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" used the expression 144,001, which had evidently been a reference to the older version of this doctrine.

*** w63 9/1 p. 539 Names for Christ and His Congregation ***
“THE CHRIST”
We come now to a consideration of those terms or titles that apply or are used to refer to Jesus Christ apart from his body members. . . .
But what about the expressions “the Christ” and “Christ”? Does the use of the article with “Christ” designate something different from when no article is used? Might it be that, whereas the term “Christ” refers to Jesus Christ alone, the term “the Christ” could also include the 144,000 members of his body? Do the Scriptures support this thought or distinction?
No, they do not. . . .
In fact, the expression “the Christ” of itself at no time includes the members of Christ’s body. So the title “Christ,” with or without the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the article serving to draw attention to or to emphasize his office as the Messiah.

And of course there was no little disruption when FWFranz yelled at all of us one morning at Bethel breakfast because a few (somewhere?) had been balking at a recent article that said Jesus was not the Mediator of the great crowd. The much earlier view that had not been repeated in many years was that the 144,001 WERE the Mediator.

57 minutes ago, AlanF said:

After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.

I believe you.

I worked for the man and know that he wasn't one to respond quickly to questions unless he was sure of the answer already given in the publications. He was a Gilead teacher and my father's KM school instructor, and was known to always look for the official answer. (If there was not an official answer, he saw this as an opportunity to come up with a solution. The research assignments I got from him were for areas where he was trying to develop a topic he could write a "new" article about. But he always wanted to be sure it was really "new" and that he could review anything previously "on the books" for any topic. His 1957 generation was a good case in point. He also wanted to develop a medical-based article tying together the Bible's use of "the heart." )

FWIW, I would have answered like this:

• The verse says not to go after persons who say "I am he" AND who say "the due time is near." 
  • On the first point, we could say that we do not say "I am he" in the CONTEXT of Jesus' answer in Luke. "I am he" is most likely referring to "false messiahs." The problem with this is that the idea of "false messiah" in context sets a kind of trap that you point out, in that anyone who tries to predict the closeness of the destructive judgment is making himself a kind of prophet or Messiah, saying that they are speaking for Christ.
  • On the second point: "the due time is near," this would be much easier. Revelation has John stating that the due time is near.

    • (Revelation 1:1-3) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. . . . 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. (Revelation 22:20) . . .“The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’” “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”

• If we can extricate ourselves from the "I am he" then Revelation 1 & 22 give us the basis on which to say "the due time has approached."

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

A few quotes "Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership."

Exactly how many people have you asked. Were they just elders that you asked ? 

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.

30 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Yes it is a social club. Well here in UK it definitely is a social club.

It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.

32 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Shunning keeps people in the JW Org, that is the way the GB / Org rules people's lives. So, no, many JW's are not 'very comfortable with their leadership', but they just don't have a good way out, without being totally 'cut off'.

Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.

38 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

As for this 'because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.'  It is laughable. Just because you don't know exactly what is right, does that mean you don't know what isn't right ?  And doesn't it tell you to wait on God through Christ, instead of burbling on with untrue information ?  

Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.

40 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Quote " Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, "

Give us examples please. 

Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.

(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.

(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

58 minutes ago, AlanF said:

if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 

In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.

It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.

When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.

Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

54 minutes ago, AlanF said:

the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)

@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.