JW Insider

Hmmmmm……. I always thought those tunnels were used for giant radioactive ant men to get to central Australia. 
….. since the “other” stories about the tunnels have no proof, mine is EQUALLY valid. 
…… and Certainly worth what you paid for it.
For $15.00 I will send you a genuine hand drawn map!

There are also accounts of little green men on Mars, and Yeti, and Sasquatch. Fred Franz' time covers the 1920's through the 1990's. No one here can pin this story down any closer? The rooms branching off the tunnels were the residence buildings themselves and the laundry room. And a couple of openings for outside utility workers which might have been caged off to keep civilians like Bethelites from turning handles, or switching off electricity. The commissary was also attached to one tunnel. Some say there was food preparation in the tunnels, but this was actually because one of the buildings, not use for foot traffic, was used to transfer items from one of the buildings via an elevator. It would not be a place for any private conversations, because constant passerby's could hear.
It's these stories of rooms branching off that already tells me that the person telling the story is misremembering, lying, or might have been afraid of tunnels and let their claustrophobic imaginations run wild. 
I saw somewhere on the order of 0 little girls in 6 years, except on guided tours. Was the "first woman" also the "little girl?" Is it possible that the mental scars came first, which could also help to explain the story?
Where do I find these reports?

I assume you already know that I don't have any power to ban people from this forum. And I wouldn't ban anyone anyway, because I don't believe it's a good or useful thing to do. I think everyone comes to these forums for their own reasons. Mine are different from yours obviously. But I don't think I have any more right to be here than you do. I don't know the owner of the forum, and I'm not always happy with the way things go all the time, but it's not my forum, and he or she or they can run it as wished. I'm tired of it at times, but I still like to share what I learn, and learn if what I have shared has been thought about in a different way by others.
The most important thing for me is to share things in such a way that they might attract some others who are equally willing to discuss the same issues that have caused concern for me or other WItnesses, and who have found solutions or counterpoints to the specific issues raised.
I understand where you are coming from. And based on things you have said, I would agree that the easiest way to handle issues I have brought up (when you disagree) is to simply think of me as an apostate, or think of me as dishonest, or badly motivated. It's not possible for you to think of me as a brother, and I admit that it stings a bit, but I understand that I have no reason to take it personally on a forum, where I am not here in person. And I would not be able to be so honest if I were here in person, anyway. But this in no way keeps me from thinking of you as a sister, and understanding the predicament. If an apostate said any of the things I am saying, you would not need to be the least bit concerned with giving any kind of answer or response. You could merely ignore it, or simply state that you disagree. And you might even want to spit a bit of venom my way. It's probably natural.
I understand that it is my own fault if I create discomfort for some, in the same way that these questions once created discomfort for me. Some still do create a lot of discomfort for me, but I will still be honest about these issues, especially if I am going to find someone else who has found a solution that works for them, and might also work better for me.
The way I have come to see it is this: that in order to provoke an honest response I sometimes need to state the issue as honestly as I think it's possible to state it. There are many examples right here under this same topic. In a previous post here, I could have said, for example:
I don't think that Russell should be seen as having a special part in the fulfillment of Malachi 3 because I think it's possible he lied in court and it's possible he showed himself to be hypocritical and it's possible he was presumptuous and it's possible he was dishonest in other ways.
That might be a bit provocative but it would not be likely to elicit a real thought-out defense of why Russell should have a part in fulfilling Malachi 3. It just makes it more likely that someone will simply respond:
OK maybe Russell did some of those things, and maybe he didn't, so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the WTS publications that involve Russell's work in the fulfillment of Malachi 3.
It's not that claim would have been dishonest, because I do believe "it's possible" when I spoke about those things I believed were possible. But it would be more honest if I stated my more honest belief that it's not only possible, but very true that Russell lied in court, for example. This way, I might elicit a solution from someone who actually also knows that it is true. Or a responder might show that they are just as concerned with the Bible issue in Malachi by asking for the reference about Russell. And if If they don't believe it, but also don't show any interest in the evidence, then I already know that they probably don't really care about the Bible problem involved, and have probably misunderstood it to be a sly way to take a "dig" at Russell, or relay some embarrassing history. And this will tell me something right away about the level of seriousness the person has about the Biblical issue.
And some will be expected to simply give a downvote to the very idea, or make a judgment about me that implies bringing up an issue (honestly) makes me apostate or demon-possessed. That's another way to handle the discomfort, and I can't judge them for it. It's the same way I tried to handle the same discomfort for a while. I can't take it personally for that reason. It's my own doing, since I am not trying to couch everything in easy terms here as I would do in my congregation.
And perhaps it's merely that I am the wrong kind of person to ask about such issues. Using another more common example, we would allow, or even expect an apostate to ask about the "overlapping lifespans" making up the latest definition of the generation. But if a Witness herself asks, it is considered possible evidence of apostasy, depending on how seriously they feel they need to present the question. If someone were to say, "Hey, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I can see it going either way, but I am still a bit concerned," then we give them a pass, and say that they are probably not apostate. But what if that same person, to be more honest with others, will say, "Hey, I can't see this at all! I've looked up the Scriptures, and I think the explanation is wrong!" Now, that Witness is suspected of being or becoming an apostate merely because they are being more honest, or want their faith in things unseen to be based on evidence.
And I'm not saying that any Witness needs to respond to her question about the generation, even if they might find it necessary to down-vote her, or make a simple statement to say that it makes sense to them. For certain issues, that might even seem an appropriate response. It may be all we can do.

Yes. The Bible says that Jesus was already bringing persons into that Kingdom, and that he made them to be a Kingdom.
(Colossians 1:13) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
(Revelation 1:6) . . .and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . .
But not ALL things that are "bound" by humans on earth are eternally bound in heaven, yet. Some persons in the current earthly side of the Kingdom will need to be thrown out of the Kingdom when the harvest (the conclusion) begins. So there is also the promise, the covenant, that those remaining faithful to the end will be granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom (the heavenly portion):
(2 Peter 1:11) . . .In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
(Luke 22:28-30) 28 “However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
And, yes, it should also be obvious that this can include those currently claiming to be JWs.
This is why Christians who are partakers in that Kingdom are "no part of the world" as you said, and therefore even now treated as residents of that Kingdom and aliens and temporary residents of their current nations of residence. Soon they will be permanent residents, shining like the sun, in their everlasting abode:
(1 Peter 2:4-11) . . .Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God, 5 YOU yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.. . . 9 But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 For YOU were once not a people, but are now God’s people; . . .11 Beloved, I exhort YOU as aliens and temporary residents . . .
But it's not a simple matter of identifying "time." It's also the sureness of the promise, the covenant, that makes it possible to speak of the Kingdom --even the heavenly part of that Kingdom-- as already here, even though there will clearly be events in the future and final events of that Kingdom which will be outstanding, such as the time when the righteous ones shine forth.
(Ephesians 2:6, 7) . . .Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming systems of things he might demonstrate the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus.
When the "conclusion" [Gk: synteleia] begins, there are no more wheat and weeds growing together. This is how we know that we have not reached that "synteleia" yet. (This is not the WTS pov, of course.) Also, of course, we are still looking for fine soil, to be planted with good seed, and some are still planting, and some are still watering, and God is making good seeds (good hearts) grow. When the harvest (the conclusion) arrives, obviously there will be no more planting and watering and growing. The harvest IS the synteleia according to scripture:
(Matthew 13:39) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, . . .
[The harvest is the synteleia (final end) of the system of things.]
So this will be understood differently if one thinks that planting and growing continue even after the harvest begins, and then that would mean that one will also have to try to give a different meaning to the word "synteleia" so that it could mean, for example, a 100+ year conclusion rather than a final, destructive end, or "end of all things." But we can know the Biblical intent of the word, because there are times when the Bible switches telos (end) and syn-telos (end of all things together) interchangeably:
(1 Peter 4:7) . . .But the end [telos] of all things has drawn close.. . .
(1 Corinthians 10:11) . . .they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends [teloi] of the systems of things have come.
But again, just as with trying to pin an exact time on when and where the Kingdom exists in heaven vs on earth, we have a similar (purposeful) reason to also say that the final end (joint end), "ending [of all things] together" had already begun back when the last days began. That's because of the power and incontrovertability of what Jesus has already done and the sureness of that covenant promise.
(Hebrews 6:17-20) 17 In this same way, when God decided to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 in order that through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to take firm hold of the hope set before us. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, 20 where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, . . .
This may even be why Hebrews could also indicate that we were already  in the time of that "joint end" when Hebrews was written:
(Hebrews 9:26-28) . . .But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their] salvation.

(1 Peter 1:19, 20) . . .. 20 True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU
(Galatians 4:3-5) . . .. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn, might receive the adoption as sons.
(Hebrews 1:1, 2) . . .God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days [Gk, "has in the last days"] spoken to us by means of a Son. . .

You might think you remember, but the last (and only other time) the topic of these tunnels came up, I would have said pretty much the same thing about them that I'm saying now. I think I might have added that there were some pipes along the ceiling in places (but the floors and walls were perfectly clean and smooth). Even before the buildings were sold recently, the city decided that the rights for any such tunnels would not be granted as part of the building property and they would have to be closed up, so now someone can imagine any kind of thing they want to imply. Maybe even use their perverse imaginations to write a scary novel about them: "Brooklyn Depths" anyone? "The Tunnel Channel"?

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

You might think you remember, but the last (and only other time) the topic of these tunnels came up, I would have said pretty much the same thing about them that I'm saying now. I think I might have added that there were some pipes along the ceiling in places (but the floors and walls were perfectly clean and smooth). Even before the buildings were sold recently, the city decided that the rights for any such tunnels would not be granted as part of the building property and they would have to be closed up, so now someone can imagine any kind of thing they want to imply. Maybe even use their perverse imaginations to write a scary novel about them: "Brooklyn Depths" anyone? "The Tunnel Channel"?

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

Do you believe you are one of them? Just asking, because you overlook all the other principles in Jehovah's word to champion a cause which is not scriptural. Nowhere in the bible does it say that anointed must be separated, circumcised and uncircumcised be separated, or any other separate groups allowed. It speaks of all brothers and sisters meeting together to build one another up.  There is nothing about separate clubs forming etc.
Actually, the bible says that those who separate themselves are promoting self-interest. 

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

I think that this topic now contains sufficient overgrowth so that my next comments will end up being of much less interest to those who have much less interest. My comments here --just my opinion, of course-- are a follow-up on previous comments about why I would not think of Russell and his associates, specifically, as the fulfillment of Malachi 3. One reason, of course, is that Malachi 3 was already said to be fulfilled in John the Baptist, and this explanation came from Jesus himself. I don't think we have a right to try to one-up Jesus' explanation. Also, the only reason it seems necessary to turn Russell's work into the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is our unique chronology surrounding 1914. So far, imo, all the Biblical evidence indicates against 1914. And, even if something like that could be claimed, there would still be nothing pointing to 1919, which is apparently the real reason behind the Malachi 3 application. 
I don't want to rehash some of what is already in a topic linked below, but there was a point that Anna brought up in that topic which is worth considering:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
I'm sure you are right, Anna, that it can be difficult for a man to stay humble when he believes he has an important mission to accomplish. This is especially true when one's chronological worldview has painted him into a corner. And there is a pedestal placed in that corner. The problem is that Russell did a lot of that painting himself.
The Day of the Lord had already begun in 1874, the Millennium had begun around 1873, Jesus had come and was now present on earth since 1874, although invisible. He was right then calling the last of the marriage guests, the remaining members of his Bride. If he didn't take them in 1878, then he must have meant for all of them to begin changing at the moment of their death (or rapture?) after October 2, 1881. The "door was shut" on that date, and there would be no more new members called, with the possible exceptions necessary to replace any who had proven unfaithful before their death. Between 1881 and 1914 (or well before) all of Christ's Bride would be with Christ having been rewarded with their spiritual bodies. And Russell was now God's mouthpiece for those "wise virgins" who would prove themselves faithful.
It's difficult to imagine a person who "puts his money where his mouth is," and "sticks his neck out" to convince people how close we are to the end as having ulterior motives. If he is not sincere, he is only asking for shame and notoriety. And I don't accuse him of ulterior motives. And I'm sure he wasn't looking for shame. But I'm also a big fan of the Bible's admonition:
(Romans 3:4) . . .let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, . . .
And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that Russell sometimes lied.
I'm not talking about those times when he contradicted himself in the Watch Tower, claiming he hadn't said something that he had, for example. I'm talking mostly about trying to manipulate the legal courts with untruths. These occasions seem obvious when I look at the court case he lost to his wife. (Personally, I think anyone who only reads the uncontested testimony would think of what Russell did to his wife as absolutely disgusting.)  But those issues will be chalked up to "he-said-she-said."  But there were occasions when Russell committed perjury, and had to carefully walk back his own previous testimony to avoid the consequences. (If anyone really cares, this information is already public, so I can point it out if necessary.)
There is also this claim that Russell was an extremely successful businessman who spent his fortune on something that would not benefit him financially. Well, people do this all the time, especially if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. But then again, it was his father who had proven himself financially successful before Russell was born. 
And, then when Russell was sure there were only the few months left before the Bride's "rapture" between early 1876 and Spring 1878, did he really spend that fortune? Russell admitted in the Watchtower that he only gave a maximum of about $700 in total to that entire effort before Spring 1878. And he gave every indication that he thought that enterprise could even be profitable, if it weren't for mismanagement and unnecessary spending by Barbour. He knew exactly how much profit came from the selling of hymn books, the Three Worlds, and the "Object and Manner" tracts he had written himself. And in any case, it spring-boarded his name from a co-editor of the Herald, to the editor of the Watch Tower.
That doesn't make him dishonest, of course, but I started thinking of Russell as a little less than perfectly honest when I noticed that he wrote articles containing ideas from other people and never credited his source for those ideas. Instead, he wrote it was now God's time to begin revealing his plans in advance to his servants, that it was God's time to give the key, to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom. Although he goes to the trouble of asking for the self-promoting endorsement of  the primary expert on the Great Pyramid (Piazzi-Smyth) over the accuracy of many of "his" pyramid claims, he never gives credit to the person he copied so much of it from (Seiss). His article on the "seven times" published by George Storrs is the same. You would think he came up with it himself.
But did Russell actually "spend  his fortune" or "sell his business interests" even after 1881?
According to the 1907 court case, Russell was involved in many investments and businesses many years after he sold the clothing stores. There was real estate and rental properties. Also there were Coal Syndicates, Rock Run Fuel and Gas, Silica Brick, Brazilian Turpentine, Pittsburgh Asphalt, Pittsburgh Kaolin, U.S. Coal and Coke Company. And, of course, United States Investment Company which was his own holding corporation, then later used to handle Watch Tower Society assets.
Also, there were his interests in the Solon Society promoted in the Watch Tower, for which Russell was accused of defrauding some of the brethren. And, the better known issue of selling bags of wheat seeds through the Watch Tower whose claims for it were obviously exaggerated.
Also, even before I read the Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, which reviewed 150 pages of previous testimony in 1908 when C.T.Russell appealed his loss, I was already in agreement with what I later read that the Superior Court concluded:
". . . the verdict [against CTR] was fully warranted . . . . His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear than he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated aspersions on her character or her mental condition . . . other than that she did not agree with him in his views . . . He himself says that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character . . . the general effect of his testimony is a strong confirmation of her allegations."
And of course, Russell had already tried to smear her reputation in the pages of the Watchtower itself. The pettiness of those Watch Tower articles has always bothered me. It's widely known I think that it was his wife who did a lot of the work and even the writing of "Divine Plan of the Ages" and perhaps large parts of additional volumes, yet when Russell sent men to kick her out of her living quarters, Russell also took her money and kept her purse, which would force her into the care of the same people (relatives) that Russell claimed (in the Watch Tower) were the bad influences on her sanity.
Instead of paying her alimony, even as appreciation for her work on the Studies Volume that sold about 5 million copies, Russell ended up letting Watch Tower readers take up a collection to pay her and the court costs. In 1909, he emptied the money from the Pennsylvania corporation and transferred about $300,000 in value to the New York Corporation and all of his personal investments were now held by the NY corporation. Therefore he claimed that he didn't have a penny to give her.
None of these specific issues will mean much on their own, due to the nature of divorce cases and the like. But, in my opinion, when you combine the probability of uncontested testimony with his more obvious perjury in court, and the fact that he still refused to give his ex-wife alimony after losing the case, it tells me that he wasn't actually as "justified" as he claimed to be. (By "justified from birth" Russell said that he meant he didn't have the same need for contrition since he was free of purposeful sin.)
This is off the original topic of Russell's apology, to be sure, but I haven't found it yet. And I think that some of this information will be relevant even when I do find it.
Also, this doesn't mean we can't appreciate Russell's excellent Bible commentary and emphasis on Christian doctrines and Christian character. It reminds me of when Jesus said:
(Matthew 23:2, 3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

I just re-read what I wrote, and realize it gives a much worse impression of CTRussell than I intended. I believe what I wrote above, so I don't see a need  to rewrite it. Much of it came from notes when I tried to defend Russell against some things that Edmond Gruss had written, along with my own attempt to use what Rutherford wrote to defend Russell in "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens" (1915).
But I don't think of Russell as Pharisaical in any way in spite of Matthew 23:2,3. I do think that Russell played a key role in congealing the "Great Awakening" and "Restoration" movements into a much more "Christian" brotherhood. He realized early on just how different the particular set of "best practices" and "best doctrines" were from the other Christian organizations. And although he didn't like the use of the term organization, it made no difference, because he wanted to organize a more Christian brotherhood "out of Babylon the Great" as early as 1881. This doesn't mean that Babylon fell in that year, or even in 1919. But it was some of the most important progress made in the whole 19th century.
 

I think that this topic now contains sufficient overgrowth so that my next comments will end up being of much less interest to those who have much less interest. My comments here --just my opinion, of course-- are a follow-up on previous comments about why I would not think of Russell and his associates, specifically, as the fulfillment of Malachi 3. One reason, of course, is that Malachi 3 was already said to be fulfilled in John the Baptist, and this explanation came from Jesus himself. I don't think we have a right to try to one-up Jesus' explanation. Also, the only reason it seems necessary to turn Russell's work into the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is our unique chronology surrounding 1914. So far, imo, all the Biblical evidence indicates against 1914. And, even if something like that could be claimed, there would still be nothing pointing to 1919, which is apparently the real reason behind the Malachi 3 application. 
I don't want to rehash some of what is already in a topic linked below, but there was a point that Anna brought up in that topic which is worth considering:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
I'm sure you are right, Anna, that it can be difficult for a man to stay humble when he believes he has an important mission to accomplish. This is especially true when one's chronological worldview has painted him into a corner. And there is a pedestal placed in that corner. The problem is that Russell did a lot of that painting himself.
The Day of the Lord had already begun in 1874, the Millennium had begun around 1873, Jesus had come and was now present on earth since 1874, although invisible. He was right then calling the last of the marriage guests, the remaining members of his Bride. If he didn't take them in 1878, then he must have meant for all of them to begin changing at the moment of their death (or rapture?) after October 2, 1881. The "door was shut" on that date, and there would be no more new members called, with the possible exceptions necessary to replace any who had proven unfaithful before their death. Between 1881 and 1914 (or well before) all of Christ's Bride would be with Christ having been rewarded with their spiritual bodies. And Russell was now God's mouthpiece for those "wise virgins" who would prove themselves faithful.
It's difficult to imagine a person who "puts his money where his mouth is," and "sticks his neck out" to convince people how close we are to the end as having ulterior motives. If he is not sincere, he is only asking for shame and notoriety. And I don't accuse him of ulterior motives. And I'm sure he wasn't looking for shame. But I'm also a big fan of the Bible's admonition:
(Romans 3:4) . . .let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, . . .
And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that Russell sometimes lied.
I'm not talking about those times when he contradicted himself in the Watch Tower, claiming he hadn't said something that he had, for example. I'm talking mostly about trying to manipulate the legal courts with untruths. These occasions seem obvious when I look at the court case he lost to his wife. (Personally, I think anyone who only reads the uncontested testimony would think of what Russell did to his wife as absolutely disgusting.)  But those issues will be chalked up to "he-said-she-said."  But there were occasions when Russell committed perjury, and had to carefully walk back his own previous testimony to avoid the consequences. (If anyone really cares, this information is already public, so I can point it out if necessary.)
There is also this claim that Russell was an extremely successful businessman who spent his fortune on something that would not benefit him financially. Well, people do this all the time, especially if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. But then again, it was his father who had proven himself financially successful before Russell was born. 
And, then when Russell was sure there were only the few months left before the Bride's "rapture" between early 1876 and Spring 1878, did he really spend that fortune? Russell admitted in the Watchtower that he only gave a maximum of about $700 in total to that entire effort before Spring 1878. And he gave every indication that he thought that enterprise could even be profitable, if it weren't for mismanagement and unnecessary spending by Barbour. He knew exactly how much profit came from the selling of hymn books, the Three Worlds, and the "Object and Manner" tracts he had written himself. And in any case, it spring-boarded his name from a co-editor of the Herald, to the editor of the Watch Tower.
That doesn't make him dishonest, of course, but I started thinking of Russell as a little less than perfectly honest when I noticed that he wrote articles containing ideas from other people and never credited his source for those ideas. Instead, he wrote it was now God's time to begin revealing his plans in advance to his servants, that it was God's time to give the key, to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom. Although he goes to the trouble of asking for the self-promoting endorsement of  the primary expert on the Great Pyramid (Piazzi-Smyth) over the accuracy of many of "his" pyramid claims, he never gives credit to the person he copied so much of it from (Seiss). His article on the "seven times" published by George Storrs is the same. You would think he came up with it himself.
But did Russell actually "spend  his fortune" or "sell his business interests" even after 1881?
According to the 1907 court case, Russell was involved in many investments and businesses many years after he sold the clothing stores. There was real estate and rental properties. Also there were Coal Syndicates, Rock Run Fuel and Gas, Silica Brick, Brazilian Turpentine, Pittsburgh Asphalt, Pittsburgh Kaolin, U.S. Coal and Coke Company. And, of course, United States Investment Company which was his own holding corporation, then later used to handle Watch Tower Society assets.
Also, there were his interests in the Solon Society promoted in the Watch Tower, for which Russell was accused of defrauding some of the brethren. And, the better known issue of selling bags of wheat seeds through the Watch Tower whose claims for it were obviously exaggerated.
Also, even before I read the Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, which reviewed 150 pages of previous testimony in 1908 when C.T.Russell appealed his loss, I was already in agreement with what I later read that the Superior Court concluded:
". . . the verdict [against CTR] was fully warranted . . . . His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear than he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated aspersions on her character or her mental condition . . . other than that she did not agree with him in his views . . . He himself says that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character . . . the general effect of his testimony is a strong confirmation of her allegations."
And of course, Russell had already tried to smear her reputation in the pages of the Watchtower itself. The pettiness of those Watch Tower articles has always bothered me. It's widely known I think that it was his wife who did a lot of the work and even the writing of "Divine Plan of the Ages" and perhaps large parts of additional volumes, yet when Russell sent men to kick her out of her living quarters, Russell also took her money and kept her purse, which would force her into the care of the same people (relatives) that Russell claimed (in the Watch Tower) were the bad influences on her sanity.
Instead of paying her alimony, even as appreciation for her work on the Studies Volume that sold about 5 million copies, Russell ended up letting Watch Tower readers take up a collection to pay her and the court costs. In 1909, he emptied the money from the Pennsylvania corporation and transferred about $300,000 in value to the New York Corporation and all of his personal investments were now held by the NY corporation. Therefore he claimed that he didn't have a penny to give her.
None of these specific issues will mean much on their own, due to the nature of divorce cases and the like. But, in my opinion, when you combine the probability of uncontested testimony with his more obvious perjury in court, and the fact that he still refused to give his ex-wife alimony after losing the case, it tells me that he wasn't actually as "justified" as he claimed to be. (By "justified from birth" Russell said that he meant he didn't have the same need for contrition since he was free of purposeful sin.)
This is off the original topic of Russell's apology, to be sure, but I haven't found it yet. And I think that some of this information will be relevant even when I do find it.
Also, this doesn't mean we can't appreciate Russell's excellent Bible commentary and emphasis on Christian doctrines and Christian character. It reminds me of when Jesus said:
(Matthew 23:2, 3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

I just re-read what I wrote, and realize it gives a much worse impression of CTRussell than I intended. I believe what I wrote above, so I don't see a need  to rewrite it. Much of it came from notes when I tried to defend Russell against some things that Edmond Gruss had written, along with my own attempt to use what Rutherford wrote to defend Russell in "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens" (1915).
But I don't think of Russell as Pharisaical in any way in spite of Matthew 23:2,3. I do think that Russell played a key role in congealing the "Great Awakening" and "Restoration" movements into a much more "Christian" brotherhood. He realized early on just how different the particular set of "best practices" and "best doctrines" were from the other Christian organizations. And although he didn't like the use of the term organization, it made no difference, because he wanted to organize a more Christian brotherhood "out of Babylon the Great" as early as 1881. This doesn't mean that Babylon fell in that year, or even in 1919. But it was some of the most important progress made in the whole 19th century.
 

I think that this topic now contains sufficient overgrowth so that my next comments will end up being of much less interest to those who have much less interest. My comments here --just my opinion, of course-- are a follow-up on previous comments about why I would not think of Russell and his associates, specifically, as the fulfillment of Malachi 3. One reason, of course, is that Malachi 3 was already said to be fulfilled in John the Baptist, and this explanation came from Jesus himself. I don't think we have a right to try to one-up Jesus' explanation. Also, the only reason it seems necessary to turn Russell's work into the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is our unique chronology surrounding 1914. So far, imo, all the Biblical evidence indicates against 1914. And, even if something like that could be claimed, there would still be nothing pointing to 1919, which is apparently the real reason behind the Malachi 3 application. 
I don't want to rehash some of what is already in a topic linked below, but there was a point that Anna brought up in that topic which is worth considering:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
I'm sure you are right, Anna, that it can be difficult for a man to stay humble when he believes he has an important mission to accomplish. This is especially true when one's chronological worldview has painted him into a corner. And there is a pedestal placed in that corner. The problem is that Russell did a lot of that painting himself.
The Day of the Lord had already begun in 1874, the Millennium had begun around 1873, Jesus had come and was now present on earth since 1874, although invisible. He was right then calling the last of the marriage guests, the remaining members of his Bride. If he didn't take them in 1878, then he must have meant for all of them to begin changing at the moment of their death (or rapture?) after October 2, 1881. The "door was shut" on that date, and there would be no more new members called, with the possible exceptions necessary to replace any who had proven unfaithful before their death. Between 1881 and 1914 (or well before) all of Christ's Bride would be with Christ having been rewarded with their spiritual bodies. And Russell was now God's mouthpiece for those "wise virgins" who would prove themselves faithful.
It's difficult to imagine a person who "puts his money where his mouth is," and "sticks his neck out" to convince people how close we are to the end as having ulterior motives. If he is not sincere, he is only asking for shame and notoriety. And I don't accuse him of ulterior motives. And I'm sure he wasn't looking for shame. But I'm also a big fan of the Bible's admonition:
(Romans 3:4) . . .let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, . . .
And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that Russell sometimes lied.
I'm not talking about those times when he contradicted himself in the Watch Tower, claiming he hadn't said something that he had, for example. I'm talking mostly about trying to manipulate the legal courts with untruths. These occasions seem obvious when I look at the court case he lost to his wife. (Personally, I think anyone who only reads the uncontested testimony would think of what Russell did to his wife as absolutely disgusting.)  But those issues will be chalked up to "he-said-she-said."  But there were occasions when Russell committed perjury, and had to carefully walk back his own previous testimony to avoid the consequences. (If anyone really cares, this information is already public, so I can point it out if necessary.)
There is also this claim that Russell was an extremely successful businessman who spent his fortune on something that would not benefit him financially. Well, people do this all the time, especially if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. But then again, it was his father who had proven himself financially successful before Russell was born. 
And, then when Russell was sure there were only the few months left before the Bride's "rapture" between early 1876 and Spring 1878, did he really spend that fortune? Russell admitted in the Watchtower that he only gave a maximum of about $700 in total to that entire effort before Spring 1878. And he gave every indication that he thought that enterprise could even be profitable, if it weren't for mismanagement and unnecessary spending by Barbour. He knew exactly how much profit came from the selling of hymn books, the Three Worlds, and the "Object and Manner" tracts he had written himself. And in any case, it spring-boarded his name from a co-editor of the Herald, to the editor of the Watch Tower.
That doesn't make him dishonest, of course, but I started thinking of Russell as a little less than perfectly honest when I noticed that he wrote articles containing ideas from other people and never credited his source for those ideas. Instead, he wrote it was now God's time to begin revealing his plans in advance to his servants, that it was God's time to give the key, to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom. Although he goes to the trouble of asking for the self-promoting endorsement of  the primary expert on the Great Pyramid (Piazzi-Smyth) over the accuracy of many of "his" pyramid claims, he never gives credit to the person he copied so much of it from (Seiss). His article on the "seven times" published by George Storrs is the same. You would think he came up with it himself.
But did Russell actually "spend  his fortune" or "sell his business interests" even after 1881?
According to the 1907 court case, Russell was involved in many investments and businesses many years after he sold the clothing stores. There was real estate and rental properties. Also there were Coal Syndicates, Rock Run Fuel and Gas, Silica Brick, Brazilian Turpentine, Pittsburgh Asphalt, Pittsburgh Kaolin, U.S. Coal and Coke Company. And, of course, United States Investment Company which was his own holding corporation, then later used to handle Watch Tower Society assets.
Also, there were his interests in the Solon Society promoted in the Watch Tower, for which Russell was accused of defrauding some of the brethren. And, the better known issue of selling bags of wheat seeds through the Watch Tower whose claims for it were obviously exaggerated.
Also, even before I read the Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, which reviewed 150 pages of previous testimony in 1908 when C.T.Russell appealed his loss, I was already in agreement with what I later read that the Superior Court concluded:
". . . the verdict [against CTR] was fully warranted . . . . His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear than he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated aspersions on her character or her mental condition . . . other than that she did not agree with him in his views . . . He himself says that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character . . . the general effect of his testimony is a strong confirmation of her allegations."
And of course, Russell had already tried to smear her reputation in the pages of the Watchtower itself. The pettiness of those Watch Tower articles has always bothered me. It's widely known I think that it was his wife who did a lot of the work and even the writing of "Divine Plan of the Ages" and perhaps large parts of additional volumes, yet when Russell sent men to kick her out of her living quarters, Russell also took her money and kept her purse, which would force her into the care of the same people (relatives) that Russell claimed (in the Watch Tower) were the bad influences on her sanity.
Instead of paying her alimony, even as appreciation for her work on the Studies Volume that sold about 5 million copies, Russell ended up letting Watch Tower readers take up a collection to pay her and the court costs. In 1909, he emptied the money from the Pennsylvania corporation and transferred about $300,000 in value to the New York Corporation and all of his personal investments were now held by the NY corporation. Therefore he claimed that he didn't have a penny to give her.
None of these specific issues will mean much on their own, due to the nature of divorce cases and the like. But, in my opinion, when you combine the probability of uncontested testimony with his more obvious perjury in court, and the fact that he still refused to give his ex-wife alimony after losing the case, it tells me that he wasn't actually as "justified" as he claimed to be. (By "justified from birth" Russell said that he meant he didn't have the same need for contrition since he was free of purposeful sin.)
This is off the original topic of Russell's apology, to be sure, but I haven't found it yet. And I think that some of this information will be relevant even when I do find it.
Also, this doesn't mean we can't appreciate Russell's excellent Bible commentary and emphasis on Christian doctrines and Christian character. It reminds me of when Jesus said:
(Matthew 23:2, 3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

I will vouch for Tom…he’s a writer…and he banters…he’s also very genuine…yes he can talk a bit harsh at times…but I’ve also seen him be enormously kind …very tactful….and even unbelievably humble…a trait I admire greatly.

Yes.
No.
Okay. Banter doesn’t necessarily translate well. It can be taken for serious remarks. SpaceMerchant is from a region and culture substantially different than mine. He is also more serious in his demeanor than me. Therefore, he might think I am making fun or him or his moniker (since the topic is aliens.) I was not. That’s why I reached out to him to clarify. It is because I have regard for him that I did this. I don’t have the same high regard for everyone.
You have chosen the right forum to study, for there are several genuinely strange people here, and so what can be expected of their interacting?
You’ll have to give examples of this. It is nothing I try to do and if I’ve fallen into it, it was accidental.
On the other hand, there are some here I call “villains,” and I genuinely don’t like them, because their purpose here is to trash what I hold dear. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t wear like an old shoe at times, and so here and there a comment might be taken for comraderie.
Sometimes you do well to stay with your first instincts.
No.
This place is a writing workshop for me, part of a hobby. ‘There is a gaggle of regulars here, some of them I like, some I don’t, some i like more than others, and some I dislike more than others. I’m a communicator and I gots to communicate. Stuff I first formulate here sometimes ends up elsewhere, for I have my own blog and have even written a few ebooks. Everyone else has his or her own rationale for being here too. 
My practice here is to divide people into three classes. 1) those who have tasted and seen that Jehovah is good, 2) those who have tasted and seen that he is bad, and 3) those who have never tasted. It is an application on Psalm 34:8: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good, O YOU people; Happy is the able-bodied man that takes refuge in him.”
Now, #1 and #2 will speak a language that #3, through lack of experience, does not. For that reason, there are probably not too many #3s around—they would soon get bored silly. From the standpoint of one who tries to be a #1, loyal to God as JWs understand him, I do not believe it is right to earnestly engage with those #2s who have tasted and spit it out the fine food. Maybe you know both the scriptures and the counsel behind this stand.
So, if I reply, I often don’t speak to them as much as I speak past them or even about them, as though they were not present. Or I ignore them completely to make another point of my own. This might easily give the impression of a pompous elitist schmuck to someone sympathetic to their point of view. But I am not elitist. I suppose I come off as cocky sometimes. Sorry.
I go on the assumption—I think it is correct—that this is a forum run by a Witness, admittedly an avant-garde one, who allows “apostate” comments, and thus Jehovah’s Witnesses are the ‘good guys.’ If it was the other way around, if it was an “apostate” site that allowed Witness comments, I would not be around, for I would think myself a troll for doing so.
So this is my site, in effect, not their site. I don’t try to bully. But I suppose when the besiegers have cast their ladders against the castle wall and I pour out the boiling oil upon them it might seem that way.

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book,
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.”  In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.  
 
I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece."
It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble.
But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. 
The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish.
Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan):
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same:
*** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"].
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931:
*** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany ***
Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral:
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss):
"The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says:
"Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."
 

People invariably relate experiences both good and bad.
If you happen to have been in the same room as the event being reported, you have greater credibility with yourself if you agree with the judgment that it's "good" or "bad" because you were present.
Of course this doesn't mean that your judgment is correct. A third person or even a fourth of fifth person might disagree.
Eyewitness testimony isn't very good. This is why the police interview everyone they can when investigating a crime. No one expects the testimony to be consistent or correct.
It's more like plotting points on a graph. The more points plotted, the more likely you have an accurate picture of a given graphed function.
On the other hand it's important that the eyewitnesses not have time to rehearse their testimony or time to synchronize their testimony with those of others.
Actual footage of an event from multiple angles is best and if you can also get audio that adds value.
A person's attitude, their previous experiences and the things they believe to be true and righteous vary and this is true even among Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now on the synchronization side of things we can see that people quite naturally seek out others who see things the way they do and are not particularly pleased if there isn't agreement.
I see the grumbling lot not as liars, but as those who as a result of various factors has chosen to play a different movie of the annoying events in their lives and with a different music track to these events.
I remember reading in a book somewhere that in a relationship the more things you have in common (as long as these are positive things) the better. I'm talking about a value system as well more importantly. But, they countered that having identical values isn't sufficient as it needs to be determined how these values rank in relation to each other. In a scarce or competing resource situation, how will these things be prioritized?
Some people are more "feelings" oriented and if something doesn't feel right, even if it is right it isn't enough for them and this is why you have to dig deep and see what it is in your own mind (because we all have feelings) that feels right or doesn't feel right and really figure out why.

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.