JW Insider

You wouldn’t know a waste of time if one bit you in the rear end.
Now here’s a waste of time:
”Good morning, brothers. Our first talk today is on the subject of dress and grooming.”

Not that it should matter too much to anyone here, but just to get a discussion started, I will happily state that I am in 100% agreement with all the scriptures in this list. And am in 100% agreement with at least 990 of the 997 words (counted by copying the content portion of this to https://wordcounter.net/).
I found only 3 things I'd take a small issue with:
"Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular" professor in it. Jason DeBuhn's name has been on this list since at least 2015 and has never been removed. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list, which otherwise only highlights a simple Bible basis, not some scholar. "A person’s works prove that his faith is alive." This isn't necessarily true. A person can have works that look like they are motivated by faith, but are motivated by self-righteousness, a competitive spirit, a desire to earn salvation and be rewarded accordingly, blindly following men, etc., just to mention some common examples.   (Matthew 7:22) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ "He began ruling in 1914." Hmmm. I've probably said before that I can't find this one in the Bible. (And it's just about the only sentence that has no scripture to back it up.)  I wish it had said: "We believe Jesus is now ruling invisibly from heaven." Or, "We believe that we now live in a time when Jesus, from his heavenly throne, is giving special attention to matters of the Kingdom on earth." In addition to those, there are a couple of other things, much less important to me, that I could see changing in the future, and the change wouldn't cause a problem or inconsistency either way. For example, I could see the possibility that the "144,000" is a symbolic number, and might even represent the full number of natural Jewish Christians as easily as it could represent the full number of spiritual Jews. But the list explicitly allows for some expressions to be interpreted symbolically, anyway, so it wouldn't bother me either way to use the expression, "The 144,000 will rule in heaven."  ["We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1. "]
It's also possible that "blood" in Acts 15 is a symbol for "bloodguilt," such as murder, manslaughter, war, etc., just as "idols" can include things like "gluttony" (Phil 3:19) "greediness" (Col 3:5) and even "pleasing men" (Eph 6:6,7; Gal 1:10)  Personally, for my own conscience, I'm fine with the idea that abstaining from blood transfusions is one way that we abstain from blood. But there's a chance that we as individuals and as an organization should not be imposing this as a rule on the Bible-trained consciences of others.
That idea might already be covered, even if unintentionally, by the very nice idea expressed here: "Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience."
Outside of those few comments, I would be willing to die for the other 990 words out of the 997.

Not that it should matter too much to anyone here, but just to get a discussion started, I will happily state that I am in 100% agreement with all the scriptures in this list. And am in 100% agreement with at least 990 of the 997 words (counted by copying the content portion of this to https://wordcounter.net/).
I found only 3 things I'd take a small issue with:
"Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular" professor in it. Jason DeBuhn's name has been on this list since at least 2015 and has never been removed. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list, which otherwise only highlights a simple Bible basis, not some scholar. "A person’s works prove that his faith is alive." This isn't necessarily true. A person can have works that look like they are motivated by faith, but are motivated by self-righteousness, a competitive spirit, a desire to earn salvation and be rewarded accordingly, blindly following men, etc., just to mention some common examples.   (Matthew 7:22) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ "He began ruling in 1914." Hmmm. I've probably said before that I can't find this one in the Bible. (And it's just about the only sentence that has no scripture to back it up.)  I wish it had said: "We believe Jesus is now ruling invisibly from heaven." Or, "We believe that we now live in a time when Jesus, from his heavenly throne, is giving special attention to matters of the Kingdom on earth." In addition to those, there are a couple of other things, much less important to me, that I could see changing in the future, and the change wouldn't cause a problem or inconsistency either way. For example, I could see the possibility that the "144,000" is a symbolic number, and might even represent the full number of natural Jewish Christians as easily as it could represent the full number of spiritual Jews. But the list explicitly allows for some expressions to be interpreted symbolically, anyway, so it wouldn't bother me either way to use the expression, "The 144,000 will rule in heaven."  ["We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1. "]
It's also possible that "blood" in Acts 15 is a symbol for "bloodguilt," such as murder, manslaughter, war, etc., just as "idols" can include things like "gluttony" (Phil 3:19) "greediness" (Col 3:5) and even "pleasing men" (Eph 6:6,7; Gal 1:10)  Personally, for my own conscience, I'm fine with the idea that abstaining from blood transfusions is one way that we abstain from blood. But there's a chance that we as individuals and as an organization should not be imposing this as a rule on the Bible-trained consciences of others.
That idea might already be covered, even if unintentionally, by the very nice idea expressed here: "Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience."
Outside of those few comments, I would be willing to die for the other 990 words out of the 997.

Not that it should matter too much to anyone here, but just to get a discussion started, I will happily state that I am in 100% agreement with all the scriptures in this list. And am in 100% agreement with at least 990 of the 997 words (counted by copying the content portion of this to https://wordcounter.net/).
I found only 3 things I'd take a small issue with:
"Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular" professor in it. Jason DeBuhn's name has been on this list since at least 2015 and has never been removed. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list, which otherwise only highlights a simple Bible basis, not some scholar. "A person’s works prove that his faith is alive." This isn't necessarily true. A person can have works that look like they are motivated by faith, but are motivated by self-righteousness, a competitive spirit, a desire to earn salvation and be rewarded accordingly, blindly following men, etc., just to mention some common examples.   (Matthew 7:22) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ "He began ruling in 1914." Hmmm. I've probably said before that I can't find this one in the Bible. (And it's just about the only sentence that has no scripture to back it up.)  I wish it had said: "We believe Jesus is now ruling invisibly from heaven." Or, "We believe that we now live in a time when Jesus, from his heavenly throne, is giving special attention to matters of the Kingdom on earth." In addition to those, there are a couple of other things, much less important to me, that I could see changing in the future, and the change wouldn't cause a problem or inconsistency either way. For example, I could see the possibility that the "144,000" is a symbolic number, and might even represent the full number of natural Jewish Christians as easily as it could represent the full number of spiritual Jews. But the list explicitly allows for some expressions to be interpreted symbolically, anyway, so it wouldn't bother me either way to use the expression, "The 144,000 will rule in heaven."  ["We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1. "]
It's also possible that "blood" in Acts 15 is a symbol for "bloodguilt," such as murder, manslaughter, war, etc., just as "idols" can include things like "gluttony" (Phil 3:19) "greediness" (Col 3:5) and even "pleasing men" (Eph 6:6,7; Gal 1:10)  Personally, for my own conscience, I'm fine with the idea that abstaining from blood transfusions is one way that we abstain from blood. But there's a chance that we as individuals and as an organization should not be imposing this as a rule on the Bible-trained consciences of others.
That idea might already be covered, even if unintentionally, by the very nice idea expressed here: "Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience."
Outside of those few comments, I would be willing to die for the other 990 words out of the 997.

You don't have to be concerned. Russell himself is not important to me at all. But I take the current doctrines seriously. We are to pay attention to ourselves and to our doctrines according to the Bible.  And if we truly take the doctrines seriously, we will be noble-minded and question them. Otherwise we are merely following men. 
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, . . . 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things. . .
One of those current teachings is that Russell and his associates embarked on a clean-up and restoration work that was actually prophesied in the Bible in Malachi 3. We are to teach that the work Russell was involved in and wrote about actually got the attention of Jesus Christ around the year 1914. That doctrine has huge implications. If true, it means that we can learn something more about the "mind of Christ" in our own time by looking at what Jesus looked at, to see if we can identify what Jesus must have seen.
(1 Corinthians 2:15-16)  However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.
For me, if I didn't look into and really "ponder" this doctrine, it would mean that I don't really care to know something that could perhaps be easily knowable about the mind of Christ.
And the penultimate upshot of what I have discovered is that Russell was generally a careful student of the Bible on every single Bible topic except chronology. On chronology Russell got absolutely no date and therefore no prediction right. But this should be as expected, based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (the whole chapter) and Acts 1:6-8.
Not even the angels could, who had (perhaps) billions of years of experience knowing more about the mind and activities of Jehovah and Jesus. So how could a sinful man like Russell expect to know? What is left, after the failed chronology, is a combination of doctrinal teachings that I have not seen in that particular combination among any other group of Christians. Perhaps it exists, and perhaps someone will point it out if it does. I prefer to associate with a group related in the faith on that particular combination. I can overlook the chronology.
But I still think his work was ultimately blessed by attracting people who were (mostly) first attracted by the dates and the supposed (but false) knowledge about the chronology, yet had to learn the hard way that Jesus was correct about chronology. Those who stay, after that chronology dross gets filtered by disappointment, are now typically more honest-hearted, and are now staying for the good news of the kingdom itself, staying for the joy of brotherhood, the love, and encouraging one another to hang in their for the more important reasons. If you don't see love in the brotherhood for the "right" reasons, I'm not going to convince you.
You and I are both in the habit of finding straws (faults) in the eyes of the organization, but you seem anxious to grasp at any straw and see everything from only the fault-finding side. I believe I see a bigger picture here. There was probably a time when you did, too. Surely it wasn't just the wrong things that attracted you to stay in the first place.
Up to there I probably could survive Tom's judicial hearing intact. But the actual ultimate upshot (not the penultimate) of what I have learned is that "Russell and Associates" could not have actually been the forerunner of a restored and cleansed organization in 1919. That doesn't mean that Jehovah didn't make use of the progress made. Jehovah would be pleased with people declaring the good news about a kingdom that will restore a paradise and bring all creation back into Jehovah's original purpose. And the brotherhood has promoted the correction of some of the most major confusing and even God-dishonoring doctrines, taught by probably 95% of Christendom.
I would not look for a specific "inflection point" that identified any organization as the true religion. I just see progress. Russell's day saw it. And just as we claim, "1918 to 1919" saw good progress. But perhaps 1919 progress was less important in that year than, say, "1878 to 1879" or "1881 to 1882" or "1909 to 1910" or "1929 to 1930" and "1941 to 1942" and "2000 to 2001."
Perhaps a specific "leap of progress" hasn't even happened yet, but I continue to expect more of our brotherhood in the future. I think that we currently look back on our own history much more often than necessary. 
(Luke 9:62) .62 Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
One of the reasons I like to share what I find when I "ponder" our current teachings about the WTS past, is to point out that looking to the past doesn't get us anywhere. We have more and better reasons to look to the future.
On your points about Rutherford, I agree that Russell was not a JW in any modern sense. Rutherford was hardly ever one either. But Rutherford was a Bible Student. Rutherford definitely apostasized from Russell's Bible Students, especially from 1928 to 1930. Then again, Russell himself apostasized from the larger Rochester group that his Allegheny/Pittsburgh group had once joined:
*** w55 1/1 pp. 7-8 Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878) ***
As a result the Pittsburgh Bible group of nearly thirty decided to affiliate with the Rochester group slightly larger in number. Russell became a joint editor along with Barbour for The Herald of the Morning. The Pittsburgh group on Russell’s initiative agreed to finance a small printing place in Rochester for the joint printing undertakings. . . . . After two years of affiliation a testing occurred that brought about a parting of the ways. . . . Months of argument ensued in publishing articles in the Herald pro and con on the ransom issue. Finally the Pittsburgh Bible group withdrew association from the Barbour group to undertake a separate Bible publishing work. Many of the Rochester group sided in with Russell and his associates on the ransom issue and they too came over to the Pittsburgh association.

You don't have to be concerned. Russell himself is not important to me at all. But I take the current doctrines seriously. We are to pay attention to ourselves and to our doctrines according to the Bible.  And if we truly take the doctrines seriously, we will be noble-minded and question them. Otherwise we are merely following men. 
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, . . . 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things. . .
One of those current teachings is that Russell and his associates embarked on a clean-up and restoration work that was actually prophesied in the Bible in Malachi 3. We are to teach that the work Russell was involved in and wrote about actually got the attention of Jesus Christ around the year 1914. That doctrine has huge implications. If true, it means that we can learn something more about the "mind of Christ" in our own time by looking at what Jesus looked at, to see if we can identify what Jesus must have seen.
(1 Corinthians 2:15-16)  However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.
For me, if I didn't look into and really "ponder" this doctrine, it would mean that I don't really care to know something that could perhaps be easily knowable about the mind of Christ.
And the penultimate upshot of what I have discovered is that Russell was generally a careful student of the Bible on every single Bible topic except chronology. On chronology Russell got absolutely no date and therefore no prediction right. But this should be as expected, based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (the whole chapter) and Acts 1:6-8.
Not even the angels could, who had (perhaps) billions of years of experience knowing more about the mind and activities of Jehovah and Jesus. So how could a sinful man like Russell expect to know? What is left, after the failed chronology, is a combination of doctrinal teachings that I have not seen in that particular combination among any other group of Christians. Perhaps it exists, and perhaps someone will point it out if it does. I prefer to associate with a group related in the faith on that particular combination. I can overlook the chronology.
But I still think his work was ultimately blessed by attracting people who were (mostly) first attracted by the dates and the supposed (but false) knowledge about the chronology, yet had to learn the hard way that Jesus was correct about chronology. Those who stay, after that chronology dross gets filtered by disappointment, are now typically more honest-hearted, and are now staying for the good news of the kingdom itself, staying for the joy of brotherhood, the love, and encouraging one another to hang in their for the more important reasons. If you don't see love in the brotherhood for the "right" reasons, I'm not going to convince you.
You and I are both in the habit of finding straws (faults) in the eyes of the organization, but you seem anxious to grasp at any straw and see everything from only the fault-finding side. I believe I see a bigger picture here. There was probably a time when you did, too. Surely it wasn't just the wrong things that attracted you to stay in the first place.
Up to there I probably could survive Tom's judicial hearing intact. But the actual ultimate upshot (not the penultimate) of what I have learned is that "Russell and Associates" could not have actually been the forerunner of a restored and cleansed organization in 1919. That doesn't mean that Jehovah didn't make use of the progress made. Jehovah would be pleased with people declaring the good news about a kingdom that will restore a paradise and bring all creation back into Jehovah's original purpose. And the brotherhood has promoted the correction of some of the most major confusing and even God-dishonoring doctrines, taught by probably 95% of Christendom.
I would not look for a specific "inflection point" that identified any organization as the true religion. I just see progress. Russell's day saw it. And just as we claim, "1918 to 1919" saw good progress. But perhaps 1919 progress was less important in that year than, say, "1878 to 1879" or "1881 to 1882" or "1909 to 1910" or "1929 to 1930" and "1941 to 1942" and "2000 to 2001."
Perhaps a specific "leap of progress" hasn't even happened yet, but I continue to expect more of our brotherhood in the future. I think that we currently look back on our own history much more often than necessary. 
(Luke 9:62) .62 Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
One of the reasons I like to share what I find when I "ponder" our current teachings about the WTS past, is to point out that looking to the past doesn't get us anywhere. We have more and better reasons to look to the future.
On your points about Rutherford, I agree that Russell was not a JW in any modern sense. Rutherford was hardly ever one either. But Rutherford was a Bible Student. Rutherford definitely apostasized from Russell's Bible Students, especially from 1928 to 1930. Then again, Russell himself apostasized from the larger Rochester group that his Allegheny/Pittsburgh group had once joined:
*** w55 1/1 pp. 7-8 Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878) ***
As a result the Pittsburgh Bible group of nearly thirty decided to affiliate with the Rochester group slightly larger in number. Russell became a joint editor along with Barbour for The Herald of the Morning. The Pittsburgh group on Russell’s initiative agreed to finance a small printing place in Rochester for the joint printing undertakings. . . . . After two years of affiliation a testing occurred that brought about a parting of the ways. . . . Months of argument ensued in publishing articles in the Herald pro and con on the ransom issue. Finally the Pittsburgh Bible group withdrew association from the Barbour group to undertake a separate Bible publishing work. Many of the Rochester group sided in with Russell and his associates on the ransom issue and they too came over to the Pittsburgh association.

You don't have to be concerned. Russell himself is not important to me at all. But I take the current doctrines seriously. We are to pay attention to ourselves and to our doctrines according to the Bible.  And if we truly take the doctrines seriously, we will be noble-minded and question them. Otherwise we are merely following men. 
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, . . . 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things. . .
One of those current teachings is that Russell and his associates embarked on a clean-up and restoration work that was actually prophesied in the Bible in Malachi 3. We are to teach that the work Russell was involved in and wrote about actually got the attention of Jesus Christ around the year 1914. That doctrine has huge implications. If true, it means that we can learn something more about the "mind of Christ" in our own time by looking at what Jesus looked at, to see if we can identify what Jesus must have seen.
(1 Corinthians 2:15-16)  However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.
For me, if I didn't look into and really "ponder" this doctrine, it would mean that I don't really care to know something that could perhaps be easily knowable about the mind of Christ.
And the penultimate upshot of what I have discovered is that Russell was generally a careful student of the Bible on every single Bible topic except chronology. On chronology Russell got absolutely no date and therefore no prediction right. But this should be as expected, based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (the whole chapter) and Acts 1:6-8.
Not even the angels could, who had (perhaps) billions of years of experience knowing more about the mind and activities of Jehovah and Jesus. So how could a sinful man like Russell expect to know? What is left, after the failed chronology, is a combination of doctrinal teachings that I have not seen in that particular combination among any other group of Christians. Perhaps it exists, and perhaps someone will point it out if it does. I prefer to associate with a group related in the faith on that particular combination. I can overlook the chronology.
But I still think his work was ultimately blessed by attracting people who were (mostly) first attracted by the dates and the supposed (but false) knowledge about the chronology, yet had to learn the hard way that Jesus was correct about chronology. Those who stay, after that chronology dross gets filtered by disappointment, are now typically more honest-hearted, and are now staying for the good news of the kingdom itself, staying for the joy of brotherhood, the love, and encouraging one another to hang in their for the more important reasons. If you don't see love in the brotherhood for the "right" reasons, I'm not going to convince you.
You and I are both in the habit of finding straws (faults) in the eyes of the organization, but you seem anxious to grasp at any straw and see everything from only the fault-finding side. I believe I see a bigger picture here. There was probably a time when you did, too. Surely it wasn't just the wrong things that attracted you to stay in the first place.
Up to there I probably could survive Tom's judicial hearing intact. But the actual ultimate upshot (not the penultimate) of what I have learned is that "Russell and Associates" could not have actually been the forerunner of a restored and cleansed organization in 1919. That doesn't mean that Jehovah didn't make use of the progress made. Jehovah would be pleased with people declaring the good news about a kingdom that will restore a paradise and bring all creation back into Jehovah's original purpose. And the brotherhood has promoted the correction of some of the most major confusing and even God-dishonoring doctrines, taught by probably 95% of Christendom.
I would not look for a specific "inflection point" that identified any organization as the true religion. I just see progress. Russell's day saw it. And just as we claim, "1918 to 1919" saw good progress. But perhaps 1919 progress was less important in that year than, say, "1878 to 1879" or "1881 to 1882" or "1909 to 1910" or "1929 to 1930" and "1941 to 1942" and "2000 to 2001."
Perhaps a specific "leap of progress" hasn't even happened yet, but I continue to expect more of our brotherhood in the future. I think that we currently look back on our own history much more often than necessary. 
(Luke 9:62) .62 Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
One of the reasons I like to share what I find when I "ponder" our current teachings about the WTS past, is to point out that looking to the past doesn't get us anywhere. We have more and better reasons to look to the future.
On your points about Rutherford, I agree that Russell was not a JW in any modern sense. Rutherford was hardly ever one either. But Rutherford was a Bible Student. Rutherford definitely apostasized from Russell's Bible Students, especially from 1928 to 1930. Then again, Russell himself apostasized from the larger Rochester group that his Allegheny/Pittsburgh group had once joined:
*** w55 1/1 pp. 7-8 Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878) ***
As a result the Pittsburgh Bible group of nearly thirty decided to affiliate with the Rochester group slightly larger in number. Russell became a joint editor along with Barbour for The Herald of the Morning. The Pittsburgh group on Russell’s initiative agreed to finance a small printing place in Rochester for the joint printing undertakings. . . . . After two years of affiliation a testing occurred that brought about a parting of the ways. . . . Months of argument ensued in publishing articles in the Herald pro and con on the ransom issue. Finally the Pittsburgh Bible group withdrew association from the Barbour group to undertake a separate Bible publishing work. Many of the Rochester group sided in with Russell and his associates on the ransom issue and they too came over to the Pittsburgh association.

You like it when I say something that's different from what most of us believe, and you often immediately think I somehow proven that the WT or GB or other JWs are wrong, just because what I say "goes against the grain."
But I would not stay if it were really a den of immorality and lies. You know as well as I do that we get good Biblical counsel and practical advice about how to apply this counsel. You used to harp on the CSA issues constantly, and it seemed like you were ready to bring it up even if the topic was politics or science. I don't think JWs are the best or the worst religious organization, and I don't think that this type of comparison is even valid. After all, Jesus associated with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc., because those were the kind of people who knew they had a spiritual need to help overcome their sinful, fleshly issues and desires. If people get the right counsel, it's not the fault of the counselor when the person goes their own way. 
This doesn't mean I won't keep looking for ways that I think we can improve our processes for spiritually based admonition, discipline and justice.
And we've been through this before on the topic of lying. A person can say something untrue, and it doesn't mean they are deliberately lying. Were you actually "lying" when you taught people certain JW doctrines that you now believe are untrue?
When the WTS admits they were wrong about a teaching and they change it, they do this out of a desire to get it right. That's true even if they still have it wrong. It's about motive. I think a very few things are wrong out of most things that are right, but I don't think anyone taking the lead is purposely lying about the teachings that I think are wrong. However, in a stricter Biblical sense, due to human imperfection even in our motives, "every man is a liar:"
(Psalm 146:3) . . .Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
(Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written:. . .
But then, this is true even of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and any other "True Anointed" as long as they are on the earth as humans.

I never thought I would do it. I gave PSomH an upvote (for setting up a question to JWI.)
True, he thinks he is tearing the cover off the ball with his expose on the rough transition from Russell to Rutherford. He does not know that Witnesses are well aware of this, that it is plainly discussed in the Proclaimers book, for example.
Still, @JW Insiderhas a feel for this time period, and it will be interesting to see what he has to say and if he deviates from the party line in even the tiniest degree, necessitating that I report him to Bethel.

I believe that I probably won't discover any specific "apology" from Russell for any predictions made for the years 1874, 1878 and 1881. Or at least it won't be found in things he wrote within a few years of those predictions. It's possible he reviewed these types of predictions closer to the 1890's or later, but this seems unlikely, based on his attitude toward the chronology doctrines that he held for the rest of his life.
If such an apology is to be found, it seems more likely to me now that it would be in the 1910 and 1914 period, meaning some time between October 1914 and Russell's death in October 1916. I will temporarily skip my review from January 1890 to about 1910, and go straight to the 1910 through 1914 predictions. (Then, if nothing shows up there, I'll go back to review 1890 to 1910.)
First, in the context of Russell's attitudes towards these dates, or even his attitude and beliefs about himself, there is another consideration we should think about:
Are Russell's attitudes and beliefs really so different than what we should expect if he were really doing the important work as a "forerunner" to restore true worship in late 19th and early 20th century?
Wouldn't any such person at least appear to be immodest, or even presumptuous? How else would that person be able to promote at least a nucleus of converts to true worship? He would surely have to announce a proper path and distinguish his teachings and warn against the improper path. Isn't this what John the Baptist did?
We already know that just like John the Baptizer, we would expect a lot of people to reject that preparatory message due to John's personal peculiarities. Perhaps those same peculiarities attracted people to John's preaching, too. Or, in John's case, there was even the difficult geographic and physical circumstances of the mostly deserted area where John preached and baptized.
So even if we can criticize Russell's human peculiarities and chronology blunders, isn't there something we should be able to identify that indicates Jehovah's blessing on this work. What would we look for specifically, to convince us that Jehovah blessed his work and efforts?
(For those who get the wrong idea from these questions, the WTS does not claim that it was Russell personally who was the forerunner who prepared the way for the restoration of true worship. It's the work that centered around Russell and his associates, not Russell or those associates themselves.)

You like it when I say something that's different from what most of us believe, and you often immediately think I somehow proven that the WT or GB or other JWs are wrong, just because what I say "goes against the grain."
But I would not stay if it were really a den of immorality and lies. You know as well as I do that we get good Biblical counsel and practical advice about how to apply this counsel. You used to harp on the CSA issues constantly, and it seemed like you were ready to bring it up even if the topic was politics or science. I don't think JWs are the best or the worst religious organization, and I don't think that this type of comparison is even valid. After all, Jesus associated with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc., because those were the kind of people who knew they had a spiritual need to help overcome their sinful, fleshly issues and desires. If people get the right counsel, it's not the fault of the counselor when the person goes their own way. 
This doesn't mean I won't keep looking for ways that I think we can improve our processes for spiritually based admonition, discipline and justice.
And we've been through this before on the topic of lying. A person can say something untrue, and it doesn't mean they are deliberately lying. Were you actually "lying" when you taught people certain JW doctrines that you now believe are untrue?
When the WTS admits they were wrong about a teaching and they change it, they do this out of a desire to get it right. That's true even if they still have it wrong. It's about motive. I think a very few things are wrong out of most things that are right, but I don't think anyone taking the lead is purposely lying about the teachings that I think are wrong. However, in a stricter Biblical sense, due to human imperfection even in our motives, "every man is a liar:"
(Psalm 146:3) . . .Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
(Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written:. . .
But then, this is true even of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and any other "True Anointed" as long as they are on the earth as humans.

I fell for that series, too. For me, it's entertaining because the writer(s) were aware of how only a five-year absence would change lives so dramatically in so many different ways. It's a small-scale "resurrection fantasy." The characters in the story who were trying hard to give a religious meaning to their experience appear to have given up early on making it fit their defined concepts of religion. It becomes more of a more secular "the-Universe-is-calling" and "we-are-all-connected" story, but even those experiences are subject to wildly different interpretations after a mix of both positive and negative "Universe callings." In the sense that it is about realistic and understandable ways in which average people might respond to something "supernatural" I think they did a credible job. But I am also happy to criticize it, of course. 😎
Some very recent JW Broadcasting and Watchtower comments have encouraged a little more use of our imagination (and even speculation) when we come across ideas in our Bible reading. I think that "Manifest" is a little like someone hearing the following verse, with a very shallow concept of resurrection, and imagining all the many possible scenarios of similar situations:
(Matthew 22:28) . . .So in the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her as a wife.”

Um, deep fried fish anyone ?  Octopus steak maybe. 

Embarrassing! I would never stoop to using a cheap pun in such a serious situation.
Let's just spray it works. Oil's well that ends well. (And there's probably some more like that coming down the pipe.)

RUSSELL CLAIMS TO BE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE
In discussing Russell as "God's mouthpiece," the most quoted passage from Russell was left out of the last post.
In the Watch Tower, May 1890, p. R1214, this is part of a lengthy review of WT/Russell history by Russell himself.]
No, the truths we present, as God's mouthpieces, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880, a period of about twenty years. And this present clear unfolding of truth is not due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come, and if we did not speak and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.  . . .  I [Russell] told [the Lord] that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at any interest in the sheep, and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The rewrite of the same article in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p.R3821 might be explained by the fact that between those two articles, the "faithful slave" was no longer a class, but now a single, individual human. Note the change from "truths we present, as God's mouthpieces" to "truths I present, as God's mouthpiece:"
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. . . . I  [Russell] went to the Lord with this as with every trial, told him just how it seemed to me, how anxious I felt for his dear "sheep," who, having their appetites sharpened by some truth, were by their very hunger exposed to Satan's deceptions. I told him that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at my interest in the sheep and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The change in the "faithful slave" (aka "that servant") doctrine became official in 1896. It was supposedly promoted without Russell's direct permission a few months earlier by his wife. But if we look more closely at some of Russell's own writings prior to 1896, especially in letters from others that he published about himself, we can see a transitioning toward that teaching.
In a very early Watch Tower, October 1880, p. R149, contributor W. I. Mann wrote an article where he said:
"Therefore, be ye (ye brethren) also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man comes." This was fulfilled. It was months after Christ came (in Fall of '74) before the company realized it. "Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, HAVING COME (elthon), shall find so doing." Was there such a servant? Of course, we do not understand that it means one individual, but evidently a small company . . .
Russell evidently agreed with this, as shown in the Watch Tower, November 1881, p. R291:
"Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household," to give them meat in due season? Is it not that "little flock" of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows--the body of Christ-- and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith--the great company of believers?
The hints, even when officially understood as a class, may have started as early as 1882 (the third year of the Watch Tower), by regularly calling the Watch Tower articles "meat in due season," "food for thinking Christians," edification for the household of faith, etc. The following is from November 1882, p.R548:
Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find giving meat in due season to the household. (Matt. 24:45,46.) We should be specially interested in making it known to every consecrated child of God, many of whom are almost starved. You may have for the asking abundance of reading matter for free distribution.
But the more "official" change was in the Watch Tower, March 1, 1896, p. R1946:
In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree . . . It is further suggested that whoever occupies the position of "that servant" occupies a place of special danger, as well as of special privilege; that only by humility and faithfulness can he continue; and that, although not so stated in the Scriptures, it may be inferred that if the chosen one should fail, another would be chosen to be "that servant" or steward through whom the Master would continue to supply the "meat in due season" to those deemed worthy to continue at his table
A repetition of those ideas was made in April 15, 1904 p.R3355-6:
"THE FAITHFUL AND THE WISE STEWARD." We would naturally enough endeavor to interpret our Lord's words as signifying a composite steward-- that is that a certain number or class of brethren together would constitute the steward of this parable. In endeavoring to make such an interpretation we are met with several difficulties, however. (1) To suppose such a class in the Church would be to recognize what is elsewhere denied--to recognize a clerical or authoritative class as distinct and separate from the remainder of the Church, because this steward is to dispense the meat in due season to the household, to the fellow-servants. The Church of Christ, we hold, is not composed of clergy and laity, but "ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and one is your Master, even Christ." There would be no violation of principle, however, in supposing that the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost, and again at the home of Cornelius, and in both places he was used as a special servant in connection with the dispensing of special truths. This did not constitute Peter a lord over the other apostles or over the Church, but merely a servant. (2) However much we might endeavor to apply this figure to the Lord's people collectively, the fact would still remain that the various items stated would not fit to a company of individuals.. . . but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual.
In the meantime, of course, Russell had printed many letters from persons who acknowledged Russell himself as "that servant" (individually) and Russell spoke of his writings as fulfilling the "food at the proper time" ("meat in due season") to the household of faith. The long quotes in the previous post from 1895 about the study of the MILLENNIAL DAWN books shows this clearly. That idea also matches another often quoted reference of Russell to his own books which nearly equate them with the Bible itself, as he said in the Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, p.R4685:
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes-- the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, . . . Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years --if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Just months after his death, the Watch Tower said that Russell only claimed to be the "faithful and wise servant" in private, p.R5998.
It is here interesting to note that Jesus said, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over His Household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing! Verily I say unto you that He shall make him ruler over all His goods." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.
He was probably trying to follow the example of Jesus, which he often commented upon with this idea: (p.R3338)
With his disciples our Lord traveled . . . He did not announce himself publicly to the people there, but his presence soon became known, showing that the fame of his miracles and teachings had spread throughout the whole of Palestine.
And more to the point, p.R3851:
The modesty of our Lord in respect to his Messiahship is noteworthy. Not on a single occasion we know of did he announce himself as Messiah. .  . . In every instance his honor as Messiah was mentioned by others and simply not disputed by the Lord.

So, for 1874, 1878, and 1881, it seems that we can get a pretty good idea of the expectations and the reasons for them.
Barbour and Paton had promoted 1873 and 1874 for the big "change" from physical bodies to spiritual bodies all of Christ's Bride -- but Russell hadn't joined them yet. Russell, Barbour and Paton all (together) vigorously promoted the big "change" for 1878. Barbour promoted 1881 as the year Jesus would appear again, and the year for the big "change." But by then Russell and Paton had separated from Barbour, and Paton didn't expect 1881 to be any different from any other year, except with reference to the natural Jews. And Russell only predicted that the time of wrath and vengeance would begin in 1881, and that Jesus could take his bride from the earth at any time after October 2, 1881, but this didn't mean it would necessarily happen that year. In fact, since all of Christ's Bride who died after October 1881 would now be "changed" immediately upon death, then, for the time being, there was no specific urgent date to look to between 1881 and 1914.  So this is a good place to pause, I think, and spend some time on Russell's own attitude toward these dates, predictions and the value of the chronology in general. It will help us understand why he was sometimes apparently dogmatic, and sometimes apparently not dogmatic.
RUSSELL'S GENERAL VIEW OF THE CHRONOLOGY AND HIS OWN ROLE
Russell regularly spoke of God's "Plan of the Ages." (His wife wanted to call it God's "Eternal Purpose.") Russell promoted 5-feet-wide charts full of timelines and pyramid diagrams that he wanted all Bible Students to hang on their walls to see the beauty of the interlocking "proofs."
Nelson Barbour had indicated that he {Barbour] was filling the role of God's mouthpiece, and the role of the "faithful and wise servant." He indicated that it was through him [Barbour] that he taught Russell everything he knows. But when Russell broke with Barbour, Russell made it clear that Barbour's patronizing attitude toward Russell was not valid.
RUSSELL, CLAIMS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED (MADE RIGHTEOUS) THROUGH FAITH, BUT SINCE BIRTH
Rather than think of himself as declared righteous through faith, he thought of himself as someone who was justified from birth. And therefore cannot ever be accused of wilful sin. And therefore it was neither necessary nor appropriate for Russell to feel the contrition necessary for repentance, in the same way as others. Note how dogmatically Russell simply declares himself to be of this class of Christian. (There is no such concept found in the Bible.) The following is from the Watch Tower, November 1, 1904, p.R3456:
In re justification; we believe that quite a good many Christians were born in a justified condition, and that the sentiments of their hearts always were for righteousness, and that therefore they cannot accuse themselves of having sinned wilfully, nor feel such great contrition as those who have been living in sin--in alienation from God. Nor should they. They are already the Lord's, and for them to be converted (turned round) would mean to turn away from the Lord. The Editor is one of this class.
RUSSELL AS GOD'S MOUTHPIECE
Russell saw himself as God's mouthpiece for the purpose of gathering anointed ones and preparing them to meet the Bridegroom. He said that he saw his own ministry, not to the poor, or even to the great crowd of anointed who would come out of the great tribulation but only to the "little flock" of anointed who were Christ's Bride, the "Church." Later, of course, after the expected change did not happen so quickly and early as expected, Russell began to see that the entire Bride Class should also be a "mouthpiece" for the kingdom to teach the great crowd.
And when Russell used the term "mouthpiece" he also showed what he thought it meant starting in the very first issue of the WT:
When Paul used these words he was God's mouthpiece, therefore the word is God's. . . [Watch Tower, July 1879, p.R11]
And in the very next issue, Russell creates an imaginary dialogue in which he speaks of himself as a potential mouthpiece of God:
You are anxious, then, to find the connecting links in the great chain which binds the interests of humanity to the throne of God. . . . If it should please Him to use me as His mouthpiece, it will be a great privilege. [Watch Tower, August 1879, p.R13]
Russell associated "mouthpieces" with God's prophets, etc.
As "God in times past spake unto the fathers through the prophets," who were His mouthpieces . . . [p. R196]
It's not fair, as many have done, to claim that Russell indicated he was God's only  mouthpiece for his day and age. Russell didn't just make it about himself, personally, but he did teach that a new, special mouthpiece was then needed, and this was directly related to the break that the Watch Tower had made with other "Christian" churches in 1878, when Babylon the Great had begun to fall.
After three and one-half years (in 1878) he rejected or left desolate the nominal church here, as he had done in the "shadow," saying, "Because thou are neither cold nor hot I will spew thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16). The Jewish church was God's mouthpiece until "left desolate," but from that time forward God's truth came through another channel. So here the gospel church has been God's recognized channel of truth, or mouthpiece, but are such, we believe, no longer. Truth will now come through other channels. Since 1878 (and never before that) we have felt at liberty to call God's children out of the nominal churches to a position of freedom and liberty. . . .
To Russell, he biggest difference between the gospel Church (Babylon), including Second Adventists, etc., was no longer doctrines like restitution and consecration, though still important The most important key was now the "time element." And this "time element" (chronology) had been raised by the Adventists, but was not even dropped by most of them, so that is now what made the Watch Tower's teaching separate from others, who could no longer be God's mouthpiece. The same Watch Tower article from November 1881, "The Blessed Dying" mentioned in a previous post, also included these statements:
You will recall that up to 1878, though Restitution was the key note, and entire consecration was always urged, yet the time element was one of the most prominent features always. Since 1878, however, though the same time element is recognized in all our preaching and teaching, and is repeatedly referred to as a proof of our position, yet the direct teaching of time has almost stopped among all the preaching brethren-- . . . It was in the spring of 1879, that seeing clearly the parallelism between the nominal Jewish church and the nominal Gospel church, we were enabled to know just where the latter was finally rejected of the Lord and spewed out of His mouth (Rev. 3:16) no longer to be his mouthpiece. We saw that this was due in 1878, as the parallel of the rejection of the Jewish church,
So, Jehovah's new mouthpiece would be identified at the right time due to the time element, and also by preaching the time element. That same November 1881 issue made it clear that Paul had been a mouthpiece, Luther had been  mouthpiece, and now "we" are his mouthpiece. In January 1882, Russell added that the Catholics, the Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, by backing the Evangelical Alliance, etc., were now mouthpieces for the Image of the Beast.
Now the various sects have a sort of backing in this organization, and each may act as the mouthpiece of the Image . . . [p. R322]
[BTW, I hadn't noticed previously that this 1881 idea about the Evangelical Alliance was the forerunner of the later parallel teaching about how the World Council of Churches gave support to the League of Nations, when that entity (the League) became identified with the Image of the Beast.]
If it be asked, in what sense does [Jesus] teach? we answer, by exercising the qualities of the head, or teacher; by using one or more of those present as His mouthpiece in unfolding truth, strengthening faith, encouraging hope, inspiring zeal, etc. [p. R407]
We may search the Scriptures in vain for an instance of Gods sending through such a channel. He hath raised up a new mouthpiece. He sheds increasing light to a little flock who are willing to receive it, and spread it abroad without fear. [p. R505]
We are not ashamed to be the Lord's mouthpieces in this timely but unpopular message: and what timely truth has not been unpopular? [p. R986]
Russell, as he had often done already, printed letters supportive of his own position as God's mouthpiece:
. . .through fear that I would appear to give glory to man rather than to God, from whom I am sensible that the light really comes. Still I realize that it is due you, as God's willing agent in distributing the light. . . I saw a reference to Millennial Dawn in a secular paper. I at once ordered the book. . . Since then I have eagerly read every thing I could get from your pen: . . . Hoping that you may, in the future as in the past, be blessed and honored of God as his mouthpiece, I remain, yours in the glorious hope, L. A. WEATHERLY. [p. R1439]
In Russell's promotion of the "DAWN Study Circles" to study the Millennial Dawn material, Russell made the following comments, showing that he thought of his books, the MILLENNIAL DAWN itself, as "God's mouthpiece." [Watch Tower, September 15, 1895, p.R1867-R1869]
Those who have come to an understanding of the plan of the ages, recognize it as of divine and not of human origination. . . . We give all praise and honor to the Divine Author from whom cometh every good and perfect gift, and who thus, according to his promise (Luke 12:37), continues to feed his Church with spiritual "meat in due season." God, still our Teacher, uses as heretofore instrumentalities, and has provided for his people's instruction and use the orderly presentations of MILLENNIAL DAWN to point out to them his plan of the ages and the duties and privileges of this "harvest" time; because the "due time" has come for "the mystery" to be finished. (Rev. 10:7.) And those who have received instruction in the Word, in private, through the use of MILLENNIAL DAWN as a teacher sent of God (Eph. 4:11-14) have no more reason to ignore it as God's mouthpiece in united study than in their own private study;--no more, either, than they would a living teacher. And should any be disposed to worship the humble human instrumentality chosen of God as the channel for this blessing of present truth, we say to such,--"See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant [not thy Lord], and [fellow servant] of thy brethren the prophets [all true teachers or mouthpieces of God]:...Worship God." (Rev. 22:9.) The water of life and the Giver of it, and not the earthen vessel through which it is sent, are to be reverenced. The earthen vessels have naught whereof to glory. What have we of ourselves that we did not first receive of the Lord?--1 Cor. 4:6,7. The God-given plan of the ages is what we should all use in the study of the Bible, if we would get the treasures of wisdom, and grace, and strength for service in these perilous harvest times, for which it is divinely provided. Each one who recognizes this as a God-given light should use it in the study of the Word. Each should make it his own light as God intended. Each should become so proficient in its use as to be able to answer every question that could be asked respecting the general plan of God. But alas! some seem to feel that this is Brother Russell's plan, and that they should originate their own. But this is a great mistake. It is not our plan, but God's. If not God's plan, it is of no value. We do not want any human plans. Surely men cannot make plans for God that he will recognize; for his own plans have been since "before the foundation of the world." God has but one plan, and it is unalterable; and now that he has revealed it, we confess that it is wonderful, yet as simple as it is beautiful. It is a plan, however, that men could not conceive or arrange. Its thoughts are higher than man's thoughts; and hence in all the centuries past men have never even approximated this divine plan of the ages. So then the Bible, the standard, should be studied in the light of this God-given teaching, until each one is proficient --an able teacher of it. Then each should let his light shine--humbly serving it to others. Some, alas! when their eyes are opened to see God's loving plan of the ages, while surprised, and thankful to God for the present truth, neglect to do more than hastily taste of it; and then they hasten on, as they say, to "hunt for more." What they should do would better be to use well what God has already given us as his people. . . . We certainly have no right to ask for more or other blessings, until we have feasted to the full on what has been set before us. Then we should exercise ourselves, using the strength received in serving the feast to others. . . . The proper attitude for the Church is to be active in eating the food already received and in using the strength derived from it. She is not to leave the table bountifully spread to pray for more. When more would be beneficial more will be sent by the hand of some "servant" of God and the Church. Nor will the true "servant" find it necessary to make the food; for it will be given him by the great Householder. It will be "found" by him, and when he presents it to the Lord's family, they will be able to discern upon it the stamp of divine truth. And after partaking of it liberally they will dispense it to others. Sufficient labor for all comes after we have "found" the truth,--labor in eating it, studying and appropriating it, and labor in serving it to others. . . . . Let us remember, however, that we cannot break open any secrets which God may wish to conceal as not yet appropriate "meat in due season"; nor should we wish to do so. The small boy who bangs away at the unripe apple until it falls get food which makes him very sick. . . Our diligence should be rather to watch the ripening processes of divine providence, and to hold our minds and hearts in humble readiness .  . . .It is the Word of God that is to be eaten; the DAWNS and TOWERS are divinely provided helps for the cutting of the food into eatable portions,--enabling us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," and thus facilitating the eating of it. Such meetings for the study of the Word in the light of the now revealed plan of the ages have been termed "Dawn Circles." . . . We advise the holding of these Circles everywhere, and suggest that you invite to them only such as are believers . . .any . . .who is desirous of learning the way of God more perfectly. . . .you do not meet to discuss the unbeliever's doubts, but to confirm the believer's faith.. . .It is advisable that the leader be a good reader, and that he begin at the beginning of Volume I. He should pause at the end of each sentence, if necessary, to give full opportunity for questions or remarks; and at the close of each paragraph a general discussion of its contents should be encouraged, . . . Each one of the Circle should have in hand some translation of the Bible or a "Dawn." . . . But some one will say, At that rate we would be fully a year in going through the first volume of MILLENNIAL DAWN, and the three volumes would require three years! All the better, we answer. . . .Surely, if the Bible required nearly two thousand years for its preparation, we should give it reverent study, and not merely a casual glance and thought. . . .
R2371:
Thus it is also with those whom the Lord would specially use in his service during this Gospel age. . . to know that there is an opportunity of rendering service to the King of kings is to volunteer their services, to pray that the Lord will grant them a privilege of doing all their talents will fit them to do in his service. Only such are true mouthpieces of the Lord.
R2433:
We seek merely to be, so far as the Shepherd may be pleased to use us, his mouthpiece, to call attention to the Shepherd, and to the way in which he is leading. None should follow us, except as they discern that we are following the Master, as saith the Apostle.
Watch Tower, July 1, 1903, R3214:
Quite a number came from surrounding cities and towns--and more flowers came, too; "alabaster boxes" of sweet odor to the Lord, because really rendered unto him, and to us merely because he had been pleased to use us as his mouthpiece in proclaiming his great plan of the ages in this his due time for revealing it. . . . Faithfully, your brother and servant in the Lord, CHARLES T. RUSSELL

Embarrassing! I would never stoop to using a cheap pun in such a serious situation.
Let's just spray it works. Oil's well that ends well. (And there's probably some more like that coming down the pipe.)

RUSSELL CLAIMS TO BE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE
In discussing Russell as "God's mouthpiece," the most quoted passage from Russell was left out of the last post.
In the Watch Tower, May 1890, p. R1214, this is part of a lengthy review of WT/Russell history by Russell himself.]
No, the truths we present, as God's mouthpieces, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880, a period of about twenty years. And this present clear unfolding of truth is not due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come, and if we did not speak and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.  . . .  I [Russell] told [the Lord] that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at any interest in the sheep, and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The rewrite of the same article in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p.R3821 might be explained by the fact that between those two articles, the "faithful slave" was no longer a class, but now a single, individual human. Note the change from "truths we present, as God's mouthpieces" to "truths I present, as God's mouthpiece:"
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. . . . I  [Russell] went to the Lord with this as with every trial, told him just how it seemed to me, how anxious I felt for his dear "sheep," who, having their appetites sharpened by some truth, were by their very hunger exposed to Satan's deceptions. I told him that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at my interest in the sheep and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The change in the "faithful slave" (aka "that servant") doctrine became official in 1896. It was supposedly promoted without Russell's direct permission a few months earlier by his wife. But if we look more closely at some of Russell's own writings prior to 1896, especially in letters from others that he published about himself, we can see a transitioning toward that teaching.
In a very early Watch Tower, October 1880, p. R149, contributor W. I. Mann wrote an article where he said:
"Therefore, be ye (ye brethren) also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man comes." This was fulfilled. It was months after Christ came (in Fall of '74) before the company realized it. "Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, HAVING COME (elthon), shall find so doing." Was there such a servant? Of course, we do not understand that it means one individual, but evidently a small company . . .
Russell evidently agreed with this, as shown in the Watch Tower, November 1881, p. R291:
"Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household," to give them meat in due season? Is it not that "little flock" of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows--the body of Christ-- and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith--the great company of believers?
The hints, even when officially understood as a class, may have started as early as 1882 (the third year of the Watch Tower), by regularly calling the Watch Tower articles "meat in due season," "food for thinking Christians," edification for the household of faith, etc. The following is from November 1882, p.R548:
Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find giving meat in due season to the household. (Matt. 24:45,46.) We should be specially interested in making it known to every consecrated child of God, many of whom are almost starved. You may have for the asking abundance of reading matter for free distribution.
But the more "official" change was in the Watch Tower, March 1, 1896, p. R1946:
In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree . . . It is further suggested that whoever occupies the position of "that servant" occupies a place of special danger, as well as of special privilege; that only by humility and faithfulness can he continue; and that, although not so stated in the Scriptures, it may be inferred that if the chosen one should fail, another would be chosen to be "that servant" or steward through whom the Master would continue to supply the "meat in due season" to those deemed worthy to continue at his table
A repetition of those ideas was made in April 15, 1904 p.R3355-6:
"THE FAITHFUL AND THE WISE STEWARD." We would naturally enough endeavor to interpret our Lord's words as signifying a composite steward-- that is that a certain number or class of brethren together would constitute the steward of this parable. In endeavoring to make such an interpretation we are met with several difficulties, however. (1) To suppose such a class in the Church would be to recognize what is elsewhere denied--to recognize a clerical or authoritative class as distinct and separate from the remainder of the Church, because this steward is to dispense the meat in due season to the household, to the fellow-servants. The Church of Christ, we hold, is not composed of clergy and laity, but "ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and one is your Master, even Christ." There would be no violation of principle, however, in supposing that the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost, and again at the home of Cornelius, and in both places he was used as a special servant in connection with the dispensing of special truths. This did not constitute Peter a lord over the other apostles or over the Church, but merely a servant. (2) However much we might endeavor to apply this figure to the Lord's people collectively, the fact would still remain that the various items stated would not fit to a company of individuals.. . . but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual.
In the meantime, of course, Russell had printed many letters from persons who acknowledged Russell himself as "that servant" (individually) and Russell spoke of his writings as fulfilling the "food at the proper time" ("meat in due season") to the household of faith. The long quotes in the previous post from 1895 about the study of the MILLENNIAL DAWN books shows this clearly. That idea also matches another often quoted reference of Russell to his own books which nearly equate them with the Bible itself, as he said in the Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, p.R4685:
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes-- the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, . . . Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years --if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Just months after his death, the Watch Tower said that Russell only claimed to be the "faithful and wise servant" in private, p.R5998.
It is here interesting to note that Jesus said, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over His Household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing! Verily I say unto you that He shall make him ruler over all His goods." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.
He was probably trying to follow the example of Jesus, which he often commented upon with this idea: (p.R3338)
With his disciples our Lord traveled . . . He did not announce himself publicly to the people there, but his presence soon became known, showing that the fame of his miracles and teachings had spread throughout the whole of Palestine.
And more to the point, p.R3851:
The modesty of our Lord in respect to his Messiahship is noteworthy. Not on a single occasion we know of did he announce himself as Messiah. .  . . In every instance his honor as Messiah was mentioned by others and simply not disputed by the Lord.

So, for 1874, 1878, and 1881, it seems that we can get a pretty good idea of the expectations and the reasons for them.
Barbour and Paton had promoted 1873 and 1874 for the big "change" from physical bodies to spiritual bodies all of Christ's Bride -- but Russell hadn't joined them yet. Russell, Barbour and Paton all (together) vigorously promoted the big "change" for 1878. Barbour promoted 1881 as the year Jesus would appear again, and the year for the big "change." But by then Russell and Paton had separated from Barbour, and Paton didn't expect 1881 to be any different from any other year, except with reference to the natural Jews. And Russell only predicted that the time of wrath and vengeance would begin in 1881, and that Jesus could take his bride from the earth at any time after October 2, 1881, but this didn't mean it would necessarily happen that year. In fact, since all of Christ's Bride who died after October 1881 would now be "changed" immediately upon death, then, for the time being, there was no specific urgent date to look to between 1881 and 1914.  So this is a good place to pause, I think, and spend some time on Russell's own attitude toward these dates, predictions and the value of the chronology in general. It will help us understand why he was sometimes apparently dogmatic, and sometimes apparently not dogmatic.
RUSSELL'S GENERAL VIEW OF THE CHRONOLOGY AND HIS OWN ROLE
Russell regularly spoke of God's "Plan of the Ages." (His wife wanted to call it God's "Eternal Purpose.") Russell promoted 5-feet-wide charts full of timelines and pyramid diagrams that he wanted all Bible Students to hang on their walls to see the beauty of the interlocking "proofs."
Nelson Barbour had indicated that he {Barbour] was filling the role of God's mouthpiece, and the role of the "faithful and wise servant." He indicated that it was through him [Barbour] that he taught Russell everything he knows. But when Russell broke with Barbour, Russell made it clear that Barbour's patronizing attitude toward Russell was not valid.
RUSSELL, CLAIMS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED (MADE RIGHTEOUS) THROUGH FAITH, BUT SINCE BIRTH
Rather than think of himself as declared righteous through faith, he thought of himself as someone who was justified from birth. And therefore cannot ever be accused of wilful sin. And therefore it was neither necessary nor appropriate for Russell to feel the contrition necessary for repentance, in the same way as others. Note how dogmatically Russell simply declares himself to be of this class of Christian. (There is no such concept found in the Bible.) The following is from the Watch Tower, November 1, 1904, p.R3456:
In re justification; we believe that quite a good many Christians were born in a justified condition, and that the sentiments of their hearts always were for righteousness, and that therefore they cannot accuse themselves of having sinned wilfully, nor feel such great contrition as those who have been living in sin--in alienation from God. Nor should they. They are already the Lord's, and for them to be converted (turned round) would mean to turn away from the Lord. The Editor is one of this class.
RUSSELL AS GOD'S MOUTHPIECE
Russell saw himself as God's mouthpiece for the purpose of gathering anointed ones and preparing them to meet the Bridegroom. He said that he saw his own ministry, not to the poor, or even to the great crowd of anointed who would come out of the great tribulation but only to the "little flock" of anointed who were Christ's Bride, the "Church." Later, of course, after the expected change did not happen so quickly and early as expected, Russell began to see that the entire Bride Class should also be a "mouthpiece" for the kingdom to teach the great crowd.
And when Russell used the term "mouthpiece" he also showed what he thought it meant starting in the very first issue of the WT:
When Paul used these words he was God's mouthpiece, therefore the word is God's. . . [Watch Tower, July 1879, p.R11]
And in the very next issue, Russell creates an imaginary dialogue in which he speaks of himself as a potential mouthpiece of God:
You are anxious, then, to find the connecting links in the great chain which binds the interests of humanity to the throne of God. . . . If it should please Him to use me as His mouthpiece, it will be a great privilege. [Watch Tower, August 1879, p.R13]
Russell associated "mouthpieces" with God's prophets, etc.
As "God in times past spake unto the fathers through the prophets," who were His mouthpieces . . . [p. R196]
It's not fair, as many have done, to claim that Russell indicated he was God's only  mouthpiece for his day and age. Russell didn't just make it about himself, personally, but he did teach that a new, special mouthpiece was then needed, and this was directly related to the break that the Watch Tower had made with other "Christian" churches in 1878, when Babylon the Great had begun to fall.
After three and one-half years (in 1878) he rejected or left desolate the nominal church here, as he had done in the "shadow," saying, "Because thou are neither cold nor hot I will spew thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16). The Jewish church was God's mouthpiece until "left desolate," but from that time forward God's truth came through another channel. So here the gospel church has been God's recognized channel of truth, or mouthpiece, but are such, we believe, no longer. Truth will now come through other channels. Since 1878 (and never before that) we have felt at liberty to call God's children out of the nominal churches to a position of freedom and liberty. . . .
To Russell, he biggest difference between the gospel Church (Babylon), including Second Adventists, etc., was no longer doctrines like restitution and consecration, though still important The most important key was now the "time element." And this "time element" (chronology) had been raised by the Adventists, but was not even dropped by most of them, so that is now what made the Watch Tower's teaching separate from others, who could no longer be God's mouthpiece. The same Watch Tower article from November 1881, "The Blessed Dying" mentioned in a previous post, also included these statements:
You will recall that up to 1878, though Restitution was the key note, and entire consecration was always urged, yet the time element was one of the most prominent features always. Since 1878, however, though the same time element is recognized in all our preaching and teaching, and is repeatedly referred to as a proof of our position, yet the direct teaching of time has almost stopped among all the preaching brethren-- . . . It was in the spring of 1879, that seeing clearly the parallelism between the nominal Jewish church and the nominal Gospel church, we were enabled to know just where the latter was finally rejected of the Lord and spewed out of His mouth (Rev. 3:16) no longer to be his mouthpiece. We saw that this was due in 1878, as the parallel of the rejection of the Jewish church,
So, Jehovah's new mouthpiece would be identified at the right time due to the time element, and also by preaching the time element. That same November 1881 issue made it clear that Paul had been a mouthpiece, Luther had been  mouthpiece, and now "we" are his mouthpiece. In January 1882, Russell added that the Catholics, the Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, by backing the Evangelical Alliance, etc., were now mouthpieces for the Image of the Beast.
Now the various sects have a sort of backing in this organization, and each may act as the mouthpiece of the Image . . . [p. R322]
[BTW, I hadn't noticed previously that this 1881 idea about the Evangelical Alliance was the forerunner of the later parallel teaching about how the World Council of Churches gave support to the League of Nations, when that entity (the League) became identified with the Image of the Beast.]
If it be asked, in what sense does [Jesus] teach? we answer, by exercising the qualities of the head, or teacher; by using one or more of those present as His mouthpiece in unfolding truth, strengthening faith, encouraging hope, inspiring zeal, etc. [p. R407]
We may search the Scriptures in vain for an instance of Gods sending through such a channel. He hath raised up a new mouthpiece. He sheds increasing light to a little flock who are willing to receive it, and spread it abroad without fear. [p. R505]
We are not ashamed to be the Lord's mouthpieces in this timely but unpopular message: and what timely truth has not been unpopular? [p. R986]
Russell, as he had often done already, printed letters supportive of his own position as God's mouthpiece:
. . .through fear that I would appear to give glory to man rather than to God, from whom I am sensible that the light really comes. Still I realize that it is due you, as God's willing agent in distributing the light. . . I saw a reference to Millennial Dawn in a secular paper. I at once ordered the book. . . Since then I have eagerly read every thing I could get from your pen: . . . Hoping that you may, in the future as in the past, be blessed and honored of God as his mouthpiece, I remain, yours in the glorious hope, L. A. WEATHERLY. [p. R1439]
In Russell's promotion of the "DAWN Study Circles" to study the Millennial Dawn material, Russell made the following comments, showing that he thought of his books, the MILLENNIAL DAWN itself, as "God's mouthpiece." [Watch Tower, September 15, 1895, p.R1867-R1869]
Those who have come to an understanding of the plan of the ages, recognize it as of divine and not of human origination. . . . We give all praise and honor to the Divine Author from whom cometh every good and perfect gift, and who thus, according to his promise (Luke 12:37), continues to feed his Church with spiritual "meat in due season." God, still our Teacher, uses as heretofore instrumentalities, and has provided for his people's instruction and use the orderly presentations of MILLENNIAL DAWN to point out to them his plan of the ages and the duties and privileges of this "harvest" time; because the "due time" has come for "the mystery" to be finished. (Rev. 10:7.) And those who have received instruction in the Word, in private, through the use of MILLENNIAL DAWN as a teacher sent of God (Eph. 4:11-14) have no more reason to ignore it as God's mouthpiece in united study than in their own private study;--no more, either, than they would a living teacher. And should any be disposed to worship the humble human instrumentality chosen of God as the channel for this blessing of present truth, we say to such,--"See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant [not thy Lord], and [fellow servant] of thy brethren the prophets [all true teachers or mouthpieces of God]:...Worship God." (Rev. 22:9.) The water of life and the Giver of it, and not the earthen vessel through which it is sent, are to be reverenced. The earthen vessels have naught whereof to glory. What have we of ourselves that we did not first receive of the Lord?--1 Cor. 4:6,7. The God-given plan of the ages is what we should all use in the study of the Bible, if we would get the treasures of wisdom, and grace, and strength for service in these perilous harvest times, for which it is divinely provided. Each one who recognizes this as a God-given light should use it in the study of the Word. Each should make it his own light as God intended. Each should become so proficient in its use as to be able to answer every question that could be asked respecting the general plan of God. But alas! some seem to feel that this is Brother Russell's plan, and that they should originate their own. But this is a great mistake. It is not our plan, but God's. If not God's plan, it is of no value. We do not want any human plans. Surely men cannot make plans for God that he will recognize; for his own plans have been since "before the foundation of the world." God has but one plan, and it is unalterable; and now that he has revealed it, we confess that it is wonderful, yet as simple as it is beautiful. It is a plan, however, that men could not conceive or arrange. Its thoughts are higher than man's thoughts; and hence in all the centuries past men have never even approximated this divine plan of the ages. So then the Bible, the standard, should be studied in the light of this God-given teaching, until each one is proficient --an able teacher of it. Then each should let his light shine--humbly serving it to others. Some, alas! when their eyes are opened to see God's loving plan of the ages, while surprised, and thankful to God for the present truth, neglect to do more than hastily taste of it; and then they hasten on, as they say, to "hunt for more." What they should do would better be to use well what God has already given us as his people. . . . We certainly have no right to ask for more or other blessings, until we have feasted to the full on what has been set before us. Then we should exercise ourselves, using the strength received in serving the feast to others. . . . The proper attitude for the Church is to be active in eating the food already received and in using the strength derived from it. She is not to leave the table bountifully spread to pray for more. When more would be beneficial more will be sent by the hand of some "servant" of God and the Church. Nor will the true "servant" find it necessary to make the food; for it will be given him by the great Householder. It will be "found" by him, and when he presents it to the Lord's family, they will be able to discern upon it the stamp of divine truth. And after partaking of it liberally they will dispense it to others. Sufficient labor for all comes after we have "found" the truth,--labor in eating it, studying and appropriating it, and labor in serving it to others. . . . . Let us remember, however, that we cannot break open any secrets which God may wish to conceal as not yet appropriate "meat in due season"; nor should we wish to do so. The small boy who bangs away at the unripe apple until it falls get food which makes him very sick. . . Our diligence should be rather to watch the ripening processes of divine providence, and to hold our minds and hearts in humble readiness .  . . .It is the Word of God that is to be eaten; the DAWNS and TOWERS are divinely provided helps for the cutting of the food into eatable portions,--enabling us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," and thus facilitating the eating of it. Such meetings for the study of the Word in the light of the now revealed plan of the ages have been termed "Dawn Circles." . . . We advise the holding of these Circles everywhere, and suggest that you invite to them only such as are believers . . .any . . .who is desirous of learning the way of God more perfectly. . . .you do not meet to discuss the unbeliever's doubts, but to confirm the believer's faith.. . .It is advisable that the leader be a good reader, and that he begin at the beginning of Volume I. He should pause at the end of each sentence, if necessary, to give full opportunity for questions or remarks; and at the close of each paragraph a general discussion of its contents should be encouraged, . . . Each one of the Circle should have in hand some translation of the Bible or a "Dawn." . . . But some one will say, At that rate we would be fully a year in going through the first volume of MILLENNIAL DAWN, and the three volumes would require three years! All the better, we answer. . . .Surely, if the Bible required nearly two thousand years for its preparation, we should give it reverent study, and not merely a casual glance and thought. . . .
R2371:
Thus it is also with those whom the Lord would specially use in his service during this Gospel age. . . to know that there is an opportunity of rendering service to the King of kings is to volunteer their services, to pray that the Lord will grant them a privilege of doing all their talents will fit them to do in his service. Only such are true mouthpieces of the Lord.
R2433:
We seek merely to be, so far as the Shepherd may be pleased to use us, his mouthpiece, to call attention to the Shepherd, and to the way in which he is leading. None should follow us, except as they discern that we are following the Master, as saith the Apostle.
Watch Tower, July 1, 1903, R3214:
Quite a number came from surrounding cities and towns--and more flowers came, too; "alabaster boxes" of sweet odor to the Lord, because really rendered unto him, and to us merely because he had been pleased to use us as his mouthpiece in proclaiming his great plan of the ages in this his due time for revealing it. . . . Faithfully, your brother and servant in the Lord, CHARLES T. RUSSELL

The selling of KHs in the US at least has now been suspended. There was a lot of effort put into getting new appraisals of (perhaps) thousands of KHs, but there will be no additional sales at the moment except those already in progress. Whatever the reasons before, it sounds like this last step is either Covid-related or a serendipitous coincidence, since the Bethel facilities were hoping to open in late summer/early autumn.

Good analogy. But if you shot yourself in the foot once, would you not be extra careful from then on so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again? I mean if you shot yourself in the foot at least three times after that.....well.....I think you would get called all kinds of names, and most probably everyone would want to take that gun from you! The Generation theory has been expounded on at least three times since that Awake article, and with similar assuredness. It's the assuredness every time that is the problem, not the revision of an opinion. I have nothing against progressive knowledge, and don't expect us to get everything right the first time around, or the second time or third.....however long it takes.
Except for the fundamental truths, the rest is like a jigsaw puzzle and we are still trying to fit the pieces together, in my opinion we have not put together the whole picture yet, although many think we have. 
Studying the pure worship book right now reminds me a little of a silly series on Netflix called Manifest (I'm not saying the pure worship book is silly). It is quite entertaining though, and I like watching it. The characters survived a plane incident but landed 5 years later. Now some of the main characters get "callings" which are usually very vague (like a voice saying "save her" ) and they have no idea what it means. They get some really obscure clues and have to figure it out. Eventually after a series of misinterpretations they get it right by saving the right person. We are trying to interpret Ezekiels prophecy, and I don't think we will really know if we got it all right until  after Armageddon. The holy spirit can keep giving us clues, but we may misinterpret them, and we have misinterpreted them in the past, we just keep moving forward, in the right direction hopefully. My main disappointment is not the mistakes, but stating as fact what are mere interpretations and opinions......

Not saying that BroRando hasn't been here before under a different name, or that he has. But I'm sure he is not CC/BtK/Allen/etc/etc/etc/etc.

They’ve used a phrase or two in common, that’s all. 
It would be a remarkable change of m.o. if he was BroRando. Changes from CC to BtK to Allen to whoever—the “new” persona is instantly recognizable. BroRando is significantly different.
For one thing, CC was seldom very interested in offering anything. He just was here to shoot people and their ideas down. Say what you will about BroRando, he certainly is interested in offering stuff.

Not saying that BroRando hasn't been here before under a different name, or that he has. But I'm sure he is not CC/BtK/Allen/etc/etc/etc/etc.