JW Insider

It might seem plain to you. But I am not one of the anointed. At this point, this is a proposition to discuss amongst ourselves in this forum. Arauna has just as much right to her beliefs as I do. I'm sure the GB have seen these arguments before, and they have their reasons for continuing to read things differently. 

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

These types of comments from you are so frequent that it seems clear to me you are someone who wants to be told what to do—by a “true anointed,” of course—but you do want to be told what to do.
Brothers who are like this are nightmares in the congregation—transforming every bit of counsel into a RULE that they beat others over the head with, so it is just as well that you are out. Much effort is made through the various schools to refine this ‘rule-mongering” quality out of our people. In your case, you appear to have saved them the trouble.
What that means is that you cannot order them from Bethel anymore. Would you require them to print everything forever?
They have ALL been recently made available on the JW app, so they couldn’t have been THAT “infamous,” could they?  That they were not digitally available before I think is just a matter of having bigger fish to fry. They had to wait their turn. 
The discussions of the beasts with the seven heads—particularly the “image of the beast” that has life breathed into it by the two-headed one—the beast that was, was not, and yet is—the central issue of Jehovah’s sovereignty vs man’s sovereignty —there is nothing like it anywhere.
What have you fallen back to, 4Jah? Are you checking mean-looking animals at the zoo to see if there is one with 666 written on its forehead?
 

Yes. That's the proposition here. It's found in many commentaries of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 and it fits the idea that Jesus always warned about when he said not to look for any advance signs. A lot of people don't realize it was also C.T.Russell's take on those verses.
But we need to be careful, too, about thinking it has no significance for a larger event than the one on Jerusalem. We know that Jesus was answering their question about the Parousia/Synteleia of the Aion for Jerusalem and the Temple especially. (The word Parousia here refers to a Royal Visitation, not an invisible presence. The word Synteleia refers to a Destructive Judgment Event, an "End of Things Together" not a conclusion leading up to the actual conclusion.)
Jesus invisible presence was not part of the question, and that invisible presence never ended from the time he said "Look! I am with you all the days until the Synteleia of the Age.
Yes, the disciples sincerely wanted to know if they could get a sign to warn them in advance of the Temple Judgment Jesus had just described to them. This is natural.
Surely, if Jesus told you in 1970 that the World Trade Center in New York City was going to be turned into a pile of rubble someday, you would definitely want to know if you could get an advance sign to warn others in time. Now imagine that you asked for such a sign and the first words out of Jesus' mouth were "DO NOT BE MISLED. Many will try to convince you that they have special knowledge about the time this will happen, but DO NOT BE MISLED. You are going to hear of wars, reports of wars, earthquakes, and pestilences and famines between now and then. But these do NOT mean the END. If anything, these things will just be a BEGINNING, as things might get worse and worse between now and then. But in the end, people will be surprised, as if there had been no warning at all. It will come like a thief in the night. There will be no time to respond. The only SIGN will be the one you see in the SKY as these things are happening.
That's a very common reading of the verses, and it's the one that almost all Witnesses believe and make use of. It can make sense that way, too, but it makes more sense with the rest of the Bible if we look carefully at EACH word Jesus used here.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

Yes. That's the proposition here. It's found in many commentaries of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 and it fits the idea that Jesus always warned about when he said not to look for any advance signs. A lot of people don't realize it was also C.T.Russell's take on those verses.
But we need to be careful, too, about thinking it has no significance for a larger event than the one on Jerusalem. We know that Jesus was answering their question about the Parousia/Synteleia of the Aion for Jerusalem and the Temple especially. (The word Parousia here refers to a Royal Visitation, not an invisible presence. The word Synteleia refers to a Destructive Judgment Event, an "End of Things Together" not a conclusion leading up to the actual conclusion.)
Jesus invisible presence was not part of the question, and that invisible presence never ended from the time he said "Look! I am with you all the days until the Synteleia of the Age.
Yes, the disciples sincerely wanted to know if they could get a sign to warn them in advance of the Temple Judgment Jesus had just described to them. This is natural.
Surely, if Jesus told you in 1970 that the World Trade Center in New York City was going to be turned into a pile of rubble someday, you would definitely want to know if you could get an advance sign to warn others in time. Now imagine that you asked for such a sign and the first words out of Jesus' mouth were "DO NOT BE MISLED. Many will try to convince you that they have special knowledge about the time this will happen, but DO NOT BE MISLED. You are going to hear of wars, reports of wars, earthquakes, and pestilences and famines between now and then. But these do NOT mean the END. If anything, these things will just be a BEGINNING, as things might get worse and worse between now and then. But in the end, people will be surprised, as if there had been no warning at all. It will come like a thief in the night. There will be no time to respond. The only SIGN will be the one you see in the SKY as these things are happening.
That's a very common reading of the verses, and it's the one that almost all Witnesses believe and make use of. It can make sense that way, too, but it makes more sense with the rest of the Bible if we look carefully at EACH word Jesus used here.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

It's easy to understand why you wouldn't care. In the overall stream of things I do not care either. I know you might not have been directing your comments at me, but in defense of the person who brought it up here, he seemed to think it was important, and I respect his reason for making the point. Believe it or not, this is NOT a teaching from our past. The Watchtower considers it relevant to our CURRENT teachings, and it has been repeated several times in the last few years. The importance of this point to the CURRENT Watchtower teachings is the reason I wanted to make sure we knew whether this current teaching is based on facts.
Note this very recent Watchtower, where the teaching about what Russell discerned in 1914 was important enough to repeat here and in many other places in our publications:
*** w17 February p. 25 par. 8 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
To help them disseminate Bible truth in various languages, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was legally incorporated in 1884, with Brother Russell as president. . . . He discerned that Christ would return invisibly and that “the appointed times of the nations” would end in 1914.
Also note how this is current teaching from another perspective:
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
You do not think it is important, and I agree. I was only dealing with the fact that the Watch Tower publications indicate that the GB believes it is something we should currently care about.
Also, when Cesar Chavez brought this up, it was likely primarily in the context of defending this current teaching.
And we know that the Watchtower CURRENTLY teaches that this idea refers especially to Russell and his associates. (See the books "God's Kingdom Rules" and "Pure Worship.")
Of course, Cesar may also have had in mind a parallel discussion here about whether it is still "FAITH" when it leads us into a false teaching, a false doctrine.
*** sl chap. 16 p. 287 par. 12 Awaiting the “New Heavens and a New Earth” ***
Russell calculated that Christ’s “presence” had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith.
The implication from the above article is that it is OK to have FAITH in a false teaching, or false doctrine. As long as the false teaching also contains some important element of truth. This topic might not interest you, and that's OK. But I just wanted to explain why he seemed to have brought it up and why I responded for any who might be taking the topic seriously.
For me, as I've said, there is also a matter of "making sure of ALL things" and the need to pay attention to ourselves and to our teaching. This is because we all need to HONEST teachers with nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree with you, that this "shame" should have nothing to do with past teachings, but is about our CURRENT teachings.
Here's where the issue of honesty comes in. Almost every one of these statements about what was discerned "decades in advance" is almost always written ambiguously in such a way that it could give us, or our Bible students, the impression that Russell had actually had faith and insight, sometime before 1914 that Jesus would return invisibly in 1914. In fact, we know that Russell didn't even have faith or discernment that Jesus would EVER return invisibly at any date in the near future, because when Russell accepted this teaching, it included the "fact" that Jesus had ALREADY returned invisibly in the PAST, not that he would return invisibly in the future.
If we were not aware of the way almost all these statements are made ambiguously, then how easy it would be to give our Bible students the impression that something like the following was true.
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.
This is very obviously a false statement, since they did NOT believe Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Christ had already received Kingdom power in 1878, and 1914 was the time for the Jews to receive Kingdom power in Jerusalem, and the time for a resurrection, not of any Christians, but beginning with Jewish, faithful men of old. Most statements have been more careful to provide just enough ambiguity to imply what that quote states without making a false statement. But several false statements have still slipped through. Use the Watchtower Library and look up the term "decades in advance" or "decades before 1914" (adding the quotation marks) and you should see several examples of this.
*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king.
Notice how the same false implication is there, but it was worded ambiguously so that it only implies that Russell correctly calculated the birth of God's kingdom in heaven.
*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.
Here's another recent teaching which states that decades before 1914, we taught that the world would enter into an unequaled time of trouble. What would you do if you had a Bible study who believed this statement. Would you correct him or her? Should you? In truth, decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared that the world would finally enter an unequaled period of peace, because the time of trouble would END in October 1914: Decades in advance, Russell said in Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, p.604:
". . . the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914."
 

It's easy to understand why you wouldn't care. In the overall stream of things I do not care either. I know you might not have been directing your comments at me, but in defense of the person who brought it up here, he seemed to think it was important, and I respect his reason for making the point. Believe it or not, this is NOT a teaching from our past. The Watchtower considers it relevant to our CURRENT teachings, and it has been repeated several times in the last few years. The importance of this point to the CURRENT Watchtower teachings is the reason I wanted to make sure we knew whether this current teaching is based on facts.
Note this very recent Watchtower, where the teaching about what Russell discerned in 1914 was important enough to repeat here and in many other places in our publications:
*** w17 February p. 25 par. 8 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
To help them disseminate Bible truth in various languages, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was legally incorporated in 1884, with Brother Russell as president. . . . He discerned that Christ would return invisibly and that “the appointed times of the nations” would end in 1914.
Also note how this is current teaching from another perspective:
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
You do not think it is important, and I agree. I was only dealing with the fact that the Watch Tower publications indicate that the GB believes it is something we should currently care about.
Also, when Cesar Chavez brought this up, it was likely primarily in the context of defending this current teaching.
And we know that the Watchtower CURRENTLY teaches that this idea refers especially to Russell and his associates. (See the books "God's Kingdom Rules" and "Pure Worship.")
Of course, Cesar may also have had in mind a parallel discussion here about whether it is still "FAITH" when it leads us into a false teaching, a false doctrine.
*** sl chap. 16 p. 287 par. 12 Awaiting the “New Heavens and a New Earth” ***
Russell calculated that Christ’s “presence” had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith.
The implication from the above article is that it is OK to have FAITH in a false teaching, or false doctrine. As long as the false teaching also contains some important element of truth. This topic might not interest you, and that's OK. But I just wanted to explain why he seemed to have brought it up and why I responded for any who might be taking the topic seriously.
For me, as I've said, there is also a matter of "making sure of ALL things" and the need to pay attention to ourselves and to our teaching. This is because we all need to HONEST teachers with nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree with you, that this "shame" should have nothing to do with past teachings, but is about our CURRENT teachings.
Here's where the issue of honesty comes in. Almost every one of these statements about what was discerned "decades in advance" is almost always written ambiguously in such a way that it could give us, or our Bible students, the impression that Russell had actually had faith and insight, sometime before 1914 that Jesus would return invisibly in 1914. In fact, we know that Russell didn't even have faith or discernment that Jesus would EVER return invisibly at any date in the near future, because when Russell accepted this teaching, it included the "fact" that Jesus had ALREADY returned invisibly in the PAST, not that he would return invisibly in the future.
If we were not aware of the way almost all these statements are made ambiguously, then how easy it would be to give our Bible students the impression that something like the following was true.
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.
This is very obviously a false statement, since they did NOT believe Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Christ had already received Kingdom power in 1878, and 1914 was the time for the Jews to receive Kingdom power in Jerusalem, and the time for a resurrection, not of any Christians, but beginning with Jewish, faithful men of old. Most statements have been more careful to provide just enough ambiguity to imply what that quote states without making a false statement. But several false statements have still slipped through. Use the Watchtower Library and look up the term "decades in advance" or "decades before 1914" (adding the quotation marks) and you should see several examples of this.
*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king.
Notice how the same false implication is there, but it was worded ambiguously so that it only implies that Russell correctly calculated the birth of God's kingdom in heaven.
*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.
Here's another recent teaching which states that decades before 1914, we taught that the world would enter into an unequaled time of trouble. What would you do if you had a Bible study who believed this statement. Would you correct him or her? Should you? In truth, decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared that the world would finally enter an unequaled period of peace, because the time of trouble would END in October 1914: Decades in advance, Russell said in Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, p.604:
". . . the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914."
 

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

It's easy to understand why you wouldn't care. In the overall stream of things I do not care either. I know you might not have been directing your comments at me, but in defense of the person who brought it up here, he seemed to think it was important, and I respect his reason for making the point. Believe it or not, this is NOT a teaching from our past. The Watchtower considers it relevant to our CURRENT teachings, and it has been repeated several times in the last few years. The importance of this point to the CURRENT Watchtower teachings is the reason I wanted to make sure we knew whether this current teaching is based on facts.
Note this very recent Watchtower, where the teaching about what Russell discerned in 1914 was important enough to repeat here and in many other places in our publications:
*** w17 February p. 25 par. 8 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
To help them disseminate Bible truth in various languages, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was legally incorporated in 1884, with Brother Russell as president. . . . He discerned that Christ would return invisibly and that “the appointed times of the nations” would end in 1914.
Also note how this is current teaching from another perspective:
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
You do not think it is important, and I agree. I was only dealing with the fact that the Watch Tower publications indicate that the GB believes it is something we should currently care about.
Also, when Cesar Chavez brought this up, it was likely primarily in the context of defending this current teaching.
And we know that the Watchtower CURRENTLY teaches that this idea refers especially to Russell and his associates. (See the books "God's Kingdom Rules" and "Pure Worship.")
Of course, Cesar may also have had in mind a parallel discussion here about whether it is still "FAITH" when it leads us into a false teaching, a false doctrine.
*** sl chap. 16 p. 287 par. 12 Awaiting the “New Heavens and a New Earth” ***
Russell calculated that Christ’s “presence” had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith.
The implication from the above article is that it is OK to have FAITH in a false teaching, or false doctrine. As long as the false teaching also contains some important element of truth. This topic might not interest you, and that's OK. But I just wanted to explain why he seemed to have brought it up and why I responded for any who might be taking the topic seriously.
For me, as I've said, there is also a matter of "making sure of ALL things" and the need to pay attention to ourselves and to our teaching. This is because we all need to HONEST teachers with nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree with you, that this "shame" should have nothing to do with past teachings, but is about our CURRENT teachings.
Here's where the issue of honesty comes in. Almost every one of these statements about what was discerned "decades in advance" is almost always written ambiguously in such a way that it could give us, or our Bible students, the impression that Russell had actually had faith and insight, sometime before 1914 that Jesus would return invisibly in 1914. In fact, we know that Russell didn't even have faith or discernment that Jesus would EVER return invisibly at any date in the near future, because when Russell accepted this teaching, it included the "fact" that Jesus had ALREADY returned invisibly in the PAST, not that he would return invisibly in the future.
If we were not aware of the way almost all these statements are made ambiguously, then how easy it would be to give our Bible students the impression that something like the following was true.
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.
This is very obviously a false statement, since they did NOT believe Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Christ had already received Kingdom power in 1878, and 1914 was the time for the Jews to receive Kingdom power in Jerusalem, and the time for a resurrection, not of any Christians, but beginning with Jewish, faithful men of old. Most statements have been more careful to provide just enough ambiguity to imply what that quote states without making a false statement. But several false statements have still slipped through. Use the Watchtower Library and look up the term "decades in advance" or "decades before 1914" (adding the quotation marks) and you should see several examples of this.
*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king.
Notice how the same false implication is there, but it was worded ambiguously so that it only implies that Russell correctly calculated the birth of God's kingdom in heaven.
*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.
Here's another recent teaching which states that decades before 1914, we taught that the world would enter into an unequaled time of trouble. What would you do if you had a Bible study who believed this statement. Would you correct him or her? Should you? In truth, decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared that the world would finally enter an unequaled period of peace, because the time of trouble would END in October 1914: Decades in advance, Russell said in Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, p.604:
". . . the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914."
 

I figured it was going to be exactly in line with the cost of living index for each state with extra weighting given to the housing cost variable. I looked at the states with the highest numbers on the list, and there is also a correspondence to the states where the highest number of children are sent to the most expensive universities. 
But I don't see any correspondence to legalized marijuana, especially since these rankings began to be "baked in" before marijuana legalization became a factor after 2008.
https://www.policygenius.com/blog/which-states-have-the-most-young-adults-living-with-their-parents/
I looked at a few sites like the one above, and noticed that Colorado (legalized) has one of the lowest rates of young adults living at home 24.4 percent ranks it at #43. Oregon and Washington score very well, too, though legalized. North Carolina is somewhere near the middle, ranking #28 with 30.4 percent. South Carolina is a little worse: #21 at 32.6 percent. Most of the Southern States are in worse shape than the Carolinas in this respect. But the top five worse states have not legalized marijuana (NY, NJ, CT, FL.) Michigan which has legalized is no different from Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Texas. Nevada which has legalized is right in the middle there with the Carolinas.
The one state that is near the worst (#6) AND has legalized is California. But this is also a state where a high number of children are sent to expensive colleges, and the cost of living is very high, and housing prices are through the roof.
Other than California, there appears to be no correlation, or even a negative correlation (so far). On the other hand how really different is California's 38.3 rate to South Carolina's 32.6 rate? It looks like a national problem to me.

You exaggerate a bit, in implying that the rest of the anointed might get nothing. But this is really the perfect question that shows what's wrong with this theory. Even if you think the Jerusalem Council was a governing body, you can't square this particular outcome of events with the Bible. There are several principles that it goes against.
(James 2:1-4) . . .My brothers, you are not holding to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ while showing favoritism, are you? . . .  4 If so, do you not have class distinctions among yourselves, and have you not become judges rendering wicked decisions?
(Galatians 2:6) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, . . .
(Matthew 23:6-10) . . .They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
 

Of course, there's also an implication throughout the context of Acts, that God does not give that holy spirit to those who obey men. That's one of the reasons for this very topic of 1914, as uncomfortable as it might seem to even question it.
Of course, obeying God as ruler and not men, doesn't preclude us from "obeying" our congregation elders (Heb 13:17). But there is no contradiction here, because the word used for the word obey here has a range of meaning. And that range of meaning is pinned down in the very context of Hebrews 13 and elsewhere. 
In fact, we might as well deal with it because there will be some who think it is "disobedient" to even consider the questions about 1914. It's the same as questioning God's arrangement, some say. Just like questioning 1925, or the hourly quotas for publishers and pioneers, would have been the same as 'questioning the Lord himself' in Rutherford's day.
When Hebrews 13 says "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you" it's obvious that the term "among you" referred to congregation overseers/elders. We extend this to mean the elders who preside in a "headquarters" arrangement from the various Branches, especially the Governing Body residing in the United States Branch. But the word here does not mean "obey" in the sense of "you must obey God as ruler." In Acts 5:29 that term includes the idea of submission to a ruler or magistrate (i.e., God).
The definition of "obey" in the context of Hebrews 13:17 is perfectly summed up in this verse that doesn't even use the word obey:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
The root meaning of the term is actually "persuade." Hebrews 13 uses the verb "peitho" here, and Peitho was the goddess of persuasion. That's actually the first meaning in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
1. Peitho, proper name of a goddess, literally, Persuasion; Latin Suada or Suadela.
2. persuasive power, persuasion: 1 Corinthians 2:4 ἐν πειθοι — accusative to certain inferior authorities.
Strong's NT Definition is:
πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Note that "obey" hardly makes the list.
Even the NWT doesn't say in Hebrews 6:9 that "in your case we are obedient to bettr things." Instead it says:
(Hebrews 6:9) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things. . .
In the very verse after Hebrews 13:17, the word "trust" is used, in these of being "persuaded" or "convinced" that we have a good conscience.
(Hebrews 13:18) . . .Carry on prayer for us, for we trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.
I know you didn't say that this type of obedience contradicts our Christian duty to question and therefore to make sure of all things. But Hebrews 13 often comes up by some as a reason to deflect from that Christian duty.

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer" when that particular passage mentions a measure of authority and trust in advance of even greater authority and trust.
I'm just saying that the reason they see the passage as speaking about themselves is because of 1914 first. Based on the importance given to that date, they expect to see certain actions that Jesus must have taken, or that it would seem reasonable for him to take. So it's kind of backwards to imply that they hang on to the date because of the authority. They hang onto the authority because of the date.
But I'm also saying that this authority would be there anyway. Sure, they lose a little if they give "FDS" back to all the anointed, or even if they spread that authority around to include all the elders, or all Witnesses who support [feed] other Witnesses in any way, materially or spiritually or emotionally. (Recall that the verse once meant the anointed feeding the anointed, because the domestics were the anointed, too.)
Common sense tells us that the purpose of elders in a congregation is to provide teaching and examples to follow and good judgment when it comes to dealing with difficult matters that might arise. We follow their lead. We listen. We copy their example. They persuade us to follow with good teaching and good examples.
How much more would we think that the ones we consider qualified as elders over the global congregation would be worthy of even more respect. And we would be just as willing or more to follow their lead, listen, copy their example, etc.
This is why it really came as no surprise to many Witnesses that the GB took upon themselves the entire role they interpreted to be the role of the FDS. To most Witnesses, the FDS always meant the GB anyway. The GB already represented the rest of the anointed in general, who had no say anyway. It was the GB, as head of the departments for Writing, Teaching, Service, Correspondence, etc., who were already considered the top of the "Bethel" headquarters hierarchy. It didn't matter if a certain thing was written by a member of the "other sheep," it was still considered to be under their direction. I actually asked a pioneer sister at the time if she had heard about the new GB=FDS doctrine right after that point from the Annual Meeting was announced on the website. She honestly thought that this was nothing new.
In other words, something like this same respect for their teaching and example would have happened naturally as a matter of course. It has probably happened in every religion known to man. There have even been other religions that speak of their leadership councils as governing bodies. The level of agreement by the "rank-and-file" Witnesses (as Anthony Morriss III calls us) is just like other religions: a function of the emphasis given on the importance of this level of agreement.

Russell was an excellent student of the Bible. He knew it well. He wrote about the Bible very capably. He preached it. He clearly had insights into many of its teachings and principles. He could use scripture to explain scripture. He could show excellent rational insight along with spiritual insight. He showed faith and he showed discretion and wisdom. And he was one of the most interesting men of his time, because was very aware of the world around him and used this knowledge to help explain some of these insights, but usually without getting too bogged down in the secular, political or scientific arguments of the day.
But, faith or no faith, he had absolutely no insight or understanding about the end of the gentile times. He made no prediction about a world war. He made absolutely no prediction about 1914 that came true. He made absolutely no prediction about the gentile times that came true.
Russell thought the "end of the gentile times" was the equivalent of the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish government in PALESTINE, and the FINAL END of the United States government and economy, the FINAL END of the United Kingdom's government and economy, the FINAL END of the Turkish government and economy, the FINAL END of the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, French, Norwegian, and Mexican governments and economies, too. ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENTS would fall in 1914/1915 and it would be the FULL establishment of a divinely backed Jewish government in Jerusalem, with the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine.
We can only pretend that he got something right, because he predicted that the chaos of the complete fall of all these non-Jewish governments, along with the rise of Israel in Palestine, would result in a time of trouble that would END in 1914, and then around 1904, he changed it to BEGIN in 1914, and indicated that this chaos in the vacuum of any human political institutions would end in a matter of months after 1914, most likely ending in 1915.
Which part of his "insight" or "understanding" of this matter came true? Which part was correct?
It's true he started some backpeddling on his understanding in 1904 (mentioned above), then 1910, then 1913. That's because his view included some expectations that he considered unlikely in view of the time left. 
Russell didn't think Jesus' invisible presence would start in 1914. Russell didn't think that Jesus' kingship would start in 1914. Russell didn't think a great battle would be fought between Jesus and Satan in 1914. There's NOTHING that we NOW think happened around 1914, that Russell predicted, and he NEVER thought that any of those things (that we now believe about 1914) had happened even after he saw the events of 1914 for himself.
So where does anyone get the idea that Russell got even one thing right about 1914 prior to 1914?

You exaggerate a bit, in implying that the rest of the anointed might get nothing. But this is really the perfect question that shows what's wrong with this theory. Even if you think the Jerusalem Council was a governing body, you can't square this particular outcome of events with the Bible. There are several principles that it goes against.
(James 2:1-4) . . .My brothers, you are not holding to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ while showing favoritism, are you? . . .  4 If so, do you not have class distinctions among yourselves, and have you not become judges rendering wicked decisions?
(Galatians 2:6) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, . . .
(Matthew 23:6-10) . . .They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
 

Of course, there's also an implication throughout the context of Acts, that God does not give that holy spirit to those who obey men. That's one of the reasons for this very topic of 1914, as uncomfortable as it might seem to even question it.
Of course, obeying God as ruler and not men, doesn't preclude us from "obeying" our congregation elders (Heb 13:17). But there is no contradiction here, because the word used for the word obey here has a range of meaning. And that range of meaning is pinned down in the very context of Hebrews 13 and elsewhere. 
In fact, we might as well deal with it because there will be some who think it is "disobedient" to even consider the questions about 1914. It's the same as questioning God's arrangement, some say. Just like questioning 1925, or the hourly quotas for publishers and pioneers, would have been the same as 'questioning the Lord himself' in Rutherford's day.
When Hebrews 13 says "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you" it's obvious that the term "among you" referred to congregation overseers/elders. We extend this to mean the elders who preside in a "headquarters" arrangement from the various Branches, especially the Governing Body residing in the United States Branch. But the word here does not mean "obey" in the sense of "you must obey God as ruler." In Acts 5:29 that term includes the idea of submission to a ruler or magistrate (i.e., God).
The definition of "obey" in the context of Hebrews 13:17 is perfectly summed up in this verse that doesn't even use the word obey:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
The root meaning of the term is actually "persuade." Hebrews 13 uses the verb "peitho" here, and Peitho was the goddess of persuasion. That's actually the first meaning in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
1. Peitho, proper name of a goddess, literally, Persuasion; Latin Suada or Suadela.
2. persuasive power, persuasion: 1 Corinthians 2:4 ἐν πειθοι — accusative to certain inferior authorities.
Strong's NT Definition is:
πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Note that "obey" hardly makes the list.
Even the NWT doesn't say in Hebrews 6:9 that "in your case we are obedient to bettr things." Instead it says:
(Hebrews 6:9) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things. . .
In the very verse after Hebrews 13:17, the word "trust" is used, in these of being "persuaded" or "convinced" that we have a good conscience.
(Hebrews 13:18) . . .Carry on prayer for us, for we trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.
I know you didn't say that this type of obedience contradicts our Christian duty to question and therefore to make sure of all things. But Hebrews 13 often comes up by some as a reason to deflect from that Christian duty.

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer" when that particular passage mentions a measure of authority and trust in advance of even greater authority and trust.
I'm just saying that the reason they see the passage as speaking about themselves is because of 1914 first. Based on the importance given to that date, they expect to see certain actions that Jesus must have taken, or that it would seem reasonable for him to take. So it's kind of backwards to imply that they hang on to the date because of the authority. They hang onto the authority because of the date.
But I'm also saying that this authority would be there anyway. Sure, they lose a little if they give "FDS" back to all the anointed, or even if they spread that authority around to include all the elders, or all Witnesses who support [feed] other Witnesses in any way, materially or spiritually or emotionally. (Recall that the verse once meant the anointed feeding the anointed, because the domestics were the anointed, too.)
Common sense tells us that the purpose of elders in a congregation is to provide teaching and examples to follow and good judgment when it comes to dealing with difficult matters that might arise. We follow their lead. We listen. We copy their example. They persuade us to follow with good teaching and good examples.
How much more would we think that the ones we consider qualified as elders over the global congregation would be worthy of even more respect. And we would be just as willing or more to follow their lead, listen, copy their example, etc.
This is why it really came as no surprise to many Witnesses that the GB took upon themselves the entire role they interpreted to be the role of the FDS. To most Witnesses, the FDS always meant the GB anyway. The GB already represented the rest of the anointed in general, who had no say anyway. It was the GB, as head of the departments for Writing, Teaching, Service, Correspondence, etc., who were already considered the top of the "Bethel" headquarters hierarchy. It didn't matter if a certain thing was written by a member of the "other sheep," it was still considered to be under their direction. I actually asked a pioneer sister at the time if she had heard about the new GB=FDS doctrine right after that point from the Annual Meeting was announced on the website. She honestly thought that this was nothing new.
In other words, something like this same respect for their teaching and example would have happened naturally as a matter of course. It has probably happened in every religion known to man. There have even been other religions that speak of their leadership councils as governing bodies. The level of agreement by the "rank-and-file" Witnesses (as Anthony Morriss III calls us) is just like other religions: a function of the emphasis given on the importance of this level of agreement.

Russell was an excellent student of the Bible. He knew it well. He wrote about the Bible very capably. He preached it. He clearly had insights into many of its teachings and principles. He could use scripture to explain scripture. He could show excellent rational insight along with spiritual insight. He showed faith and he showed discretion and wisdom. And he was one of the most interesting men of his time, because was very aware of the world around him and used this knowledge to help explain some of these insights, but usually without getting too bogged down in the secular, political or scientific arguments of the day.
But, faith or no faith, he had absolutely no insight or understanding about the end of the gentile times. He made no prediction about a world war. He made absolutely no prediction about 1914 that came true. He made absolutely no prediction about the gentile times that came true.
Russell thought the "end of the gentile times" was the equivalent of the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish government in PALESTINE, and the FINAL END of the United States government and economy, the FINAL END of the United Kingdom's government and economy, the FINAL END of the Turkish government and economy, the FINAL END of the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, French, Norwegian, and Mexican governments and economies, too. ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENTS would fall in 1914/1915 and it would be the FULL establishment of a divinely backed Jewish government in Jerusalem, with the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine.
We can only pretend that he got something right, because he predicted that the chaos of the complete fall of all these non-Jewish governments, along with the rise of Israel in Palestine, would result in a time of trouble that would END in 1914, and then around 1904, he changed it to BEGIN in 1914, and indicated that this chaos in the vacuum of any human political institutions would end in a matter of months after 1914, most likely ending in 1915.
Which part of his "insight" or "understanding" of this matter came true? Which part was correct?
It's true he started some backpeddling on his understanding in 1904 (mentioned above), then 1910, then 1913. That's because his view included some expectations that he considered unlikely in view of the time left. 
Russell didn't think Jesus' invisible presence would start in 1914. Russell didn't think that Jesus' kingship would start in 1914. Russell didn't think a great battle would be fought between Jesus and Satan in 1914. There's NOTHING that we NOW think happened around 1914, that Russell predicted, and he NEVER thought that any of those things (that we now believe about 1914) had happened even after he saw the events of 1914 for himself.
So where does anyone get the idea that Russell got even one thing right about 1914 prior to 1914?