JW Insider

Thanks for this reminder @Arauna
When I mentioned early in this topic that @Anna had brought up a couple of points/questions that I hadn't really been able to consider fully, this was one of them. It's easy to see what C.T.Russell was thinking when he said that wars, earthquakes and famine and pestilence, etc., were NOT part of the sign, because as he said, Jesus was here just telling us the common experience of mankind for the last 18 centuries.
But it is obvious that the fig tree appears to refer to some kind of sign that people can see is in advance of a season. This appears to counter the idea of Jesus and Paul that the times and seasons are none of our concern, not even the angels, but only the Father.
The current doctrine may have several apparent contradictions with scripture, but I don't want to just jump over to another interpretation that also has contradictions.

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.
 

I’m not one of them. Nor do I have you in mind with application of that Acts 5 verse. I have other people in mind.
Since I am also “out there,” even though not paralleling the topics that you take on, I give thought to “let he who is standing beware that he does not fall.” I don’t want to have happen to me what I have seen happen many times to others—brothers become experts in their own eyes and in time leave Jehovah’s organized worship completely, frustrated that it is not “keeping up.” 
I counter that tendency to become wise in my own eyes by firmly adhering to the traditional door-to-door ministry and making sure activity here is supplemental, not a replacement. My understanding is that you do the same, but I suspect that some others on this forum do not.
I counter the tendency to become wise in my own eyes by staying firmly cooperative with existing congregational arrangements, respecting the role and the need of leadership. I gather that you do the same. 
I counter the tendency to become wise in my own eyes by always looking for the good in others, such as in Philippians 2:3 mode of considering the other superior—searching out and honing in on the at least one quality, often many, at which the other plainly is superior, then always endeavoring to see him or her primarily through this lens. This I believe you do too. In fact, you are better at it than me.
I don’t view you as someone who is not obeying. I view you as someone who is bringing your gift to the altar. If you suspended your traditional ministry and began running down the Christian organization, I would reappraise. But you do not that I have seen. I too, try to “bring my gift to the altar,” such as it is, but it does not replace the organized activity that collectively makes the light shine.

Not me, too busy (studying 1914)

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

That doesn't make sense. I repeat what I'm having for dinner at least every month. Doesn't make it rubbish. Just means that it was still useful. Besides, I think he meant that some of it was from his unpublished files, which is why he thought it was curious, but not in a bad way.
Look at the old Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries by Gesenius, Strong, Elliott, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Vine, Thayer, etc. Now look at how many pages these men must have produced per hour to finish some of these works in their lifetime. Are you saying that anyone who could produce 24 paragraphs in two hours must be doing it wrong? Was it the fact that the supporting scriptures were so well remembered that they got the citations exactly right without having to double-check them? Imagine trying to write a thorough concordance of the Bible in the days before there were any computers or automation to help you out.
Who says they weren't true anointed? All of the persons I referred to claimed to be anointed.

Me too! Sounds like fun. Come to think of it, I'd play anyone. (hint hint) But I'm not implying I'd win. Besides, everyone gets to cheat. Maybe even find a website that will provide the best possible plays. So it might actually seem like two computers playing each other. In that case, the skill would be trying to keep limiting the other player defensively by strategically using up the letters and board space.
As an experiment I'd be happy to set up a manual game like this somewhere on the forum, to see if the idea can work.

Don't worry about that. As they moved "appointment over all belongings" to the future, they can make same with "appointment for sharing spiritual food" in the future too. It would need some deep thinking how to manage this issue, but "believe me", it is possible. :)) And JW's will not feel the change. 
JW's not feels any change about "all belongings". The same Society still have all influence over "belongings". And we know what "belongings" includes. JW's aspect still stay the same. Only many of members now have to go to some other congregational meetings because of "merging". Are "mergings" product of new doctrine? Did GB give info on: Who are now in charge "over all belongings"? (good idea for new topic, it is made now) I think that was not explained in WT study articles, not even in a simple edition :)) 

That doesn't make sense. I repeat what I'm having for dinner at least every month. Doesn't make it rubbish. Just means that it was still useful. Besides, I think he meant that some of it was from his unpublished files, which is why he thought it was curious, but not in a bad way.
Look at the old Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries by Gesenius, Strong, Elliott, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Vine, Thayer, etc. Now look at how many pages these men must have produced per hour to finish some of these works in their lifetime. Are you saying that anyone who could produce 24 paragraphs in two hours must be doing it wrong? Was it the fact that the supporting scriptures were so well remembered that they got the citations exactly right without having to double-check them? Imagine trying to write a thorough concordance of the Bible in the days before there were any computers or automation to help you out.
Who says they weren't true anointed? All of the persons I referred to claimed to be anointed.

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?

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.

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 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.

Thanks for this reminder @Arauna
When I mentioned early in this topic that @Anna had brought up a couple of points/questions that I hadn't really been able to consider fully, this was one of them. It's easy to see what C.T.Russell was thinking when he said that wars, earthquakes and famine and pestilence, etc., were NOT part of the sign, because as he said, Jesus was here just telling us the common experience of mankind for the last 18 centuries.
But it is obvious that the fig tree appears to refer to some kind of sign that people can see is in advance of a season. This appears to counter the idea of Jesus and Paul that the times and seasons are none of our concern, not even the angels, but only the Father.
The current doctrine may have several apparent contradictions with scripture, but I don't want to just jump over to another interpretation that also has contradictions.

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?

Thanks for this reminder @Arauna
When I mentioned early in this topic that @Anna had brought up a couple of points/questions that I hadn't really been able to consider fully, this was one of them. It's easy to see what C.T.Russell was thinking when he said that wars, earthquakes and famine and pestilence, etc., were NOT part of the sign, because as he said, Jesus was here just telling us the common experience of mankind for the last 18 centuries.
But it is obvious that the fig tree appears to refer to some kind of sign that people can see is in advance of a season. This appears to counter the idea of Jesus and Paul that the times and seasons are none of our concern, not even the angels, but only the Father.
The current doctrine may have several apparent contradictions with scripture, but I don't want to just jump over to another interpretation that also has contradictions.

True, but Jesus said: “Notice the fig tree and all the other trees.  When they are budding, you see it for yourselves and know that now the summer is near." 
When I watch world events I compare it to what I have read in the bible.  It helps me to understand what is going on. This is why I agree with the GB.  It is not worship of them which allows me to agree with them -  it is knowledge of the realities around me.   I see the big blossoms opening up everywhere! 

Quite so. And the understanding we have now, as proclaimed by the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses and supported by their application of Scripture, would appear to me to bear this out.
The various perspectives of those contributing to the discussion on this matter really would not exist at all if it were not for these proclamations at this time. The historical "curios" of understanding that have led people who have stuck with the organisation to this point of time are in the public domain, as are similar "artifacts" of all areas of human endeavour. 
Whether revered as trailblazing milestones in the search for truth, or ridiculed as crank-minded curios for the amusement of cynics, the body of historical thinking on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses serves really only one purpose. The 1st Century view of the apostle Paul on the effect of  various expressions of opinion on Christianty is as valid today as it was at the the time it was written:
"With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this. In fact, I will also keep on rejoicing," Phillippians 1:18
 

😉 There's a reason that I have no problem preaching that we are in the last days, and that so many people see the world with fear. We live in a time of excessive troubles and people see no way out. It is our privilege to offer comfort to those sighing and groaning over the situation in this system of things.
To be clear, this is an opening position for a discussion that might answer a few of the questions in a more complete way than just the initial explanations here. But it's good to start with a position of agreement, and a position that acknowledges that the current view is not "crazy" or anti-Bible.
To that point, as I've stated before, I have no problem with the idea that we are in the "last days," and in some sense I would agree that we are also in the "last generation." And since I believe that Jesus began to rule as King invisibly in 33 C.E. and has been present with his followers ever since, then I also have no problem with preaching that Jesus is now enthroned as King, and is invisibly present. I also believe the times we live in are significant in that they are fulfilling all the statements about the "parousia" throughout the entire Christian Greek Scriptures. And, in any case, the answer is the same no matter when we believe that Christ's enthronement and presence began. It's the outworking of Jehovah's eternal purpose through his Kingdom as ruled by Christ Jesus, throughout the millennium and into the final perfection of the new heavens and new earth.
I would even say that, as far as Matthew 24 is concerned, Jehovah intended for us to look at this prophecy, ostensibly about Jerusalem only, and see in it a wider fulfillment that would guide us through future days as we look to the end of the entire worldly system of things -- not just the end of the Jewish system in 70 CE. 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that many scriptures can provide this value to us.
But, unless someone has some scriptural evidence that will correct and override the evidence I've seen so far, I will very likely continue to present the evidence much as I have in the past. However, I see an opportunity to get some more constructive criticism on these views from persons who have participated on this topic in the past, and perhaps some additional thoughts will be convincing. For example, a person like @TrueTomHarley has often surprised me with a take on some scriptures that provides a refreshing perspective. @b4ucuhear has clearly given a lot of thought to the chronology problem, and I hope to get him to share more of what he has learned. He has also asked questions that I have not responded to yet. @Anna has apparently tried to see things from the perspective I have presented, and she is not afraid to question when something doesn't quite appear correct. (Her questions have also pointed out 'holes in the theory' that I am still not 100 percent clear on myself.) @ComfortMyPeople seems to follow a lot of what I've posted on this topic, but rarely says much about it. I'm hoping for a bit more sometime soon. @Outta Here probably got tired of my reaction to my own "JWI pills," but he often said a lot more with fewer words than anyone else who responded to me. (He was the one who suggested that WWI never ended.) @Srecko Sostar and @Witness , although quite different, have also provided very thought-provoking perspectives of their own, and I rarely give their ideas the amount of time I ought to in my responses. And of course, there are others who, in their own way, might help me settle some of these questions and opinions in my own mind.

This is the most ridiculous.....excuse me.......MOM—put your joint out! I can smell it wafting down here! Remember.....catch the house on fire and I don’t have a fire escape down here!

Interesting points, in that it made them witnesses of what they saw through the "eyes" of their faith. Faith is assured expectation of things not seen. They saw the resurrected Jesus, but he was in a different state, "materialized." In time, they all had faith that this was not a demon or just any angel materializing as Jesus, but Jesus himself, the one they had previously witnessed in person. (The resurrected Jesus restored as an even more powerful spirit being, but materialized.) Up to 500 persons saw him in this state. And through the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost they realized what they were receiving, in faith, that this was what Jesus had promised after he would sit down at the right hand of the Father's heavenly throne. As a group, however, they witnessed this, too. Stephen had a vision of Jesus standing at God's right hand. (Makes no difference if you are sitting or standing when you are at the right hand of the throne of majesty.)