JW Insider

You probably remember the time about 4 years ago, when I first mistook Allen Smith for a disgruntled ex-JW trying to make JWs look bad. At that time I came to the defense of other Witnesses on here (the old jw-archive.org forum at the time) and made it clear that all other Witnesses that I know, or have ever known, weren't at all like him. I certainly hope you not playing a game just to make JWs look bad.
Then again, you appear to think that my goal is to make JWs look bad, although I would say that I'm pushing for improvements. Even if you can't see a need for any improvements in processes and doctrines, you might still understand why others could want better explanations for certain difficult doctrines, and want more transparency when it comes to certain decisions and policies.
At any rate, I still find many of your points interesting, especially when you are talking to others here. When you talk to me, however, you seem to give up too easily, avoiding evidence offered, and offering non-responsible material in return. You do yourself no favors by merely lashing out with ad hominem vitriol, because it makes it look like you didn't have anything reasonable to offer.
For example, I asked:
You're answer was this:
Maybe it's just me, but I really can't get the sense of this answer. I can't see how it lets your reasonableness be known to all.
(Titus 3:2) " . . .  to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable."

Had anyone ever noticed that Russell allowed himself to be identified as the "angel of Jehovah" here?
(1 Kings 19:7) 7 Later the angel of Jehovah came back a second time and touched him and said: “Get up and eat, for the journey will be too much for you.”
This was long before Russell had been identified (in print, at least) as the "angel" of the church at Laodicea, or "the seventh messenger."

You can also use this image to play "Where's Waldo?"

LOL! You are reverting to the habit Allen Smith was infamous for: trying to use a quotation to prove someone wrong, when that quotation fully supports what you are opposing. It seems like the problem with so many opposers is that they are so anxious to oppose that they are blind to the evidence in front of them, or they forget to look carefully at it.
You really should just take some time and try to deal with the evidence at hand. So far, you have answered none of the items of evidence raised. And so far, every bit of evidence you have produced is exactly in support of what I have been saying all along. I agree 100 percent with your evidence. As usual, it helps make the same points I already made.
In this case, of course, you are quoting from the letter from 1914 that Alex Evans (a "colored" brother from Louisiana) wrote to the St. Paul Enterprise newspaper, in defense of Russell personally holding the title of the "faithful and wise servant." It starts about a third of the way down into this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160722143304/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm
And speaking of opposers, I notice that you have now, on multiple occasions, stated that you believe that Russell actually did hold the office of "faithful and discreet slave."
Can you explain why you think that Russell was the Faithful and Wise Servant when the Watchtower currently teaches that the slave did not come into existence until 1919 (well after Russell had died in 1916)?

It's easy to misunderstand Russell's position on this parable, but once you learn more about the historical context, it's easier. Above, you have highlighted "fellow-servants". This might imply to some that Russell did not see himself and as that individual servant. Note, though, that D613 is exactly the footnote that the "Divine Purpose" book gave earlier to show how the once-correct view gave way to seeing Russell himself as "that servant." It's called "D" of course, because D is the fourth letter of the alphabet and it's from Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 4, p.613.
A more careful reading shows that the reason Russell explained the "fellow-servants" was to show how these are plural and yet "that servant" is singular, which to him, he claimed, meant that only one individual would distribute to his fellow servants who would then pass it on to yet others --and therefore, those fellow servants were not the one specially-used individual called "the faithful and wise servant."
Using the current NWT, Russell's explanation was this:
(Matthew 24:45) 45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave [Charles Taze Russell, individual, singular] whom his master [Jesus Christ] appointed over his domestics, [fellow-servants, plural; fellow distributors of Watch Towers and Studies in the Scriptures books (Millennial Dawn books)], to give them their food at the proper time?
I'm sure you know that "gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character. I don't think Russell was exactly like this, but clearly, in keeping with the style of the times, Russell knew that it would not do to just crassly put his own name on this interpretation. A rule of the time was that you get others to praise you; it had to come from the mouth of other people. I don't know if Russell ever had to ask for it, but it was common in the 19th century for a speaker to write up a self-praising introduction about himself for another person to read when introducing him.
Sometimes this made for some "work-arounds" that appear kind of comical today. For example, from the same book you are quoting (Expanded Biblical Comments), we have this from the parallel parable in Luke:
[NTC - Luke 12:42]
. . .
Who then— . . . the Lord would appoint a servant in the household to bring these matters to the attention of all the servants. R3355:6, 2693:6
That faithful—. . .
Wise steward— . . . Not a composite steward, because we are not to recognize a . . . class; and the word "that". . .  implies a particular one. R3356:1 The angel of 1 Kings 19:7, the preparer of the Dawns and Towers. R4211:6*
Same story, here of course. Woodworth (this book was mostly his doing) had to work with contradictory material in using Russell's "Dawns and Towers," as the view had been adjusted in 1896. (Dawns=Millennial Dawn aka Studies in the Scriptures, and Towers=Zion's Watch Tower and later Watch Towers.)
But notice that the idea of ONE individual servant brings matters to the attention all the fellow servants, and it can't be a composite steward or "class" but a particular one. It doesn't name "Russell" but does mention the preparer of "Studies in the Scriptures" and the "Watch Tower." 
I wonder who that could be!

I think that people were noticing some language issues, and he mentioned dyslexia, hardly in a category of "mental illness."
But there is good reason for concern, not the least of which is the evidence that not just the three names, but literally more than 30 different names have been used by him. The "projection" and "blame-shifting" and something I'll call "grudge echolalia" seem to come too natural to be faked. And I think several here have suspected certain obsessions and pathological tendencies.
That said, I think his defense of the WTS is actually sincere.

A lot of material in there. This came up as "03. Light Brighter Part A.PDF." Are we to assume there is also a Part B? or even Part C? I notice that there is also mention of a "1925 folder" and that "03." implies more parts, too. Are these also shareable? Privately if not publicly?

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing
 

True. It hurts when one sees people paying scant attention (or passing notes or giving instructions) during singing which is a big part of our worship. Our music culture needs to be improved - even our vocabulary, e.g. the chairman frequently says we will "use"  song No. so and so.  We have to sing the song and sing it well. We are doing better but we can still improve our singing and participation in music as part of worship,  The general culture now is listening to music rather than playing and singing.
The smaller keyboards can suffice, as well as guitars.  My keyboard could hold into my car trunk.  I don't know much about the wind instruments but I like the sounds, especially the horn and the euphonium.   I love the sound of your harmonica also.                                       
I always had a keyboard since in my twenties. I now have an electric piano, which is too large to move around with.  It was easy to move  with the small Yamaha  PR 30 keyboard  which I had.  It had many features including recorders, but no pedals, and less than 88 keys which made playing certain things difficult. But the the present electric piano (Privia) has all those features and more, and with all the keys and pedals. The piano can be moved but in a large van but I think to move it around would damage it, so I don't intend to move it. 

Very portable instruments:
I brought up the harmonica because it is a very low-cost instrument that can present quite a bit of versatility. The human voice is another instrument like that, and it can be modulated so that "humming" for example, will bother very few people around you if quiet enough. For many of us, myself included, the voice is not as accurate at hitting the right note. The human whistle is another low-cost instrument that one can bring almost anywhere, although it's often more annoying to bystanders. The flute-style "recorder" is another very low-cost instrument, and I keep one in the car, for use while I'm waiting for parking in NYC. I find that most of these tend to flatten the higher notes just a bit, and unexpectedly provide very harsh "harmonic" tones even when you are sure the right holes are pressed. A guitar is not so portable, but obviously much more versatile for all types of music. A good keyboard is the least portable, although I find a smartphone can suffice as an alternative. iPhones can include a free version of GarageBand that is an amazingly versatile piece of software that includes many simulated musical instruments. My daughter and one son played viola and violin in school. Small violins are portable, but expensive and delicate. I can't get a good sound out of one. I can't think of any more truly portable instruments that one could carry with them anywhere. In Missouri a few people had some odd instruments that you don't see very often. I have a simulated Ocarina on my iPhone that I play by blowing air (not whistling) into the microphone while pressing combinations of only 4 buttons pictured on the phone. Of course, there are pencils and spoons and "saws" and tin whistles, but I can't think of any other really good ones to accompany Kingdom Songs.
But I mention these ideas so that anyone who hasn't joined in this kind of fun might realize just how easy it is to make some music. I also find that if you take more interest in the music, you will pay more attention to both the lyrics and the music when it's played at the hall or conventions.

This is based on a mashup of ideas based on a quick reading of online and newspaper "revelations" that appear to quote from sometimes credible sources.
I understand that a lot of online sources about Epstein, including Wikipedia, got a Clinton wipe-down up until just the day before Clinton's press release minimizing his contact with Epstein. But it wasn't just Bill Clinton. It seems that names of almost all Democrats were removed from some of these sources as far as possible. But Twitter is now seeing a re-freshening of some of these sources through those who have taken an interest in the Epstein case for years.
In fact, NY's Southern District Court wants to take on this case, no doubt as a followup on the Mueller investigation into Trump that didn't take it as far as they hoped. That's a court with heavy behind-the-scenes Democrats who can't stand the fact that Trump has been an excellent president for those with Republican political values, and a lot of extra Democrats who overlap with Republican political values. This means that Trump is pretty sure to win again unless they can take him down by scandal.
I think Pelosi's daughter just said that it will take down some Democrats, too. And even the man who wrote Trump Nation, being interviewed a lot lately for his anti-Trump stance, is admitting that many high-level Democrats are also shaking in their boots, in case Epstein has off-shore vaults full of "life insurance." (His own life insurance, in the sense that Alan Dershowitz and others are probably under obligation to send out a lot of "envelopes" if anything happens to Epstein.)
As much as I hate "conspiracy" theories, this one really does appear to go right to the top of all political circles -- and that's by design.
When Acosta got him such a lenient sentence and illegally determined to offer Epstein a plea deal without informing the victim plaintiffs, he often claimed that he was innocent because this case was being monitored at all levels of government, and all told him he was doing a good job. We have to wonder why it was being monitored at all levels of government.
Also those who realize that Democrats have tried to misuse this against Trump, probably forget that Trump's time with Epstein included time when Trump was a Democrat and was hanging around with his great pal Democrats, the Clintons, and others.
But in truth, you should also watch the people who are recusing themselves from the current upcoming case, and start listening again to things that Acosta said when being interviewed about whether he thought his history with Epstein would hurt him, when Trump wanted him to be the Labor Secretary.

If this is true, [dailybeast source] it might be the whole key to whether Epstein is prosecuted as expected, or gets another deal. The current NY case no longer accepts the immunity of the men who kidnapped orphans and homeless girls for Epstein's underage prostitution rings. This provides for a set of "fall guys" to make it look like the court did its thing while appearing to give Epstein a harsh enough punishment while actually giving him a pass like Acosta did last time. (He was previously sentenced to jail, but was also told he only had to show up about one day a week to jail, and could spend the other six days running his business.)
His actual business, as you've said or implied, was probably based on a single source bankrolling a scam hedge fund operation that really seems like its actual source of growth was funded through a blackmail operation. With only one known name in his business, and no records of any Wall Street trades or investments, it appears that his entire operation could have been funded in the following way:
Invite interesting people, high level politicians, and a mix of billionaires to lavish parties. Make sure that the parties include a lot of free drinking and 16 year old girls (he has victimized into prostitution) who can pass for 18 or 19. Hope that at least one billionaire, or connected politician with a lot to lose will end up taking one of the "19" year olds to a conveniently wired bedroom. Let the victim know the next day that she was 16, and that the solution to Epstein's silence is a hefty investment in his fund, with 5 percent fee payments to keep the money "managed." Take advantage of the fact that some high level politicians and billionaires will learn of Epstein's ability to procure 16 year old girls and pay a lot of money for sex with them with or without blackmail involved. But what if Epstein has been protected all these years because the CIA uses sexual scandal leverage against people all the time, and this is who Epstein's secret bank-rollers really were all along? In that case, I expect very little real success in a case against him. What gets found in his blackmail vaults will likely be filtered by whomever has the authority to look at it first. (Remember the Mayflower Madam? or DC Madam)

That's amazing. As soon as you said you were already thinking of "Bless Our Meeting Together" I also wanted to mention "We Thank You Jehovah" because it has exactly the same features. It has no accidentals in the melody, and almost none in the bass or tenor either, but the alto is where a lot of the best harmonic action is found, although the bass bounces nicely through a greater range than usual (full octave intervals). Of course, they put it in a slightly harder key to play in.
That's part of it, but doesn't explain why 140 of them don't sound alike at all. Nor why "Beethoven's 5th" sounds nothing like "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."

That must have sounded nice, with the parts in a real choir. True that the old harmony doesn't work so well with the new melody on parts of the first portion.
The easiest song to learn harmony on (for me) was the old song 5 (pink) now 93 "Bless Our Meeting Together." Most of words have remained intact, too. The tenor and the alto could easily be memorized by others in our service car group. And now the new version is even easier because it's in C with no "accidentals" in the melody.

My 1944 is red. My 1950 is green. 1966 is pink/magenta. (Not shown with correct proportional sizes)

Here is a list of the "simple" TOP 40 (45) songs from the current 2017 songbook. There are a few that might not seem so simple, but they are here because they have a long history in Witness memories, especially for the slightly older ones among us. But even the most complex from pre-2009, are still much simpler than the more complex ones since then. (Although the more complex ones are generally much prettier.)
I have tried to include EVERY current song that goes back at least to the 1966 songbook, and a few of these also go back to the green 1950 and some to the grey 1928 songbook.
These are the "TOP FORTY-FIVE" 2017 songs that go back almost unchanged musically to at least 1966:
Note that some have the same title, and almost the same words, but the music is completely changed, and they won't be included. Some have completely different words, even a completely different topic, but the music is almost identical to a prior song, and they will be included. Some have nearly the same melody but with only a very few adjustments, and they will be included. Some have similar music, and the melody is different, but it's close enough so that the previous version could still harmonize with it, or even match it in several places, and if enough similarities are there, they will be included. Some of the new songs were known only through songs repeated since the 1970's in convention "dramas" (72, 110, 149, etc.) and will not be included.  
4. “Jehovah Is My Shepherd”   6. The Heavens Declare God’s Glory 7. Jehovah, Our Strength 8. Jehovah Is Our Refuge 9. Jehovah Is Our King! 13. Christ, Our Model 14. Praising Earth’s New King 23. Jehovah Begins His Rule   29. Living Up to Our Name 31. Oh, Walk With God! 32. Take Sides With Jehovah! 33. Throw Your Burden on Jehovah 34. Walking in Integrity 36. We Guard Our Hearts 42. The Prayer of God’s Servant    46. We Thank You, Jehovah  48. Daily Walking With Jehovah  55. Fear Them Not!   59. Praise Jah With Me 61. Forward, You Witnesses! 63. We’re Jehovah’s Witnesses!   66. Declare the Good News    71. We Are Jehovah’s Army!   78. “Teaching the Word of God”   82. “Let Your Light Shine” 85. Welcome One Another 90. Encourage One Another   93. Bless Our Meeting Together 94. Grateful for God’s Word 98. The Scriptures—Inspired of God 99. Myriads of Brothers   105. “God Is Love”  106. Cultivating the Quality of Love 107. The Divine Pattern of Love 108. God’s Loyal Love     113. Our Possession of Peace 114. “Exercise Patience” 115. Gratitude for Divine Patience 117. The Quality of Goodness   120. Imitate Christ’s Mildness     125. “Happy Are the Merciful!”   128. Enduring to the End     133. Worship Jehovah During Youth  144. Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!  146. “Making All Things New"      Others that at least partially match 1966 or 1950 songs are here:
21. Keep On Seeking First the Kingdom  (First part harmonizes, second part matches.) 37. Serving Jehovah Whole-Souled (music matches an older 1950 song)  40. To Whom Do We Belong? (First half harmonizes, second part matches.) 50. My Prayer of Dedication (Music harmonizes with 1950 song "Dedication," with many of the same words.)     62. The New Song (An old 1950 song.)  75. “Here I Am! Send Me!” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.)   83. “From House to House” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.)   86. We Must Be Taught (Only harmonizes with a previously known song, words completely different.)   116. The Power of Kindness (Second part was removed - tho removed part partially included in different new song.) I think of the above as "easy" because they are so well known for so long, but some of the newer ones are very easy, too. These following two, are just a couple examples, and both are in the Key of C, with no additional sharps or flats in the melody:
 3. Our Strength, Our Hope, Our Confidence  28. Gaining Jehovah’s Friendship

I agree. It makes me also think of the amazing artists from the Renaissance period, all of them heavily influenced by the church. But then there was nothing else at the time was there? They didn't know any better.....
I also love Handle's Messiah and Schubert's Ave Maria. And Gruber's "silent night" is beautiful when sang by a professional choir. Of course I would never sing it in front of anyone for fear of stumbling them.
 

About the colour of the song books, I saw my parents with the red and green one, but I was not aware of these things at that age. Only knew that I used to sing from the green one, but the red one was  hanging around as well.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Will save those pictures.

My 1944 is red. My 1950 is green. 1966 is pink/magenta. (Not shown with correct proportional sizes)

Here is a list of the "simple" TOP 40 (45) songs from the current 2017 songbook. There are a few that might not seem so simple, but they are here because they have a long history in Witness memories, especially for the slightly older ones among us. But even the most complex from pre-2009, are still much simpler than the more complex ones since then. (Although the more complex ones are generally much prettier.)
I have tried to include EVERY current song that goes back at least to the 1966 songbook, and a few of these also go back to the green 1950 and some to the grey 1928 songbook.
These are the "TOP FORTY-FIVE" 2017 songs that go back almost unchanged musically to at least 1966:
Note that some have the same title, and almost the same words, but the music is completely changed, and they won't be included. Some have completely different words, even a completely different topic, but the music is almost identical to a prior song, and they will be included. Some have nearly the same melody but with only a very few adjustments, and they will be included. Some have similar music, and the melody is different, but it's close enough so that the previous version could still harmonize with it, or even match it in several places, and if enough similarities are there, they will be included. Some of the new songs were known only through songs repeated since the 1970's in convention "dramas" (72, 110, 149, etc.) and will not be included.  
4. “Jehovah Is My Shepherd”   6. The Heavens Declare God’s Glory 7. Jehovah, Our Strength 8. Jehovah Is Our Refuge 9. Jehovah Is Our King! 13. Christ, Our Model 14. Praising Earth’s New King 23. Jehovah Begins His Rule   29. Living Up to Our Name 31. Oh, Walk With God! 32. Take Sides With Jehovah! 33. Throw Your Burden on Jehovah 34. Walking in Integrity 36. We Guard Our Hearts 42. The Prayer of God’s Servant    46. We Thank You, Jehovah  48. Daily Walking With Jehovah  55. Fear Them Not!   59. Praise Jah With Me 61. Forward, You Witnesses! 63. We’re Jehovah’s Witnesses!   66. Declare the Good News    71. We Are Jehovah’s Army!   78. “Teaching the Word of God”   82. “Let Your Light Shine” 85. Welcome One Another 90. Encourage One Another   93. Bless Our Meeting Together 94. Grateful for God’s Word 98. The Scriptures—Inspired of God 99. Myriads of Brothers   105. “God Is Love”  106. Cultivating the Quality of Love 107. The Divine Pattern of Love 108. God’s Loyal Love     113. Our Possession of Peace 114. “Exercise Patience” 115. Gratitude for Divine Patience 117. The Quality of Goodness   120. Imitate Christ’s Mildness     125. “Happy Are the Merciful!”   128. Enduring to the End     133. Worship Jehovah During Youth  144. Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!  146. “Making All Things New"      Others that at least partially match 1966 or 1950 songs are here:
21. Keep On Seeking First the Kingdom  (First part harmonizes, second part matches.) 37. Serving Jehovah Whole-Souled (music matches an older 1950 song)  40. To Whom Do We Belong? (First half harmonizes, second part matches.) 50. My Prayer of Dedication (Music harmonizes with 1950 song "Dedication," with many of the same words.)     62. The New Song (An old 1950 song.)  75. “Here I Am! Send Me!” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.)   83. “From House to House” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.)   86. We Must Be Taught (Only harmonizes with a previously known song, words completely different.)   116. The Power of Kindness (Second part was removed - tho removed part partially included in different new song.) I think of the above as "easy" because they are so well known for so long, but some of the newer ones are very easy, too. These following two, are just a couple examples, and both are in the Key of C, with no additional sharps or flats in the melody:
 3. Our Strength, Our Hope, Our Confidence  28. Gaining Jehovah’s Friendship

I truly believe that kids are great. And how they are sincere little people. In comparison to "mature", "spiritual"  people, like You or me, or @James Thomas Rook Jr.,  @Anna and @JW Insider you had mentioned. 
We all here, can be or not have to be "spiritual" by your' or someone else Measurement Tool , but more important question is: Are we always Sincere ... like children??!!  

I guess Missouri is mostly country folk?

Except for a couple of statements I could not fully agree with, I really appreciated your line of reasoning/questioning.

Except for a couple of statements I could not fully agree with, I really appreciated your line of reasoning/questioning.

I'm happy for the discussions about appreciating music. My father moved us from California to Missouri in 1964 to 'serve where the need was greater' and he was often looked at very suspiciously for all his classical records, and a few other styles, too. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc., were generally considered to represent false religious church music by other Witnesses. He had to keep most of these records under wraps, and kept about half of them at his lab where he worked.

That’s a lot of work to syphon out the liars. 
That’s not to say it is not a good idea, nor that it is any more time-consuming than what I do. It is just that few people have that kind of time. Most people take news from one or two sources, often the evening TV news for people our age, and pretty well accept that they are being told the truth. Usually they are, but it is not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”—which can completely turn things around.
At one pioneer meeting the elder conducting it was highlighting the importance of neutrality, and never to give the impression of taking sides. “Now we all know that Trump is crazy,” he said, “but.......” I would stake my life on it that his only source of news is the evening news of one of the three networks. 
I was relatively up in years before I discovered to my surprise that my (non-Witness) Dad cared hardly at all about politics. Many were the political discussions swirling around the dining room table, as I was growing up, when the extended family was gathered. However, it turned out that my Mom’s father was very much a GOP person and would crank on about it endlessly, and my Dad was just too gracious to tell him to zip it—it was his father-in-law, after all, who his wife liked.
 

I'm happy for the discussions about appreciating music. My father moved us from California to Missouri in 1964 to 'serve where the need was greater' and he was often looked at very suspiciously for all his classical records, and a few other styles, too. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc., were generally considered to represent false religious church music by other Witnesses. He had to keep most of these records under wraps, and kept about half of them at his lab where he worked.