JW Insider

I realized it didn't quite fit your cadence, and I tried to erase my comment in time, but you were too quick. Now I wish I could put back my post with the bad guess, so that your comment would make more sense.

Always happy to learn things like this about people. Without details, I can imagine anything from from music lessons to a professional recital hall.
I think I mentioned once that I played a harmonica at the District Assemblies (aka Summer Conventions), not an instrument one would normally associate with the assembly orchestra. (In fact, we currently associate no instruments with assembly orchestras.) We also don't have choirs anymore. My parents met each other in the volunteer portion of a convention choir. In the early 1950's there was always a core choir assigned from past volunteers, and then they would often invite more volunteers, if they wished, to join them in a section up close to the actual orchestra/choir.
Hey! Maybe we should create a section for posting "Kingdom Songs," or other songs.

I realized it didn't quite fit your cadence, and I tried to erase my comment in time, but you were too quick. Now I wish I could put back my post with the bad guess, so that your comment would make more sense.

Hard to get anything past me... I type with TWO fingers!
It would go faster if I removed the finger-tip rubber chicken heads.

Remember the song in the old pink shirt cardboard songbook,  that I used to call the "Let's drag the stones to the Pyramid" song?  I forget the name ...
 Bum dee dee BUM de de,  BUM BUM BUM dum bum.
BUM de de BUM de de bum dum dum dum DUM.
Bum de de, Bum de de DUM,  DUM ....
... etc.
I miss that song ....
 

Always happy to learn things like this about people. Without details, I can imagine anything from from music lessons to a professional recital hall.
I think I mentioned once that I played a harmonica at the District Assemblies (aka Summer Conventions), not an instrument one would normally associate with the assembly orchestra. (In fact, we currently associate no instruments with assembly orchestras.) We also don't have choirs anymore. My parents met each other in the volunteer portion of a convention choir. In the early 1950's there was always a core choir assigned from past volunteers, and then they would often invite more volunteers, if they wished, to join them in a section up close to the actual orchestra/choir.
Hey! Maybe we should create a section for posting "Kingdom Songs," or other songs.

He does. That’s half the problem.
Working up a better answer. Time is a little tight now.

OK, great! Go ahead. Going to music now - have to perform a little piece.

All you have said, Melinda, is true, but .... (assuming you have already attended the 2019 Convention ...) the question remains,
WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT WAS NEW AT THE 2019 "LOVE NEVER FAILS" REGIONAL CONVENTION ?
By the way ... I met my first wife at an Assembly ( she ran out on me with my best friend, an ex Bethelite and a Pioneer).
I met my second wife in Peru, and we both worked on helping to build Bethel, there ( she ran out on me for no specified reason, other than she never loved me ).
and ... I met my current and third wife, Susan,  on a JW dating website, and after six years, she is the love of my life, and my best friend.
My three children, very VERY dedicated to the Organization, and who live within a 200 mile radius, have visited me less than ONE DAY in the last ten years ( this coming December 19th), so you can see why it is important for me to find out how OTHER people process information, and ...
WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT WAS NEW AT THE 2019 "LOVE NEVER FAILS" REGIONAL CONVENTION ?
 

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

To be honest @JOHN BUTLER, I just couldn't be bothered to give you a detailed reply because your reasoning is so out of whack. But here goes:
As far as I am aware there is not much difference between an error and a mistake, they are just synonyms of each other. Once you put the adjective "deliberate"  in front of any of those words, then it changes the meaning to being  ummmm....deliberate, intentional, calculated, wilful etc. And no, I do not think their errors are deliberate. To which you will no doubt say I am brainwashed. It's good to have an opinion John, it doesn't mean someone is brainwashed, to the contrary.
Sure. But ultimately it is God. 
It's still up to God to grant that, not up to the GB. You could be part of the WT/JW etc. and still be disapproved by God. Just being a part of something is no guarantee.
The WT org. didn't foretell anything new, it just repeated what the Bible already foretold.
As for moral standards, you already forgot how high they are. You don't remember if someone is found to be unrepentantly flaunting God's moral standards they are out on their ear? 
Already covered above
Your opinion 
You are reading FAR too much into this! My inconsistency has nothing to do with the intention of twisting anything. Just laziness.
1975 was speculation. To be baptized as JW to be saved is a belief. Armageddon being close is also a belief.
Sorry, can't finish. Got to go. Will carry on later.
 

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)?

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!

Yes. I do think that all of the anointed, each and every member of the entire Christian "congregation" or "body of Christ" have the capability to fulfill the role of faithful and discreet slave, during their life. The same actually holds true, by practical extension, to all members of the congregation.
This doesn't mean that everyone needs to have a say in doctrine, teaching, or instruction, shepherding, or that everyone needs to preside, or give feedback to the GB. It just means that every Christian has been given something  (gifts and talents, energy or ability to: work, console, encourage, help widows, comfort, preach, sing, prepare physical food, prepare a talk, raise children, help orphans, help someone sick, contribute money, help someone in need, carry water, drive an invalid to the meetings, etc.)
The principle is in Ephesians 4:12, Romans 14:19, etc., especially verses where the Greek word " οἰκοδομή oikodomḗ " is used. It means to build up, with the implication of building up a household, edification. It's related to the idea of the "faithful house servant managing the domestics" or "faithful steward" ( οἰκονόμος oikonómos; a house-distributor) who serve one another to keep a household running smoothly in Matthew 24:45, Luke 12:42, etc.
Metaphorically, food builds up, strengthens, maintains, gives energy, contributes to health, etc. In many of the following verses (and many others) the idea of "building up" uses this word also meaning "to edify" or, in effect, to feed. Each Christian is involved in soberly "feeding" on another. (Hebrews 10:24,25)

Ephesians 4:12
to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,

Romans 14:19
So then, let us pursue what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Romans 15:2
Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

1 Corinthians 12:7
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.

2 Corinthians 13:9
In fact, we rejoice when we are weak but you are strong, and our prayer is for your perfection.

2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice! Aim for perfect harmony, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

2 Timothy 4:5
But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
And yes, I know that some would say that this applies initially and perhaps especially to the office of persons in leadership positions like Peter (representing apostles) who was told by Jesus, to "Feed my lambs/sheep." (John 21:17)  But this special shepherding work, as Peter points out is something that all elders should share in. Peter even uses some of the same language that Jesus used in the illustration of the faithful and unfaithful stewards:
(1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .Therefore, as a fellow elder, . . .  I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
 

Very true. Just as 1 John 4:1 indicates, too. The idea that we might question a spokesperson for God obviously doesn't sit well with some. But it reminds me of a couple more Russell claims that he published about himself. Some were alluded to by BTK above, but I agree that we need to keep the context in mind.
I'm sure you've seen these before. One of them appears in every "opposition" book on Russell, of course. But that doesn't mean he didn't write it. Another one was written by others, but Russell knew, quoted from, and expressed approval for these Convention Reports.
"No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.  -- Watch Tower July 15, 1906, p. 230
"We have FAITH that the Lord has returned . . .  that HE has placed Pastor Russell in charge of the work this side the vail. We are glad therefore to recognize him as “that servant”, spoken of by the Lord; glad to recognize that the work he is doing is the work the Lord appointed him to do . . . . a 'Paul' -- one who is doing a work in this end of the Gospel age, similar to the work the Apostle did at the beginning of the age.” -- Foreword of the 1911 Convention Report
And that 1910 Watch Tower that BTK mentioned:
If, then, the Lord has provided us with something in our
day that other days than those of the Apostles knew nothing
about, no matter how good nor how wise they were-for us to
ignore the line of teaching which has been thus developed
would be, in our judgment, to ignore the Lord's providences.
It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide
his conduct in every way accordingly.
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically
the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we
might not improperly name the volumes-the Bible in an
arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments
on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since
there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any
individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to
present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We
therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind
of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see
the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also,
that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he
has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after
he has read them for ten years--if he then lays them aside and
ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has under-
stood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within
two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had
merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and
had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the
light of the Scriptures.

LOL. I'm sure I could remind you of a lot of things, but enough space has been wasted. Let's just stick to the facts on the topic as we know them, and avoid all the attempts at ad hominem if you can.
You point out that Russell responded to a question about "Who is that Servant?" (1909). In 1909, as you must know, there was a "secession" crisis among Watchtower readers, and the idea that Russell was allowing himself to be addressed and introduced as "That Servant" had become even more controversial.
You will also notice that Russell is careful not to deny that he is, in fact, to be identified as "That Servant" even though the question gave him every opportunity to do so.
In fact, Russell points to Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, which had just come out in 1904, but this book says absolutely nothing as to the identity of "That Servant" anywhere in the book. Chapter 4 mentions that as in all ages God may wish to "use some SPECIAL INSTRUMENTS for the service of the Church as a whole, as well as use certain members of each little local company." He adds that all servants should seek to share in the distribution of meat in due season, but this was always part of the teaching, from 1896 to 1926. He appears to scrupulously avoid any mention of "That Servant." Yet, unless it's true that Maria Russell wrote most of the previous Volumes (as some do claim), this was not all that Russell had written on the topic, as he claims.
We already know what was written in Studies and in the WT in 1896, 1897, 1904, 1906 (and 1911). There were also the Convention Notes from 1907 through 1914, and letters published in the WT where others addressed Russell as "That Servant." In fact a very interesting one that Russell published was in the WT of July 1910 (p.210), discussing the very 1909 "secession" controversy:
DELIVERED FROM SATAN'S SNARE
DEARLY Beloved Brother and Pastor:—I am writing to tell you how good our dear Lord has been to me in delivering me from the Power of Darkness, and restoring me to his favor again; and also to ask you to forgive me for the trial that my recent course must have caused you. . . . I opposed your teaching, though not publicly. . . .  Then I began to search for the cause of my blindness, my unbelief, and I was sure that I found it. It was the Vow! What! did I oppose the Vow? No! Had I not taken the Vow? Yes; but with limitations. . . .  my Vow expired by limitation, and the protection that it had afforded me against the suggestions of Evil Spirits was at an end. So for several months the barrier had been thrown down, as it were, and I believe Satan and his co-adjutors had seized the opportunity (Eph 6:12), with the result that my faith had been nearly shipwrecked. Dear Brother, as soon as I saw this I renewed the Vow for all time. . . .  I got to believe that you had never been "That Servant, whom the Lord made master of all his goods"—that Servant was a class; that most of those things you once had right, but you had changed. . . .  While I thought my faith was on a surer foundation than ever, I now know it was nearly gone. . . . This was the turning point with me—the day when the Lord graciously showed me my true condition—that I was growing spiritually blind. . . . The alarming truth dawned on me—I was growing spiritually blind! . . . .  I am glad to add, dear Brother, that the points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling to me have since become clear; the Lord has graciously healed my spiritual sight, and my heart is rejoicing in the sunlight of his favor. . . .
Your brother in Christ,
CLARENCE E. FOWLER,
Imagine! One of the main points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling was that he temporarily thought the FDS was just a class and not RUSSELL as an individual, which is something that Russell once had right but now had changed (just as Henninges and McPhail were now teaching). But, happily, he reports (in a part of the letter I skipped) that he burned the publications from those former brothers, Henninges and McPhail and Randall.
Also, in the April 15, 1904, (R 3356) Russell also wrote about "that servant" from the parable, and said that:
". . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages . . . because in various times of the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner."

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?"