JW Insider

It's not a deflection when I can provide evidence. It's deflection when you make an empty assertion without evidence. It shouldn't surprise you to see some of your typical methods and claims be challenged. I see no reason to let you get away with empty claims all the time. Most of the time, yes, I'm sure you can get away with it. Just because I've let hundreds of these bickering, sniping, divisive, contentious, snide remarks go unchallenged, it doesn't mean it should always be so.  Now and then you should expect false or empty claims to be exposed for what they are.
 True. That's exactly what I was complaining about. You are giving a meaningless meaning to the word "influence" because you don't like the idea that Russell could have been influenced by anything except "to fully understand scripture . . . by his own understanding." Although this would surely sound ridiculous to anyone who reads all of Russell's publications, that's how you put it: [emphasis mine]
Russell clearly admitted that he was influenced by others, especially in the area of Biblical Chronology. Are you saying he was lying? And because you claim an awareness of all he wrote, I'm sure I don't have to point out the references for you.
That is a completely illogical non sequitur, bordering on word salad.
Another non sequitur. What does it matter how great you might think the University of Cambridge is? You showed a couple of book covers. If you had looked inside you would have seen that one was irrelevant and one provided multiple ways to understand how Russell had been influenced by others.
Actually, you're the one who found the good definition. The dictionary definition. I'm not arrogant for accepting the dictionary definition. You're the one who doesn't utilize the very definition you provided.
Indeed.
Sounds arrogant. Just sayin'.
That sounds good. The only problem is that when you simply present the facts straightforward, you often pick facts that are irrelevant to the topic. What Russell thought of Miller for example and what he thought Miller did wrong, was lifted nearly verbatim from Barbour's words about Barbour's own "epiphany" of sorts when he figured out what Miller had done wrong with the starting dates. You really thought that Russell came up with this by "his own understanding of Bible Chronology"? And what would be the point of such a claim? You are saying that, on his own, Russell came up with exactly the same foolishness that Barbour came up with, which the Watchtower has now dropped completely as false doctrine. Russell claims that initially he didn't understand the chronology issues, he even expressed some disdain for them, and rejection of them. But after spending some time, especially with Barbour, he was convinced that he should join Barbour's campaign to announce the great events of 1878. He ended up accepting all of Barbour's false doctrines about 1874 and 1878 which were based on Barbour's starting dates for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc. You are claiming that Russell came up with Barbour's exact same false doctrine with no influence from Barbour?
It's not possible to make such a claim without manipulating the meaning of the word "influence."
I have no need of a cheering section. This is why I don't create any alternate accounts. I think you have created about a dozen alternate accounts that you have utilized in order to provide a voting bloc that up-votes your own posts to cheer them on. And you have also used your alternate accounts to down-vote or laugh at posts with evidence you aren't able to respond to. So who's the one who apparently thinks you need a cheering section?
I'm not concerned here with some of the ways in which he was not influenced. We already covered the idea that many people think Russell was influenced in more ways than he actually was. I'm still stating the obvious, by Russell's own admissions, that there were ways in which he was influenced. Two of the topics that have come up here, for example, are teachings about the "Great Pyramid of Giza" and it's relationship to the chronology teachings Russell got from Barbour. Those are a couple of the more obvious examples, although there is evidence for a couple others, too.
I'm not going to worry about what other people are doing, unless they'd like to come to the forum and ask. I know who Barbara Anderson is, of course, but I haven't read what she says about "influence." (I notice that you also mentioned a Commodus in an earlier post. I have no idea who this is.) I am not here concerned about influences among and between Storrs, Grew, and competing religious ideologies or phrenology reports.
I noticed that what you quoted directly followed from Storr's phrenology report. Phrenology, of course, is based on the conclusions of an "expert" (usually a racist) who feels the bumps on your skull, especially around the brain area:
A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows:  [And what followed was the report that you just quoted!]
Was Russell influenced by this debunked and false teaching about phrenology because Storrs evidently believed in it? Note this about Russell, based on Russell's visitation with His Majesty's Phrenologist, Professor Dall:
I have much pleasure in giving a sketch of the genial and fatherly head and physiognomy of Pastor Russell. He is just one of those men whose appearance, suavity, wit, goodness of heart and soundness of head do credit to his profession. Well up in years, he has a youthful, kindly, and sympathetic nature, fatherly and benign in counsel, moral and spiritual in his influence. In religion his "doxy" is broadened by the effulgent light of Bible study. His temperamental development is very even. If there is a predominance of either, it is found in the motive, which supports an intense energy of mind that cannot dream life away, but must be practical. I find the head of Pastor Russell to be a large one, and the brain gifted with an uncommon degree of activity. A full basilar region is accompanied by the powerful endowment of the moral, intellectual, and spiritual natures. ... Did Russell decide on his own that this false teaching about reading the bumps on one's head was worthwhile? Is it possible that others influenced Russell to believe that phrenology was useful?
 

I'll start with the conclusion of your post. I looked over the two books. Both books can easily be found in their entirety although possibly copyright-infringed, so I won't share the links. I have access to one of the complete books through a college library account. And both books are previewed in Google Books.
So, after looking them over, I don't make assumptions with your writing, that it is somehow in agreement with what I am saying. However, these books that look scholarly and have the word "influence" in the title are very much in agreement with what I am saying. And they are very much in disagreement with how you are evidently trying to twist the meaning of the word "influence." This shouldn't have surprised anyone. You've tried this dozens of time with me, and rarely have you ever responded to an argument with a book cover where the conent of the book actually supported your theories. (Even when you sometimes have pulled long quotes from the books, those quotes have often hurt your argument.) So I can see why you might be concerned with the exposure of "trickery." But the books don't matter. It turns out that just because they both had the word "influence" in the title, that neither book has much relationship to this context .
The dictionary definitions you supplied, on the other hand, are exactly in line with the correct usage of the word "influence." And yes, unfortunately, it completely demolishes your theory, because none of the definitions would allow you to avoid the obvious -- that Russell was "influenced" by Second Adventists. 
But you did go to a lot of trouble to respond, and I appreciate that, even though your claim suggests one thing and the only evidence you have provided indicates that your claim is wrong. This suggests that you might have had some other prejudicial reason to avoid the word "influence" with respect to Russell. I think that this might be the best place to start, then, in order to understand what you are trying to say. In other words, the new question, is as follows:
Why would anyone provide evidence that Russell was influenced by Second Adventists while at the same time claiming he was not influenced by Second Adventists? This is just a guess, but my theory is that you won't realize the cognitive dissonance due to the strength of your overriding belief that Russell was somehow too good to be influenced by ideas and people who turned out to be wrong. You evidently hold to an ideology that Russell was above influence by anything or anyone that could be wrong or false. And you do give several evidences from your own words that this is your belief. Just as no one would ever say that Jesus was "influenced" by any man or group of men, you also can't abide an ideology that Russell could have been influenced by Second Adventists.
Since this appeared to be the same reasoning behind previous attempts that you have made, you can probably see why I went to the trouble of discussing the dangers of creature worship, personality cults, false claims, and historical revisionism that invariably results from elevating the status of a man as if he were some kind of "prophetic figure." Note the implication of the references here on jw.org: [emphasis mine]  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger” . . . . Can you name one of the other persons "in the decades before 1914" (i.e. prior to 1895) who would have to be included in that "prophetic figure"? Anyone?

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"?
It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology.
Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be:
"creature worship," a personality cult, cover-ups, false claims by the contemporary followers, false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and dishonest historical revisionism by later followers. To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here:
(Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . . Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign.
It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities.
Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

I'll start with the conclusion of your post. I looked over the two books. Both books can easily be found in their entirety although possibly copyright-infringed, so I won't share the links. I have access to one of the complete books through a college library account. And both books are previewed in Google Books.
So, after looking them over, I don't make assumptions with your writing, that it is somehow in agreement with what I am saying. However, these books that look scholarly and have the word "influence" in the title are very much in agreement with what I am saying. And they are very much in disagreement with how you are evidently trying to twist the meaning of the word "influence." This shouldn't have surprised anyone. You've tried this dozens of time with me, and rarely have you ever responded to an argument with a book cover where the conent of the book actually supported your theories. (Even when you sometimes have pulled long quotes from the books, those quotes have often hurt your argument.) So I can see why you might be concerned with the exposure of "trickery." But the books don't matter. It turns out that just because they both had the word "influence" in the title, that neither book has much relationship to this context .
The dictionary definitions you supplied, on the other hand, are exactly in line with the correct usage of the word "influence." And yes, unfortunately, it completely demolishes your theory, because none of the definitions would allow you to avoid the obvious -- that Russell was "influenced" by Second Adventists. 
But you did go to a lot of trouble to respond, and I appreciate that, even though your claim suggests one thing and the only evidence you have provided indicates that your claim is wrong. This suggests that you might have had some other prejudicial reason to avoid the word "influence" with respect to Russell. I think that this might be the best place to start, then, in order to understand what you are trying to say. In other words, the new question, is as follows:
Why would anyone provide evidence that Russell was influenced by Second Adventists while at the same time claiming he was not influenced by Second Adventists? This is just a guess, but my theory is that you won't realize the cognitive dissonance due to the strength of your overriding belief that Russell was somehow too good to be influenced by ideas and people who turned out to be wrong. You evidently hold to an ideology that Russell was above influence by anything or anyone that could be wrong or false. And you do give several evidences from your own words that this is your belief. Just as no one would ever say that Jesus was "influenced" by any man or group of men, you also can't abide an ideology that Russell could have been influenced by Second Adventists.
Since this appeared to be the same reasoning behind previous attempts that you have made, you can probably see why I went to the trouble of discussing the dangers of creature worship, personality cults, false claims, and historical revisionism that invariably results from elevating the status of a man as if he were some kind of "prophetic figure." Note the implication of the references here on jw.org: [emphasis mine]  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger” . . . . Can you name one of the other persons "in the decades before 1914" (i.e. prior to 1895) who would have to be included in that "prophetic figure"? Anyone?

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"?
It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology.
Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be:
"creature worship," a personality cult, cover-ups, false claims by the contemporary followers, false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and dishonest historical revisionism by later followers. To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here:
(Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . . Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign.
It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities.
Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

They also say that David, as a shepherd, was out-standing in his field.

I can imagine a situation where it was a sister's fault that the entire songbook had to be updated again. And, although it's pure speculation, it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. They say it was a sister who got celebrating anniversaries approved. They say it was a sister who got the idea of approving multiple blood fractions. Ultimately it was a sister (Audrey Mock) who got the rule changed at Bethel that if a brother got married, he had to leave Bethel.
In this case, imagine a brother as high up in the hierarchy as the Governing Body itself who has a wife. Now every time this wife sees her husband glancing for too long at a younger sister she knows she can't say anything directly, so she just starts humming the tune of: "O Guard Your Heart, you . . . "  After all, these songs have become the playlist of our lives, and I must have a thousand triggers that immediately get me to start humming any one of a hundred different Kingdom Songs.

@Space Merchant, I hate to admit it, but I have never really read any of your comments on the forum until this morning. Now and then I read some of the posts by @Witness, but the only reason I ended up in this thread was because JTR is one of the persons I follow, and a notification came up, when he asked a question about the Masonic-related speech. I immediately pointed him to a link that debunks the Freemason membership. I hadn't seen that Witness already gave a link to the entire sermon/talk. I knew that the pdf on my hard drive had the talk, but it was a large pdf to post for just a few pages inside it.
So I wanted to apologise for not taking note of your previous posts. I ended up overlapping a bit with yours, mostly on the Great Pyramid.
I just wanted to say, too, now that I have read many of your posts, I really liked them. I found them to be well-informed and relevant.
Thanks.

No need to bring up the Watchtower and or JWs because the focus here is a pastor by the name of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Zion Watchtower (not the current one), as well as part of the Bible Student Movement, for Jehovah’s Witnesses were not a thing until later on, even though their Predecessor is the Bible Student Movement. Pretty much everything that is before them becoming the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and expanding, years after CTR’s death.
You said before that CTR was “highly influenced” by the Masons, but what you presented from your one and only source, it is rather lacking, and quite vague, even from where exactly you wanted me to read (which I have read the page you addressed) and continued on my own to read, I see no influence here or a pastor succumbing to influence, just a pastor trying to converse what the bible says to a group Freemasons who think they are on a path to God.
You highlighted the following: “In fact, some of my very dear friends are Masons, and I can appreciate that there are certain very precious truths that are held in part by our Masonic friends.”
The man is well known among other denominations that differ from his faith, for those he calls friends are not exclusive to the Bible Student Movement group only, for he had spoke of Presbyterian friends, Methodist friends, Baptist friends, Congregational friends, and Roman Catholic and Church of England friends, etc.
 So this guy knows people and has friends in various places, even among Masons, so I don’t see the influence as you claim from that sole source. Despite having friends of other denominations, he sticks to what he believes as true compared to the others.
This information is quite evident when you are familiar with the history of Christianity itself, let alone the Christian Restorationist Movements that boomed in the past.
Anyways, as for page 914 (into 915), it continues on to state the following:
Please don’t do what the dishonest “Cos” did, to where you take paragraphs from, mark the actual page number of which you pulled it from (example: “da da di   do da da”. - page 9999)
Anyways,
[Page 914] “As Christian people, Bible Students from all denominations, it would seem that we have something in our faith that is in sympathy and harmony with each denomination, the world over. Do our Presbyterian friends speak of the election? We more. Do our Methodist friends have the doctrine of free grace? We more. Do our Baptist friends understand the importance of baptism, to some extent? We more. Do our friends of the Christian denomination, and our Congregational friends, appreciate the great privileges of individuality in church government? We more."
And then continues with the Masons: "Do our Masonic friends understand something about the Temple, and being Knights Templars, and so on? We more."
After that CTR continues: "Do our Roman Catholic and Church of England friends believe in a Universal church? We more.  [Page 915] In other words, it would seem as though the message of God's Word has been more or less subdivided, and each denomination has taken hold of a piece of the truth, and around that bit of truth has gathered a good deal that we think is erroneous."
CTR shows confusion between the relationship of the Knights Templar to Masons. CTR appears to have thought of the Knights Templar as being a higher order of Mason, he also assumed that all Masons professed to be “Christian”, and thus he thought of the Masons similar to that of a “Christian denomination”. The truth he saw in his conversation with the Masons was basically that of the usage of temple as designating the “building of character”. CTR, however, often used the word "friends" very loosely, as can be seen even in his sermon.
For The Temple of God Sermon, it is critically evident to my response somewhere above as to whom he calls “friends”.
So, as for the highlighted and bold text you have on full display, there is no influence due to him having been influenced by friends that are Masons, let alone friends of other denominations, in addition to that, he assumed the Masons were Christians, only to later say what I have stated before, in addition to his confusion of the Masons not being Christians.
Lastly, pertaining to my last comment, he did state the following about the Masons. He is oblivious to how the Masons roll when it comes to “grips” of hands, but he had also held firm to what he thinks of the unchristian practices of Masons.
Your next highlight: “about the Great Pyramid, which is the very emblem they use, and what the Great Pyramid signifies”
That’s from page 916, not 914.
A lot of people knew this already, but this is not where he has taken his influence for calculating 1914 by means of Pyramidology.
The Great Pyramid in question is none other than the infamous, and yet mysterious, Great Pyramid of Giza (Also known as Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops), located in Egypt.
We know CTR was involved with Pyramidology because in the early 1890s (1891), this type of study had boomed a global audience (a lot of people and groups). Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Bible Student Movement was among those who were intrigued by the Pyramid study, and he himself took it upon himself to study the pyramid, which resulted in him lining up the year 1914, which Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold that year of high importance and a reminder of them to them to maintain faith and be vigilant. Ironically, other than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there were those who took into account CTR’s study and the 1914 date itself about a dozen of other groups, some of them do not exist anymore, I could be wrong.
For there was a time of relative peace and suddenly out of the blue, between the 1914-1919 periods, an assassination that shocked the world, violence, war, death and chaos due to World War I, the mass spread of a dangerous epidemic that claimed 50 million+ lives, globally, etc.
That being said, there were those before CTR who have studied the pyramid
Joseph A. Seiss, a Lutheran minister, who was an advocate for the study of Pyramidology. Joseph was known for his religious writings on Pyramidology, as well as Dispensationalism, a religious interpretive system for the Bible (Hermeneutics). One of his works in 1877, “The Great Pyramid of Egypt, Miracle in Stone: Secrets and Advanced Knowledge”, is considered a primary text of Pyramidology. As for influence regarding the “Great Pyramid”, it was he who had influenced Charles Taze Russell of this study when it rounded up a global audience, resulting in CTR going there to study and manage to get calculations that relate to scripture.
Russell believed that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by the Hebrews under God’s direction, but to be understood those before them, well people of the modern day. CTR adopted and used Seiss's phrase, referring to it as "The Bible in Stone".
Another man by the name of John Taylor, not sure of his religious background, however this man was publisher and writer, who also took to the study of Pyramidology.
So in regards to “influence” of CTR regarding the Great Pyramid, it was Joseph A. Seiss, and information on this is as clear as the sky and the big blue sea.
Plus Christian Theologians seem to study Giza, not many today do it still, either it is too difficult, time consuming or the like, or just abandon it altogether. After CTR’s death, the practice had either ceased or was abandon in the early 1920s prior to the Bible Students soon becoming the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, despite abandoning the study, as did many, Jehovah’s Witnesses seem like the few who take into account of those who actually did do Pyramidology, i.e. Charles Taze Russell’s work.
 
Your final highlight: “Our Masonic friends have it down very fine. I do not know where they got it so well. I have often wondered where they found out so many of the secrets of our High and Accepted Order of Masonry.”
This is from page 921, not 914.
Pretty much to what I stated before, but yeah, there is nothing in regards to influence where, as you claim.
 
I’ll ask you again: Where is it that CTR was “highly influenced/taken influence” by the hands of the Masons or any type of Masonry for that matter?
If you response by saying “he used Mason symbols” it will not go well for you in the with anything pertaining to that response because some people, myself included, have done that song and dance before. That being said, I know a lot about how Freemasons operate, because I spoke to former Masons who were formerly grandmasters and if you don’t really have much but vague information to support such claims, I am just going to assume that you don’t have sufficient sources, you only used one that didn’t say much or speak of things outside CTR’s sermons, you either consider one a mason without vital information, or you want to take on unsuspecting people who may not know or know very little about a Restoration Christian who led a Bible Student Movement that later became the very people who you may seem to be against out of spite.
 
Buddy, you'd be surprised of how much I know of Christianity's denominations, all kinds, very experienced and knowledgeable I am because the type of way I role is to learn of each one, see their way of understanding, even though I myself is a Unitarian who try to maintain hat was taught by Church Fathers of old, most importantly, I know scripture very well.
No one is on to what is true 100%, however, there are those who do what is needed to be at least close to truth than far from it, as the main streamers do, who are far from truth. For it is better to be closer to the light at the end of the tunnel than far form it.
Out of all denominations, the one that is more damaging is the practice of the Trinity part of the sole decline in Christianity in Europe and Asia, and slowly in America, which in itself, is somewhat of a practice to today's Masons, as well as their past counterparts.
Anyways, I would really like it if you answer the question in terms of influence within page 914 of the source you have, "Pastor Russell's Convention Discourses". Please me knowledgeable about it too because no one likes to waste time here when sent on a goose chase to find nothing.

I think humans did find fossils but they misinterpreted them as dragons or other beasts.

Some people think the first description of a probable dinosaur fossil bone discovery can be found in a book written around 300 AD by the Chinese scholar Chang Qu.  He describes the finding of “dragon bones” at Wucheng, in what is now Sichuan Province (south-western China).

I heard Brother Klein give this illustration about "a sailboat tacking into the wind" during his comments on the morning text at Brooklyn Bethel. (The text, comments and prayer at the breakfast meal at Bethel are called "morning worship.") You could sometimes get a hint of what article a brother in the Governing Body was working on by their morning text comments. Of course it could be a few months before you finally saw the article in print, although I worked in the Art Department and sometimes we'd see the articles in an unfinished state to begin working on artwork. The brother who got this article didn't realize that the illustration has much less application to big sailing ships like packet ships, clipper ships, and schooners. It's more applicable to sailboats where the force of drag on the keel doesn't cancel the force of the Bernoulli effect.
The final article was worded much better than the original comments by Brother Klein. In the original it was more like the spirit blows a certain way and you want to go exactly the opposite direction. It was easy to interpret him saying that Bible pushes you in one direction and you wish to explain how we ever got to a position that was exactly the opposite of the Bible. He didn't actually say that, but it was so easily confused that I never expected these comments to finally get into an actual Watchtower article. Also, Brother Klein gave too much attention to the ship's rudder which is also only a very small part of the effect. The wind force on a well-shaped sail really becomes about perpendicular (90 degrees) to the actual direction of the wind, so the rudder is important to maneuver at 45 degree angles against the wind in "tacking", but this isn't where the effect comes from. He described 45 degree angles as if they were all-important, but a good sailor/sail can use the effect without requiring such a large tacking angle. 

You said this in the past, Witness, and I flatly denied then that Russell established 1914 on the measurements of the Pyramid of Giza. This is because it was clear that Nelson H. Barbour, a Second Adventist and former "Millerite" had already become convinced of the 1914 date even before Russell began working with him to help promote Barbour's work. The chronology that Barbour utilized to come up with 1914 was not based on the Pyramid at that time, but mostly on some now obsolete ideas about parallel dispensations with Israel. Several other commentators on Bible prophecy --even before Russell was born-- had already toyed with dates that came close to 1914, and these other commentators also did not base their chronology on the Pyramid.
Russell's first known writing about the year 1914 made use of the 2,520 years of Israel's punishment found in Leviticus (7 times)  Russell also considered this 2,520 years of Leviticus to run parallel with another period of 7 times which were represented by the period of "insanity" suffered by King Nebuchadnezzar based on Daniel 4. Both these periods were eventually merged into one period called, in effect, the "7 Gentile Times."  But even at that time, Russell indicated that there were better and clearer methods of getting to this 1914 date. That was back in 1876, before Russell had said anything about Pyramids -- and the better and clearer methods were likely based directly Russell's knowledge of the adjustment to Millerite chronology that Barbour and several other Second Adventists had accepted.
Joseph Seiss didn't write about the Pyramid until 1877. It had been written about (with a view toward "pyramidology") before, by John Taylor in 1859, by St.John Vincent Day in 1870, and Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth between 1864 and 1874 when he produced the first two versions of "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" respectively.
From comments that Russell made in the Watch Tower and from the the fact that the subject wasn't treated in Russell's works until the 1880's, shows that Russell had not used the Pyramid to obtain the date 1914. The "Plan of the Ages" book has indications that Russell was already interested in the Pyramid, but it didn't come out until 1886. The first real treatment of the Pyramid was clearly "plagiarized" from Joseph Seiss' book: "Miracle in Stone" (1877) but Russell didn't copy these ideas from Seiss until he added them to the book "Thy Kingdom Come" in 1891.
However, I have just completed "Miracle in Stone" for the first time a few weeks ago, and I realize now that Russell probably did use it as if it were an important, independent verification for 1914. This is because Seiss played a "teasing" game as if he had learned something from the Pyramid that he was holding back because it would come across like a prediction of the "end." He teased his readers by showing a picture of the pyramid passages he had measured, but then avoided explicitly telling the readers what that last measurement really was, because of the implication that it revealed knowledge of the actual "end." It was the same as saying, "I know something and you don't, but wisdom and prudence is keeping me from telling you, even though you could easily make a guess for yourselves by looking at the chart."
Of course what he actually said was worded differently:
And because of this strangely feverish disability to deal with ordinary soberness respecting even the most guarded presentations on this subject of the time, when the length of the Pyramid's Grand Gallery, viewed as a symbol of our dispensation, was touched in the preceding Lectures, I purposely left the figures far in the background, couching the statement in indefinite terms . . . Russell, of course, presented all the same information but tried to measure out those last "guarded" "indefinite" time periods as a method of trying to predict the end in 1914 and 1915.
Just how much importance Russell actually gave to the evidence is not possible to say. He never acted like the Pyramids were one of the most important pieces of evidence for 1914/1915, but he did go back to previous arguments he had made about chronology, and he began to add the Pyramid evidence as if definitive, or as if it made other arguments more sure.

You say that the symbolism of the Bible Students included the pyramid [Great Pyramid of Giza]. You say that this symbolism has nothing to do with JWs You say that meticulously proving 2,520 was the basis for the pyramid I daresay that meticulously proving 2,520 does have something to do with the JWs. However, you are completely wrong about proving "2,520" as the basis for the pyramid anyway.
The pyramid calculations had nothing to do with 2,520 or 607 (606) or 7 times, or even the Times of the Gentiles. Yes, it was utilized to focus attention on 1915 and 1914, and 1874 but it never had anything to do with 2520.

I have it somewhere. Hopefully someone has a link to it online.
It's from a speech by Russell, as reported in the 1913 Convention Report of the International Bible Students.
The commentary here: https://mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/russell_mason/wasrussellmason.html is as good a place as any to start. The portion above is Russell's long, drawn-out analogy and comparison to show how true Christians are really "Masons" only in a scriptural sense even though they don't belong to any Masonic Order. It's curious that he spent so much time accommodating the Masonic philosophy into his speech. I'm assuming he knew that Masons were in the audience, or he had been recently questioned about his choice of Masonic symbols and language.

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law.
You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. 
The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.

I already replied to this topic.

My point was an attempt to counter the idea that such terrible things will always, unavoidably get worse due to the implication that this means we give up on trying to do all we can to help. It sounds defeatist. Also, even if we knew absolutely that things would get worse and worse, would this mean that we would not wish to do everything in our power for our brothers and sisters, if not also to even set an example as a light to the world?
Sometimes, when humans put some effort toward it, we learn how to counter serious problems. That's why I brought up the huge effects of correcting the common belief that germs didn't cause disease (and corollary beliefs). When these ideas were corrected, most plagues and many other causes of death also became much more manageable. I consider AIDS to be a major plague, the Spanish Influenza, and similar flu strains. There are still deadly ebola outbreaks, cholera, etc. But we as a human race have learned about cause and effect factors.
I used 1919 as the last date because I believe this was the year in which the last major big "plague" (the Spanish Influenza), tapered off. Wikipedia says  it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. I wasn't saying that this can't happen again. I was saying that humans have found ways to minimize the former devastating effects of these to such an extent that the world's population growth rate has been effected.
(Also, of course, I don't know why your point about 1855 should serve to modify the remark. For me, it's part of the evidence I was presenting.)
For me it wasn't just Ameri/Eurocentric. At the time I was including progress albeit slowly, against female circumcision, female infanticide, child labor, child brides, excessive corporal punishment, and many related issues that slowly progress through exposure of these as international human rights issues. Again, however, it may get worse, but we still want to avoid using the idea as a kind of defeatism against doing what we can to expose the issue wherever we become aware of it. It's a good work to expose it, and especially to help those related to us in the faith.

I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."
I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.
So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.
With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.
I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.
So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

Not every problem needs to get worse as the system goes down. Plagues and flu that have killed millions of people may have seen their worst days from the Middle Ages until about 1919. Soap and a better understanding of germs and cleanliness (clean water, etc) has likely been the reason that the population of the world has grown so rapidly especially in the last two or three generations since 1919.
The Watch Tower publications were not the only sources of bad (false) information about germs, up until as recently as 1931. Note: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/09/yes-there-really-are-people-who-dont-acc/
Of course, we have had multiple plagues in the world from the even before Jesus predicted that these things would continue to occur. And we could be hit with something unexpected and terrible in the near future, but plagues are no longer the kind of worry they were during the days of exploration from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Lack of plagues results in rising populations and therefore food shortages, however.
Child abuse might actually be another matter that gets better, not worse, as the system heads towards the end. More public awareness (including families of course), and more education, and more alert institutions (religious, educational/academic, health, government services) can make a huge difference, especially as children are made aware of the potential problem at younger ages. Although there is still scrutiny and a lot of news about the problem, I think the situation might already be improving. The circuit overseer in my parent's congregation, Kent K*rr*s.,  in private conversation, claims that the problem is much rarer in the past few years than it was 10 years ago. I suspect the same is, or will soon be true with better vetting in the Catholic churches, too. My aunt is a lapsed Witness who attended a funeral for a friend in a Catholic Church about 4 years ago, and picked up a letter from the archbishop to all members in the back "foyer" of the church that announced that their new priest was on leave for an investigation into such a scandal, and that this was especially difficult on all church members since their bishop had just been removed indefinitely although he claimed innocence of similar charges. The archbishop promises that great care will be taken to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
I understand your point about bringing the incest problem from 1 Cor 5 into the mix, although that was not at all about child abuse. The idea that even the world might have handled this particular problem better than the Corinthian congregation was handling it is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. 
But the real point I wanted to make was that it seems like a real non sequitur when you add this:
Of course Jehovah's way is best! But your logic is hard to follow here. What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse? And how is handling child abuse in any way akin to telling Jehovah he was wrong in Genesis 22?
It comes across as a kind of defense of the long-standing way in which the Organization has handled child abuse cases just because, for example, we were trying to make excessive(?) use of the two-witness rule (which had the supposed advantage of keeping most of these cases quiet from both the rest of the congregation and the press). Even now there are very few Witnesses who know the identity of more than just a few of the 1,003 child abusers in Australia, for example. I happen to know for an absolute fact that just a very few of these were men that were regularly seen by tens of thousands of fellow Australian Witnesses due to their high positions. There had been an unofficial move-them-around policy similar to what happened in some Catholic dioceses. Something very similar came up in the UK Branch Office so that a few people at the very top lost their positions (a couple years ago) so that the branch in the UK would be in a better position to save their threatened status as a charitable organization. By the way, if you happen to know the three or four top persons who lost their positions, I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.
Also, I should mention that it is now the Governing Body's position that certain things must be done by the law of the land even if we know that the Bible itself recommended a different process under the nation of Israel. This is why Brother Jackson refused to admit that the Bible supports corporal punishment of children and focused on only one scripture in that regard that could be said to have a non-literal meaning. The rights that Jehovah has to create a prophetic drama by having a specific situation played out is not relevant at all to how we handle matters of abuse today. (When Jehovah asks a prophet marry a prostitute, or cook his food with excrement, or even see just how far a person will go when asked to kill their son: none of these have anything to do with how we should handle child abuse or defend processes just because Jehovah may do certain things in unusual ways.)

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law.
You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. 
The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.

To be fair, the original version of this hymn was written by Frances Ridley Havergal (1836-1879) and originally played with music by Henri Abraham Cesar Malan (1787-1864). The original version also included the words "Take my silver and my gold." In 1966, we were still singing this song at the Hall with the words: "Take my silver and my gold."
(Frances Havergal was the wife of an Anglican preacher [Church of England] and her brother was a priest in the Anglican church.)
Our penultimate version included "take my:" heart, mind, feet, hands, voice, life, myself. Our current version now includes "take my:" heart, voice, feet, hands, silver, gold, life, myself.
So we had to lose "my mind" and raise "my voice" to accommodate "my silver and my gold."
As you can see below, the original Anglican version (right) had "take my:" life, moments, days, hands, feet, voice, lips, silver, gold, mind(intellect), will, heart, love, and myself. The ones we still include are highlighted in red, so we are now at 9 of 14. Starting in 1905 (Hymns of the Millennial Dawn) we sang it almost exactly as it is in the original. The 1905 version (left) was the way Russellites sang it and was very much like other versions of the original as sung in other churches.
  1  Take my life and may it be
Lord, acceptable to thee;
Take my hands, and let them move
At the impulse of thy love.   Take my life, and let it be
Consecrated, Lord, to Thee;
Take my moments and my days,
Let them flow in ceaseless praise,
Let them flow in ceaseless praise. 2 Take my feet and let them be
Swift on errands, Lord for thee;
Take my voice and let it bring
Honor always to my King.
    Take my hands, and let them move
At the impulse of Thy love;
Take my feet and let them be
Swift and beautiful for Thee,
Swift and beautiful for Thee. 3 Take my lips and let them be
Moved with messages from thee;
Take my silver and my gold;
Nothing, Lord, would I withhold.
    Take my voice, and let me sing
Always, only, for my King;
Take my lips, and let them be
Filled with messages from Thee,
Filled with messages from Thee. 4 Take my moments and my days;
Let them flow in constant praise;
Take my intellect and use
Ev'ry pow'r as thou shalt choose.
  Take my silver and my gold;
Not a mite would I withhold;
Take my intellect, and use
Every power as Thou shalt choose,
Every power as Thou shalt choose. 5 Take my will and make it thine;
It shall be no longer mine;
Take my heart, it is thine own;
Thus in me thyself enthrone.     Take my will, and make it Thine;
It shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart; it is Thine own;
It shall be Thy royal throne,
It shall be Thy royal throne. 6 Take my love, my God; I pour
At thy feet its treasure store;
Take myself-- I wish to be
Ever, only, all for thee.     Take my love; my Lord, I pour
At Thy feet its treasure-store.
Take myself, and I will be
Ever, only, all for Thee,
Ever, only, all for Thee. We began singing a very pretty, shortened version of this song a couple decades later. We changed the name from Consecration to Dedication in 1950, and this was the way we were singing it up until 1966 (pictured below) -- with "take my:" life, voice, feet, hands, mind[intellect], moments, silver, gold, heart, myself -- still managing to fit 10 out of 14 points from the original.

This could not merely be about being considerate of the new ones or interested ones. It appears to be more about being considerate to the 'rest of us' who might feel offended being told what to do by a 'new one.' It's pretty much the opposite of what Jesus said about 'out of the mouths of babes.'

I  believe, the  first  title  were  my  own  words. I  like  it  more,  bec.  better  understanding  for  all....   My  home-language  is  German,  you  know. -  Meanwhile,  the  Librarian  has  changed  the  title  above,  so  your  wish  is  complied.   I'm  not  a  friend  of  huge  English  comments  here,  bec. of  the  language,  also  the  different  German  clock-time  and  my  own  time.
Thanks  for  your  engagement,  but  my  work  is  now  done  for  this  post.  Maybe,  you  want  post  it  similar  in  another  area @JW Insider....  again  with  ton's  of  comments 
Greetings  from  Germany  and  a  great  week  for  you !

Queen Esther,
I don't know if it was you who edited the title of this thread, but that's quite a change! I was expressing an opinion, and I still hold to it 100%, but the new title might make others uncomfortable, especially if they were only intending to responding to the thread under it's original title. Thanks for the vote of confidence to you, or whomever made the change. If the "hype" in some of the articles were reworded to a more rational presentation there would be dozens of little changes to make, and I'm not trying to be that picky. But Gordon's site does have several comments on it from Jehovah's Witnesses, too, and they are quite supportive of course. This was one of the reasons to be careful.
If I get time, I'll present some of these other problems for those who might be interested.
I just noticed that even Nehemia Gordon himself didn't like the new title of this thread. See?