JW Insider

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 
In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).
Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]
Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 
Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 
But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 
So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.
It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Whoa! It’s sort of like discovering, not only that the hand really wrote, “Mene mene tekel parsin, You fink!” but that Belshazzer clandestinely downvoted the remark.

Whoa! It’s sort of like discovering, not only that the hand really wrote, “Mene mene tekel parsin, You fink!” but that Belshazzer clandestinely downvoted the remark.

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme
One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:
8. Great Controversy: All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)[4]

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case.
Let all the nations assemble in one place,
And let the peoples be gathered together.
Who among them can tell this?
Or can they cause us to hear the first things?
Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,
Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,
 

Exactly right. No one should ever embrace deception. Fortunately, for me, but unfortunately for the reviler, the predictions invariably came true. Truth is not the same as deception, although there are deceptive truths. At any rate, it doesn't matter to me any more, it was just a fun experiment in psychology, but it becomes boring when simple predictions become too easy so I moved on to other things. 

Exposing your predictions can keep them from coming true. The opposite of self-fulfilled prophecy. I often place my predictions in 'white on white' text so that most browsers will make the text disappear completely. All you have to do is highlight the hidden text by selecting and you can read it clearly. In the olden days, when I cared enough, I had a lot of fun adding a sentence or two to the end of a post. They often would have embarrassed a certain reviler person who, under multiple disguises, couldn't help but bring up my name to cause some kind of dissension every few days. But then at the last minute I always decided it would be more Christian not to point them out, but some of the "hidden text" is still posted and can even show up in the site-search tool.

Whoa! once again! Georgie, I fear you will not believe this, but I really did not know @JW Insiderhad employed the trick in the very message he was speaking of it! I even wondered why the quote box appeared too big for the words contained. Ah, well, it’s just some sort of pesky technical snafu, I told myself, and manually shortened the box.
I mean, this is like finding a decoder ring in your Cocoa Puffs. I’m taking the next month to comb through all too-long text boxes in search of them.

Step over into Macedonia, Mr Many Miles, and help us.
”No thank you, 
Having made that irresistible (to me) little quip, 
 
yeah. Me too.
 
Ta da! Now we don’t either, just like you!
Oh, I guess we still put converts on a slip, they won’t mind, I am sure, but not the time it takes to make them. 
Any time you change a practice dating back 100 years, it’s a gutsy move.
I think counting time for so many years is a reflection of the lowly roots that Christianity came from and so far still is. It is the mark of the plebs who were accustomed to the factory model in which when there was nothing to do you’d better nonetheless look busy if you didn’t want the boss to fire you.
Now that the model has been discarded (and good riddance!) probably all the educated people will come in.who were offended by the old way. Trouble is, when they do, they may say to the uneducated and ordinary, ‘Okay—you’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’
We’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing for sure, dropping time requirements removes all sense of being ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty.’ It will vastly aid efforts to informal witness, as people will do what makes sense, not press on come heck or high water so that whoever is being spoken to ‘receives a thorough witness!’
 

I want to say something more in response to that notion.
Rationality does not have a main tool. Rationality is a tool.
Things learned or advocated by science are no more or less useful to rationality than premises from any other source, including purely theoretical premises, even invented premises for sake of devil's advocacy to explore creative ideas.
It's pure fancy to think of science as a main tool for rationality.

Wouldn’t this put the materialist atheists who are scientists in the realm of spiritual men? Not only do they want to examine all things, but they insist that their tools, the tools of science, are the only means with which to do it. 
You spoke highly of acupuncture a while back.
Practitioners of acupuncture will say it works by releasing/rebalancing the body’s chi, which they will describe as a life-force or energy. You will not be able to run this by the champions of science. They cannot detect any ‘chi’ with their science, so they insist it is pseudoscience. If you tell them of benefit of acupuncture, they will say that it is placebo. If you insist it is not, they will call you stupid.
Do you think the spiritual man should look into what is described as ‘the deep things of Satan’ in the spirit of examining all things?
Thus far, I’m a little partial to @George88’s two preceding comments. If I didn’t fear their mix / fortification with ChatAI functionality, I would upvote them. I don’t want to get stuck upvoting, only to find I have upvoted a  ‘Danger Will Robinson’ robot. But I should probably work to overcome my phobia, as @Alphonse has.

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case.
Let all the nations assemble in one place,
And let the peoples be gathered together.
Who among them can tell this?
Or can they cause us to hear the first things?
Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,
Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,
 

It took a while for me to realize that, among some branches of Christians, there is virtue in ‘moving beyond’ the Bible. Most Witnesses will assume that if they can demonstrate they are adhering to the Bible, they’re golden. Those other church people will hang their heads sheepishly. Or they will argue that something is not translated accurately, or interpreted accurately, or that it applied to a specific and temporary situation. Instead, ‘progressive’ Christians take pride in moving beyond the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding for them. It is deliberate. They will even look upon you pityingly for still practicing ‘primitive’ Christianity, as though a spiritual Neanderthal who should have evolved with the times, but hasn’t.
The expression ‘primitive Christianity’—‘scholars’ will say that Jehovah's Witnesses practice it. We take it as a compliment, but it is actually an insult. It may not be intended as an insult, but the terminology itself is coined by those who view matters that way. In any other context, would you be flattered by being described as ‘primitive?’ Moreover, who would ever do it other than someone thoroughly steeped in evolution? Their philosophical view spill over into everything else. Humans evolved from the caveman. So should you, in their view. Grow up from your ‘caveman’ religion.
Anyone seeking to adhere to the Bible as written will be described today as a ‘cult.’ This is certainly true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is also true of ‘fundamentalist’ faiths which, in their own eyes, at least, are also adhering to the Bible. The branches of Christianity that are progressive, that ‘keep up’ with the times, that do not make a fuss about the morality it deems outdated, is never described that way.
The criteria for cult classification used to be: if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult. By this definition, JWs are not a cult. Their leaders are anything but charismatic—some are an acquired taste to listen to. They don’t withdraw from life, but continue in work, school, and the greater community. Do they do ‘strange things?’ It’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but there was a time when speaking about one’s faith was not considered overly strange. They are not a cult by the old standard.
By the new one, the BITE one that revolves around various forms of ‘undue influence,’ they are—but so is the Bible, since those forms of ‘influence’ are no more than attempts to carry out what was clearly written as policy for the first-century congregation. The real question is, ‘Is it such a horrid thing to be in such a ‘cult’ if that is exactly what the Bible advises? Or is it more horrid to insist upon ‘freedom of mind’ to the nth degree, as is typical today in the West? Look at the world such ‘freedom of mind’ has collectively produced—it can be argued that such ‘freedom’ does not serve humanity well.
Witnesses will say that we need some ‘authority’ that is more than collective popular opinion, and so they put themselves where such authority exists. What we need is authority that reflects godly thinking and not just evolving human wisdom. Plainly, there will be some flaws in such authority, since everything humans touch is flawed. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels [us—with all our imperfections] the NT writer advises. But when Christians cast off such authority in favor of something, say, more democratic in nature, they presently become almost indistinguishable from the evolving and declining standards of the greater world.
Students of the 60s taunted police by calling them PIGS, doubling down when they saw it got under their skin. In time, one innovative officer responded with: PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service. Why not do the same with CULT when applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth. Let persons insist upon their ‘freedom of mind.’ They end up missing the greatest freedom of all: freedom from sin and its resulting death.
The latest manifestation of that ‘freedom of mind’ obsession? An article about the decreasing popularity of religion (any religion, not just JW) among the young. “They. Really. Don’t. Like. Organized. Religion.” it states. That sentence (if it is one) says it all. I know the following in symbolic, but as symbolism goes, it doesn’t get any better. Todays ‘freedom of mind’ people are so fiercely independent they can’t even stand for words to be organized properly, lest one unduly influence another.
You organize to get things done. If you don’t care about getting things done, you don’t organize. To spread the news of God’s Kingdom worldwide in a way that does not quickly devolve into a quagmire of individual opinion seems to Jehovah’s Witnesses a project worth organizing for. So they do. And they put up with how in any organization, ‘you can’t always get what you want’ even as they at the same time reap the benefits of organization.

I think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment.
The early Christian church found it difficult to think there were people whose worship God accepted outside Judaism and outside Christianity. But God showed them different. There's no reason to think these worshipers were particularly organized. They were just living life in a way God accepted. How we live our life is our worship, not what organization we do or do not belong to. Just think about all the good that came from how Job lived his life, and this despite him having no advertised affiliation with any organization.
Asserting we must be organized to get things done is a slippery slop, and oftentimes the sentiment has ended up hurting people because too late folks discovered an organization had an underlying operating arrangement different than they were either allowed to or led to believe. God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.
Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized. Because someone does not organize does not mean they don't care about getting things done; it just means they don't organize. That said, unity within an organization is not because of uniformity. To the contrary, unity is continuing within a common cause despite holding differences.
I'm not anti-organization. I am for rationality and transparency. Any organization whose primary purpose is to help people follow Jesus should be completely transparent and rational in all things. We find these attributes in the early Christian church.
 

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

No. That was my own typo. Sorry. It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God." And Pudgy was only highlighting the part that says "Port of departure" instead of "Date of Departure" where part of the word "ALLEGIANCE" appeared writ large.
However, I note that Elizabeth's 1922 application (above) also contains "Port." I now suspect you are right however because I searched such images on Google and have now seen several different versions of the application form from the early 1900's, and I have now seen a few versions with typos in other places, although this is the only one I saw with the word "held". It was a ripe place for a typo however because some versions changed the font to italic only at that sentence. Some highlighted different words in that sentence. 
I brought it up, however, because major ex-JW sites are usually super-careful about never faking anything, especially because Witnesses so often claim that ex-JWs and non-JWs "always" fake things or take them out of context. Even claiming that photocopies of the literature have been faked. I have been through large portions of jwfacts.com, RF's CoC, COJ's GTR, etc., looking for exactly that kind of thing, and have never found a claim that could be countered with these common complaints. And where evidence exists elsewhere, it has ALWAYS supported the claims in those particular places. I can't say as much for ALL the ex-JW sites, because I haven't checked, but I know there is also a lot of misinformation out there from all sides. 

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:
(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load.
 
The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:
(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:
(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load.
 
The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:
(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

Oh. Yes. I recall noticing that a few decades ago. That image was made available by the US Dept of State and was mined by Ancestry.com and other digital collections. It's still there for anyone to check. Typo and all, the document is legit. I had forgotten all about that typo until you pointed it out.

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

I signed almost precisely the same oath on my first passport. And yes I noticed it but it was easily explained away by my parents as just a necessary part of doing business in this world, and that all the brothers who need a passport sign it. Still, it felt funny when reading this scripture:
(Matthew 5:36, 37) . . .Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37  Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.
 

No. That was my own typo. Sorry. It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God." And Pudgy was only highlighting the part that says "Port of departure" instead of "Date of Departure" where part of the word "ALLEGIANCE" appeared writ large.
However, I note that Elizabeth's 1922 application (above) also contains "Port." I now suspect you are right however because I searched such images on Google and have now seen several different versions of the application form from the early 1900's, and I have now seen a few versions with typos in other places, although this is the only one I saw with the word "held". It was a ripe place for a typo however because some versions changed the font to italic only at that sentence. Some highlighted different words in that sentence. 
I brought it up, however, because major ex-JW sites are usually super-careful about never faking anything, especially because Witnesses so often claim that ex-JWs and non-JWs "always" fake things or take them out of context. Even claiming that photocopies of the literature have been faked. I have been through large portions of jwfacts.com, RF's CoC, COJ's GTR, etc., looking for exactly that kind of thing, and have never found a claim that could be countered with these common complaints. And where evidence exists elsewhere, it has ALWAYS supported the claims in those particular places. I can't say as much for ALL the ex-JW sites, because I haven't checked, but I know there is also a lot of misinformation out there from all sides.