JW Insider

I can guess who you mean, but I don't remember reading anything like that from his first book, which I must have read at least 80% of. I never read his second book, but I have skimmed portions. Was this from one of those books, or a later interview?
The reason I ask is that when you first mentioned the "free riders" I was about to respond to the following quote (see quote below) with just "Interesting theory."
The reason I was so tempted to answer this flippantly is because (even if you were right) I was also pretty sure that these were the ones who rose to the very top of the food chain at Bethel, and I don't mean the "spiritual" food chain, even if that's how most of us want to see it. Those who turned their ministry skills into public speaking skills became almost totally inactive or unenthusiastic about any part in the ministry outside of "full-time bureaucratic service." In a very unofficial capacity, I visited just about every branch in Europe in 1978 and 1980. Between those same years, all the branch overseers from around the world visited Brooklyn in several sets, and we not only heard most of them speak, we also sat with them and talked to them at meals, and hosted some in our NYC congregations and even helped host meals for some in local NYC congregations.
Naturally, many were just amazingly full of love and encouraging experiences. You just wanted to go back to their country with them and share the joy. But I have also never met so many cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door again in their life. Also, the current brothers who are named "Helpers" of the Governing Body, well, most of these were working their way up the bureaucratic and political ladders at Bethel in 1980 and the personality similarities among many of them. I shouldn't say, so I won't.
Brothers that I admired at Bethel were the ones who were obviously still active in the "field" even if this seemed incongruent with their assignments at Bethel. My wife and I both loved Brother Rusk dearly, because he was a loving, fatherly type who would do anything for you, and he continued to conduct Bible studies with interested persons from the start right up to the point of baptism, without reminding them that he was also the Watchtower editor or the blood-transfusion expert. Other brothers, including several of my friends who had been on the Aid Book project, and who were the most productive at writing Watchtower articles and "Book-Study" publications, worked closely with brothers in their foreign language congregations, and juggled their work in Writing with a lot of responsibility and work at all levels in their local congregation. For years, I had respect for R.Franz for the same reason. It was well known that he had this unassuming humility that allowed him to work actively in his current Spanish congregation in much the same way he had done while in missionary work in the Dominican Republic. I'd be surprised if he didn't put in "auxiliary pioneer" hours while handling his assignments on the Governing Body and in Writing. And yet, a brother I worked for who was also on the Governing Body would NEVER go out in service until, several years after I left, he became nearly invalid and confined to a wheelchair, and then his wife started to wheel him around Brooklyn Heights with a couple of magazines pinned to him. 

I don't think anyone had any trouble believing that Hebrew manuscripts contained the Divine Name. This has never been doubted by anyone I have ever read. But it is interesting to see that there is already a level of superstition about the Divine Name going on in this text from Psalms that appears to have come from about 100 years before Christ.
It reminds me of a preacher in a church who speaks in modern English but will only quote a scripture by using the archaic KJV English from 1611 CE. Here, we have text written in the current writing style, but every time the Divine Name shows up, it's put in a more archaic style from another 500 years further back.
If you were using this text to read out loud, it could very well have served the same purpose as the later elohim/adonai vowel-pointing techniques that the Mosoretes made use of, so that no one would pronouce the name out loud. The superstition this picture indicates about the Divine Name is an indication that the name might not have been pronounced even in the first and second century BCE, and that the practice was therefore common at the time Jesus read Isaiah in the synagogue. 

60 years in 8 different congregations in 3 states can offer up a few anomalies. My sister's experience was actually not so uncommon in the mid-west (Missouri) congregations I grew up in (1964-1976). But I've never personally heard of such things being covered up in the last 20 years. At the time, 1981, the elders seemed more concerned that my sister was going to tell the truth to the hospital staff, and this seemed to be their greatest fear. (Small towns revel in gossip and judgmentalism, so fears of public reproach on the congregation were very real.)
The only truly "weird" disfellowshipping I ever got involved with (and on the "wrong" side, at that)  was that of a 90-year old brother because his friends asked me if I could do something about it, and maybe even help to initiate an appeal. It was the kind of travesty that directly resulted in the loss of several other members of this old brother's congregation, including the couple who asked me if I could get involved.
Yet, I have never directly seen a pedophile case or child abuse case in all my years and congregations. I have not seen an apostasy case since 1984. Immorality, divorce issues, smoking and other youthful indiscretions are the only types of cases I've seen in 30 years, and these have been relatively rare, only one every few years. And, of course, the joyful side of each of these has been the return to normalcy after spiritual encouragement.
What I really hoped to get to in this conversation was to just go ahead and admit that I don't believe we shun properly, most of us anyway. That probably won't surprise anyone. I have no doubt at all, personally, that we overdo it, especially with family-based shunning. I think that shunning should be defined as not inviting disfellowshipped persons into congregation activities (platform teaching, audience comments, public prayer, congregation outings, etc). It has nothing to do with whether we should continue to do good things for any and all persons: enemies, friends, neighbors. We should be able to encourage them, talk to them, hire them, visit them when they are sick, etc., etc. That won't work for every single person in the congregation, especially someone who may have been wronged, but it will work for most.
(I think I ignored the previous conversation on shunning.)

Just noticed that if the angels who sinned were to be bound for 70 generations in Tartarus until their judgment, then this could have triggered a lot of discussion about genealogies (chronology) in the first century congregations and evidently even into Tertullian's generation, when many Christians still treated Enoch as inspired. If the check of the Bible genealogies let them see that Noah's flood had been about 2,400 years before Christ, then imagine the discussions about how long a generation would have been.
We currently date the Flood to about 2,370 years before Jesus was born, which is 2,440 years before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. (But it was possible to get dates anywhere from 2000 to 3000 BCE for the Flood.) So imagine the possible speculation if each generation was considered to be 40 years long, then 70 generations could be 2,800 years. (40x70=2,800).  If they used 37 years as the length of a generation (from the time of Jesus prophecy until Jerusalem was destroyed) then the angels were to be imprisoned for 2,590 years, possibly fueling speculation of an imminent Armageddon. Even if they thought there should be an entire 1000-year millennium before the judgment of the angels then a generation of 49 to 50 years (Jubilee) would also mean that Armageddon was possibly just a few short years away.
This could have been part of the reason that the Bible includes the following admonition:
(Titus 3:9) But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. . .
(1 Timothy 1:4) 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.
(2 Peter 3:8) However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
 
 
 
 

Just thought I'd point out that this is wrong, imo. I would think the following is more accurate:
Torture is ALWAYS torture, whether there was intent to torture or not. A person tortured through an accidental one-minute dip in carbolic acid is just as tortured as the one who was purposefully dipped for one minute in carbolic acid. The person who was purposefully tortured prior to a bombing because he might have information about it, can be tortured just the same as the one who goes through the ordeal after exploding the bomb.
Also, torture is still torture no matter what the intent, just like homicide is still homicide, even if one is accidental and the other is first-degree premeditated.
Torture is also wrong. God has allowed it, but my God, who is slow to anger and merciful, would not allow something he cannot completely reverse the effects of. 

I can guess who you mean, but I don't remember reading anything like that from his first book, which I must have read at least 80% of. I never read his second book, but I have skimmed portions. Was this from one of those books, or a later interview?
The reason I ask is that when you first mentioned the "free riders" I was about to respond to the following quote (see quote below) with just "Interesting theory."
The reason I was so tempted to answer this flippantly is because (even if you were right) I was also pretty sure that these were the ones who rose to the very top of the food chain at Bethel, and I don't mean the "spiritual" food chain, even if that's how most of us want to see it. Those who turned their ministry skills into public speaking skills became almost totally inactive or unenthusiastic about any part in the ministry outside of "full-time bureaucratic service." In a very unofficial capacity, I visited just about every branch in Europe in 1978 and 1980. Between those same years, all the branch overseers from around the world visited Brooklyn in several sets, and we not only heard most of them speak, we also sat with them and talked to them at meals, and hosted some in our NYC congregations and even helped host meals for some in local NYC congregations.
Naturally, many were just amazingly full of love and encouraging experiences. You just wanted to go back to their country with them and share the joy. But I have also never met so many cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door again in their life. Also, the current brothers who are named "Helpers" of the Governing Body, well, most of these were working their way up the bureaucratic and political ladders at Bethel in 1980 and the personality similarities among many of them. I shouldn't say, so I won't.
Brothers that I admired at Bethel were the ones who were obviously still active in the "field" even if this seemed incongruent with their assignments at Bethel. My wife and I both loved Brother Rusk dearly, because he was a loving, fatherly type who would do anything for you, and he continued to conduct Bible studies with interested persons from the start right up to the point of baptism, without reminding them that he was also the Watchtower editor or the blood-transfusion expert. Other brothers, including several of my friends who had been on the Aid Book project, and who were the most productive at writing Watchtower articles and "Book-Study" publications, worked closely with brothers in their foreign language congregations, and juggled their work in Writing with a lot of responsibility and work at all levels in their local congregation. For years, I had respect for R.Franz for the same reason. It was well known that he had this unassuming humility that allowed him to work actively in his current Spanish congregation in much the same way he had done while in missionary work in the Dominican Republic. I'd be surprised if he didn't put in "auxiliary pioneer" hours while handling his assignments on the Governing Body and in Writing. And yet, a brother I worked for who was also on the Governing Body would NEVER go out in service until, several years after I left, he became nearly invalid and confined to a wheelchair, and then his wife started to wheel him around Brooklyn Heights with a couple of magazines pinned to him. 

I can guess who you mean, but I don't remember reading anything like that from his first book, which I must have read at least 80% of. I never read his second book, but I have skimmed portions. Was this from one of those books, or a later interview?
The reason I ask is that when you first mentioned the "free riders" I was about to respond to the following quote (see quote below) with just "Interesting theory."
The reason I was so tempted to answer this flippantly is because (even if you were right) I was also pretty sure that these were the ones who rose to the very top of the food chain at Bethel, and I don't mean the "spiritual" food chain, even if that's how most of us want to see it. Those who turned their ministry skills into public speaking skills became almost totally inactive or unenthusiastic about any part in the ministry outside of "full-time bureaucratic service." In a very unofficial capacity, I visited just about every branch in Europe in 1978 and 1980. Between those same years, all the branch overseers from around the world visited Brooklyn in several sets, and we not only heard most of them speak, we also sat with them and talked to them at meals, and hosted some in our NYC congregations and even helped host meals for some in local NYC congregations.
Naturally, many were just amazingly full of love and encouraging experiences. You just wanted to go back to their country with them and share the joy. But I have also never met so many cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door again in their life. Also, the current brothers who are named "Helpers" of the Governing Body, well, most of these were working their way up the bureaucratic and political ladders at Bethel in 1980 and the personality similarities among many of them. I shouldn't say, so I won't.
Brothers that I admired at Bethel were the ones who were obviously still active in the "field" even if this seemed incongruent with their assignments at Bethel. My wife and I both loved Brother Rusk dearly, because he was a loving, fatherly type who would do anything for you, and he continued to conduct Bible studies with interested persons from the start right up to the point of baptism, without reminding them that he was also the Watchtower editor or the blood-transfusion expert. Other brothers, including several of my friends who had been on the Aid Book project, and who were the most productive at writing Watchtower articles and "Book-Study" publications, worked closely with brothers in their foreign language congregations, and juggled their work in Writing with a lot of responsibility and work at all levels in their local congregation. For years, I had respect for R.Franz for the same reason. It was well known that he had this unassuming humility that allowed him to work actively in his current Spanish congregation in much the same way he had done while in missionary work in the Dominican Republic. I'd be surprised if he didn't put in "auxiliary pioneer" hours while handling his assignments on the Governing Body and in Writing. And yet, a brother I worked for who was also on the Governing Body would NEVER go out in service until, several years after I left, he became nearly invalid and confined to a wheelchair, and then his wife started to wheel him around Brooklyn Heights with a couple of magazines pinned to him. 

Maybe I just couldn’t see the point of this experiment.....all I see is what I have already read from some ex-JWs , especially one  ex GB member  who made it seem like reporting field service created selfish, status climbing, bureaucratic butt kissers (pardon the expression). He was right to a small extend, this did apply to a few, but for the most part, those few are no longer JWs . If you are "slaving" for Jehovah for the wrong reason, it doesn’t last. You don't need to see what would happen if you stopped reporting, true motives become apparent sooner or later regardless. That was my point.
Yes, I agree,  and it does get on my nerves when I hear such expressions as  “so many years in time in full time service" etc. as if these persons are somehow better than someone who is like the widow. But we all know that is not true. If we place too much stock on what others think then obviously that is foolish, because it is ultimately what Jehovah thinks that counts, and he knows our hearts and circumstances. Those who elevate themselves or others because of "titles" well, that's their problem....in the end they too will stand in front of Jehovah and render an account, regardless of what title they have.

I will make the job easier by supplying #14 myself:
14.) "And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire...." (Rev 20:10)
That's supposed to bother him? I believe he has a summer cottage on the Lake of Fire.

@JW Insider If I write it my myself I put my name on it. All my artwork has my name on them. If copyrighted I put copyrighted info on it. I don't ask a friend where did you get that from? I know them and I know they don't steal quotations. However, people are innocently human and just send things to you. I also have people used my art work and erased my name. You know it's not about that. Let them do as they wish as long as somebody is encouraged and it praises Jehovah's Name I'm happy! No worry! People will do what they want anyhow, as you know we can only try our best! 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990
Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.
This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.
It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
 

Disfellowshipped or disassociated persons do accumulate. And they don't always pine for the day they will be reinstated. Sometimes they go on the attack. When they do, like people anywhere, they play down whatever responsibility they had in favor of how others done them in.
You would think that the BBC would get the accurate scoop on what circumstances can lead to this most extreme form of discipline and what ones cannot. It's not as though the process is hidden.

"HOW ARE YOU?" ....?fine•••
Lesson for today. (1 Peter 3:8)  
"Finally, all of you have unity of mind, fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility."
??‍???‍??
Companions of the man Job heard no fewer than ten of his discourses. Still, Job exclaimed: “O that I had someone listening to me!” (Job 31:35) 
??‍???‍??
Why? Because their listening provided no comfort. They neither cared about Job nor wanted to understand his feelings. They surely did not have fellow feeling as sympathetic listeners. But the apostle Peter counsels: “All of you be like-minded, showing fellow feeling, having brotherly affection, tenderly compassionate, humble in mind.” (1 Peter 3:8) 
??‍???‍??
How can we show fellow feeling? One way is by showing concern for the other person’s feelings and trying to understand them. Making such sympathetic comments as “that must have been upsetting” or “you must have felt misunderstood” is one way to show that we are concerned. 
??‍???‍??
Another way is to put what the person is saying in our own words, thus showing that we understood what he said. Listening with love means paying attention not only to the words but also to the emotions subtly expressed. “THANKS for listening.” Has anyone said that to you lately? What a compliment that is! 
??‍???‍??
A good listener is appreciated by just about everyone. By listening well, we can refresh people who are distressed or loaded down with problems. And does not being a good listener help us to enjoy people? In the Christian congregation, listening with love is an essential part of ‘considering one another to incite to love and fine works.’ “Love . . . does not look for its own interests,” says the Bible. (1 Corinthians 13:4, 5) 
??‍???‍??
Listening with love, then, implies that we put our own interests aside. This may call for switching off the television, putting down the newspaper, or turning off the cell phone when others are speaking to us about a serious matter. 
??‍???‍??
Listening with love means becoming intensely interested in the other person’s thoughts. It requires that we refrain from starting to talk about ourselves by saying something like, “That reminds me of what happened to me some time ago.” While such an exchange is acceptable in a friendly conversation, we need to put personal interests aside when someone is discussing a serious problem. Genuine interest in others can be manifested when they reply "I'm ok" or "I'm fine", when we listen and extend love and concern! 
??‍?♥️?‍??
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005844?q=how+are+you+feeling&p=par

Enoch was born 1,164 years before the Flood (according to Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the number would be similar from the LXX). So any preaching of a warning during his 365 year life would have been nearly 1,100 to 800 years prior to the Flood. Jehovah's purpose to destroy mankind appears to have been "decided" about 120 years prior to the Flood.
(Genesis 6:2-8) . . .. 3 Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.” 4 The Nephʹi·lim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame. 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.
 

It's my guess that talk of how the "torment" works would still be on point.
I wasn't sure how aware you were of the different definitions we (JWs) give to Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Second death is the lake of fire which would then be the same as Gehenna. Those were the only terms to which we would have applied the meaning of "Destruction." Death and the Grave (Hell) would be pretty much the same thing, and therefore the Grave (Hell) is NOT "destruction." That's why there can be a resurrection, whether of righteous or unrighteous. The Grave is not final destruction, second death or Gehenna is.

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)
Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.
I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.
The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.
On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

These are excellent points. The reason I included what was written in Genesis 6 was because we absolutely need to include Jehovah in this discussion. In Genesis 6, it appears that Jehovah had already judged the world as wicked and only mentioned finding one righteous person, Noah. The way a person is known to be righteous to others is by standing up for what is right in their conduct, speech and of course, the important part that Jehovah sees, the right motivation. I have no doubt that Noah had distinguished himself not only in front of Jehovah, but also in front of others. As Romans 10:10 and Luke 12:34,35 shows, this would have included his speech. Therefore both his example and his speech apparently made him a preacher of righteousness.
(Matthew 12:34, 35) . . .For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things. . .
@b4ucuhear pointed out that Hebrews 11:7 shows that Noah showed godly fear and constructed an ark and through Noah's faith he condemned the world. It's not that much of a logical stretch to surmise that this was the way in which he "preached" but, as b4ucuhear also said, we don't know for sure whether this meant that he actually preached a divine warning. 
The point from Ezekiel 33 is about a person commissioned as a watchman to preach a warning to Israel.
(Ezekiel 33:2-6) . . .“‘Suppose that I bring a sword upon a land, and all the people of that land take a man and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the horn and warns the people. . . .  6 “‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and he does not blow the horn and the people receive no warning and a sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that person will die for his own error, but I will ask his blood back from the watchman.’
The others that Jehovah had condemned in Noah's day were not in the same situation as this, so we can't claim that Jehovah was required to do the same thing in Noah's day as he did for Israel when he commissioned Ezekiel to be a watchman. It was Jehovah who made the warning, but only to Noah. We don't really even know if Noah's family helped him or believed him. They were not said to be part of a band of preachers, nor does the Bible even say that they lifted a finger to help Noah with the ark-building project. We can only guess. I would guess the same as you have, but we can't claim that it must be true just because it's a good guess.
Also, when you read about the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19, you notice that the warning came from Jehovah only to the people he wanted to save. Similar to what happened to Noah, the angels only asked Lot to get his relatives out of the city. We read of no warning to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, themselves. Jehovah had told Abraham that he (Jehovah) had already judged that there were not even 10 righteous people in Lot.
Why else could Jesus say the following?
(Matthew 10:14, 15) . . .. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day . . .
(Matthew 11:23, 24) . . .if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”
My point is that it is a tendency of "human thinking" and "human reasoning" to add to the scriptures. It is always better to remember what you said: "Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such."

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

???

That's a pretty good point. Despite that natural tendency to want to defend orthodoxy - myself included, there are many instances that may seem to make sense or true at the time but if not explicitly stated in the Bible could be wrong. (1975 and other dates; King of the North; types and anti-types...even some of the "predictions"/interpretations we have now of the details of the way things are going to happen in the future...may have seemed right but may be going beyond the things written). It's always safer to stick to what the Bible actually says. I still believe reasonable assumptions can be made even when the Bible doesn't spell it out, but it would be presumptuous to be dogmatic about it as if we had some miraculous ability to make predictions and whatnot. 

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

It bugs me when people act like they are worshiping an organization (the creation) rather than our Creator. It makes us seem cultish. Yes, respect and obedience to his "channel" has always been an integral part of our worship and relationship with Jehovah - even as Moses and Aaron were Jehovah's representatives. But if you were around at that time and saw Aaron making that golden calf, would you have thought you were being obedient to theocratic authority by bowing down to it? We shouldn't treat any human as a god. We shouldn't suspend our "clear thinking faculties" and hand them over to someone else because among other things not all men are who they appear to be. "Imposters...wolves in sheep's clothing...apostates..." we've had them all and still do. 

It makes sense, but the Bible never says that he became a preacher after being given divine warning.
From the time Noah was given the divine warning, all we know, for sure, is that Noah built an ark and got it ready. And he apparently got his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law to join him. Perhaps these are the only ones he preached to. Perhaps he only preached about righteousness, and never preached anything about a warning. Perhaps he had only been a preacher of righteousness BEFORE he was given the divine warning. We just don't know.
What we DO KNOW is that Jesus said that the Flood came, in effect, without a warning.
Even the expression "they took no note" -- even if this had been a proper way to translate the Greek -- still does not say that Noah warned anyone. Perhaps they "took no note" of the fact that Noah was building an ark. The idea of a warning is what WE WANT to read into the idea of "they took no note." Undoubtedly, it was also the reason to "translate" it this way.
Perhaps there was no reason for a warning, because Jehovah had already made the decision before he picked Noah and his family as the only ones chosen for survival. In fact, that way of reading Genesis 6 is just as likely as the assumption that Noah decided to go preaching when Jehovah told him to build an ark. Perhaps it's even a more likely reading. Consider:
(Genesis 6:7-14) . . .So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. 9 This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God. 10 In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth. 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. . . .
Notice that Noah was already a man who was righteous, and faultless, and walking with God. Notice that there was no reason to warn anyone as Jehovah had already decided to wipe mankind off the earth, to bring an end to all flesh. Noah didn't necessarily even try to convince the other 7 people in his household. He is only told to take them into the ark, not because they are righteous, too, but because Noah was righteous:
(Genesis 7:1) . . .“Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation.
So your same point from Romans 10:10 would have produced the "preaching" from Noah long before the divine warning was ever given, and we know nothing about Noah preaching after he was given the divine warning. And whether he preached before or after given the divine warning, we don't know that he himself ever preached about a warning to others. Perhaps that would have been cruel and self-righteous, since they had already been condemned to drown, and Noah was not told that they could do anything if they wanted to.

A full explanation (aka, a REALLY long post) would probably appear like a pendulum swinging between the extremes of never reporting and reporting everything we are asked to report and then some. (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe. . ."
Similar to what @PeterR said, my opinions are expressed here as a "thought experiment" for anyone to consider and respond to.
Yes, it's possible for "legalism" to exist side-by-side with proper motivation. Jesus dealt with this situation as a necessity during his own ministry when the legalism had not yet been nailed to the stake. Jesus put it this way:
(Matthew 23:23) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things.
Of course, when the Law is written on your hearts, this refers to the total primacy of the heart-felt motivation: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But all of us need a bit of tutoring in our motivation, just as the Law was a tutor. But the Law showed us where we came up short, and therefore took away most of the joy.
(Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive. . .
This is quite true, but counting hours is not the only motivation in keeping up the "status" of being a pioneer. It's the accolades from men that go with the title. The same could also be said of appointed elders, and ministerial servants, and the various types of overseers in the organization, and yet the terms are Biblical -- and these are privileges to be reached out for. Paul spoke of various thresholds of qualification for those "titles."
But one of the legalistic problems with the various pioneer titles is that when considering something to be "full-time" service, there is no such thing as saying one person is in full-time service and another is not. 400 hours a month might not be full-time to one person, and yet 5 hours a month might be full-time for another. (Remember the widow's "mite.") In truth, all Christians must be full-time; that's what whole-souled means.
(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, . . .