JW Insider

Hm. You do realize that Google remembers your computer's search history, your likes and interests, don't you? Therefore, if you are a frequent visitor to jw.org, Google will bias your searches toward the sites you've shown past interest in.
When I opened a Chrome incognito window and searched "the kingdom of God," my first result was a wikipedia article, my second was the gotquestions site, third was the lifehopeandtruth site, and JW.org came fourth.

I suppose you’re aware your comments are most derogatory and, in my opinion, unfortunate.
For we, the JW's, one of the most reprehensible sins is to be considered as apostate. The Insight book declares under this term:
“…a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith. I don’t view myself as apostate, I’ve not abandoned my faith nor my religion.
You probably are worried, sincerely worried and indignant because some in this forum should ponder these principles:
·        Jud 8 “despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones” ·        1Cor 1:10 “you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” Quoting the Insight-Jonah reference:
“Another evidence testifying to the authenticity of this Bible book is its candor. Jonah’s improper attitude toward his commission and concerning God’s action in sparing the Ninevites is not covered over” This candor is one of the evidences the Bible is the book of God. There is no cover over any sin, mistake or lack of judgment of the anointed ones leading the people.
Where have we learned that Noah got drunk, or David killed Uriah? In false religion’s books of that period?
How did we have knowledge about the fight between Paul and Barnabas, or the lack of judgment of Peter? Through Simon the magician posts?
Why Jehovah didn’t consider it proper to cover these mistakes? You don’t think the Bible is an apostate book because is full with faults of God’s people in all ages, do you?
And these mistakes were presented as such, as errors. Not in the style: “well, we, despite all almost hit the mark.”
The situation is that if we read in the Bible about errors this is proof of their humility. But if we read or talk about our present day mistakes, we’re apostates.
The motivation @JW Insider, me and others share is, precisely avoiding others have the necessity to reach to poisonous places to find some facts we have denied. We have denied because are hidden or “colored”
Regarding the coloration process @JW Insider has provided a lot of PROOFS. I just wish to recall one I’ve written about. Recently we study in our Watchtower study there were errors in last century, for example when the Watchtower gave support to the peace initiative of president Wilson. But, in reality, the petition in our magazine not was a petition to pray for peace, instead, to pray for USA would win the war.
Now, what is it better, to hide this (lack of sincerity / half-truth)? But the information, the real information is spread all around the world. You can easily find the President Wilson exact petition and the word by word article in the 1918 Watchtower.
Regarding the late point. Why have I had to reach “dangerous” sites to get all the Watchtower articles, from 1879? Why my religion didn’t provide a “safe” place to download absolutely all this older literature?
If you read our posts with other glasses you easily see that we’re trying to justify the brothers on charge. But no describing them as “almost-inspired” but as they really are: mere humans.
Now, you mention “unrepentant ones should not be disfellowshipped” but I never have mention this. Expulsion has Bible basis. But the “mechanism” to dealt with has been subject to changes. Do you grant the possibility of new changes? If so, these new changes will try to fix injustices or problems with our position. Meanwhile, what should we do with these injustices? These problems are openly seen by the world and by a lot of loyal brothers.
You also mention that if I don’t believe that Christ begun to rule in 1914 I should leave my religion! Should have I abandon when the 1975 affair?
What backbone, determinant, core teaching is 1914 for you! But not hundreds, nor thousands, but hundreds of thousands of brothers can’t explain which is the Bible basis for this teaching!! Should they leave their religion?
I and other with this posture firmly believe we’re serving with the people Jehovah is using for His purpose. But, remember, @bruceq, sometimes God’s people has needed cleaning. Why not now? Is, perhaps, more relevant the role of the present-day GB than the older times apostles? If Christ had to clean the seven congregations (in spite of the apostles influence) why in these days is impossible a new cleaning, in spite of the GB influence?

I usually avoid trying to explain myself in any detail, but with this specific confluence of comments, I'll take that risk. I've said several of these things before, but this time I'll do it without scriptures, so that no one need take it too seriously.
First, I believe that we all have a Christian duty to test, prove, make sure, and question. Some don't believe that, and that's just fine, too -- for them. Second, as you might imagine, I am not really anonymous to everyone, after giving away enough of my history, experiences, background, family history, age, year of marriage, year of baptism, past locations, current location. So I would agree that much of this is a lot like writing a long drawn-out letter to the Society. I have already talked openly (on this subject) to a few current members of the Writing Dept, which includes two of the current GB Helpers. These are brothers I have known long enough to feel "safe." I have also put some of my questions in writing, but I do admit that these have also been effectively anonymous. I am a coward! I no longer have any direct contact with any GB members. I have talked to Brother Lett longer than any of the others, but that was in his most recent assignment before being asked to join the GB. If this is considered bragging, I don't consider it so, but it's only right that I present enough of my background, my biases, and my reasons. Third, I chose this forum because the number of participants is low, especially the number who will engage in doctrinal discussions. I do not choose to have such open discussions with anyone in our congregation, or any other congregation. My wife, parents, a former Bethel roommate, a current Bethelite, and an uncle who is a circuit overseer, are the only regular exceptions. This is because if someone reacted in an immature way to something I said, or I was misquoted or misunderstood, then unnecessary problems could arise. On a forum, I can try to choose my words more carefully, edit when I go too far, etc. But more than that, a forum gives everyone deniability in the sense that no one has to accept that I'm telling the truth. Some who have studied and questioned the same issues will recognize that I am trying to tell the truth, but if someone else here does not wish to deal with the same questions then they can (and will) simply dismiss me as a crack-pot or apostate or haughty braggart. That's actually the beauty of a forum. I don't have to feel that I am presenting anything to anyone who doesn't want to hear it. A forum provides this "utility" by default, because there will always be someone with the views of bruceq, or AllenSmith, coming to the rescue to provide what they feel is a proper warning to others. Just in case that's not enough, I always try to utilize a fairly direct presentation style and a much-too-long-and-wordy style that will also provide a turn-off to those who don't want to deal with it, and will act as a kind of filter to make sure that those who wish to follow really do wish to follow. Fourth, on the issue of apostate (ex-JW) websites or books. I don't go to or refer anyone to apostate websites. I don't quote from ex-JW websites. I own 5 of the books people consider to be highly apostate, but all of these books are also books that the Society also owns. Also, the 5th of these books, was recommended by Brother Harry Peloyam while on the phone to the Society to get an answer to a question I had on the Hitler/Rutherford letter. He literally recommended M. James Penton's book on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich. I have two books by Raymond Franz, one by Carl Olof Jonsson (which I purchased in the midst of a discussion with Rolf Furuli), and two books by M. James Penton. I also bought two books by B. W. Schulz, although I have never checked to see if any of the writers/researchers are ex-JWs or apostates, yet. The Society's Writing Department, while I was there, kept at least one copy of most of the apostate books in a separate cabinet from the main libraries. After I left Bethel, I'm told by someone who has used them, that they purchased at least two copies of all these same books I just mentioned for the "apostate cabinet." In any particular topic, I have waited for someone else (e.g., Allen Smith) to begin quoting books by Raymond Franz (or, if necessary, Carl O. Jonsson) before quoting from them myself. From what I remember, there has been no quoting from apostate books or sites by anyone on this particular topic. Fifth, I have already admitted that I handled research assignments for both the Art Dept while working there for 4 years, and simultaneously handled research assignments for Brother Schroeder for just about three full years at Bethel and 2 more years after leaving. This involved a lot of reading of both the older and the newer publications and even proofreading some materials that came from the Teaching Committee. It's not like I was in the Writing Department, but I was in the Bethel and Gilead libraries almost daily and sometimes even in Brooklyn and Manhattan libraries at times. This did put me in contact with many members of the Writing Dept and several became life-long friends. And, yes, I grew to dislike a couple of them, too. Sixth, I'm a firm believer in transparency. I think that so many things would be much easier to understand and we would be seen as much more honest if we just stated what we know, without trying to hide anything. I think that in these days of search tools and databases that nothing remains hidden anyway. So we might as well get out in front of some of the issues that we wish would just go away. I think there is nothing wrong with showing the human side of people we have worked with, and admitting our own foibles, too. Knowing that Jehovah has worked with imperfect people and still accomplished so much is not anything to be ashamed of, just as it wasn't something that the Bible tries to hide from us when discussing various Bible characters. Seventh, Anna actually noticed the very point that triggered this particular conversation. I have had similar conversations here before, but never put all the potential related items out there to deal with at the same time. In fact, I've argued against doing this in the recent past. I think that it's easier to get through items of dirty laundry, or embarrassing episodes, or problematic doctrinal proof-texts, if we deal with them one at a time. But in this case, I put out several issues related to 1914 all at once. That's because the video about 1975 that has been brought up really does refer to putting the scriptures ahead of current teachings when something doesn't seem right. In this case, what doesn't seem right (to me) is the fact that every single feature of the 1914 doctrine is "problematic" in some way from a scriptural point of view. It actually seems surmountable when we deal with just one at a time, so that wouldn't have made the point as well about what "seems" wrong. Well, enough for now . . .
 

I usually avoid trying to explain myself in any detail, but with this specific confluence of comments, I'll take that risk. I've said several of these things before, but this time I'll do it without scriptures, so that no one need take it too seriously.
First, I believe that we all have a Christian duty to test, prove, make sure, and question. Some don't believe that, and that's just fine, too -- for them. Second, as you might imagine, I am not really anonymous to everyone, after giving away enough of my history, experiences, background, family history, age, year of marriage, year of baptism, past locations, current location. So I would agree that much of this is a lot like writing a long drawn-out letter to the Society. I have already talked openly (on this subject) to a few current members of the Writing Dept, which includes two of the current GB Helpers. These are brothers I have known long enough to feel "safe." I have also put some of my questions in writing, but I do admit that these have also been effectively anonymous. I am a coward! I no longer have any direct contact with any GB members. I have talked to Brother Lett longer than any of the others, but that was in his most recent assignment before being asked to join the GB. If this is considered bragging, I don't consider it so, but it's only right that I present enough of my background, my biases, and my reasons. Third, I chose this forum because the number of participants is low, especially the number who will engage in doctrinal discussions. I do not choose to have such open discussions with anyone in our congregation, or any other congregation. My wife, parents, a former Bethel roommate, a current Bethelite, and an uncle who is a circuit overseer, are the only regular exceptions. This is because if someone reacted in an immature way to something I said, or I was misquoted or misunderstood, then unnecessary problems could arise. On a forum, I can try to choose my words more carefully, edit when I go too far, etc. But more than that, a forum gives everyone deniability in the sense that no one has to accept that I'm telling the truth. Some who have studied and questioned the same issues will recognize that I am trying to tell the truth, but if someone else here does not wish to deal with the same questions then they can (and will) simply dismiss me as a crack-pot or apostate or haughty braggart. That's actually the beauty of a forum. I don't have to feel that I am presenting anything to anyone who doesn't want to hear it. A forum provides this "utility" by default, because there will always be someone with the views of bruceq, or AllenSmith, coming to the rescue to provide what they feel is a proper warning to others. Just in case that's not enough, I always try to utilize a fairly direct presentation style and a much-too-long-and-wordy style that will also provide a turn-off to those who don't want to deal with it, and will act as a kind of filter to make sure that those who wish to follow really do wish to follow. Fourth, on the issue of apostate (ex-JW) websites or books. I don't go to or refer anyone to apostate websites. I don't quote from ex-JW websites. I own 5 of the books people consider to be highly apostate, but all of these books are also books that the Society also owns. Also, the 5th of these books, was recommended by Brother Harry Peloyam while on the phone to the Society to get an answer to a question I had on the Hitler/Rutherford letter. He literally recommended M. James Penton's book on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich. I have two books by Raymond Franz, one by Carl Olof Jonsson (which I purchased in the midst of a discussion with Rolf Furuli), and two books by M. James Penton. I also bought two books by B. W. Schulz, although I have never checked to see if any of the writers/researchers are ex-JWs or apostates, yet. The Society's Writing Department, while I was there, kept at least one copy of most of the apostate books in a separate cabinet from the main libraries. After I left Bethel, I'm told by someone who has used them, that they purchased at least two copies of all these same books I just mentioned for the "apostate cabinet." In any particular topic, I have waited for someone else (e.g., Allen Smith) to begin quoting books by Raymond Franz (or, if necessary, Carl O. Jonsson) before quoting from them myself. From what I remember, there has been no quoting from apostate books or sites by anyone on this particular topic. Fifth, I have already admitted that I handled research assignments for both the Art Dept while working there for 4 years, and simultaneously handled research assignments for Brother Schroeder for just about three full years at Bethel and 2 more years after leaving. This involved a lot of reading of both the older and the newer publications and even proofreading some materials that came from the Teaching Committee. It's not like I was in the Writing Department, but I was in the Bethel and Gilead libraries almost daily and sometimes even in Brooklyn and Manhattan libraries at times. This did put me in contact with many members of the Writing Dept and several became life-long friends. And, yes, I grew to dislike a couple of them, too. Sixth, I'm a firm believer in transparency. I think that so many things would be much easier to understand and we would be seen as much more honest if we just stated what we know, without trying to hide anything. I think that in these days of search tools and databases that nothing remains hidden anyway. So we might as well get out in front of some of the issues that we wish would just go away. I think there is nothing wrong with showing the human side of people we have worked with, and admitting our own foibles, too. Knowing that Jehovah has worked with imperfect people and still accomplished so much is not anything to be ashamed of, just as it wasn't something that the Bible tries to hide from us when discussing various Bible characters. Seventh, Anna actually noticed the very point that triggered this particular conversation. I have had similar conversations here before, but never put all the potential related items out there to deal with at the same time. In fact, I've argued against doing this in the recent past. I think that it's easier to get through items of dirty laundry, or embarrassing episodes, or problematic doctrinal proof-texts, if we deal with them one at a time. But in this case, I put out several issues related to 1914 all at once. That's because the video about 1975 that has been brought up really does refer to putting the scriptures ahead of current teachings when something doesn't seem right. In this case, what doesn't seem right (to me) is the fact that every single feature of the 1914 doctrine is "problematic" in some way from a scriptural point of view. It actually seems surmountable when we deal with just one at a time, so that wouldn't have made the point as well about what "seems" wrong. Well, enough for now . . .
 

I have had the same experiences as insider but I do not brag about it.Or look haughty by answering people with pages and pages of junk that most just don't have the time to read anyway.  I agree none of us here are really loyal since we are here. Roving about is fine if it is ones foray but some have flagrantly been disloyal by promoting from apostate websites. I just wanted to point out to this community "that" fact as well as the fact that none of the rest of us are to blame for apostates being here except for the owners of this blog, they are allowing it  if they are even Witnesses.

Ha! Thank you @JW Insider.... I didn't even look closely at the photo before I commented. Good catch! AGAIN... ;-)

@Bible Speaks , 
I hate to say it but you've fallen for another one. The sign is so obviously fake. The original actually says:
Tires / LES SCHWAB -- Doing the right thing since 1952
 

Found a better image... sorry it's so big.

Here is the ACTUAL original article that was faked in the image @Bible Speaks attached.
It was actually published about January 1914, not October 1876 as depicted in the fake version, a time period when Russell had spoken about losing faith in 1914 because it was becoming more difficult to believe that all the things they expected to occur could still occur in the next few months. In the Watch Tower publications Russell even spoke about how a person living 100 years from now (that would be 2014) might look back on what he had written and have a laugh about it. 
 

Maybe 12% of women, the article says.
BTW, If anyone wants to see the original article in English without the Google translation it's also on their website. From the July 2012 issue:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision
 

You'd think so, right?
Sometimes I think that even if the Bible had already called Jesus "the king of kings" and "ruler of the kings of the earth" that it still wouldn't be enough.

Except for people with a combination of tourette's syndrome, dislexia, and one leg shorter than the other, which gives you brain-tilt .... that seems to wrap up THAT discussion.

@Bible Speaks , 
I hate to say it but you've fallen for another one. The sign is so obviously fake. The original actually says:
Tires / LES SCHWAB -- Doing the right thing since 1952
 

In view of the latest writing about types/anti-types, ('We're done') I wonder if there will be spillover as to how we view Revelation, which fairly begs for the application of anti-types

Here is the ACTUAL original article that was faked in the image @Bible Speaks attached.
It was actually published about January 1914, not October 1876 as depicted in the fake version, a time period when Russell had spoken about losing faith in 1914 because it was becoming more difficult to believe that all the things they expected to occur could still occur in the next few months. In the Watch Tower publications Russell even spoke about how a person living 100 years from now (that would be 2014) might look back on what he had written and have a laugh about it. 
 

@Gnosis Pithos, Starting with the above post from Friday June 30, I'd like to respond to all of your posts in an orderly manner. If I don't understand why you said something, I can at least make a guess based on context, and you can correct me, please, if I got it wrong. Some was covered in previous answers, but I want to make sure I got all your points.
Your first point, I'm pretty sure, was that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 was not about 70 CE. At first I thought you used the word "incumbent" in its definition of "necessary, required as a duty" and then you implied later that perhaps you meant it with another meaning, and that other meaning is "one already holding office." In either case, the answer is that Jesus was speaking about a visitation of judgment on Jerusalem in 70 CE, and he worded it in such a way that Christians have been able to make application to any period of time prior to his visitation of judgment upon the world. Whether or not Jesus held the office of king is also a part of the point that you make here and elsewhere.
Jesus was called "King" during several periods of his earthly life and ministry:
around the time of his birth (Herod, astrologers, Simeon [Christ of Jehovah]), during his ministry (visitation to Jerusalem on colt of donkey), just before his death (Jews/Pilate), during his death (the sign above him), after his resurrection and ascension and prior to 70 CE (book of Acts, most of Paul's letters, e.g., "King of Kings") in the introduction to Revelation (Revelation chapter 1 where called "ruler of the kings of the earth") within the Revelation (Revelation 11, 12 where he is also said to "rule as king forever") The exact time periods referred to in Revelation 11, 12 are not strictly known and therefore could possibly even refer to gaining the "office" of kingship in a year like 1914 if that is Biblically possible.
In addition to the points made above about the specific word "king" we have many additional points that refer to "kingdom," "kingship," "rulership," "authority," "might," "power," "commandments" "Davidic promise" and association with "thrones," "scepters," "majesty," "worship/obeisance," etc. All these points provide even more evidence for the same points made about when, he was king. However, we begin to notice another pattern that is also evidenced, and that is the fact that it's always OTHERS calling him King before his birth and during his ministry, and before his death. Jesus even finds a way to answer the question from Pilate about whether he is King, by highlighting that is comes from the mouth of "OTHERS" (Jews and Pilate). It's only AFTER his resurrection that inspired Bible writers call him a "king" or "ruler" directly or even "king of kings" (1 Tim 6) or say he has "now" been given a "name" above every other government and rulership. It reminds us of Jesus own words just after his resurrection that "ALL AUTHORITY" has now been given to him, so that he now "commands" them as subjects. (Mt 28)
Whether that Biblical pattern is important or not, we can't say, but we can say that the Bible has no problem calling him "King of Kings" after his resurrection and before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE).
You then point out that were no mass earthquakes or related events in 70 CE. so this MUST apply to after 1914, when earthquakes or at least "those signs" now come with greater frequency than before 1914. There is no logic to that statement. The Bible does speak of great earthquakes before 70 CE, and the Watchtower agrees and pointed out the same. But even if there were not, this type of sign is not measurable without a lot of evidence that just isn't there. Great earthquakes may very well be LESS frequent now than in the past. With several billions of people on earth at the same time instead of several millions in times past, every earthquake, even small ones have more opportunity to be more destructive of human life, and that's a good point. Perhaps that's what Jesus meant by "great earthquakes." But we still don't know if this meant that we should be on the watch for a time when earthquakes start becoming more destructive. In fact, many if not the majority of Bible commentators through the years have seen Jesus' statement about earthquakes as an example of what NOT to look for as a sign. Even Charles Taze Russell understood that this was what Jesus meant. Jesus said we are going to hear about wars and great earthquakes but NOT to be misled, not to think that this means the end is upon us because of them. So clearly earthquakes and wars were NOT the sign. Besides, there were no major earthquakes in 1914. One set of evidence lists large population centers around the world that were hit in a way that killed many thousands at a time in 1780, 1783, 1786, 1797, 1837, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1868, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1920, 1923, 1927, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1944, 1949, 1960, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1975, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_earthquakes#1901.E2.80.931910 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes As more population centers become denser, and as recording devices become more accurate, we will surely hear about more earthquakes, but there is no specific evidence that 1914 and the three or four generations living in the time periods after 1914 have seen an increase. Starting with the records in 1837 it looks like the decade of the 1870's saw no major earthquakes that killed many thousands at once. But we also see such a gap in the decade of the 1950's, and it's just as likely that gaps before 1837 have more to do with lack of historical records and worldwide communication capability (telegraph, telephone). We also have a factor of better construction in some dense population centers which could have reduced the "greatness" of more recent earthquakes since 1914. So the point is that there is just not enough evidence, and even if there was, Jesus' point was that earthquakes were not even an important sign. But we do know for a fact, at least, that there were at least two or three great earthquakes prior to 70, mentioned in the scriptures. We also can be pretty sure that Christians would been looking for evidences of the timing of Jesus' parousia, but he had warned them that these earthquakes had nothing to do with the timing of his parousia.
Then you say:
"Now if the prevailing opinion is Jesus was king in 33CE instead of taking over Aarons high priesthood of the Christian congregation and the end of days Jesus proclaimed in his time due to his established kingship? Then that would have made Jesus King at birth.:
I think you are saying that you are willing to accept that Jesus fulfilled the office of "high priest" in 33 CE but that the only way in which we could say he was "king" in 33 CE would be in the same way that he was "king" at the time of his birth. (Perhaps you are referring to either the expression: "the one born king of the Jews" or perhaps also this:
(John 18:37) . . .So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world. . .
Then of course, you said:
"The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!"
But you don't accept the Bible's answer:
(1 Timothy 6:15) ". . .He is the King. . ."
You then quote the "Insight" book which is, in my opinion, devastating to the theory that Jesus did not become king until 1914. Here's why. Insight says:
To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the highest God, and not by inheritance. . . .  In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.
So, was that office of King-Priest something that Jesus would be appointed to in the future, or did it already happen? Did we already have such a priest who was also a King-Priest as Melchizedek was? Hebrews answers:
(Hebrews 6:20-7:4) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.
Hebrews 1 and 2 had already dealt with his Kingship and royal power: "God is your throne." "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." "The scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." "But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned. . ."
 
 
 

These are excellent points. But let's look at this more closely. Let's say, just as an example, there was an angel who vanquished all opposition to Jehovah's rulership by killing 185,000 Assyrians in one night. This might even be one of those occasions when one could say, "Jehovah has become King." But would you ever express this fact by calling that angel a king? 
Also, if you are able to say, as you did, that Jehovah's Son could express rulership in executive action, then why be so concerned to claim that he is NOT really a king holding the office of king? Perhaps that's exactly what makes him a king in the Bible's terminology.
How can you even use an expression like the "kingdom of His Son" without thinking that the person for whom that Kingdom is named is not truly a king? Would you ever say "David's kingdom" and claim that David was not really a king?
Also, notice that Jehovah is already a king when some event or action causes Jehovah to become king. So, why do we need to make sure then that Jesus is NOT a king when the Bible speaks of him as becoming king?
Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King. So when you say "why cannot Jesus do the same?" what you really mean is something like the opposite. You mean something more akin to "why can't we say Jesus is NOT a king when he becomes king."
And why do you think everyone who holds this idea that Jesus can be called king but not really be a king has avoided the fact that his title in 1 Tim 6 is "king of kings" in the first century? Doesn't this make him more than just a king over the kingdom of his congregation? Why is he called "ruler of the kings of the earth" in the first century?
The Watchtower publications freely admit that Jesus was at least king of the kingdom over his congregation. And we believe Colossians was written around 61 CE.
(Colossians 1:13) 13 He [God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Of course, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having two kingdoms. And since God's "beloved Son" is Jesus, this verse actually says "He . . . transferred us into the Kingdom of [Jesus]." It is pure conjecture and speculation to claim that Jesus has a second Kingdom, not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. What is really happening here is pretty obvious, which is that Jesus has been bringing Kingdom subjects into his Kingdom since the first century.
To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.
 

Here is the ACTUAL original article that was faked in the image @Bible Speaks attached.
It was actually published about January 1914, not October 1876 as depicted in the fake version, a time period when Russell had spoken about losing faith in 1914 because it was becoming more difficult to believe that all the things they expected to occur could still occur in the next few months. In the Watch Tower publications Russell even spoke about how a person living 100 years from now (that would be 2014) might look back on what he had written and have a laugh about it. 
 

Hi there, thank you for your message.
You did say I was the author but you didn't ask permission to post it, which is why I reported it as plaguirised. Next time you want to use someone's work, kindly ask for their permission first.
Warm regards,
Poppy

Thanks  @JW Insider  for your link !  I saw different links,  but must one look in German, to understand the story   I already read that last year and forgot it to post. Its really an interesting phenomenon...  so many different colors,  gene defect - or Jehovah will give us all in the NW,  maybe ?  We shall see 

The answer is actually No. None of their expectations were fulfilled.

Unfortunately, the image that was attached to this article is a good example of how Biblical chronology predictions are almost always accompanied by deception of some kind. The way it works is that whenever predictions are wrong they are minimized and whenever predictions come close to being true they are exaggerated.
There was a time when we could get away with this in our publications, and there were many claims in the Watchtower over the years about how, many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be a time for the start of great trouble. The problem with that claim is that many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be the END of a time of great trouble. Only as 1914 approached with about ONE decade left, was this idea partially adjusted so that it was now expected that there would be no time of trouble interfering with the 40 year harvest, and that the "trouble" would START after October 1914 or some time 1915. It would result in the complete collapse of most human institutions and even the end of the Gentile nations by about the end of 1915.
We can no longer get away with this kind of re-writing of our history, because this is the Internet. People can check things. We have to be more careful!
THE ABOVE "BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY" is a FAKE!
It appears to have been faked for the purpose of minimizing the false predictions for 1914 and maximizing the true predictions.

Maybe 12% of women, the article says.
BTW, If anyone wants to see the original article in English without the Google translation it's also on their website. From the July 2012 issue:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision
 

A woman sees 99 million more colors than ordinary people.....
A British is currently puzzling physicians in England by her unusual ability to see 99 million more colors than average other people. The extreme multifariousness of the woman is due to the fact that she has four different types of color-sensitive photoreceptors, so-called pegs, on the light-sensitive retina of her eyes.
In addition to some speculative cases, the woman, known only as "cDa29", is the first and as yet only proven case of tetrachromatia, which is probably only affecting women in humans.
The team around the neuroscientist Gabriele Jordan has been looking for a tetrachromat for 20 years, but it is certain that there are other women with this property. Overall, according to the researchers, 12 percent of all women have this ability.
"Just like a colorblocker can not understand how normal eyes can see the color red, she can not describe us how her vision differs from ours," the "Discover Magazine" (discovermagazine.com) quotes the researcher , "I would love to see what that is for a visual impression."
On the basis of the discovery that the genes for the red and green receptor lie on the X chromosome, Jordan already discovered the tetrachromatin trace. Since women have two X-chromosomes, they are most likely to develop an additional altered color receptor by mutation. Their discovery was then published in the specialist magazine "Journal of Vision".
Normally, the human being can distinguish 200 colors within the color gamut of the rainbow. However, since there are numerous bright and dark grades besides the pure rainbow colors, people can only distinguish between 10,000 and 20,000 color gradations.
In the animal kingdom some tetrachromates succeed in their ability to find, for example, the perception of ultraviolet light, for example fruits whose surface reflects UV light. Some species of falcons can, for example, also detect the trace of their prey by means of the different UV reflection of urine and faeces. Whether human tetrachromata have comparable vision capabilities as well - and possibly even "perceptive" perceptions - is still unknown.
Source: Discover Magazine, and Institute of Neuroscience Henry Wellcome Building for Neuroecology Medical School --
( translated  by  google )

Found a better image... sorry it's so big.