JW Insider

I read the book. I don't think he ever mentions any of those meeting minutes, but he already knows and states the gist of the point about Russell having complete authority and final say about any decision, and that the board members, both editorial board and society officers, were basically just a legal formality. They had no real input into any of his decisions. Russell pretty much ran the Society by himself. If others helped, and we know that his wife had plenty of input, he didn't give them any credit publicly. I know we think of Rutherford as the most autocratic in this regard, but Rutherford seemed to allow quite a bit of leeway and input from those around him, even if his was the only name that would be put on the publications for most of his presidency. Russell did this early on too although most of those others who had writing input all left the Watch Tower Society within a few short years.

Like you said, "why does it matter" that a millionaire business tycoon was the first president of the Watch Tower Society before Russell.
Russell sent Rose Ball and her husband to Australia just before the trial. So Rose couldn't be there to testify. Russell would not have been able to deceive the court about her age if she had been there. The court didn't refuse to allow it. Russell made a fool of himself in court. He showed his vindictiveness and he was deceitful and egotistical.
On another occasion in court Russell directly perjured himself but was allowed to change his testimony in the following day(s) to state the exact opposite of what he testified earlier (under oath!). The courts were fairly lenient with C T Russell. Russell then used his own public "pulplt" including the pages of the Watchtower itself to fight against (and perhaps even slander) Mrs Russell in the court of public opinion.
Since we got onto this topic of the power of the Watchtower's presidency, this reminds me that Rutherford also used the pages of the Watchtower and even a Watchtower Convention resuolution to slander a man who, by almost all accounts, had told the truth about Rutherford and even won in a lawsuit against him.
Obviously these scandalous occasions do not define the Watchtower or Watchtower presidents. They were rare, and all the good that has been successfully accomplished overrides these past fiascos and failures. Like the Bible's account of Samson, we have to accept some bad with the good. People are imperfect, often unfaithful and indiscreet.

(Hebrews 3:7) Therefore, just as the holy spirit says, "Today, if you listen to his voice . . . "
I was using this point about equating the term "the holy spirit says" with the direct use of Heberw Scriptures because it appears that although they used the "holy spirit" quotation as a basis for interpretation, Paul seemed to think they had interpreted it incorrectly. Paul directly opposed the idea that gentiles could be put under any kind of law, except the "law of undeserved kindness" i.e., grace and love. Paul even went so far as to say he learned nothing from this so-called "governing body" in which he included Peter, James, and John. He didn't care who they were, even if they had been angels from heaven. In fact, Paul directly opposes some of the exact wording that came from that meeting in Jerusalem when he uses an exact Greek term from that list in 1 Cor 8 and referred to the topic again in chapter 10:
1
Play (1 Cor 8:1) Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.   1 Cor 10:23-27 All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.e All things are lawful, but not all things build up.f 24  Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.g25  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.”h 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.  

(Hebrews 3:7) Therefore, just as the holy spirit says, "Today, if you listen to his voice . . . "
I was using this point about equating the term "the holy spirit says" with the direct use of Heberw Scriptures because it appears that although they used the "holy spirit" quotation as a basis for interpretation, Paul seemed to think they had interpreted it incorrectly. Paul directly opposed the idea that gentiles could be put under any kind of law, except the "law of undeserved kindness" i.e., grace and love. Paul even went so far as to say he learned nothing from this so-called "governing body" in which he included Peter, James, and John. He didn't care who they were, even if they had been angels from heaven. In fact, Paul directly opposes some of the exact wording that came from that meeting in Jerusalem when he uses an exact Greek term from that list in 1 Cor 8 and referred to the topic again in chapter 10:
1
Play (1 Cor 8:1) Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.   1 Cor 10:23-27 All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.e All things are lawful, but not all things build up.f 24  Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.g25  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.”h 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.  

When I first learned about the rabbinic versions of the Noahide Laws --there are several variations, but usually quite similar-- I always wondered why theft and murder were not part of the Genesis vis-a-vis Acts list. They seem pretty important, too, even though 'no bloodshed' could be read into the idea: "abstain from blood."
I think it was because of a compromise that the Jewish Christians would still want to see it as a following of at least the "Gentile-referenced" part of the Mosaic Law. The Greek Scriptures (in Acts, Hebrews) uses the term "the holy spirit says" when referring to accepted Hebrew Scripture, and I think this is why James could say "the holy spirit and we ourselves." Here's why:
It happens that these four terms in particular that the apostles and elders came up with for Gentiles were listed in the exact same order, and already expanded upon, in Leviticus. I found this idea already summarized on another site: https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-four-prohibitions-of-acts-15/
Le.17:1 “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying….”  This was God speaking to Moses, not just Moses’ own words.  Le.17:6-9 “They shall no longer offer their sacrifices to idols, with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute….The man shall be cut off from his people.”  JFB Commentary Le.17:9 “This was a form of idolatry practiced by the Egyptians.”  Prohibition #1 God forbids sacrifices to idols.  (also see “Sacrifices To Idols and Romans 14”.)
Le.17:10-12 “Any man from the house of Israel or aliens sojourning among them who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off. For the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood.”  Prohibition #2 God forbids the consumption of blood.  The heathen thought that drinking another’s blood would gain them the life or power of that other person/animal.
Continuing in Le.17:13-16. “When any native Israelite or alien among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird which may be eaten [NLT is approved for eating], he must drain its blood. When any person eats an animal which dies of natural causes or was torn by beasts, whether he is native or alien, he must wash his clothes and bathe, and remain unclean until evening. But if he doesn’t wash or bathe, he will bear his iniquity.”  Prohibition #3 God forbids eating things strangled/unbled.  No roadkill.
When an animal was snared or was suffocated/strangled and died of itself, its blood coagulated in the meat.  It wasn’t properly bled.  Life and disease are both in the blood.  The slaughter procedure causes the effusion of blood.  Remaining blood may be extracted by washing & salting the meat.  The incidence of diseases from bacteria or parasites is thereby reduced.  Of note, this prohibition applies to clean creatures “which may be eaten”.  Many forbidden unclean creatures/scavengers naturally carry disease-causing micro-organisms and worms.  (for more on this aspect, see “Unclean versus Clean Food”.)
Le.18 identifies sexual acts which are immorality/porneia.  That’s Prohibition #4.  In the Bible, porneia includes: incest (v.6-18); menstrual sex when blood is present, putting her at risk for vaginal infection & cervical cancer & tubal pregnancy (v.19); adultery (v.20); religious harlotry (v.21, ref Le.17:7, 20:5); homosexuality & lesbianism (Le.18:22, ref Ro.1:26); beastiality (Le.18:23).
All these are forms of illicit sex/porneia/‘fornication’, prohibited to both Jews and gentiles.  Of note: Le.17:8, 10, 15, 18:26 say the four restrictions apply to both Israelites and aliens (ger) with them!
Getting sex any way you want it is prohibited by God in both Testaments.  Jesus said porneia is even just cause for divorce!  Mt.19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia g4202], and marries another wife commits adultery [g3429].”
Although extremely serious, adultery was only one form of sexual immorality.  According to Jesus, all porneia is just cause for divorce.  This includes beastiality, lesbianism, homosexuality, etc.  Some translations render porneia or illicit sex as “fornication”. 
--------------------
So although the basis was undoubtedly the fact that Noahide Laws were already a "thing" to cover the communion between Jews and "law-abiding" Gentiles, James and others were able to make use of a version of them that was in a portion of Scripture (holy spirit) that already included references and laws for the Gentiles (alien residents). For me, it's the best explanation for why murder isn't explicitly on the list. Also, it means that James and others were making use of a form of Bible commentary, a unique form of "pesher" which shows up elsewhere in scripture, especially obvious in Matthew. (In Matthew we sometimes wonder why the book uses verses that appear to be completely out of context to make application to Jesus, as if they were Messianic prohecies. But the special patterns of "pesher" commentary will explain this very well. Although that's another topic for later. The patterns of "pesher" commentary were not well known until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, btw.

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking. In fact, some even interpret the term "strangled" to refer to the twisting off of a limb for eating.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26551218?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
in the Tosefta, a supplementary work to the Mishnah. Its teachings date back
to the time of the Tannaim and provide a glimpse into how the early rab-
bis approached Jewish-gentile relations. In t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4, the text states:
“Concerning seven commandments were the sons of Noah admonished:
[establishing] courts of justice, idolatry, cursing the name [of God], illicit inter-
course, bloodshed, thievery and [consuming] a limb from a living beast.”2
These are the commandments generally accepted within rabbinic litera-
ture as the seven Noahide laws pertaining to gentiles. Sifre Deuteronomy, an
early Tannaitic midrash (late 3rd c. CE), provides additional information . . .
That was from:
The Sons of Noah and the Sons of Abraham: The Origins of Noahide Law
Matthew P. Van Zile Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2017), pp. 386-417 (32 pages)

That's true, and, to me, it's captured within the translation "you shall not eat flesh with its life". If the animal was alive (soulical) it's flesh should not be used as food. I'e., to use the flesh of a living animal as food you had to kill it first.
But rabbis said a lot of things, including that the account of Abel was of him making a peace (communion) offering to God, which, if true, means Abel shared in what he offered to God by eating some of the slaughtered animal himself. There is a scriptural argument offering some support to this notion.

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking. In fact, some even interpret the term "strangled" to refer to the twisting off of a limb for eating.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26551218?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
in the Tosefta, a supplementary work to the Mishnah. Its teachings date back
to the time of the Tannaim and provide a glimpse into how the early rab-
bis approached Jewish-gentile relations. In t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4, the text states:
“Concerning seven commandments were the sons of Noah admonished:
[establishing] courts of justice, idolatry, cursing the name [of God], illicit inter-
course, bloodshed, thievery and [consuming] a limb from a living beast.”2
These are the commandments generally accepted within rabbinic litera-
ture as the seven Noahide laws pertaining to gentiles. Sifre Deuteronomy, an
early Tannaitic midrash (late 3rd c. CE), provides additional information . . .
That was from:
The Sons of Noah and the Sons of Abraham: The Origins of Noahide Law
Matthew P. Van Zile Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2017), pp. 386-417 (32 pages)

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
                       the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
- Plato

Anyone who's ever seen some of the society's early minutes from its board of directors could see this right away. Look up the name Rose Ball. I'd have to look up the date in my library, but at one time SHE was the vice president. I know Russell was letting her make decisions. Right? Look her up.
... I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

The Watchtoewr's publications including those promoted and distributed by the Watchtower Society have always presented the opposite view. And I don't think they would have any reason to lie about this. See "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" published by the WTBTS and Russell's funeral address by Rutherford, and "Fatih on the March" by A H MacMillan but promoted and distributed by the WTBTS. Also see Russell's own statements about how he would make all decisions by himself and that the board would not come into play at all until and unless Russell died.
The view from the Watchtower has been that it was only the President of the Society who made all decisions and that the board was just a legal formality. Russell WAS the Society, as claimed in Watchtower publcations. It sounds like you are saying the Watchtower wasn't telling the truth when they made this claim. Do you have any evidence against the Watchtower's claims?

The Watchtoewr's publications including those promoted and distributed by the Watchtower Society have always presented the opposite view. And I don't think they would have any reason to lie about this. See "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" published by the WTBTS and Russell's funeral address by Rutherford, and "Fatih on the March" by A H MacMillan but promoted and distributed by the WTBTS. Also see Russell's own statements about how he would make all decisions by himself and that the board would not come into play at all until and unless Russell died.
The view from the Watchtower has been that it was only the President of the Society who made all decisions and that the board was just a legal formality. Russell WAS the Society, as claimed in Watchtower publcations. It sounds like you are saying the Watchtower wasn't telling the truth when they made this claim. Do you have any evidence against the Watchtower's claims?

It's the current style governing body he was against. If you listen to his talk carefully you see that he was against any kind of governing body that took any part of the final decision-making away from the President of the Watchtower Society. That's the way it had always been, under Russell, Rutherord and Knorr, even though Franz himself had provided the strongest direction for doctrinal matters mostly behind the scenes. But it was behind the scenes only to most of us 'rank and file' Witnesses. But for decades, it was clear as day to those around him in Bethel that only he had the final say on anything doctrinal right up until some of his perceived failures respecting predictions surrounding 1975. And they already knew that Knorr was dying of cancer.

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

The 1975 fiasco, which diminished Franz's then near ironclad hold on doctrine, and Knorr's death, left governance of the society vulnerable to other forces.

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

Dilbert 4:14
 

Looking forward to your next post on this and I’m Terribly sorry about your dad. also feel awfully sorry for your mum..so many losses on all fronts …too sad too sad….

Now I see where that Mission Impossible line came from.

The other one is in bad shape and doesn’t work any more. The university of Missouri at Columbia and Chicago University might still have one. 
it is a ball (a 6 inch steel globe penny bank) that I had painted to be like way the Apollo astronauts photographed the earth from space. 
It hangs in mid air and you can take a stick or ruler to all sides and above and below and show that it is not attached to anything. You can even spin it and it keeps spinning on its North Pole / South Pole axis. Below the display is a sign that says “He hangs the earth upon nothing.” — Job 26:7. 
 
My dad often told the story of how some students would see it and wonder what the job number referred to.
it’s a little easier to guess how this one works. 

Since you asked...
The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 
Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.
This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:
1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 
2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.
The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.
So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?
The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.
So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.
Then we have this from Insight:
"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  
Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.
As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.
We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

I appreciate that information. I've still heard it in a talk too, but I don't recall if it is any any of the latest outlines. I remember some bros in correspondence like Bro Malone and Bro Pritchard. I can't imagine their reaction to a memo that would say please don't quote any publications before a certain date unless you adjust the wording to such-and-such. It would have given away the "deceptive" use of the quotes when there was already an argument brewing over these statements in the early 80s in writing. I got the feeling that Service & Correspondence wasn't privy to all the arguing going on in writing.
I was nearby when I heard commotion that turned out to be Brother Greenlees yelling and throwing (slamming) a new summer convention publication down on the desk of one of the writers in an office shared by Bro Lengtat and Bro Napolitano. It wasn't specifically about this particular issue, but was partly over the fact that the publication didn't highlight the true importance of 1914 nor the visible Organization. The anger was also over the fact that none of the publications for that summer made these most important points and the fear (I think) that some might get the impression it was left out on purpose.  
I think that Service/Correspondence was mostly oblivious to these kinds of arguments. I don't know that for a fact, but there was a good amount of interaction between brothers in Writing, but I rarely heard about much face-to-face interaction between Writing and Correspondence except through question memos and then memos responding with "guidance" outlines. One brother, Pritchard, I think, said that he started out using the files to merely copy the previous letter on the topic, but that only someone else would send a memo request for updated guidance. I'm guessing that if there was a letter in the file on the topic, it could go back decades.
I have a feeling you know more about this process, so I'm hoping you'll clarify if you know.