JW Insider

In times of serious importance, then Yes. But nothing that important goes on here.  
In my opinion most people here do have a few things thing in common. We all want God's Kingdom to be firmly established in Heaven and on Earth. We all want God through Yeshua / Jesus to rule over mankind. We all want peace on Earth. 
We just have different views as to how those things will be accomplished. 

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

I moved a lot of the comments from here over top another topic:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/
 

I should have never started this discussion in the JW Open Club, and I was warned not to. I just started to move some posts that are not closely enough related to early Watchtower history, or which produced unrelated distractions from that topic. It's an imperfect process, since so many comments cover multiple topics.
If anyone believes their comments were germane to the original discussion, I'll move them back. There are still plenty of good and interesting points that have been moved over here, and I hope that doesn't mean the ideas will get lost in the shuffle.

I moved a lot of the comments from here over top another topic:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/
 

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

So does the Bible, most notably putting the singers up front.
What’s the big deal? Having just viewed the video for the midweek meeting about pulling unitedly should disaster strike, I find it impossible to grumble about it. If someone wants to pull my bacon out of the fire, and train me to do the same for others, why would I interfere with that? You could just view these bits of advice as given to overcome the natural human tendency to squabble and go off in a hundred different directions in times of stress. Can you imagine the participants here all pulling together in times of chaos? 
Don’t overthink it. When the time comes if you find you can’t do something, don’t.
It’s a little like when the Babylon Bee guys pressed Elon Musk into whether he would confess Jesus and be saved. After dancing around a little, Elon said ‘if Jesus is into saving people, I have no problem with that. Sure, why not?’
Do the same kind of dance yourself.

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

Yes we do, we definitely think it all through.

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 5) Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.
But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51
l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:
(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

When posts get flagged for deletion, moderators, including me, can still see the posts with a pink background. When I see one of these I capture the screen, because there are always going to be people who say that words might have been changed, that moderators edited things, etc. And when a post disappears people can make up anything about who said what first, or whether they got a warning or not. It's just a simple key press and I've captured a screen, and I never even look at it. I have about 1,000 of these.
What happened to @Patiently waiting for Truth (PWFTT) was unfortunate, because it started with a discussion of God's judgment on the GB. I think the Librarian realized that religious discussion is often about life and death judgments that will be carried out by angels or Jehovah himself. They shouldn't be confused with personal threats. But a rather harsh-sounding judgmental post was flagged (by BillyTheKid) and this was treated as a kind of warning, after which, since PWFTT didn't back down, he lost his entire account. What makes this unfair, in my opinion, is that just a day or so ago, WalterPrescott told PWFTT that he should get his demons exorcised, and he and others have often indicated that he will not survive Armageddon, to which PWFTT has several times replied that he expects to die in this system anyway, and does not expect even to be resurrected.
One last time, I'll post what was considered the warning, and if you know who "BillyTheKid" was, it will make more sense. When legal intervention is threatened, I think that account owners and perhaps some moderators, too, will prefer to play it safe, and just delete offending posts and sometimes offending accounts, too. BTK also lost his account a while later for what was considered abusive behavior.
   

I don't think the question was about what the "Flood" represented, but what the "Ark" represented. The Children book says it represents God's organization, as you saw. But I only brought up the Children book because someone here had just mentioned the book. You could actually go to MOST of Rutherford's books and find a similar statement.
Here's his book "Riches" (1936)

. . .

...

If it sounds odd to say that the "other sheep" must work with Jehovah's witnesses, it was because, in those years, only the anointed remnant were called Jehovah's witnesses. The "other sheep" were called Jonadabs.
In the Salvation book (1939) he also says the Ark represents God's organization. Curiously, this time he made Noah represent Jesus instead of the faithful remnant (faithful and discreet slave), but still had his sons and their wives represent the "other sheep" (Jonadabs). In this particular book (Salvation) he somehow left out the faithful remnant.

At any rate, you are probably aware that Rutherford consistently says that Noah's Ark represents God's organization, and that this means only Jehovah's witnesses could expect salvation.

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 5) Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

When posts get flagged for deletion, moderators, including me, can still see the posts with a pink background. When I see one of these I capture the screen, because there are always going to be people who say that words might have been changed, that moderators edited things, etc. And when a post disappears people can make up anything about who said what first, or whether they got a warning or not. It's just a simple key press and I've captured a screen, and I never even look at it. I have about 1,000 of these.
What happened to @Patiently waiting for Truth (PWFTT) was unfortunate, because it started with a discussion of God's judgment on the GB. I think the Librarian realized that religious discussion is often about life and death judgments that will be carried out by angels or Jehovah himself. They shouldn't be confused with personal threats. But a rather harsh-sounding judgmental post was flagged (by BillyTheKid) and this was treated as a kind of warning, after which, since PWFTT didn't back down, he lost his entire account. What makes this unfair, in my opinion, is that just a day or so ago, WalterPrescott told PWFTT that he should get his demons exorcised, and he and others have often indicated that he will not survive Armageddon, to which PWFTT has several times replied that he expects to die in this system anyway, and does not expect even to be resurrected.
One last time, I'll post what was considered the warning, and if you know who "BillyTheKid" was, it will make more sense. When legal intervention is threatened, I think that account owners and perhaps some moderators, too, will prefer to play it safe, and just delete offending posts and sometimes offending accounts, too. BTK also lost his account a while later for what was considered abusive behavior.
   

Yes, I also heard that this was around 1989. That's because the January 1, 1989 Watchtower had just predicted that the new system would be within about 11 years.
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
This was a "necessary" belief based on the then-current understanding of "this generation."
It's human nature, I guess. If things go on the same, I expect the same kind of talk in 2025 or so, in preparation for a subliminal belief among us that the end must come by 2034, else the 1914 teaching would become effectively obsolete. Then, if all continues, such talk will keep happening until the overlapping groups within the generation become mathematically impossible.
But these things shouldn't phase us (too much). Elsewhere @xero spoke of how we should enter the kingdom as little children. Little children, on their way to an anticipated destination are prone to over-excitement, asking questions like: "Are we there yet?" "Now how many more miles, daddy?" [If that was in another forum, xero, I hope you don't mind having the idea repeated here.]

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 5) Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

Yes, I also heard that this was around 1989. That's because the January 1, 1989 Watchtower had just predicted that the new system would be within about 11 years.
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
This was a "necessary" belief based on the then-current understanding of "this generation."
It's human nature, I guess. If things go on the same, I expect the same kind of talk in 2025 or so, in preparation for a subliminal belief among us that the end must come by 2034, else the 1914 teaching would become effectively obsolete. Then, if all continues, such talk will keep happening until the overlapping groups within the generation become mathematically impossible.
But these things shouldn't phase us (too much). Elsewhere @xero spoke of how we should enter the kingdom as little children. Little children, on their way to an anticipated destination are prone to over-excitement, asking questions like: "Are we there yet?" "Now how many more miles, daddy?" [If that was in another forum, xero, I hope you don't mind having the idea repeated here.]

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 5) Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

Yes, I also heard that this was around 1989. That's because the January 1, 1989 Watchtower had just predicted that the new system would be within about 11 years.
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
This was a "necessary" belief based on the then-current understanding of "this generation."
It's human nature, I guess. If things go on the same, I expect the same kind of talk in 2025 or so, in preparation for a subliminal belief among us that the end must come by 2034, else the 1914 teaching would become effectively obsolete. Then, if all continues, such talk will keep happening until the overlapping groups within the generation become mathematically impossible.
But these things shouldn't phase us (too much). Elsewhere @xero spoke of how we should enter the kingdom as little children. Little children, on their way to an anticipated destination are prone to over-excitement, asking questions like: "Are we there yet?" "Now how many more miles, daddy?" [If that was in another forum, xero, I hope you don't mind having the idea repeated here.]

Just to clarify a few things. I am not averse to cooperating with instructions. That is not what I am talking about at all. And I am very appreciative of the constant reminders in WT studies, talks etc. which help us to remain in pure worship. Very grateful for it, and I think the GB are doing an excellent job. And our family does have a backpack ready (ha!)
What really irritates me though is this constant need to harp on about the reason to obey now .....the reason being that if we get used to obeying now,  it will mean our salvation in the future when we have to obey this one last instruction (whatever "impractical" thing that will be) to get saved. That is wrong. It's like a veiled threat.