JW Insider

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

What gets me is when we keep going on about obeying instructions in order to survive Armageddon. This weekends WT study mentioned it agaiin....comparing the GB to Joshuah and Zerubabel. (Otherwise the study was very good). "Sometimes God’s people received direction that did not appear to be practical from a human standpoint but turned out to be lifesaving". 
The WT gave a couple of current examples....just stopping short of mentioning getting vaccinated against covid (thank goodness).
Are we not putting too much emphasis on the organization being the saving power, in other words our salvation being dependent on instructions coming from imperfect men? Whereas salvation is clearly going to come from Jesus, and we may be anywhere doing anything when Jesus saves us. Or is the mark for survival from the secretaries ink horn contingent on having our backpack ready or hunkering down somewhere?? As if Jesus cannot save us uless we listen to these types of instructions. I always thought the criterion was dependent on pure worship. This whole life we live is a test of our loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah. Everything we do today and tomorrow, the choices we make with respect to pure worship is what places that mark on our foreheads. And after all these tests we encounter every day, then there will be another test to see how obedient we are to the GB?? Give me a break! Past Bible examples do show that there were certain procedures the people had to follow in order to survive, BUT the situation at Armageddon will be incomparable, it cannot be said to parallel any other situation before then. I don't know why we keep obsessing that it is the same. It's like regurgitating types and anti types again....drawing parallels where there are none.

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."
In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:
*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

Nothing like keeping records. If this fellow would come on board with a few current understandings, we’d make him secretary of the entire organization.
(Uh oh. I accidentally downvoted, then changed it to an upvote. He’s probably got the original on screenshot and will beat me over the head with it someday.)

Are you kidding me? Who can tolerate that stuff?
Everyone but me, apparently. It’s my bad, I know. But whether it was right or wrong, it’s 100 years old and we’ve long since moved on, either building upon or discarding it. 
I’m glad there are people who take interest in the old stuff, and I won’t say I don’t have any. Yes, I did recently purchase it at the eclectic book store. Yes, I did issue an off-the-cuff remark to Srecko that’d I’d finish it and get back to him. But there are just too many things of higher priority to me.
It’s a little like when Minh offered me a treat he really really enjoyed and it was horrible. “I do like it,” I told the hopeful fellow, “it’s just like I like other things more.”
I may get to it someday, about the same time I read Rud’s book.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.
Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 
Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..
just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children" which includes this idea, but it started earlier. Rutherford tended to make EVERYTHING fall into only two categories, either it was part of Jehovah's organization or Satan's organization:

Children, p.67
Of course, this included not just the earthly part of that organization, but the focus was on the heavenly part. So it was not so much different, in principle, than the way we understood Paul's words in Galatians about Sarah vs. Hagar:

Children, p.79
Of course, Rutherford uses the term organization 160 times in the book Children alone. The problem, in my opinion, is when he focuses too much on the earthly part of the organization, and he accepted that the word of the earthly organization should be seen as the equivalent of the "word of the Lord" himself. The "confusion" started with his very early idea that Jesus came to inspect his "Temple" in 1918. This Temple was the earthly organization, even though you wouldn't have expected that the "Temple" would picture something earthly. There are many times in the publications (under Rutherford) where "salvation" is too closely attributed to the organization, and not Jesus and Jehovah.
Organizational directions, no matter how mundane, became "instructions from the Lord."

Watchtower, 7/1/43, p.204
 

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

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 wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."
In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:
*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization? 

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.

Actually, it's Russell's position. He states it clearly when he writes his own autobiographical statements in the Watchtower. But let's talk about Russell under another topic. This topic should really be more about Rutherford, and what happened shortly after Russell died.
You are very correct about that. And this is one of the reasons why I maintain that opinion about the stronger links to Adventism than some will admit. But again, I don't want to divert from the topic just yet. There have already been more than enough questions and comments about Rutherford that deserve better clarification, before we start off on new topics about Russell. Of course, feel free to say what you will about it, but know that it might end up getting moved under a mostly-Russell topic, rather than a mostly Rutherford topic

According to MacMillan, the Watchtower had gone broke by the end of 1914, and MacMillan explains that this is why the usual delegation of convention delegates coudn't even travel to the conventions at that time.
The tone of the following indicates that it is no doubt from an apostate source, but I copied it several years ago from a forum because it tends to show why MacMillan and other Bible Students would say that "Russell WAS the Society." It's actually just an excerpt from a page that is about 5 times longer. But it also indicates that it was in 1917 just after Russell's death, when Rutherford sold off buildings to reestablish the bank accounts of the WTS. It was not when Rutherford and the Board were jailed in 1918.
In January 1909, when Charles Taze Russell relocated his religion business to Brooklyn, New York, to get away from the Pennsylvania courts, it was necessary to form a New York corporation in order to conduct certain business activities in the state of New York -- specifically, to hold title to real estate. At the same time, Charles Taze Russell also deemed it absolutely necessary that legal matters be arranged in such a fashion that Russell retained absolute financial control over the new corporation.
 
In February 1909, PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION (later renamed The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.) was formed by Charles Taze Russell, along with 40 handpicked loyal followers, including Bethelites, who supposedly each purchased one or more shares at $1000.00 per share. Charles Taze Russell was elected "President-For-Life", while all other corporate officers were to be elected annually. To further ensure Russell's absolute financial control, NO donations nor other income went to the People's Pulpit Association. All financial income and donations went through the books of The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. As "overkill", to make absolutely certain of such, the People's Pulpit Association did NOT even have a bank account for several years.
 
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania paid all debts of the People's Pulpit Association. The People's Pulpit Association was kept totally and completely in debt to The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, including the holding of full mortgages on each piece of real estate purchased by the People's Pulpit Association. Thus, if there were ever a mutiny, Charles Taze Russell controlled everything of financial worth through his control of the Pennsylvania corporation.
 
Interestingly, in February 1909, Charles Taze Russell indicated that "we" had recently purchased "Brooklyn Bethel", at 124 Columbia Heights, for $24,000.00 (along with two other unidentified properties and their costs), but that "friends of the truth" had had to loan the money to "we" at the "cheapest" possible annual rate of 5% interest, and that those "friends" held a $24,000.00 mortgage on the property. In 1913, during the "Property Tax" court case, Watch Tower Society Treasurer, William Van Amburgh, testified that there was still a $24,000.00 mortgage on the property, and that the mortgage holder was the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania. Additionally, Van Amburgh indicated that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania also held a $50,000.00 mortgage on 122 Columbia Heights, but for some reason that he could not explain, that mortgage had never been publicly "recorded", thus could not be viewed by outsiders. The WatchTower Society of Pennsylvania also held a mortgage on the Hicks Street Brooklyn Tabernacle -- initially $17,500.00, but thereafter increased to $25,000.00 to cover financed improvements.
 
Soon after unpacking, Pastor Russell began buying up both adjacent and nearby Columbia Heights properties, including the 1910-11 construction of a 9-story residence/dining hall behind the main offices, whose construction plans had to be vastly downsized due to complaints from neighboring properties that the planned skyscraper would block their views of the river and Manhattan.
 
In 1912, Pastor Russell quietly made a significant real estate purchase in Manhattan -- near Broadway and Central Park. On 63rd Street, the builder of a large new three-story theater had gotten himself into financial troubles, and was forced to sale the partially completed property .... That property became Russell's "New York City Temple", where religious services were conducted along with multiple daily showings of the Photo-Drama starting in January 1914. What received little or no publicity from Pastor Russell was the fact that Russell also purchased the adjacent 10-story mixed occupancy former hotel building, which was rented out as apartments, offices, and retail space. Typically, there were multiple straw transactions before the property was finally transferred into the hands of the People's Pulpit Association in November 1913. As all of PPA's properties, these two new properties also were fully encumbered with full mortgages to retain all financial power within Russell's hands via his total control of the WatchTower Society of Pennsylvania. An article in the WATCHTOWER magazine, which did not mention the purchase of the adjacent building, boasted that the theater building was "worth" nearly a half million dollars. Actually, in 1915, the assessed value of the theater building was $220,000.00, and the assessed value of the former hotel building was only $105,000.00. Those two large Manhattan properties were cashed out by Judge Rutherford after Russell's death, in 1917, for $330,000.00 (roughly $6,250,000.00 in 2016 dollars ...).

It's a different topic that we've already discussed at greater length elsewhere. But you should notice that Russell was saying he WAS a Congregationalist. That's the denomination in which he was raised, and some influence remained. But it's the one he left, and he states that he pretty much had to start over, to "start from scratch."
I don't think it's that simple either. Neither does Schulz. But Schulz finds ample evidence that Russell admits to his greater affinity to "Age to Come" believers. As you noted, this doesn't mean Russell agreed with them in all respects. Russell continued to progress in his beliefs and adjusted some of his own previous beliefs along the way.
It's true that even a lot of Witnesses also assume that Russell was not much different than a Second Adventist with updated dates. As I'm sure you know, the full answer starts with a lot that was borrowed from Adventism but goes well beyond into Russell's own studies. And you are right that a lot of non-Adventist churches were "adventist" in the sense that they all expected a "second advent." You could even expect Christ's return to be imminent and not be part of any Adventist church. But you go too far in that last quoted statement. Even the current Proclaimers book references some links to Adventism.
Although Schulz agrees with you on this point, I have found additional evidence showing even more links to Second Adventism than Schulz admits. Some of it also shows up from contributors to his site.

I already gave a short answer with my opinion on this question. I found it funny that I just got to a part of Persson's book where he answers the same question. It's unbelievably long. I just found it funny that someone put so much work into answering that question and even draws on some material where I never would have thought to look. In one case I didn't even know that the material existed. 
Persson uses a couple of the same ideas that I used in my answer. But many more, too. I don't think it's at all important to read all of what I'm about to paste below, but I wanted to let you know that it's only about HALF the information he actually uses in the book to answer the same question:

Thank you…I know we dont often take into consideration these all lived  a whole different world and era….what was okay back them…would never be legally possible today nor even an accepted thing in the community,,,
And again some of this is here say or passed down..some written and with proof …all I know even tho I prefer Russell’s demeanour and his will for how things should go forward….we owe Rutherford credit for many things,,,,but I still think he unnecessarily laid the ground work for beating the sheep and making the truth harsh…just not what Russell wanted,

I already gave a short answer with my opinion on this question. I found it funny that I just got to a part of Persson's book where he answers the same question. It's unbelievably long. I just found it funny that someone put so much work into answering that question and even draws on some material where I never would have thought to look. In one case I didn't even know that the material existed. 
Persson uses a couple of the same ideas that I used in my answer. But many more, too. I don't think it's at all important to read all of what I'm about to paste below, but I wanted to let you know that it's only about HALF the information he actually uses in the book to answer the same question:

He might not answer so I will ….probably the books like Tarzan of the apes edgar rice may have outsold  Russell and Ruthfords books. …that’s what Jesus said…not many would listen…and the apostasy you talk of was what they thought was wrong coming out of BTG with all that garbage still on their backs…and just being human I guess…personally if I have found Russell the genteel one and much more humble than  Rutherford ,…Rutherford changed quickly things so important and  spiritually  correct about Jesus and the ark and waters of the flood..represent him to it now representing the org...now one comments on that here but the ramifications of such a massive blunder and probably pride pushed so many good brothers and sister away..
I actually think and I could be wrong the beating of the sheep began then…I’m so relieved the modern day GB returned that to the original understanding,,,,,mind you some things Russel thought and wrote needed to be changed…sorry for butting in..hope that was okay and I hope Walter answers you NICLEY!

“Now TTH had been saying: “It was for nothing that I kissed up to this cantankerous old fellow in the wilderness. Not a single thing bad thing about him did I say [lately], and yet he repays me evil for good.  May God do the same and more to the enemies of TTH if I allow a single sentence of his to survive until the morning!”
He already told you he has a copy.
I didn’t know he had a son.
I can honestly say I have never read an apostate book. A few online articles here and there, but mostly not even that. So many others have that I find it easy to glean whatever I need from them. You are far more versed in their bile than I

The portion you quoted is all the more potent in tying the League of Nations to a then-current political expression of God's Kingdom. In fact, it's in those portions that one can see a greater affinity with the position the Federal Council of Churches was stating. I'll simply re-quote the portion that you quoted, highlighting the points you highlighted:
VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER, PITTSBURGH, PA., FEBRUARY 15, 1919
With the great Peace Conference actually in progress and with the League of Nations a virtual reality, Bible Students are in a position to see more in these two world-events than mere evolution of human thought and action.
So what did the WT mean when it said that the League could be seen as more than just something merely of human thought and action? Was it from the Devil? Or was it, rather, to be seen as a part of the strides of divine Providence that persons with spiritual insight could see as part of the outworking of the Messianic Kingdom? The answer is in the Watchtower's next sentence:
They are but the strides of divine Providence in this "great day of Jehovah. Blind indeed are all who cannot appreciate that this is the day of preparation for Messiah's kingdom, in which a perfect League of nation will exist, yea, a binding together in common interest of all kindred and peoples, and in which the Golden Rule will be the law supreme.
So one would be "blind" (without spiritual insight) not to notice that this League was providing an earthly, political expression of what will be perfected in God's Kingdom rule from heaven. In fact, it is to be seen as part of the "preparation" for the same work that the Kingdom will do. I think a lot of people are surprised that C.T.Russell had taught that so many of the contemporary modern inventions and even political changes in the world were to be seen as "preparation" for God's Kingdom on earth. Recall that Russell and Rutherford believed they were already living in the Dawn of the Millennium. The 1,000 year reign of Christ had already started. New inventions and discoveries were coming at them fast, all this would be put to more and more use as the Millennium continued. These ideas were repeated very clearly in the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery, too.
While the Lord's people are tremendously interested in the outcome of the present Peace Congress and in the League of Nations which may there be born, nevertheless we look with still greater longing to the time foretold by the prophets of Israel when the kindred of earth shall say one to another: Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord. To the house of the God of Jacob and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths," at which time "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."-Isaiah 2 :2-4; Micah 4:1-4. P.[6389]
Just like the Federal Council of Churches (FCC), the League of Nations provided an earthly, political expression of God's Kingdom, not to replace it, but to signify the proper political direction and pattern that only God's heavenly kingdom could fully accomplish. You don't get that from the oft-quoted short telegram that the President and Secretary of the FCC sent to Woodrow Wilsom. But you see it clearly in the context of similar references to God's Kingdom throughout the bulletins of the Federal Council of Churches at that time. Speaking of the aims and goals of their own organization during this same time, they said:

In fact, those obsequious words to President Wilson about the League were much more subdued in the longer resolution that reaffirmed their faith in the value of the League. Notice how it changes to the political expression of "this new idealism," and only considers it an earnest endeavor to establish the principles of the Kingdom of God, etc., etc.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Council_Bulletin/lEVQAQAAMAAJ
The big problem with the "FCC" was that they were hypocrites in supporting the war and would still speak of how proper (though difficult) it was for the churches to teach their members that it was OK to kill (in times of war). Russell had already made good progress towards neutrality, even though it wasn't perfect. And Rutherford had spent a lot of the time when the US was involved in WWI trying to help Bible Students get ministerial advantages as conscientious objectors to war.
The February 15, 1919 Watch Tower was a short-lived mistake during a time when Rutherford's opponents took advantage of it to claim that Rutherford was the offshoot, the apostate, and his opponents were the ones sticking fast to the present truth.
So I'm curious then. What was it do you think that Rutherford found "wonderful" about the League? What was it you think that he was "admiring" about the League?

I don't get the insult at all. In fact, I think you also came to the same conclusion about the book. And who says anyone got upset because your rebuttal is "loud"? I don't even know what you mean by that, but I am certainly not upset by a rebuttal. That's what we are here for. You might be aware of things in this book by Persson that are wrong. And I'm sure that would be interesting to some persons here. Definitely it would be interesting to me, at least.
Exactly. I'm glad we agree on this, too.
I've seen only a few apostate books, but I agree that they can be filled with distorted views. I'm curious as to whether you have any specific examples that show that B.W.Schulz' research is sloppy or distorted, by the way. To me he seems to agree with your own philosophy, that one should trace down all of the offshoots if possible, and the beliefs of all the people coming into or out of the organization. His books rarely reach into history much more recent than about 1890, so far, but you see the same philosophy on his website/blog: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com
That's not a a problem. Would be happy to hear what you have to say about the long quote you made from James Parkinson's The Bible Student Movement in the Days of C.T. Russell.

Of course. I get it now. I get the impression that you have probably not read B W Schulz books then. I have all three of them and have read two of them (Barbour, and Separate Identity V.1). I have not completed Volume 2.
Schulz actually sides more with you on the idea that Russell did NOT consider himself as following in the footsteps of Adventists. Russell only would admit that the Advent Movement was used by Jehovah, as was Miller himself (according to the Watch Tower). Schulz makes it clear that Russell didn't consider himself Adventist, but as Russell himself indicated, closer to the "Age To Come" believers.

For the life of me I do not understand why you are so harsh with regard to my books. They are 100% loyal, entirely devoted to defending the faith from attacks.  
I am not that bad Shultz who teams up with a non-believer. I am not that bad JWI who signals nonalignment with several current beliefs. 
I honestly don’t understand it. You have at least Tom Irregardless and Me. I know you do because I gave you a copy and at the time you were very gracious over it.
What changed?