JW Insider

@NoisySrecko Thanks for pointing out ResLight's YouTube channel. I had no problem finding Reslight's sites and blogs and social media. What I was looking for was the website that Reslight is responding to, not his own sites. ResLight apparently quotes someone verbatim from a website. SM says it's a site related to jwfacts.com. But if you search any of the words that ResLight quotes, the only site that comes up is the ResLight's response. I can't find where he is quoting from, or who he is quoting. Maybe it's on Twitter, or some place like that where Google doesn't index everything ever written.
I messaged ResLight, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.

By the way, the garbled opening statements in the video you posted made it pretty clear that the presenter himself was confused about what he was reading, where he at first indicated that the building would be in NYC, and might have ended up with mixed messages about whether the Pope or the Grand Iman were themselves in favor of the project. He mistakenly indicates that they, or at least the Pope, supposedly "decreed" this project.
But here's what I meant about the relationship to "We Love Trump" style media outlets. This image is from the opening minute of the video you posted. They also appear to have re-used content from We Love Trump, and even imply that they are related to affiliate partners making money for "We Love Trump:"

 

I didn't mean to get into all the details of your claims. I only wanted to point out that the document signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb does not promote any kind of building projects or facilities.
I noticed that point from the video you provided. It said that the building project was "the embodiment" of the document. I thought: --Hmmm, that sounds intriguing but doesn't sound like the signed document is necessarily concerned directly with any building projects.
So I went to the site promoting the project https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/
It gave the same impression saying only that:
"The vision for the Abrahamic Family House originated after the signing of the Document on Human Fraternity by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb in February 2019."
So if the idea originated only after the signing of the document, then it probably was not directly related. So I decided to look at the document and read what I could find of any translations available.
The document itself concludes with no promotion of any kind of building projects. You can see this from the discussion of the document on the same site: https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/document-on-human-fraternity/
The full text is evidently at this Vatican news link, where I read the entire document in English: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis-uae-declaration-with-al-azhar-grand-imam.html
If you find any documentation that's different from this, I'm interested of course. But hopefully not just from sources who get their news from the "I Love Trump" style media, like the video you shared. It should be based on the actual documentation and claims, not merely someone's commentary and opinions about what's in the document. This is what you did with the 2030 Agenda material, too, if you recall. You merely repeated what some commentators said about the document and then claimed that what they said was in the document. What they were claiming was not in that document either.
People should always be careful about what they conclude from what they read and hear.
I agree that something like this can be worrisome, and it is great fodder for speculation of the type we have been taught for decades as Witnesses. But we should be careful to distinguish between speculation and claims of fact. Personally, I'm always suspicious when grand-standing organizations make grand claims, and make grand plans for multi-million dollars buildings. The latest construction picture I have seen on Vatican News shows it's about 20% complete, and scheduled to be fully completed in 2022. Judging by other projects of this size, I expect it to be a couple of years late.
From what I can tell, the Document became ready for some fanfare signing in February 2019. The Pope and the head of the Al-Azhar University and Mosque (Cairo) met in Abu Dhabi to sign it in February 2019. By August 2019 the sleazy political leader of Abu Dhabi and the UAE, Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), had the idea to use the fanfare surrounding the signing as leverage to promote a better reputation for himself in the world. After "consolidating" a large part of the trillions of dollars that is spread throughout his family, he'd give the land and commission the plans for the symbolic set of buildings. Then a typical large but "empty" organization was formed with a board of religious leaders, university presidents, egotists and marketing promoters (TV presenter/writer/producer) got involved. So it was also in August 2019 that they created an organization for themselves to share some credit for what MBZ was doing. Likely MBZ was behind this organzation as a way of giving it (and himself) credibility. They needed a Jewish leader to join and got one from the United States. Even the most famous leaders among Jews and Muslims are not typically recognized equally throughout the world, so the marketing guy, the TV producer, formed something called a Council of Muslim Elders to give the appearance of international recognition (also in August 2019). 
This organization, HCHF, copied a lot of their promotional tactics and means of giving "titles" from United Nations practices.  Also, very typically, they will offer the grand-sounding "Award for Human Fraternity" with pomp and ceremony to the Pope and the "Grand Imam" (and others) to try to get photo opportunities with them. This makes it look like everyone of note is smiling with them and "their" project even if people like the Pope will actually be quoted only as saying they are "monitoring the project" which often means "eyeing it suspiciously." Then they can distance themselves from it if it goes "south" or use it to make themselves look better if it succeeds. 

Thanks.
 I thought that Reslight's YouTube page that @NoisySrecko provided also was a likely candidate to help identify where some of the claims about Russell had come from. I had already looked at ResLight's sites like this, figuring that it had to be a place like Twitter or YouTube where Google doesn't index every comment.
(ResLight also complained that Google is deleting a lot of posts where he claims that Russell was not a JW. He seems to think that someone (or organization?) with authority has been able to influence Google to treat ResLight's claims about Russell's NON-association with JWs as fake news. It's hard for him to keep up with maintaining disappearing links, etc.)
ResLight did get back to me after some private messaging (PMs) but didn't respond about the website question, and had no info on the Canadian minister. I figure that if B.W.Schultz ever gets up to the 1914 era in his research on Russell he will likely attempt to make the identification. If I thought it was important enough, I'd ask on Schultz' blog. I've asked other questions there before and received answers from participants who are avid commentators on "all things Russell." Also, since I don't count the "Black Nation of Islam" as having a nearly close enough affinity to the teaching of Bible Students and/or Rutherforrd, I don't include them in any groups who actually taught like the Bible Students about 1914. And since all the groups listed in your previous post were apparently Bible_Student/Second_Advent "spin-offs" they don't count as independent groups with a similar teaching about 1914. @NoisySrecko correctly pointed out a few other "Russellite" and/or Bible Student groups who became independent of Russell's writings. And of course, it's true that there were factions of independence all along among the Bible Students groups, even those who appreciated Russell's teachings and were welcomed by Russell despite a measure of independence. Much of Russell's writing is actually addressed in a non-dogmatic manner that acknowledges this varied level of independence that Russell accepted.
In my posts/messages to ResLight, ( https://reslight.boards.net/thread/1114/alleged-failure-misrepresented-historical-claim  ) I wondered if the person he was addressing in his post was thinking primarily of the idea that Russell had (once) dropped 1914 and temporarily changed it to 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times. ResLight seemed unaware of this very short-lived teaching. But as I read some of the YouTube comments more closely, it turns out that one commenter might have had this in mind. But in a confused manner. Note:
The comments below that video include some by Jerry Jones (7 years ago) who cherry picks the same low-hanging fruit that most anti-Russell and anti-JW folks gather. He does include reference to changes from 1914 to 1915 in one comment, but seems to miss the most important point about them. For that matter, ResLight misses it too, and blames changes made in 1911 and 1915 on Bible Students who made unauthorized changes to the text while Russell was still alive and was still printing under his own Watch Tower Society banner. I believe that ResLight thinks they were unauthorized only because they created contradictions (and they were not all "admitted" in WT lists of errata) but I think there are clearer ways to show how and why Russell was able to purposely contradict himself slightly to minimize the wording changes. 
ResLight still thinks that the Great Pyramid supports 1914, and just that one example helps me understand how he is quite satisfied even with some fairly shallow defenses of Russell's foibles in other areas. 

To be a little clearer, the fluffy document about hoping for peace between major religions had nothing to do with building any kind of facility in Abu Dhabi or anywhere else in the world.

(Matthew 24:36) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5mUFKSfpDCZ6NJdvbuDnPg

(Matthew 24:36) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
 

One point before answerig the question: Why would a sane person knowing the points that are contained in your question,  ask for a costly translation of court transcripts that obviously are without worth when taking into account your points?
Or more directly: Why do you ask for a costly translation of court transcripts that you yourself think worthless?
Now answering the question: The question contains an obviously false assumption: No one thought this to be an effort to lobby the outcome of a court trial or some sort of bribe. No one really thought that these letters would convince the Russian government to stop persecuting their peaceful JW citicens. No one did really suggest that it would do this.
The letter, where the Governing Body asked the JW to write those letters contained the following goals:
1. drawing international attention to the situation.
2. giving evidence of one's love for their brothers in Russsia
3. support fellow Christians who face persecution
Since these goals are obviously sensible and were achieved by the campaign there is no need to look for other hidden agendas that contain obviously not sensible reasons.

(Matthew 24:36) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
 

To be fair LORD in all caps refers to the God of Israel - Strong's 3068. In some translations it is Yahweh or Jehovah/YHWH. It is only a violation if something other than the Strong's itself is there and or something not related to it.
The only people who get fooled are those who do not know why LORD is all caps or it's connection to Tetragrammaton. But to be honest, if the people back then simply put YHWH or equivalent and left it as is, a lot less confusion by others later on, then you also have the fear of those who invoke the name of God.

I had not been able to find that blog post or "website" (as ResLight called it). You might know more about it since you were able to say that it was somehow connected with jwfacts.com.
I understand his fixation on defending CTR, as CTR produced an amazing amount of truth that has stood the test of time. But CTR also had a "thorn in the flesh" related to his own fixation on chronology. His first attempts of preaching and writing on his own (1876-1878) were years of great embarrassment, mostly because, as he admits, he was motivated to get the word out as quickly as possible about the predictions for the year 1878. It reminds me of Paul, who related his own "thorn in the flesh" as a counterbalance to the exaltation and pride that could have resulted from his own special revelations:
(2 Corinthians 12:6-9) . . .For even if I want to boast, I will not be unreasonable, for I would say the truth. But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. 8 Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” . . .
But CTR was continually overly exalted by others, mostly, due to the weakness of men around him looking for a leader. CTR evidently gave in to that weakness himself and, within 20 years, considered himself alone to be the individual embodiment of the "faithful and wise servant" (faithful and discreet slave). In spite of the embarrassment of 1878, he began placing more importance on chronology than ever before. Most of the content of the 6 volumes of Studies in the Scriptures would concern the "chronological plan" of the ages. A "divine" chronology, as he believed.
 Defending his chronology today seems out of place. ResLight does a good job correcting the exaggerated and incorrect claims against CTR, but he also goes too far in trying to defend Russell on this same topic. Remaining Bible Student groups vary in their defense of Russell, but it's a common tendency to give too much exaltation to the man himself. Rutherford called it "worship" of Russell and it took until about 1931 to remove most of it. 
I have asked ResLight a couple of questions through one of his forums. Hopefully he will answer soon.

I had not been able to find that blog post or "website" (as ResLight called it). You might know more about it since you were able to say that it was somehow connected with jwfacts.com.
I understand his fixation on defending CTR, as CTR produced an amazing amount of truth that has stood the test of time. But CTR also had a "thorn in the flesh" related to his own fixation on chronology. His first attempts of preaching and writing on his own (1876-1878) were years of great embarrassment, mostly because, as he admits, he was motivated to get the word out as quickly as possible about the predictions for the year 1878. It reminds me of Paul, who related his own "thorn in the flesh" as a counterbalance to the exaltation and pride that could have resulted from his own special revelations:
(2 Corinthians 12:6-9) . . .For even if I want to boast, I will not be unreasonable, for I would say the truth. But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. 8 Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” . . .
But CTR was continually overly exalted by others, mostly, due to the weakness of men around him looking for a leader. CTR evidently gave in to that weakness himself and, within 20 years, considered himself alone to be the individual embodiment of the "faithful and wise servant" (faithful and discreet slave). In spite of the embarrassment of 1878, he began placing more importance on chronology than ever before. Most of the content of the 6 volumes of Studies in the Scriptures would concern the "chronological plan" of the ages. A "divine" chronology, as he believed.
 Defending his chronology today seems out of place. ResLight does a good job correcting the exaggerated and incorrect claims against CTR, but he also goes too far in trying to defend Russell on this same topic. Remaining Bible Student groups vary in their defense of Russell, but it's a common tendency to give too much exaltation to the man himself. Rutherford called it "worship" of Russell and it took until about 1931 to remove most of it. 
I have asked ResLight a couple of questions through one of his forums. Hopefully he will answer soon.

The source was not from a wiki, it was from CSE - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
That being said, Wiki has not been factual unless it suits them. In the paradigm, they had recently changed information to misinform people, i.e. 9/11, Kabul, etc.
 
Also, this is the first time I have ever seen you make a response. I always see you in the reactions.

There is a parallel with the Bible Student history chart that is relevant for this discussion that does not align with some opinions here as well.
Two of the listed association renounced it’s fellowship with the Bible Student Association in 1909. The Free Bible Students. That association formed the New Covenant Believers, Christian Millennial fellowship, Free Bible Student Association.
Paul S. L. Johnson was skeptical about Russell’s teaching since 1905 and subsequently lead the Free Bible Students to depart from Russell’s teaching in 1909 as depicted in the chart. This error and lie is not noted in the Bible Student history with that point of departure, since “Henninges” wrote to Russell trying to persuade him to change certain views and when Russell refused, Henninges and the Melbourne congregation left to form their own movement which was called “ the New Covenant Fellowship” in 1909 that is not mentioned in that chart?
That chart doesn’t include how, pilgrim M.L. McPhail and A. E. Williamson from the Chicago Bible Students actually formed the “New Covenant Believers” in 1908 and started their own publication The Kingdom Scribe?
These groups are not mentioned in that chart since it try’s to depict in a simplified manner the major known groups of all the “independent” Bible Students. Keep in mind, Russell didn’t agree with many of the understandings independent congregations were offering as insight. Some of that insight included Millerism, which Russell did not accept nor support.
I just thought this correction should be included here. Not everything written in WIKI should be considered factual.

Prophecy is best understood after it is fulfilled: Daniel 11:44-12:13
I can agree that it had a previous alignment with occurrences, yet I see Jehovah embracing Daniel at the end of his life of integrity. He shows him how Jesus will Stand Up as Earth's new King, then the resurrection that Daniel will experience. He may show him the lot he will be allotted and what it will become. Jehovah sends an angel to ask "When?", another angel answers 3-1/2 appointed times. Daniel states "I do not understand", then it is spelled out for Daniel how this system will end,and when. The King of the North will go forth in a rage, the Last King / UN rules for an "hour" after 1290 days and the first day of Happiness 45 days later or maybe I am misunderstanding what I see, the next 2 appointed times will tell.
 

I believe this was addressed in another forums.
I didn't use the wiki. More so, there are a few connections that I know of who are Bible Students, mainly the neutral ones like Reslite.
That being said, those 2 Bible groups of which you quoted from my command, are still existing, but have minor activity, some of their members, although not organized, are lone Bible Students - Hence my remarks.
 
EDIT:
 
Just realized I made a response to you already.
As for Wiki, it is a mixed bag of apples in of itself. Some information true, others not. What people do not may attention to is the citations. Other then that, it is best to look for the actual source instead of a wiki. This may be unknown to you, but wiki has been manipulating information for the past several months now.

Yep, and I had sent this before. Around that time there was another person who spoke about 1914, but had his own blog post who went by the name Reslite. Reslite is most likely still a Bible Student, and stated to have studied Pastor Russell for many years. He at times, blames JWs for things, but often finds himself defending Russell from ExJWs. Ironically enough if you catch him at a good time, he is willing to speak to anyone regardless of their faith. As with the mention Reslite, who he himself talked about 1914.
So far, it isn't always easy to find his information, he might know something, probably some info on the Canadian Minister.
The below is one of his comments, but similar.
 
 
 

You seem to fail to understand the complexities of how the Bible Student association work. They are independent of each other with their own understandings. Some enjoy being compared to the Advent Movement, while others enjoy their autonomy.  Pastor Russell was different in may respects. That is what JWs should focus on. My point about Wiki was simple. It's unreliable since anyone can "edit" the content.

I made this point, they are not unified, there are different groups who are independent, different views, even those who hold 1914, or that similar to it, to some significance be it Jesus being crowned as King or the latter. The CSE thread brought up the 1843 chart because the question was asked if anyone outside of JWs hold this 1914 view, identical or similar, and the groups were brought up, some who held the view, others who may have shared the view or had something different, reasons why those 2 groups were mentioned because they were listed. JWI added others of which not related to any of the mentioned Bible Student groups, for it was always assumed others outside of JWs and Bible students viewed 1914 in some light, but not many can bring forth the name of said groups.
Also true, Reslite is the type to constantly profess that he, along with those on his side to be compared to the original Bible Student group. There are other Bible Students who profess the same thing in regards to comparisons to the original, but on the other side of the spectrum, some do not, even to the point they do not wish to be called Russellites because they see it as Sectarian to a degree.
The pastor was indeed different, some would say even unique. Then you have the constant conspiracy people profess about him, hence some of the students, even JWs enact a defense to misinformation.

Here in England I used the Data Protection Act to get printed documents concerning ME, that of my Medical Records from my GP, and that of my personal information concerning my time (in the 1960's) in a Children's Home that was government run.
I wanted more information concerning the employees and management of the Children's Home, and I was told to use the Freedom Of Information Act, to gain more information. However I was told that this extra information would not be mailed to me, and that I would have to visit an office and read through a large amount of files to be able to gain the information. Even then I would not be allowed to take photos or take notes on the files I read.  

I think I just happened to run across another post like the one you were speaking about above.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61369/was-the-1914-prophecy-derived-from-the-book-of-daniel-ever-mentioned-in-any-ne/81433
The responder to that question was @1982 and he also came up with nothing prior to 1914 by anyone except from those comments related to the WT.
Of course, there is still the question of the unnamed Canadian minister that C T Russell referred to in 1914. I haven't looked yet for more information about him. It may be that this was just one of those cases of someone declaring that "the end is nigh" and "it's going to happen before the end of this year or next at the latest."
Something like that was always happening somewhere for the majority of years after 1844. Probably, something like that is still happening somewhere in the world nearly every year, even now. This very forum gives evidence of that.

Hopefully, visitors will realize two things:
The first thing is that JWs like myself might have completely different opinions about our chronology doctrines, and therefore, as individuals, any one person's opinion must not be all that important. We can take an interest in varying views but come to our own conclusions about them. This hopefully leads to putting more faith in the Bible as Jehovah's Word, rather than men's words, and each of our own opinions.
The second thing is that it shows that JWs don't necessarily worship or blindly follow the GB and/or the Organization, but that we value the good things we learn and try to make sense of some of the things that don't make sense to us. We are always trying to make sure of all things, and hold fast to those things that are "fine."

Then you appear to disagree with the Watchtower publications on this point, where the 1,335 days end in the "happy" year: 1926.
*** w51 7/15 pp. 437-438 par. 16 The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel’s Prophecy ***
blessed is the one who comes to the 1,335 days. So reckoning this period on from the termination of the 1,290 days would mean from September, 1922, to May, 1926,—three years, eight and one-half months—at which time a large international convention of Jehovah’s people was in session at London, England. It was a season most blessed,
And from 1977:
*** go chap. 8 pp. 146-147 par. 57 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***
Truly the year 1926 deserved to be marked as the happy climax of the close of the 1,335 days. Those of Daniel’s “people” who kept in expectation and reached the end of the 1,335 days were launched off into a happiness that has not diminished,
And even more recently:
*** w00 5/15 p. 14 par. 28 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
The 2,300 days of Daniel chapter 8 as well as the 1,290 and the 1,335 days of chapter 12 are all past—behind us in the stream of time.
 
Of course, the "evidence on the ground" was quite different. The Yearbook (below) describes this period as one of the unhappiest times in WT history. The brothers and sisters were still reeling from the heartbreaking stumbling of so many brothers due to the failure of the 1925 prophecies from the "Millions" campaign and the failed predictions from the book The Harp of God, and the continuing departure of followers under Rutherford's direction. There were the additional failures of the expectations promoted in the book Comfort for the Jews, which had just come out in 1925 (rescinded in 1930/31), etc. 1926 also saw the beginning of heated arguments with Rutherford over why he still called for campaigns to sell Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" to the public (from 1926-1931) even though Rutherford had begun to reject the majority of the content of those books.
*** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***
A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.”
The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed.

I think I just happened to run across another post like the one you were speaking about above.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61369/was-the-1914-prophecy-derived-from-the-book-of-daniel-ever-mentioned-in-any-ne/81433
The responder to that question was @1982 and he also came up with nothing prior to 1914 by anyone except from those comments related to the WT.
Of course, there is still the question of the unnamed Canadian minister that C T Russell referred to in 1914. I haven't looked yet for more information about him. It may be that this was just one of those cases of someone declaring that "the end is nigh" and "it's going to happen before the end of this year or next at the latest."
Something like that was always happening somewhere for the majority of years after 1844. Probably, something like that is still happening somewhere in the world nearly every year, even now. This very forum gives evidence of that.