JW Insider

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

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. God allows false teachings to be taught to those seeking truth. There is no perfectly true knowledge for all teachings today. We will continue to grow and distinguish right from wrong. We will continue to refine dross from gold.
Yes. God is allowing the Governing Body to teach false teachings as far as we know. There are continuous changes, and therefore continuous admissions that what was previously taught was not completely true, therefore "false." The teachings are not as important as the desire to do God's will. The imperfect and flawed attitudes are not as important as the desire to do God's will. This is why Jesus could say:
(Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds. . .  

I can't answer your question directly. But I will give my opinion that Jehovah did not direct Russell at all on these particular matters of chronology.
You can safely ignore the rest of this post, as it is just going to be my own ramblings about how I come to this particular conclusion and still have respect for what Russell did, without discounting Jehovah's ability to work through any person.
This is a question that I wish had come up under a different topic. Without a set of clear visible miracles, belief in guidance from God is a matter of faith. I believe that Russell had faith that he was guided from God. I don't believe we are supposed to have faith in people when it comes to religious matters. So you get right to the heart of the matter with your question.
Russell may have had guidance from God on several matters. It may be because of a certain type of guidance from God that he viewed traditional religion through a certain filter, looking for a more sensible and rational God. It may have the right time in the late 19th century to meet a religious demand for a more sensible and rational God. This motivation could have worked in either direction. He was a product of wonderment at the quick strides that apparently allowed science to overtake religion in the United States. Or, Jehovah needed persons like him to begin promoting something that would attract good-hearted Christians to coalesce at such a critical stage in history.
In either case, we know that Russell felt a motivation and an overall direction that might have led him to read the Bible, or listen to religious preachers and teachers with that certain "filter" that moved him to choose, not just one doctrine, but a set of unrelated doctrines that quickly shook up traditional Christianity.
He picked a lot of these doctrines from Second Adventists even though most of Adventism had been recently shamed and very few wanted to be associated with Adventism. He picked a lot of it from "Age-to-Come" doctrine, even though the Age-to-Come teachers rejected him. Adventists, having been shaken, disappointed, and embarrassed in the 1840's, 1850's, 1860's, and most recently in 1873 and 1874 had already been making themselves more and more unwelcome in traditional churches as they kept updating their constantly failing end-times beliefs. These end-time groups were more apt to look for alternative doctrines from the traditional churches, and many had become non-Trinitarian, and many had become non-Hellfire believers, non-Immortal Soul believers, non-combatants, etc. Adventists hadn't developed these teachings themselves, necessarily, but were also picking them up from rogue Baptists, rogue Episcopalians, rogue philosophers, etc. The way I read the stories of several semi-successful Adventists is that they had to include a strong non-chronology angle to their doctrines rather than merely promoting another date. (Seventh-Day Adventists are a good example.)
We might assume that, sooner or later, of course, one of these groups was going to hit on something that would attract some special, additional attention. (Kind of like the way a good idea, a song or video or even a false conspiracy can "go viral.") Or someone would soon hit on a specific eclectic mix of doctrines that would be seen as Truth. Or a set of these doctrines would merely land in the lap of a skilled orator, writer and promoter. Or some combination of the above.
All we can see is the end result of Russell's eclecticism. And we might have faith that Jehovah took a specific interest in Russell's talents. He had a talent for speaking, writing, and used them to shake up traditional Christianity by promoting that collection of Bible doctrines that gave a very different, but refreshing look, to Christianity. Were these doctrines really random and the ones that made no sense would finally just "shake out" from the mix? Or did Russell just happen to have a good heart and a love for God that allowed him to read the Bible with a filter that helped him weed out many of the traditional doctrines that were not rational?
Depending on the significance we attach to some of the specific doctrines that Russell ended up promoting in tandem that no one else was promoting, we also might consider that Jehovah was guiding at least some of his decisions and efforts.
There are many ways, through faith, to look at the way Jehovah directs our efforts. We can't speak for others, but we know that we can rightly have faith in this "direction" even if it doesn't lead to a perfect outcome. People pray for a spouse, find one, and just know it was Jehovah's will at the time. People are about to make a terrible life choice and are steered in another direction. A driver of a car may swerve to avoid a person and hit a tree, unharmed. Not a perfect outcome, but it was still good "direction." When Russell moved away from some strongly entrenched traditional church doctrines, he may have steered into a few problems, too.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

I listened to the Introduction and the first two videos completely and I found that every statement made in these 3 videos was absolutely true. I haven't listened to the fourth one yet (Part 3), although I can make some assumptions from the title as to what it will say. 
Naturally, I reject the idea that Jehovah will destroy those who do not accept false doctrines and false prophetic explanations. I agree that it was arrogant of the Governing Body to indicate that this is what God will do if you don't accept doctrines that turn out to be false.
Then again, I still believe Jesus was correct when he said that there would be no literal walls or fences between the true wheat and the counterfeit wheat. Various church denominations would be a perfect analogy to fences in a field where true wheat grew in one section of a field and false wheat grew in other sections. Therefore, I don't believe that the denominational distinction that sets us apart is the actual criteria that makes us Christian and the rest of the world false. I believe that Christians are Christian because of what is in their heart.
I see the Watchtower organization as an entity to support a certain chosen type of ministry. Let's say that a church decides that it will focus on the ministry of healing the sick, and another one focuses on a ministry of providing shelter to the poor. That first church might build hospitals and may therefore form a governing body to direct the work of finding places where hospitals can be supported, where doctors, nurses, builders, etc, can be recruited, and how much they could afford to pay these doctors and other personnel. Something like that might happen with a church that wants to focus on providing shelter for the poor, or soup kitchens, or distribution of clothing, etc.
But the Watchtower organization is an entity that chose to focus on the ministry of teaching (and worldwide distribution of teachings). Perhaps in some sense the "ministry of teaching" can be expanded to include: (1 Corinthians 14:6) ". . .either with a revelation or with knowledge or with a prophecy or with a teaching?" By this, I mean, interpretation of existing prophecy, not the gift of prediction or newly revealed knowledge. Similarly, for purposes of setting priorities in the times we believe we are living, certain teachings would be seen as being more important than others, and more worthy of publication and distribution. Therefore, this ministry needs a governing body to set priorities, just like a supposedly less religious ministry that focuses on building houses for the poor, or bringing aid to persons suffering from natural or man-made disasters.
Those who would really focus in earnest on a teaching ministry would likely come up with a set of teachings that might seem unique to other denominations. This might attract persons of other denominations, and it might create resentment and rejection, too. Also, a governing body of such a ministerial undertaking might easily begin to see themselves in the role of the original Twelve Apostles, which can be very dangerous and create an unbalanced haughtiness. The more they focus on correct teaching, however, the more they should see these very dangers and learn to avoid them.
But I see this particular type of ministry as an important one. It is a true Christian service to other Christians and would-be Christians. I think that Jehovah's Witnesses in particular have found evidence for teachings that make it easier for people to understand God and Christ:
Trinity, for example, is a very confusing way to think of God, and makes God less approachable. I can see it as a service, therefore, to Christians and would-be Christians to present the view of God and Christ that the Witnesses have done. The same goes for Hellfire. This is (and should be) a confusing doctrine to Christians because it puts something in the mind of a loving God that makes no sense if we are created in God's image. A focus on an earthly hope attracts many who understand our unworthiness to stand before the person of God, including many who have a humble, down-to-earth attitude in our relationship with God. Neutrality and non-participation in divisive, nationalistic warfare is another point that JW's promote as a teaching that flies in the face of the usual teachings that churches succumb to during wartime. We may not have a full understanding yet of these particular doctrines and many others, yet it is still a ministerial service. (I doubt that every person who spoke up with a prophecy or to speak in a tongue or translate in the first century was always correct.) So as long as we are not too haughty about them, these teachings provide a service to other Christians -- a ministry. They can shake us out of long-standing traditions that might be blinding us to the ability to change our views when a better understanding is found.
I could go on and on about various doctrines that might start out as kind of a mess (dates and pyramids and false prophecies about 1925, and 'millions now living' etc). But they continue to uncover things out of the storehouse of the Bible, things both old and new.
In the past people (individual scholars) like Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry have accepted a teaching ministry. (Not to mention Gesenius, Strong, Westcott, Hort, Liddell, Thayer, etc.) JWs are very indebted to these scholars that came before them. In our case, we also try to make a teacher out of every person identifying themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This creates a unique ministry which becomes more valuable to Christians and would-be Christians as we continue to get better at it.
So just because we have a "Governing Body" it does not mean that the Bible said that the one true religion would need a Governing Body. It's just that the particular ministry we wish to focus on happens to work more effectively and efficiently with a Governing Body. If we take such a ministry seriously we will want to try to match the organizational structure of the first-century congregation, and most Witnesses think this is an attempt to match the idea of the apostles who focused on teaching while others focused on distribution. The Watchtower itself is just a kind of "business" arm to help "market" the publications more efficiently, and up until very recently the Governing Body was associated with the board of directors of this supportive business arm. More recently, near the turn of this century, this was seen as something that should be changed and several of the changes since then are massive improvements over the prior teachings. The attempt to  re-interpret the history and mis-represent that history is a common human failing, and we are going through this right now. But I do not associate with Jehovah's Witnesses because the current "Governing Body" claims to represent human or spiritual authority. (Galatians 1 & 2 show why this is condemned.) I associate with JWs because I've enjoyed my association, find people who are sincere about wanting to participate in a legitimate and important ministry,  and I get constant reminders to watch myself and my teaching.
(1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you
(Colossians 3:15, 16) 15 Also, let the peace of the Christ rule in your hearts, for you were called to that peace in one body. And show yourselves thankful. 16 Let the word of the Christ reside in you richly in all wisdom. Keep on teaching and encouraging one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs sung with gratitude, . . .
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
 

By the way, if you're into stuff like this, you might wanna check out https://thepythagoras.com/. They have some neat articles about ancient civilizations and their contributions to science and math. It’s really interesting how much we owe to these early thinkers.

The Dendera Zodiac is such an amazing piece of history. Imagine ancient Egyptians looking up at the same stars we do now and creating this detailed map. It's mind-blowing!
So, what do I think about it? I think it's a fascinating blend of art and astronomy. Those ancient folks really knew their stuff. The way they incorporated their gods and mythologies into the constellations is just brilliant. And it's not just about the stars, it’s a glimpse into how they viewed the universe and their place in it.

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. 
That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

I know this was to Srecko, but I was thinking the same thing. It's nice to have a unified message. And to answer the next part of your points, I think that this particular forum provides a answer, of sorts, to see the expected results of such an experiment.
It could be chaos, but need not be. All of us can have our own opinions as long as we respect the doctrines promoted by the the Governing Body. The Governing Body would be respected for the number of years they have spent in Bible study and teaching and therefore "worthy of double honor."
There are many ways to manage both personal opinions and respect the currently accepted doctrines held by the majority. One way is for all of us to try to remember to always make sure people know we are expressing our own personal opinion even if we personally have absolutely no doubt about the correctness of that opinion. Many people have already come on this forum in the last few years, presenting themselves as JWs, and all the while making sure predictions about end-time events they expected in the next few months. All of them will surely be just as wrong as everyone else has been for these last 2,000 years.
And if we are just exploring an opinion we should be clear that we are anxious for others to share any clarifying, supporting, or non-supporting evidence to add to the discussion.
The Governing Body should also be willing to express any current doctrine in terms of its probability according to the best evidence they have accepted, and if they are rejecting more evidence than they accept, they should explain their reasons for rejecting the majority of the known evidence. The Governing Body has already done this on several minor teachings, and I always find it refreshing. In other words, every single doctrine we have, need not be expressed as an unchangeable dogma. Everything can be expressed as a current belief based on the evidence we currently accept. There would NEVER be an embarrassment over the past, and the new level of open-mindedness would result in more input from persons who run across new evidence all over the world. 

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

@JOHN BUTLER,
I see that the news is starting on this so the documentation can't be far behind.
https://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/article_e20e2330-eeeb-5f0f-a4e8-d8bcbababd85.html
From the 69 page appeal brief from the Watchtower to the Montana Supreme Court it is made fairly clear how the corporations operate from a practical legal perspective.
In this particular case the relevant parties are summarized as WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, both as appellants and third-party appellants.
All three of these major parties are referred to as "entities associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses."
For legal purposes the brief defines: "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“CCJW”) (a New York nonprofit corporation that assists Jehovah’s Witnesses)." (p.2,3)
and:
"Watchtower (the faith’s New York entity that retains the attorney who gave legal advice to congregation elders)." (p.3)
It is typical in recent lawsuits to treat all Watchtower-related corporate entities as merely "advisors" in support of Jehovah's Witnesses or "the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses." In a larger sense these advisors provide logistical support for assemblies, meetings, property ownership, donation and financial management, preaching, research, writing, printing, and distribution of religious media. Similarly, the Governing Body are also treated as another "entity" of advisors for spiritual guidance that supports the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.
(To some, this would obviously hearken back to the time under Russell and Rutherford, when the congregations, i.e, "ecclesia" or "companies," were more independent.)
In the brief, the WATCHTOWER is merely treated as the source of legal advice and legal counsel. "[E]lders of a local Montana congregation sought advice from legal counsel to know whether they had a legal duty to report." (p.2)
This recent separation of CCJW from Watchtower of New York and Watch Tower of Pennsylvania has allowed attorneys for the Watchtower to argue that outsiders have mixed them up and therefore made legal errors. For example, from the brief:
The court erroneously held that the attorney in New York violated
Montana’s reporting statute and that Watchtower was vicariously liable. The
court erroneously held that elders at CCJW in New York violated Montana’s
reporting statute and that CCJW was vicariously liable. [emphasis by WTS] p.3
This was considered by the WTS attorney to be a fatal error and therefore could continue:
And even
assuming the attorney who advised congregation elders misinterpreted the
reporting statute, a good-faith misinterpretation of a statute is not “actual
malice” and does not justify $31 million in punitive damages. [Emphasis mine.]
Although spiritual oversight of Jehovah's Witnesses, includes the Governing Body, there is now a good reason to leave the various corporations out of the mix. This way the Governing Body can legally claim to not be under the direction of the Watchtower, nor of the CCJW. The local congregations, although more closely associated with the CCJW, can also be treated as separate from these corporate entities:
Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses receive spiritual oversight and
pastoral care from a group of local elders who are “clergy” under Montana law.
An expression that was very common in the brief referred to "established Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and practice" without a need to acknowledge that this has historically been "established" through communication with Watchtower Society entities (where the money is kept). Instead, the connection to the CCJW can be admitted now as the legal conduit through which doctrine and practice is established, and CCJW is a source of spiritual advisement, just as the GB are. 
Congregation elders throughout the United States receive spiritual
guidance from elders at CCJW in New York. CR 77, Ex. C ¶7; Ex. G ¶7;
Ex. H ¶4. CCJW, a New York non-profit corporation headquartered in New
York, supports the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. CR 77, Ex. G ¶¶5-7.
Congregation elders confidentially communicate with elders at CCJW to
receive spiritual counsel and guidance. [p.8]
In other words, it's true that local congregations get advice from the CCJW which is spiritual advice, also confidential due to clergy privilege, but that the legal advice comes from the Watchtower, and this is effectively confidential due to something akin to attorney client privilege. This is clarified on page 9:
Watchtower, a New York nonprofit corporation that supports Jehovah’s
Witnesses, maintains a legal department. CR 77, Ex. Z: 39:7-40:8. While
congregation elders turn to CCJW’s Service Department elders for confidential
spiritual guidance, they call Watchtower’s Legal Department for confidential
legal advice. . . . CCJW is not owned or operated by, and
does not own or operate, Watchtower. At all relevant times (p.9)
CCJW (not Watchtower) communicated religious policies and procedures to
local elders. (p.10)
On this basis alone, as the court acknowledged blame in much higher proportion to the Watchtower (80 percent) and CCJW (15 percent) and the local congregation (4 percent) and the mother (1 percent), the WTS attorneys would therefore wish to show that the award was incorrect.
Other attempts to remove culpability and liability from New York entities were argued throughout much of the rest of the brief. For example:
Fourth, the elders with CCJW and the Watchtower attorney who learned
about the abuse all live in New York. Their duty to report is governed by New
York law, not Montana law. A state “has no authority to mandate reports by
adults or agencies in other states.”

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

The droves and droves of true Witnesses whom you seem to think flock to this platform, heedless of organizational counsel that they should not, should also recognize that no one (in the closed club) claims to be a stellar example of counsel to avoid any interaction at all with ‘apostates.’ But only you, not allowed in the closed club, thoroughly trash that counsel, as though contemptuous of it, and eagerly seek out people with whom to bicker with 24/7–thus enormously extending their shelf life, and all the while insisting you are the only faithful one around—and, alas, usually getting your head handed to you because of your reliance on name calling and dark condescension.
Everyone else is at least partially checked by organizational counsel, and might be far worse without it. They do try to remain in the overall spirit of it. Only one person here puts himself above it and ignores it completely.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. 
That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

I guess it's good to explain oneself every couple of years.
I said above that I am not trying to convince fellow Witnesses that 607 BCE is the wrong date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It might sound like it, but it would be an unreasonable goal to expect more than a small fraction of Witnesses to change their view on such a longstanding, strongly entrenched tradition. 
So here's my actual reasoning: (BTK should probably cover his eyes.)
There will always be persons who hear good things about the Witnesses and who will want to study with us. But there will be some, admittedly only a few, who will decide to look at the details for themselves. There may even be some who already knew about the details of the Babylonian chronology, and who will realize that it isn't a controversy at all, and it really isn't at all a matter of choosing Bible chronology over secular chronology.
I believe there will be more of these persons over time. No amount of bluster or false, contradictory explanations is going to convince them. (Because they have seen the details for themselves.) So what are we to do? Do we merely make sure that no one who has educated themselves about this particular topic will ever become a Witness? 
I think there should be a chance for these persons to know that a person can still be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that this 607 thing was just a simple mistake that someone made back in 1873 or so, but that no one thought/sought to look into it or correct the mistake because it had apparently proven true as a prophecy about 1914.*
*I don't think anyone can blame most Witnesses for not really wanting to look into the details because we really do think something happened in 1914 that was prophetically significant. We would automatically be suspicious of anyone who had looked into the details for themselves and found an issue with them. We think that if we were to begin looking into the same, that we must be "kicking against the goads" or even "fighting against the holy spirit." We have been taught that perhaps it's controversial, but that it's just a matter of putting more faith in the Bible than in secular chronology.
That "Bible vs secular" mindset works for us, even though it's a false premise. But I'm talking about interested persons who have actually already LOOKED or who WILL LOOK into the data for themselves. Those persons will not have a choice to deny what they know. They should know that it is possible to be a Witness without having to deny something they KNOW to be true. They should also be aware that a Witness who accepts an alternative view about 607 and 1914 need not hold a very different view of the world around us and the closeness of the end of this system.

Maybe we can say it’s okay to join us but they don’t have to use the main auditorium; we’ll reserve space for them in the spare room where we keep the literature carts. 
Motive understood. Even BTK will acquiesce, I think.
Meanwhile, hopefully they will not be like that guy on the Titanic who inspected the lifeboat safety inspection sticker, saw it did not incorporated the latest methods, and declined to board.

I don’t even know what you are talking about….and yes I believed James….please let’s not get antagonised with each other….your really old and I’m old….we are wasting time…