Melinda Mills

What hierachy? What madness! Not scriptural.  Remember the widow? Jesus said she put in more than the others.  Unless Jehovah and Jesus don't matter.  Elijah thought only he was serving God but God said he had 7000 that did not bow down to Baal. Same today.
 
 

IMHO I guess if I had enough RAM in my CPU I could overcome my DSL, AKA phone, and need to RSVP, PDQ,  by PDF,  before MTBF, and I R.I.P.

@James Thomas Rook Jr.  Well it is better than being a stuffed-human being and positioned in a chair, a motorcycle and or a gaming seat with a bag of soda and chips next to your body during a viewing, or perhaps being sent to space.
Yeah, I never understood how some in the US, perhaps elsewhere flush a fish down a bathroom toilet. For us it is usually literal burial in the dirt or casting the fish aside into the sea.
Other than that, never fall a sleep in water period, you'd be amaze how people think they are Sponge-bob or Aquaman, believing they can breathe as well as sleep and live underwater, and boy were they wrong. Better to sleep near the shoreline away from the water that can easily send you off, for water is the worse way to go and as said by others, very painful.
Also it is a good idea to bring the shark repellent.

I read the letter ... neither does it disprove any statement.
The supposition that it is two days instead of three days needs proof.
In the absence of proof, the fair assumption is that it stays the same, whether that be three days, or thirty three days, etc.

Isn't it interesting if we tell someone that we were talking to God, more than likely we will be perceived as righteously inclined ... whereas if we tell someone that God speaks to us ..... we will be perceived as bat crap crazy?

The info provided does not support your statement on the adjustment made concerning 2019 regional convention from 3 days to 2 days! 

Of course ... every Iranian Kingdom Hall is in a water Park, as shown in the photo.
.... makes baptisms very convenient ... AND ... ( AND! ),  when you baptize twenty-eight year olds, it is very efficient, as with the sliding  boards as shown in the photo,  you can do twenty at a time.
(... sets kitchen egg timer for six minutes .... )

Iranian kingdom halls?
 

Google it.

What are you reaching for? A. Your not governed by that Law anymore. The principal still stands. Rape was big in the 80's...It became a joke/norm for women to say "I'd just give it to him"  a scream shows it is unwanted.
Obviously sick minds don't make since so let's use your wife,mom, sister or...Your daughter. Now this little hoe has all her cleavage showing, her g-string seen thru that white mini skirt. She's intoxicated...She's rubbing up on this guy and touching his chest. He's grabbing her buttocks but she's laughing. He's overhead asking her to come with him. They go out to his car, get into the back seat and begin kissing. Is that appropriate for your wife/sister/mother? Is she leading him on or adding fuel to the fire?  So he pulls her panties down. YOUR DAUGHTER...YOUR BABY GIRL is giggling saying no softly as she kisses him. He is getting turned on the more she whispers no and kisses him. Mind you patrons of the bar are outside smoking wishing they were this lucky guy. They can somewhat see the show. Now they exit the car, she goes off he returns to the bar getting high fives from the guys. So the Ryan girl now says rape??? She never screamed, she led him on, she engaged in kissing.
In God's eye and the Christian  congregation  I'd believe one might see it as her fault. No woman is AT FAULT for being raped but if it was MY wife I'd have to wonder why she flirted. Why didn't she try and escape/fight/scream? In some situations people can freeze up. Freezing up is the wrong answer. Your fighting for your life PERIOD.
Jack Ryan I took this personal because  your attacking Jah and those who sat down as a group...reseached,discussed and prayed for Holy Spirit to direct them on finding the correct answers to give to the flock.
Jehovah loves her just like the man who comes into her life wants to love her. Knowing the world we live in one must be aware of many things . She must fight, yell to get help. If in fact someone hears her cry for help the crime is prevented and this woman isn't violated and left to feel shame.
 

... It could only be worse if we had female cartoon children giving morality lessons in some sort of institutionalized cartoon presentation.
 

Perhaps this restriction is mitigated by the principle in Titus where the verse says that wives should be "workers at home" which could easily be interpreted to mean that they should not work outside the home. Yet the primary principal appears to be so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. In different cultures, or as cultures evolve and change, certain practices that once distracted from the message no longer distract.
(Titus 2:4-5) 4 that they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. A custom among Greeks and Romans at the time was that most wives did not leave the house. Marriage usually meant that a woman left her mother and father's house and might never see them again. She would be kept safe through childbearing at home, and there could be no question about the paternal inheritance rights of the son because this practice protected women from seduction and predators while the husband was away working. For those women who did leave the house, the practice might still have been to have the women sit separately from the men in the congregation, as they did in Jewish synagogues, which might be partly why they had to wait to ask their husbands when they got home.

The first time? No, my friend. How can a mother teach her children behind what you are saying? Women are quite capable and deemed necessary to disseminate information to us as children, others, even men; when the need arises. They are teachers, evangelizers, but holding an office of oversight at the temple, in the Christian arrangement of things, no they are not part of that. They are anointed, rulers and priests in the Kingdom, no different than John, James and Paul.
 Should they fight for 'equal pay' and status? Why? Sounds much like a satanic issue don't you think? One that would keep them off their throne, correct? Every part has its place. Like Paul said, the toe, can't be the eye, anymore than the leg be the heart. The verse reads as I understand it, the head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man. And this is placed so by....not man but God! Period! Right?

I suspect you reversed this convention.

You are being too cerebral about this.
Take a fruit with you from the supermarket out the door, without paying for it, making it a forbidden fruit.
The experience will help you see the problem from a new perspective. If it does not, I will appear at your trial as a character witness.

This is certainly true. This kind of attitude led the Israelites into demanding a king which Jehovah saw as a rejection of himself, despite the fact that he went along with the arrangement and gave them a succession of human "leader"s (for example: 1Sam.9:16; 13:14; 2Sam.1:35; 1Ki.14:7; 20:5; to name a few). There are leaders mentioned in a number of approved contexts other than kingship.
So the real problem is not that there would be leaders, this is a natural human characteristic and appears to be part of Jehovah's design of humans. The problem is how leaders view themselves, how they project themselves, what the privilege of leadership does to them;  and how those whom they lead view them. And the added ingredient of imperfection into the mix complicates matters.
But of course this how humans are isn't it? Jehovah knows all the implications of this. So does Jesus, and he went to great pains to demonstrate how leadership should be excercised. (John 13:14-13). His comments on being the only Leader were in the context of vainglorious Leadership. He wasn't doing away with leadership (Heb.13:7) was he?  
So as long as we all keep this in mind. I remember once acting as chairman for a GB member who gave us a talk. He called me aside and said quietly "please don't introduce me with a fanfare as a member of the GB. Just say I am a visiting speaker"
Due you think that was mock humility?
As I see it, true leadership is a role designated by Jehovah on a needs basis. Even the glorified Jesus recognises this 1Cor.15:58.

You did say this in another post about the 700,000:
"So, have we actually had that much decrease, and does anybody have any "official" numbers to verify what I heard today from the platform?
Did you get that figure verified? 2016 peak plus 2017 baptised comes up about 168,000 short (not unusually) but this in an overestimate particularly when based on peak figures as some of last years will be included in the baptism figure. We don't have average pub. figures for 2017, (or I can't find them).
Anyway, it sounds a bit similar to that recent report on the forum of a brother announcing at the assembly that the GB think the preaching work has now been completed. I beleive he got "beamed up" somewhere after that!
Whilst acknowledging the obvious emotional content of your rant, I am still trying to understand your reason for it.
The idea that kingdom fruitage which ALL must produce relates to the actual word of the kingdom does not appear to be out of harmony with the illustration Jesus used? (Matt 13:19 etc). And to relate that fruitage to the effect of the kingdom message on an appreciative heart as being the point of the parable doesn't appear to be a cause for consternation. After all, Jesus himself said that speech would be a product of the heart's abundance didn't he? (comp.Matt.12:34).
Remembering that Jesus is actually the sower of the good news is important too, because his genuine followers, whilst not able to do all that he did, can do that which was his core activity (Luke 4:43). The requirement that all produce fruitage is significant, because not all individually make disciples, although all can have a collective share. So it seems entirely reasonable that the evidence of good soil is the production of more seed, the fruitage expected of one preached to is that...they preach (Rom.10:8-10).

It may be for many that this is a new understanding.
However, the thought has been expressed with varying degrees of clarity over the years. I thought this quote from the 2003 WT  in a discussion of John 15:8 was pretty clear:
*** w03 2/1 pp. 20-21 pars. 9-11 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***
9 To answer properly, we need first to understand what constitutes Kingdom fruitage. Would it be correct to conclude that bearing fruit means making disciples? (Matthew 28:19) Does the fruit that we would bear refer primarily to individuals whom we help to become baptized worshipers of Jehovah? No. If that were the case, the situation would be deeply discouraging for all those dear Witnesses who have been faithfully proclaiming the Kingdom message for years in less responsive territories. Why, if the Kingdom fruit that we bear is represented only by new disciples, such hardworking Witnesses would be like the barren branches in Jesus’ illustration! Of course, that is not the case. Then, what is the primary Kingdom fruitage of our ministry?
Fruitful by Spreading Kingdom Seed
10 Jesus’ illustration of the sower and the different types of soil points to the answer—a heartening answer for those who witness in less productive territories. Jesus said that the seed is the Kingdom message found in God’s Word and that the soil represents man’s figurative heart. Some seed “fell upon the good soil, and, after sprouting, it produced fruit.” (Luke 8:8) What fruit? Well, after a wheat stalk sprouts and matures, it produces as fruit, not little wheat stalks, but new seed. Likewise, a Christian produces as fruit, not necessarily new disciples, but new Kingdom seed.
11 Therefore, the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities. Since the seed that is sown is the word of the Kingdom, the fruitage must be a manyfold duplication of that seed. The bearing of fruitage in this case refers to making expressions about the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14).
Where there is a bit of a change of emphasis is the inclusion of this footnote on p.14 in the 2018 WT article:
While “bearing fruit” also applies to producing “the fruitage of the spirit,” in this article and the next, we focus on producing “the fruit of our lips,” or Kingdom preaching.—Gal. 5:22, 23; Heb. 13:15.
This in itself is not new, but does appear to contradict the statement in para 11 of the 2003 article (the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities), and is a return to the thought expressed in a number of earlier (ancient) articles which include the "fuitage of the  sprit" with the "fruitage of lips" as appropriate evidences of active Kingdom seed. For example:

*** w83 8/15 p. 23 par. 14 United Fruit Bearers ***
they must “keep bearing much fruit.” This they do by producing Christlike qualities of the new personality, including “the fruitage of the spirit.” (Galatians 5:22, 23; Matthew 28:19, 20; Colossians 3:5-14) But to be really fruitful they give active expression  to such qualities by sharing in the work of preaching “this good news.” (Matthew 24:14)

*** w60 9/1 p. 537 par. 6 Awake Worshipers in the Time of the End ***
 However, the one who hears the Word of truth and gets the sense of it really does bear fruit of a right kind. He brings forth in his life fruitage of Christian qualities, referred to at John 15:8, and which brings glory to the Father. He is consistent in offering “to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.” (Heb. 13:15) 

This inclusion of the fruitage of the spirit along with the preaching was reintroduced in WTs in 2004 and 2011:
*** w04 1/1 p. 9 par. 4 Let All Declare the Glory of Jehovah ***
4 Jesus Christ told us how to glorify God. He said: “My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8) How do we bear much fruit? First, by sharing whole-souled in preaching the “good news of the kingdom” and thus joining with all created things in “telling” about God’s “invisible qualities.” (Matthew 24:14; Romans 1:20) Moreover, in this way we all have a share—directly or indirectly—in the making of new disciples who swell the chorus of praise to Jehovah God. Second, we cultivate the fruitage produced in us by holy spirit and strive to imitate Jehovah God’s superlative qualities. (Galatians 5:22, 23; Ephesians 5:1; Colossians 3:10) As a result, our daily conduct glorifies God.
 
*** w11 4/15 p. 18 “The Fruitage of the Spirit” Glorifies God ***
The fruit Jesus mentioned includes both “the fruitage of the spirit” and “the fruit of lips” that Christians offer to God by means of the Kingdom-preaching work.—Heb. 13:15
So it is all really another confirmation of Jesus's words at Matt.13:52:
“That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
?
 

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13.
Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too:
However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers.
(Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong.
I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.)
Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation:
(Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.
(Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come.
We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said:
"Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturally warranted. --   Gone Away
Based on Gone Away's digest, I am adding two cents. (I have not been able to read all.)
Russell, like Paul, sacrificed a lot for the good news. However he was clearly wrong if he appeared to be roping himself into that unique sacrifice that Jesus gave.
No other person could have done it.   The person had to be one who could replace Adam, a man made perfect by God.  (Deut 19:21)  None of the anointed is perfect in the flesh, though righteousness is credited to them. 
No imperfect man could give a ransom for another imperfect man.
(Psalm 49:7, ? None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him,  8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach);
  (Romans 6:8-11) 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.
 No one of the anointed can say he has no sin, so that he could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins.
 (1 John 1:8-10) 8 If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us.
 (1 John 2:1, 2) My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.
 No other human sacrifice is required.  But God is well pleased with our bearing Kingdom fruit, including the fruit of lips
 (Hebrews 13:15, 16) 15 Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that make public declaration to his name. 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 ==== 
Perhaps Russell had a similar feeling to Paul?
 (Galatians 4:19) my little children, for whom I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.
Similar thoughts (in my opinion):
 (2 Corinthians 11:28) 28 Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day: the anxiety for all the congregations.
 (2 Corinthians 11:1, 2) . . .! 2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ. . .
 Ephesians 4:11-16) And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.
N.B. Russell's knowledge was imperfect, but gave him enough zeal to make a start in the restoration of true worship; at one point the apostle Paul's knowledge was imperfect too, though greatly superior to Russell's but he did very well in spearheading the work when redirected by Jesus and his letters are still guiding us today. However, Paul said he was looking  as though through a metal mirror but eventually would know accurately and face-to-face. Very encouraging!
(1 Corinthians 13:12, 13) 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

I agree with the other scriptures you have contributed. Exactly along the lines I was thinking too.
Russell had many things wrong but who is to say? We have the benefit of so much today compared to the pioneering work done in those early days on the basis of what they knew. The courage and determination shines through regardless of any of the tarnishing error in the thinking displayed.
I wonder what the passage of 100 years or so will do to the understandings we hold so dear today? May we be there to share the laughter!

Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturally warranted. --   Gone Away
Based on Gone Away's digest, I am adding two cents. (I have not been able to read all.)
Russell, like Paul, sacrificed a lot for the good news. However he was clearly wrong if he appeared to be roping himself into that unique sacrifice that Jesus gave.
No other person could have done it.   The person had to be one who could replace Adam, a man made perfect by God.  (Deut 19:21)  None of the anointed is perfect in the flesh, though righteousness is credited to them. 
No imperfect man could give a ransom for another imperfect man.
(Psalm 49:7, ? None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him,  8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach);
  (Romans 6:8-11) 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.
 No one of the anointed can say he has no sin, so that he could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins.
 (1 John 1:8-10) 8 If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us.
 (1 John 2:1, 2) My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.
 No other human sacrifice is required.  But God is well pleased with our bearing Kingdom fruit, including the fruit of lips
 (Hebrews 13:15, 16) 15 Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that make public declaration to his name. 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 ==== 
Perhaps Russell had a similar feeling to Paul?
 (Galatians 4:19) my little children, for whom I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.
Similar thoughts (in my opinion):
 (2 Corinthians 11:28) 28 Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day: the anxiety for all the congregations.
 (2 Corinthians 11:1, 2) . . .! 2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ. . .
 Ephesians 4:11-16) And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.
N.B. Russell's knowledge was imperfect, but gave him enough zeal to make a start in the restoration of true worship; at one point the apostle Paul's knowledge was imperfect too, though greatly superior to Russell's but he did very well in spearheading the work when redirected by Jesus and his letters are still guiding us today. However, Paul said he was looking  as though through a metal mirror but eventually would know accurately and face-to-face. Very encouraging!
(1 Corinthians 13:12, 13) 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

These kind of remarks (Russell's) might seem rather vainglorious without consideration of the context of his statements.
For example, this one:
The Lord at the time indicated would especially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages.” (Watchtower, April 15. 1904, p. 125.)
might indicate on face-value that Russell was arguing in favour of himself being viewed as "the faithful and discreet slave" (Shock! Horror! Arrogance surely!).
But on examination it appears that Russell was wrestling with the same problem of doctrinal understanding experienced in far more recent times. That is, if the faithful and discreet slave is to be viewed as the body of the anointed, how then can how it be said to be providing that same body with food at the proper time? His prolific output of spiritual food at the time made it likely difficult to view other than an individual (himself) in that role. Yet he does not seem to indicate an arrogant self evaluation, if only by the fact that he suggests the slaves reward for faithfulness "should not be understood to apply to future glories and honor, but merelv to a more general charge or stewardship as respects the dispensing of the Lord’s “goods” or truths due to be protected or disbursed during the remainder of this “harvest” time. In other words, the steward through whom the Lord will dispense present truth in this “harvest,” will, if found vigilant, humble, faithful, be continued in the stewardship and be used of ttie Lord more and more in the service of the household - down to the close of the “harvest.” " (Ibid.)
The passage of time has provided us with a much better grip on this concept. We have dispensed with the idea of an individual slave, also the clumsy notion of a composite that feeds its individual members, and settled on the more wieldy notion that those taking the lead within the anointed have overall responsibility for the Bible educational program, with a 1st Century parrallel.
So to the applying of a range of what appear to be exclusively Christological descriptors to the anointed Christians, including Russell himself.
Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturaly warranted. 
His, what for me can only be described now as, "rather religious ramblings" are a reflection of what Paul called "partial knowledge" 1Cor.13:9. We have an infinitely better understanding of all of these concepts today so it is remarkable that  those 19th Century Christians were able to do what they did in promoting an examination of the Scriptures independent of the religious mainstream of their day, and in pulling together and focussing the energy of those who responded. Unless, of course we allow for the favourable influence of the Creator and His Son in recognition of their determined sincerity and love of God.
On the basis of what we know now, it might well seem incredible that anyone could have proclaimed "This is the truth!"  if we look at many of these teachings in isolation. But we must not forget that the dispensing of basic doctorines such as those relating to "the Ransom", "hellfire", "immortal soul", "religious clericalism", along with eschatolgical expectation regardless of the speculative elements, including the concept, however unclear, that one could be destined to serve as a heavenly king-priest with Jesus, and things like these would have made a sufficient impact to move many in the face of Christendom's spritual torpor. And that even if other more "mysterious" notions went a little over their heads.
This insight into past belief I find to be extraordinarily encouraging, when one gives it some thought. However, this does not seem to be a generally held view because there are those who see such information as faith-damaging and prefer a revisionist approach.

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution).
Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers.
I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?'
In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible.
A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS.
Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37.
Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
[See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)