Anna

@AllenSmith. Sorry, can't quote you. It's just too lengthy to dissect!
You are rattled, and, as you loose your command of language when that happens, I just do not really follow the syntax of your 90 word sentence. Take a step back and chill out, mate, and maybe some sense, which you are quite capable, of will ensue. 
Meanwhile, stop mixing the media with the message. An idol can be portrayed in any media but this does not taint the media itself necessarily, although the media itself can be idolised. 
And just keep your insulting rhetoric to either yourself, or those who want to lock horns with you on obscurity. I much prefer it when you reason clearly, which you do on occasion. 
If you are prepared to engage sensibly I will respond. Otherwise, don't waste your breath and bandwidth.
 

I have been thinming about a tattoo on my chest the size of a car stering wheel ... a large red hart wisth roses and flowers .. and an arroe going through it, and in big etters in the middle "Mammy! Yo de MOST!".
... as soon as I finish the next six beers ....

As already stated, the only answer to your question Why....does Jehovah God forbid tattoos? is : Jehovah God does not forbid tattoos.  
The question could have been asked: 
"Why did Jehovah forbid the Jewish nation to tattoo themslves?" Or "Does Jehovah God forbid Christians to have tattoos? If Yes, Why?"
Different, more informative answers may then have ensued.
Another variation could have been Why....doesn't Jehovah God forbid tattoos? To which a JTR type response such as "Because He couldn't care less about tattoos" might have been suggested. 
As it is, those questions were not asked, and as the question that was asked is basically invalid, the answer given.....remains as: Jehovah God does not forbid tattoos.  

Now, now me old china! You're getting a bit hoighty-toighty yourself here.
For those unable to follow the links to jw.org, what these posts include (my bold) follows:
"The Bible mentions tattoos just once, at Leviticus 19:28, which says: “You must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves.” God gave this command to the nation of Israel, thus setting them apart from the neighboring peoples who marked their skin with the names or symbols of their gods. (Deuteronomy 14:2) While the Law given to Israel is not binding on Christians, the principle underpinning this law is worth serious consideration."
and:
"What questions should I ask?
"What are the health risks? How would it affect your reputation? Will you always like it?  What Bible principles apply?
Colossians 3:20 1 Peter 3:3, 4 1 Timothy 2:9 Romans 12:1 In view of these factors, many people have decided against getting a tattoo."
So, before you start firing off insulting accusations about who is presuming to speak for GOD, please notice that there is no prohibition on tattoos binding on a Christian. However, there are several thought provoking questions and some well chosen scripture texts to enable those who value their Christian freedom to make a well-considered, personal, and conscientious (moral) choice in this matter.
Cheers mate!  
 

Interesting article and very carefully reasoned through. However, I couldn't commmit to his conclusions any more than agreeing that he raised some interesting possibilities.
The author quotes Ewin Monsma: 'Reformed scholars have generally been of the opinion that the Bible gives no evidence of death among animals before the fall.’ He does not seem to refute this idea, so appears to share it.  I believe there is controversy on this matter amongst those who call themselves (or are called) "creationists", but was surprised recently to find that some Jehovah's Witnesses also adhere to the view that animals only die as a consequence (somehow) of the rebellion in Eden, and that this will not always be the case. (There seemed to be an element of pet bereavement in this).
I haven't met any (yet) who extend the resurrection hope to animals that have died however. Interestingly, this does appear to be a Mormon belief:  "The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be recreated, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” Joseph Fielding Smith. Conference Report, October 1928, p. 100. The mind boggles on the logistics of this!
There is an obvious difference of opinion between Jehovah's Witnesses on animal diet and behaviour, both historic and future as shown in the discussion here. It is pretty clear that a literal interpretation of popularly referenced scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, Mic.2:4 is encouraged both in the text and illustrations in Watchtower publications, and there is no denying the appeal of this view. However, the view is open to considerable extrapolation and it is this I think that polarises opinion.
Early on in my theocratic education, it was clearly pointed out to me that paradise promises in the Hebrew Scriptures relating to Israelite restoration should not be interpreted out of their historic context. For example, they should not be used as an authority for concluding that lions will begin roaming the entire earth so that each child can have a lion as a pet. Nor should we think that, regardless of climate conditions, grapes and figs wiIl flourish everywhere. However, they do provide a basis for believing that peaceful and paradisaic conditions will prevail amongst the entire creation here on earth, under Jehovah's Kingdom rule. The relative peace between members of the true Christian congregation as "animalistic" behaviour is replaced by the "fruitage of the spirit" can be seen as a token of what is to come.
This allows for a wide variety in the personal visions individuals may cherish on what conditions will prevail in the paradise earth to come, but in no way allows for an imposition of such views on others where there is no clear Scriptural basis. By the same token, the relatively harmless views of others should be respected, regardless of any perceived naivety on the part of those who feel their more educated perceptions deserve higher credence.
A couple of Scriptural principles that moderate my grip on personal views that can only be termed as benign speculation regarding  the exact detail and logistics of many aspects of life in the coming paradise earth are contained in these texts:
"For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit." Rom.14:17
"But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 1Cor.2:9

 

I don't remember where it might be, although I'd guess it would have been with the comments regarding the late sister, Audrey [Mock] Knorr.
The story was known by my "table head" at Bethel. (I was the "table foot," for what it's worth.) By 1976, I only heard it "whispered" by this long-time Bethelite, and his younger wife kept trying to get him to keep his voice down about it. But she was also the one feeding him details of the story, as if she was the source. (She worked with Sister Knorr.) But that was while Brother Nathan Knorr was still alive. After Brother Knorr died, 1977, it was talked about more openly. It was talked about again, around 1990, when Brother Richard Wheelock committed suicide by jumping from a window of the Towers Hotel. The person who called me from Bethel to tell me about Brother Wheelock also tied it to the story of his past troubles, although he said he had just learned about those troubles. (BTW: Many people have said that Brother Wheelock jumped from the 8th floor of factory building where he worked. This isn't true.)
So the story goes that Richard Wheelock was engaged to Audrey Mock. In those days Brother Wheelock knew that marriage meant leaving Bethel, probably to become a "circuit servant" in his case. But Brother Knorr really liked her and made it known to her that he was also interested in marriage. Audrey Mock had to tell Brother Wheelock that she was breaking off the engagement in favor of Knorr, and Brother Wheelock was so distraught that he threatened to kill himself if she did. The threat was "jarring" she said, but perhaps should have been taken more seriously. Brother Wheelock had ongoing problems with depression that might have been completely unrelated to what happened with Audrey Mock. Of course, she might have realized that she needed to get away from him as soon as he made the threat. It was not a common thing for a man to say and might have tipped her off that he wasn't a stable man. Richard was the factory overseer for the entire time I was at Bethel, and never seemed "off" or "depressed" to me. He did stay to himself, closed up in his office a lot, but this wasn't an unusual practice.
 

Though some carry on about it more than you think they should, nobody can ever say that in a lifetime of service to God, you won’t experience some injustice. It is not business-as-usual routine, but when it does happen, it can be serious. All the more so because you expect trouble from the general world, but not from the brotherhood. When it comes, it throws you for a loop. It is like the verse quoted in the Watchtower study this week, Psalm 55: 12-14:
“For it is not an enemy who taunts me; Otherwise I could put up with it. It is not a foe who has risen up against me; otherwise I could conceal myself from him. But it is you, a man like me, my own companion, whom I know well. We used to enjoy a warm friendship together; into the house of God we used to walk along with the multitude.”
The study article was illustrated with one real-life injustice, and one from the scriptures. A Brother Diehl from 1949 is mentioned. He caught all kinds of heat when he decided to marry. Brothers were all serious back then about single persons in the circuit or Bethel work remaining single, a situation that was not resolved, legend has it, until Brother Knorr himself married. Now THAT’S human! Let nobody say that these guys aren’t. Diehl could certainly be understood if he bellyached about it, but it wouldn’t do him any good. All he could do was get others stirred up. So he waited it out. He was right, but he didn’t make a big deal over it. Eventually, everyone came around. He took it on the chin for a while.
The example from scripture is more serious. Joseph was sold out by his brothers and ended up in slavery. A silver lining eventually materialized and he became a big cheese in Potipher’s house, then he was slammed again and sent to prison for 13 years. Believe me, I would whine plenty about it, but if Joseph did, there is no record of it. What the record shows is that overall he allowed it to mold him:
But now do not be upset and do not reproach one another because you sold me here; because God has sent me ahead of you for the preservation of life … So, then, it was not you who sent me here, but it was the true God, in order to appoint me as chief adviser to Pharoah and lord for all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 45:5-8)
He didn’t know he would be appointed chief adviser to Pharoah until he was, and had he moaned forever about his kidnapping and later imprisonment, he wouldn’t have been. Everyone could have understood him bitching, but it wouldn’t have done him any good. People screw things up. Usually, their motive is not bad, but sometimes it is, as in Joseph’s case. Often, you don’t have the power to fix things. You do have the power, however, to make them worse.
(‘The Judge of the Earth Always Does What is Right;’ the Watchtower, April 2017 – study edition)

One of Satan's cunning (and most successful) machinations is to attack our faith in a way we don't expect. We shouldn't be so focused on the obstacles outside, that we stumble over what may be right in front of us on the inside. And it's not that we don't have plenty of scriptural examples in the Hebrew scriptures or even warnings in the Greek scriptures (that some may feel uncomfortable to apply within the Christian congregation).                
Acts 20:29,30: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."
2 Tim. 3:13: "But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
There is NO level within our organization where such individuals have not been manifest. (Publishers; MSs; Elders; Bodies of Elders; Circuit Overseers; missionaries; branch overseers... even members of the Governing Body.) And it's not just apostates we are referring to here. There are other forms of corruption too, sometimes orchestrated by groups of individuals in authority to cover up wickedness. Sometimes because of the level of authority they have, they can get away with these things for years or decades... (1 Tim. 5:24)
So what are we to do? Cast a suspicious eye towards our brothers and sisters - in authority or otherwise? That is certainly not what God's Word suggests when giving us these warnings. And in fact, we can't always recognize these men until they reveal themselves by their words or actions. Even when we do recognize something is very wrong, we may not be in a position to do much about it except to "blow the whistle." But even then, if you are exposing men who have authority (or even have "friends in high places"), you may experience threats or worse types of "blowback,"  even though you may feel - and in fact are - being obedient to Jehovah's divine direction and that of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. It is times like these, when you have done what Jehovah has asked of you, that you leave matters in his hands and continue in YOUR faithful course as a dedicated servant of Jehovah - regardless of the choices other people make. 
What we don't do is have a suspicious eye toward our brotherhood as a whole or even decisions we may not understand or agree with when we don't have all the facts. We need to have faith and trust that Jehovah is not only aware of the situation (and the suffering it may cause), but will at the right time deal with it, while he helps us to endure these "hard to understand" tests of our faith and even machinations of the Devil designed to destroy our relationship with Jehovah. 
 
 
 

probably 
Probably a number of similar British centres of urban activity are currently at risk.  There's also the issue of the ongoing police investigation of the area along with structural repairs to the adjoining Victoria Station. Hence, the main area outside the venue remains closed.

You may not realise it, but you project a very jaundiced spirit here @HollyW. Are you/were you a JW? because you seem to speak from a position of knowing what they feel or think about things? But then you are not like JWs I know, although I won't say I know so many as to be an expert in how they view their relationship with other Witnesses. But you certainly seem to be hurting about something.
However, I do know how I feel about things myself and am expert in that. And I will limit my comments to how I personally feel about things in this matter of making decisions about various practices or issues. What other Witnesses go by when deciding their course in life is up to them. That seems to me to be an honest approach. 

In CLAM material last night, bans in Nicaragua and Zaire were discussed in back-to-back paragraphs. In one case, it was challenged and overturned promptly. In another, the Branch chose to ride it out for 7 years before mounting a challenge. The reason? It is not explained. That would entail analyzing reports received from the respective traveling overseers regularly reporting to them, and the feel of hundreds of mature ones sniffing out the current lay of the land, sniffing which way the wind is blowing. The Branch has sources. They are not merely shooting in the dark. Like any driver anywhere, they are in position to see more than do the passengers.  Imagine if participants here were to haggle over those countries. Surely, they would follow the same pattern they would follow here. Making up the facts they do not know, which is almost all of them, they would launch inflammatory accusations as readily as Serena Williams launches tennis balls. “At that point the Branch Committee had to make a weighty decision,” the Kingdom Rules book says. Nasty participants like @Micah Ongwho would pee their pants if called upon to make a weighty decision do not hesitate to condemn those who do. They have no clue how to build anything. They live only to destroy.
Even @James Thomas Rook Jr., of whom one vainly hopes better things will emerge, pours gasoline on the fire, though he is qualified to put it out. ‘It can only be racism,’ he charges, telling us of white, brown, and black people. JTR, who goes livid when the Western media, motivated solely by hatred of the man, declare Trump a racist, resorts to exactly the same tactics in dealing with the ones he hates.
The one person who knows anything, @JW Insider, because he rubbed shoulders with all concerned, says ‘Look, nothing is impossible, but racism is the last motivation one should imagine.’ No matter. To vicious persons, character assassins at heart, for whom slander goes down as smoothly as fine wine, knowing only there is a target they must destroy, it only interferes to have someone who knows what they are talking about.

Caution, my brothers. There is a FALSE APOSTATE in our midst. I know Vic Vomidog. We once pioneered together, before he went bad. He's as bad as they come now. If I am checking out a book from @The Librarian, he shoves me aside, me and all the other patrons!
If some, like me, have, for whatever reason, chosen to hang out where there are apostates,  it should at least be TRUE apostates. Vic Vomidog is a FALSE apostate!

Hardy har har and a slap on the arse for @The Librarian, sending her sprawling over her card catalog and into the Children's Section stuffed animal bin!
Vic Vomidog's the name. Disemboweling the Seven Phonies is my game. There's a mighty big Apostate section in this library. That's just the way I like it. A lot of me mates are here.
 I despise that scurious weasel of a wannabe writer TrueTomHarley almost as much as I despise the Seven Phonies he shills for. He did nothing but slander me in his vile 'Tom Irregardless and Me' book. He will walk the plank for sure if ever I lay me hands upon him, he and that those rats @bruceq, @Eoin Joyce, some others, and even @JW Insider
I'm full of love, don't you see? Me and my mates on this thread. I'm just misunderstood 

One can never say that God is not using other groups of people. Some he is using as toilet paper.
I rarely view any apostate source because hatred skews objectivity. It is like expecting CNN to give the lowdown on Trump, or Breitbart to do the same on Obama. At most, you say "Alright, just what 'fact' do these liars think they have uncovered?" Usually it is better to skip it entirely and wait for something from an impartial source.
A sound byte with no context, followed by reams of cherrypicked quotes? It reveals the mind of a 10 year old. 
These are exactly the same idiots who insist the Gospels are full of contradictions because they are too infantile (or deceitful) to realize the effects of time, perspective, purpose, and audience. The entire Bible is rife with contractions to persons of similar intellect, and especially ill motive.

Actually, I think that few do. Most shoot from the hip. I do it myself.
de Vienne and Shultz's book is a chronicle for posterity. This is a here today, gone tomorrow thread. Unsurprisingly to participants here, I notified the author about this thread. Perhaps surprisingly to some, she remarked she had no interest in commenting, and made no further statement. 
Just because you can debate does not mean you do it at every opportunity, as though it were the essence of life - especially when it is with ones who have already demonstrated that they have minds like concrete - all mixed up and firmly set.

Stephen Lett gives the Freemason's the signal on the very first JW Broadcast
Please see at 1:40
 
Interesting too how Hosea 12:14 in the 1984 NWT had "grand Master" instead of Lord.  It has now been removed in the revised 2013 NWT.

The entire set of quotations used in the post about Russell supposedly claiming to be a Freemason are presented in such as way as to imply a false narrative. You can actually pick out the true meaning in the quotes you gave, especially if you imagine the emphasis he would have needed to use on certain words to make these same points. Just as with the quote I pulled out from it here, the obvious point should be the same as if he had said: "But I am not so concerned with the secular order of masonry that Freemasons follow, it has a few things right if you pick and choose, but, NO, I am talking about this GREAT order of masonry of which JESUS is the Grand Master"
When you give speeches in Masonic halls, you often come up with analogous illustrations to help make your point. The apostle Paul may have given speeches where Olympic games were played, and therefore he gives speeches with analogous illustrations comparing the Christian ministry to Olympic games. He spoke of running, boxing, wrestling, etc. Here's an example:
(1 Corinthians 9:24-26) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air;
By the logic intended in the quotes you made about Russell, the apostle Paul was clearly an Olympic athlete.
You should read the entire speech from which the out-of-context quotes are taken:
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/11/temple.html
 
 

It wasn't worth the time.
Adidas, and probably other companies have made soccer balls with the 5-pointed star design for a while now. 5-pointed stars are famous on flags, too. I suppose that Adidas or the United States has Satan behind them, too. (hmmmmm....)
Also, for a JW, a picture of a person wearing a cross represents the fact that they are NOT JWs, and in effect are still being blinded by Satan's system of things. It's a quick way of representing that the person is "worldly" or a non-JW. So, the person narrating the video is obviously not being honest when he pretends to draw the conclusion that it's supposed to represent what's behind the JW religion.
As to the fact that it is upside-down. I'm not concerned, but it may have been that the cross was upside down from the beginning and when it was noticed some of the scenes with it were reshot, but one of them made it back into the final edit. Or it's possible that, since JW actors do not own necklaces with crosses on them, that this was a makeshift prop that fell off in the middle of shooting, and was not put back on carefully when it fell off.
By the way, Russell was not a Freemason, and I think that AllenSmith presented the quotes to show Russell's own view of it. I understand that B. Anderson who apparently has no axe to grind for the Watchtower anymore, has researched the issue six ways from Sunday, and says that Russell could not have been a Freemason.   

The idea that any participation of the God we know as Jehovah could be related to magical gobbledegook on the part of any of these groups, ancient or modern, reduces the true God to the level of the genie in the magic lamp, subject to the whims of men. In that way you are basically insulting Him. Not the action of a wise man!
Yes, that's true. But even so, I would imagine that, regarding this silly idea, Charles Russell would share the sentiment  his colleague and successor, Joseph Rutherford experienced over his 1925 theory when he said:  "I made an ass of myself" WT Oct 1, 1984 p21.

I haven't seen a post category like this before. The topic is locked, but I guess because it was directed at me, I have permissions to add a reply.
Problem is, I don't know anything about Freemasons really, and not much interest in them, either. So it's a vicious circle of willful ignorance on my part. I'll take your word for it that some book says that one or more Freemasons or groups of them have some sort of secret chant. I'm surprised that the chant would be worded as you have shown, but I'm not really concerned. If someone took your name and put it into a bad context, I'm sure it would not reflect on you personally.
That's quite a claim that that the "secret of the ancient Egyptians . . .is the art of demonology for gaining power mainly through the devil, Jehovah." From everything I've read so far that touched on this subject there were some Egyptian magicians who treated the name Jehovah like any other god. Egyptian magicians collected pronunciations of various names of God/gods in the belief that this was a way to gain magical powers. It's also true that some forms of Jewish-based and later Christian-based gnosticism, very popular in Egypt, formed a mythology that emphasized what appeared to be the failures of Jehovah/Yahweh and identified him with a less powerful god who was capricious, and perhaps "evil" in some ways. I suspect that if there is any basis to what you have said, that it is related to such things. Again, if someone took a good name and put it into a false mythology, or a bad context, it would not reflect on the person behind the good name, only the persons who are misusing that name.
There is some truth to what you claim here, but only a little bit. Russell only believed in a theory about ONE single pyramid. Russell was very much against Occultism, but he did succumb to a widespread interest in the pyramid discoveries of his day, which fueled all sorts of speculation.
Russell believed this world entered the "last days" in 1799 and that many of the great discoveries and inventions since 1799 were all part of God's purpose to bring mankind into the new millennium, which had just dawned around 1873. Russell incorporated the inventions of trains, cars, steam engines, telegraphs, telephones, and many other things into his beliefs about the time of the end and the comforts and conveniences of the new earth. He read some of the most "scientific-sounding" of the books on the Great Pyramid and came to believe that the pyramid held a lot of proofs that God had revealed knowledge many years before scientists would be able to understand it. Now that they were able to understand it in these last days, it meant that they would also understand that Bible knowledge had been revealed in the same stone monument. The idea was that God would use this method to reveal his Word to science-minded people who would otherwise have fallen into the trap of evolution and atheism.
In other words, Russell did not believe in any mystic power of the Great Pyramid of Giza or any other pyramid. He only believed that if it held enough evidence of a knowledge of science that Egyptians could not have known on their own, that it would attract their interest, and then they would also unavoidably notice that the zig-zagging lengths of drainage gutters and air shafts within the pyramid just happened to coincide with a Bible chronology that William Miller and other Adventists had made infamous. Since he had been convinced of an update to that "Miller" chronology, he was sure that it would match Nelson Barbour's version of the Adventist's chronology which currently focused on several significant dates in the history of Israel, then the first Christian century, 0 A.D., 33 A.D. then 1799 to 1844 to 1874 to 1914. He was sure that all those dates could be found to match the lengths of those inner chambers. When he looked at the charts from Piazza Smith's book on the Great Pyramid, he (or other persons he followed) thought there were ways to discover various locations within the Great Pyramid to match those major dates, including some of the B.C. dates.
Other so-called secrets of the Pyramid included some bits of astrology, and other items related to numerology that people had published prior to Russell's own beliefs, and unfortunately Russell included ways to interpret these things Biblically, too.
Most of what Russell wrote, right from the start, even if he made it look like he came up with it himself, actually was just copied from people before him. This was typical of many persons who wrote about the same chronology subjects that the various Adventists wrote about prior to Russell and Barbour. Russell didn't come up with much of anything about 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, or 1914 on his own. Even the article he wrote for the Bible Examiner in 1876 that tied the 7 times of Daniel chapter 4 to 2,520 years that would end in 1914, also came from someone else before him. Most of what Nelson Barbour supposedly came up with (and Benjamin Keith, and others) supposedly came up with were just specific items that they had partially "plagiarized" because there were so many chronology beliefs to choose from. They simply chose a particular subset and "laid claim" to them. It's the same with Russell and the Great Pyramid, and his beliefs about all these dates, including 1914.
But Russell's visit to the pyramids was also a matter of looking into something that he thought was important. Perhaps he thought he had to make sure there was at least some truth to it. I wouldn't blame him for that, unless perhaps he considered it merely a photo-op to help sell more books. ("Divine Plan of the Ages" with the Pyramid Charts, and "Thy Kingdom Come" were always the two best-selling of the books.) I do think the entire enterprise was pretty silly, however. I don't think it was really a teaching from the demons, however, as Joseph Rutherford claimed. 
Yes. This was embarrassing. All date-setting Bible chronology doctrines, so far, have ultimately resulted in either dishonesty or humility by their promoters. Russell, like most Biblical chronologists, chose not necessarily dishonesty, but a lack of humility and a lack of honesty by not explaining why he made the changes.  I expect to see a level of dishonesty among all persons who have set chronological limits based on dates: even dates like 1914 (or 1914 + a generation, or 1914 plus two overlapping portions of a generation, etc). To keep from having to admit total failure, there will always be some who are anxious to exaggerate and pretend that some of the predictions came true, even if what came true was just a matter of making adjustments to hedge the bet. 
But you should also know that it was NOT the 1916 edition that was changed to add the 41 inches. This change was made before the 1910 edition came out, so it's not like they waited until it failed and then changed the length. It's true though that Russell was beginning to hedge the idea everything he had expected could happen before 1914 and he reconsidered some of the claims about what would happen before 1914. But it is also true that 1914 was initially supposed to be the END of the time of trouble, and this was changed to the BEGINNING of a time of trouble. But this idea didn't wait until after 1914. In fact it started around 1904. But it's true that several edits were added around the time of the 1915 and later editions of Russell's books, so that expressions like "the close of 1914" were changed to "shortly after 1914" (or shortly after 1915). 

Participation here has a long last jarred my conscience to write the review I promised. I left this one with Amazon today:
This book resonated with me. I once lived within 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson H Barbour’s Church of the Strangers. The tiny gazettes of the tiny towns surrounding Rochester, New York, from which the authors extract quotes as readily as a child extracts popcorn from the bag, vanished ages ago, and even some of the towns with them. Others have been assimilated into Greater Rochester.
These are the days when ‘many would rove about,’ as Daniel 12:4 states, free to explore biblical doctrines, free from the disapproving gaze of national European churches that they left not that many decades ago. C.T. Russell, ‘founder’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses, emerges as the main character by sheer force of output, but nobody of that era is ignored, both individuals the authors came to regard as likeable and those otherwise.
These are serious, no-nonsense researchers who dismiss Wikipedia as an “online ‘encyclopedia’ of doubtful worth.” Potential for disaster abounds, the shoals are treacherous here because most who have written of Russell and crew have beliefs, and in most cases their beliefs dictate their scholarship. The authors make no such blunders. As to religious motive, or who had God’s blessing, they don’t go there. “I question everything including commonly believed ‘facts,’” the co-author says. “many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false.” It is clear that she savors separating the sheep from the goats and she thanks with gusto those who helped her in her quest.
The Watchtower organization cooperated to a degree with this book but ultimately declined to comment on it. The authors speculate it is because they are ‘incurious about their own history.’ As a practicing Witness today, I would agree with that. It is a ‘look forward, not backward’ type of thing. Broad strokes are enough when it comes to the past. Though I relish the detail exhaustively researched here, I am essentially that way, too. No matter. It serves as a reference work – and there are none better, IMO – even for the “incurious.” ‘A Separate Identity’ is a work I highly recommend.
Having reviewed their work, can I depend upon them to review mine? Will they, better yet, mentor me as a new author - show me the ropes? I'm not holding my breath. They have already said they would not do it, before I unconditionally said I would review theirs. They display little taste for the light style of writing that is mine, and none whatsoever for the zany. The few times I have corresponded with de Vienne, she answers me one word for every ten of mine. I think they even groused about Smashwords.

Let's hope that no one here even inadvertently gives that impression.
How about completely abolishing unscriptural celibacy requirements for starters?
with
This is interesting. It is indeed a worldwide plague. So anyone, institution or individual, denying this fact is really deluded. Reminds me of Chechnya’s leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, who denies that persecution of gay men is taking place in Chechnya, saying there are no gay men living in the republic to be persecuted.
Noticeable too is the institutional pride that serves as an obstacle to combatting the plague even if recognised, exemplified in such responses as "other institutions have a worse record than ours" or "our awareness is higher, or policy is better, than theirs". Meanwhile the problem remains, still affecting all, regardless.
So is the crime the plague? Or is it the criminal?, or are these just symptoms of something deeper?
To be continued.....(I'm sure)

Good tip. All works for me.
But....don't think "who has the moral high ground?" is a particularly constructive element to this particular discussion? I mean, this is a global problem. No-one has successfully handled it as far as I can see. Apart from the obvious answer, "Jehovah God has the moral high ground in any issue" (Is.33:22; Lu.18:19), the question otherwise is simply................ rhetorical.
The pupose of the original post was to keep an awareness of fact relating to the current situation in UK regarding attempts to lobby the The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to include Jehovah's Witnesses on their investigation program.
Cutting through opinion, useful perspective that has come out of the discussion for me so far includes:
Confirmation that a "shooting from the hip" reaction characterises many responses to this particlar subject. (A reason for raising the topic in the first place). Religious affiliation is generally not reported on in child abuse cases unless a religious official is involved. This contrasts with cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses, where, frequently, even the slimmest connection can draw full media attention. Bizarre, anecdotal accounts of sexual impropriety amongst JW "dignitaries" abound. However, there is a shortage of factual or verifiable information on these cases. Hence the welcome nature of public investigation (in general that is, not the specifically of the alleged incidents). Definition of what constitutes child abuse has a cultural dimension. Much information available generally on occurence and intervention attempts has an Ameri/Eurocentric bias which distorts awareness of the extent of the problem, and the nature and effectiveness of attempts to deal with it.
 

Melinda:
It is not a bad idea that when doesn't have the slightest idea about something to say "I don't know".
I don't know!
BUT.. I can GUESS out the wazoo without being intellectually dishonest if I clearly label what I say as a WILD GUESS ... which I hereby do.
The following is a WILD GUESS!
I believe HE believed this is what was happening, but the tenses of the verbs may have been mangled in translation. I know of NO scientific principle that would explain what superficially is said to be happening  ... it it is probable that I would know.
.
 

What you have observed if it was true ... is EVOLUTION.  Future generations are shaped by what happens to existing generations.
If this were true ... after 4,000 or more years ... all Jewish males would be born circumcised.
.