Anna

Blamed? Why do you think anyone is blaming Russell. Russell must have sincerely thought that he had personally been appointed to an awesome responsibility. And yet, he would only admit it privately, and never try to push others to accept it.
Still, he said he considered that it was a very important responsibility for only one individual, and he said that modesty made him reluctant to have to claim that the parable of "that servant" pointed to only one man. Would modesty make him reluctant to admit that some other person held the title? The way he managed this sincere belief so well makes him a rather more endearing person in my mind than for example, someone like J.F.Rutherford who gave himself the title "JUDGE" and printed it on his handbills and posters and billboards, yet he was never appointed as a judge, but was only asked to substitute at least once in a country courthouse in Missouri.
I have always thought of Russell's personality as displaying about the right mix of both modesty and conviction. I think of him as kind of an "ideal" gentleman Christian for his era. There are etiquette books for gentlemen from his era which give advice on such things, and which mix them with Christian values, like not trying to seat yourself at the head of the table, but allowing others to make that place for you. Speakers would not give their credentials in their own speeches, but would allow themselves to be introduced with their titles of honor and designations. I hate it when I see so many speakers today try to slyly work in their own resume and accomplishments when it's not appropriate to the theme of their speech.
I just read in one of those etiquette books (on Google) from 1876 that the right way for a gentleman to end a letter, in many cases, was to sign it: "Your obedient servant" even though you knew you were not really that person's servant. 
I believe that Russell did avoid personally and publicly the claim to this title, but he definitely believed that he was the one person who needed modesty because he was the one appointed with that title. He accepted the title from others, and there is no evidence that he ever would counsel them or try to stop them from using that title when referring to him. Since he believed it himself, why would he? It would seem dishonest. The best he could do is deflect a bit. And I believe there were times when he must have done that. I'm sure he knew the scripture where Jesus was called "good teacher" and Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"
I agree that others applied that term to him. He admits as much in the same Watch Tower article when he speaks of his reluctance to publish the understanding that he must now say "that servant" no longer applies to individuals, plural, but to a single individual.
You might also be thinking of what A. H. MacMillan said about how Russell would answer the direct question:


That was from MacMillan's Faith on the March, p. 126-127.
Rutherford was not yet even one of the Society's officers. And Russell's will had not even appointed him to the initial 5 person Editorial Committee of the Watchtower. So I suspect that it could have been MacMillan himself, or one of the others on the committee. They all needed to approve what went into the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, dated only 31 days after Russell had died. But MacMillan elsewhere says that Russell would also respond that he was "the servant," but not above others (rather than "a servant," but not above others). I don't think that was just a typo because MacMillan says it twice in the same book.
Exactly!!
I'm not finding fault, just giving my opinion about whether (and why) he claimed to be God's spokesman, and claimed to represent the one channel of truth, and accepted the title "the faithful and wise servant". This has a lot to do, I think, with why Russell could be hesitant or undogmatic about an idea, and yet, the other brothers around him would think that it was "an angel" who had given unerring truth. That's what this original topic is about. Russell didn't think that being individually appointed as the "faithful slave" made him unerring in speaking truth, or a prophet. Yes, he made errors, and was a sinful person. He lied (perjured himself) on the stand in court when asked about his business interests, and was forced to correct his perjury in a following court session. He was manipulative and dishonest in his divorce proceedings. I agree that this is completely forgivable when we consider his sincerity in publishing some of the most important Bible truths. Of course, we are thankful for that. But we must never put a man, or group of men, on a pedestal because it tends to create an idolatrous cult (per our own publications). Yesterday, I found a person on YouTube, for example, who calls Russell "an angel."
It's my opinion that I am sowing seeds of truth about Russell, by telling the truth according to Russell's own words and those who knew him. I don't see where "doubt" comes in. It's not like we are supposed to have "faith" in Russell, is it?
Trying to get to know a man's thinking and personality a little better through his own writings is not the same as condemning him. And much of this, to be sure, is just an opinion formed about him. Just as the others around him formed opinions about him in his time. We still teach that Jesus himself formed an opinion about him, and this is a "current teaching" about Russell, not some relic of our past history. So I don't think it's wrong for us to keep learning more about this very intriguing and spiritually influential man.
As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. But it doesn't mean that learning about David's sins is a sign that we are not humble or that we are condemning the man for admitting things David said and did.

I used to hate them too, but they do help get the cutlery clean by preventing them from sticking together, like for example a spoon into a spoon. 
😂 on the account that it doesn't take you all day so now you have more time to cavort on here instead?

For example we've been recently admonished via scripture to "not hurry ourselves to become offended" and in the same admonishment hear the words "someone hurt our feelings".
Do you see how the former suggests the locus of control is internal, that becoming offended is an act of the will on our part, whereas the latter is an external locus of control and lacking in free will, but rather a reaction to an external act?
 
The latter, in my view is more along the lines of "I didn't like what you said" vs "you hurt my feelings" as if ones "feelings" was some naked worm crawling along the sidewalk defenseless against being stepped on.
 

The same thing is involved when I hear people say "I encouraged that brother". I always say, no you didn't. If you'll look and see he still appears to be discouraged. What you should have said is "I attempted to encourage that brother, but I failed." 

Kant was stopped dead in his tracks on this dilemma when his church told him he kant ask that question.  (sorry)

I suspect that the interpretation of the locus of the action leading to the hardening of pharaoh's heart is interpreted variously due to social values and ideas current at any given time. Both can be true with qualification. Jehovah has created this universe and all the natural cause-effect relations which allow for a measure of free will so one could say he caused the heart-hardening, on the other hand we could also say he allowed it insofar as he allows us to have free will.
Of course we could ask how we pretend to know our will is free.

Oh, I stopped worrying about that ages ago.  

Just because I expressed that what he said may fulfill the prophecy regarding Governments turning on organized religion doesn't mean I agree with his sentiments about Jesus, or any of his methods that him and his high profile buddies may employ to achieve their goals.  You on the other hand praise him and  say that he "got it" even though in reality he actually didn't "get it".

I can't see it either. In fact I would think it was impossible to accomplish any mission without organization. Even those who say they are not organized actually are. It's "organized religion" that is a dirty word for some, and probably not for the word "organized"  but for the word "religion" associated with it. "Organized religion" has given itself such a bad name. I am curious to see how the documentary develops (only seen the first episode) since their aim is to accomplish something without organization....

Remember, there was a time when Rutherford hated even the term "religion" because by it he meant "organized" religion. It wasn't until Covington started arguing with him that they needed to use the term religion in order to get legal recognition in other countries that he softened a bit. In the booklet that Covington wrote, even as late as 1950, he had to explain to other Witnesses why it was going to be OK to use the term religion. Reminds me a bit of how L. Ron Hubbard also distanced himself from religion until his lawyers realized the tax trouble they were in. They even put a cross like symbol on their buildings now. Hubbard would be rolling over on his planet.
But, of course, Rutherford made us more organized than ever from a hierarchical top-down perspective. Can't hardly see how we'd function without such a high level of organization, with so many millions of us, so much coordinated activity, so many publications, so many updates (even new songs before the next songbook is printed), etc.

That's what Doug Coe in the documentary was insinuating. He also compared Jesus to Lenin, Hitler and Bin Laden, as examples of leaders who change the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their 'brothers'.
 
I don't think I would want to agree with any of his sentiments .
 

I was a bit surprised that JWI posted his "experiment" in the open forum because here they are already convinced of what the experiment "proved".  Plus anything here just gets mashed up by the likes of Allen Smith and his multiple personalities, or Witness whose only interest is to turn every scripture anti GB regardless of the topic, or patiently sitting on his hands who sees a conspiracy in all that the GB do and say.....

For someone who is the bee’s knees in so many places you sure do like spending time in a place where you aren’t.

Did I mention that, inspired by current events, I’m buying this forum?
All you people had better start kissing up—that’s all I can say.

Inspired by other current events (like Anne's designation of me as "prophet" 🤣) I decided to jump out of a fishing boat and walk on water. The water was so shallow that I couldn't decide whether to "row versus wade."

How much of your boat’s DRAFT is leaking?
 

I feel a draft, from fore to aft.
[I'm about to keel over laughing.]

Oh wow. Where is the old hen with her ‘ban’ button? 

Yeah! It’s Your Fault Tom!
…. And where were YOU December 7, 1941?
You SAY you are not a racist, but do you even KNOW what color Wally is?
Hmmmmmmm?
You probably stole his Lithium to put in your stupid electric toothbrush batteries!
Yeah! That’s it….that’s it… you are a, a, BATTERY MANUFACTURER!
 

@Pudgy, since no one is really all that interested in the specifics of the 1914/1915 angle of the original post here, I thought I would take note of something I found interesting in one of your posts. (And also acknowledge again how clever I found your leak/draft pun. Works on so many levels.)
What I found interesting is that potassium peroxide (K2O2) made a CAMEO* appearance in your cartoon. ( https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/1374 )

At one time, I was intrigued by how some chemical reactions made liquids change their color. (In fact, one experiment we did in Earth Science when I was in Jr.High actually took two fairly clear liquids and mixed to change instantly into a bright yellow solid.) The three items on that chalkboard reminded me an experiment that could detect tiny levels of iodine in salt. In fact, if you mix those exact same 3 chemicals listed on the chalkboard, and add a splash of laundry starch, you can detect whether the salt (NaCl) was iodized or not. The iodized salt will turn the entire batch very dark (sometimes blue-black) while non-iodized salt will just continue to look like milky-white saltwater. You can add a crushed vitamin C tablet (ascorbic acid) to the mix and, because it's an anti-oxidant, the blue-black mixture turns milky white again.
* CAMEO is a database of dangerous chemicals and substances provided by the US Office of Emergency Management

So sorry Tom…we have buried a few…and the pain is real…I still debate with Jehovah at times about their resurrection….big hugs to you and family 

Wrong again. These days, at the urging my wife. I have become a dishwasher repairman. In fact, I am busy as a beaver (very clever animals, all of them graduates of Dam U.) reworking the Beatles’ Paperback Writer into something more personal:
’It’s a steady job but he’ll be a dishwasherrepairman…..
DISHWASHERREPAIRMANNNNNNN.”
Did you know if the fill pump goes you might as well buy a new unit, since even with self-install you’ll pay over 40% of a spanking brand new machine that doesn’t require you to start and wait 12 minutes to add the soap in because the automatic dispenser doesn’t work and now you are vindicated in not fixing it like your wife wanted you to because if you had it would all be for naught?
 

No….bring it back. Really…just try…and see how long it lasts.  
All true prophets here. That’s what I’m talking about! Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don’t.
 

Why do you tweet so much, they asked Elon Musk.
’Because tweeting is fun!’ replied. Nothing profound. Nothing analytical. Nothing eggheaded. I tell you, I like the guy.
Describe yourself in one tweet, someone else said. ‘I put the art in fart’ he replied. 
I love it. It is better than my own description of Pearlsnswine: “He puts the dog in dogmatic.”

There you go, JWI—ye of little faith. You just need to learn patience.