Anna

You might think you remember, but the last (and only other time) the topic of these tunnels came up, I would have said pretty much the same thing about them that I'm saying now. I think I might have added that there were some pipes along the ceiling in places (but the floors and walls were perfectly clean and smooth). Even before the buildings were sold recently, the city decided that the rights for any such tunnels would not be granted as part of the building property and they would have to be closed up, so now someone can imagine any kind of thing they want to imply. Maybe even use their perverse imaginations to write a scary novel about them: "Brooklyn Depths" anyone? "The Tunnel Channel"?

Do you believe you are one of them? Just asking, because you overlook all the other principles in Jehovah's word to champion a cause which is not scriptural. Nowhere in the bible does it say that anointed must be separated, circumcised and uncircumcised be separated, or any other separate groups allowed. It speaks of all brothers and sisters meeting together to build one another up.  There is nothing about separate clubs forming etc.
Actually, the bible says that those who separate themselves are promoting self-interest. 

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

Most of the time I don't read it, and the rest of the time I just skim over it. It's just the same old I've heard a hundred times before......

I think that this topic now contains sufficient overgrowth so that my next comments will end up being of much less interest to those who have much less interest. My comments here --just my opinion, of course-- are a follow-up on previous comments about why I would not think of Russell and his associates, specifically, as the fulfillment of Malachi 3. One reason, of course, is that Malachi 3 was already said to be fulfilled in John the Baptist, and this explanation came from Jesus himself. I don't think we have a right to try to one-up Jesus' explanation. Also, the only reason it seems necessary to turn Russell's work into the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is our unique chronology surrounding 1914. So far, imo, all the Biblical evidence indicates against 1914. And, even if something like that could be claimed, there would still be nothing pointing to 1919, which is apparently the real reason behind the Malachi 3 application. 
I don't want to rehash some of what is already in a topic linked below, but there was a point that Anna brought up in that topic which is worth considering:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
I'm sure you are right, Anna, that it can be difficult for a man to stay humble when he believes he has an important mission to accomplish. This is especially true when one's chronological worldview has painted him into a corner. And there is a pedestal placed in that corner. The problem is that Russell did a lot of that painting himself.
The Day of the Lord had already begun in 1874, the Millennium had begun around 1873, Jesus had come and was now present on earth since 1874, although invisible. He was right then calling the last of the marriage guests, the remaining members of his Bride. If he didn't take them in 1878, then he must have meant for all of them to begin changing at the moment of their death (or rapture?) after October 2, 1881. The "door was shut" on that date, and there would be no more new members called, with the possible exceptions necessary to replace any who had proven unfaithful before their death. Between 1881 and 1914 (or well before) all of Christ's Bride would be with Christ having been rewarded with their spiritual bodies. And Russell was now God's mouthpiece for those "wise virgins" who would prove themselves faithful.
It's difficult to imagine a person who "puts his money where his mouth is," and "sticks his neck out" to convince people how close we are to the end as having ulterior motives. If he is not sincere, he is only asking for shame and notoriety. And I don't accuse him of ulterior motives. And I'm sure he wasn't looking for shame. But I'm also a big fan of the Bible's admonition:
(Romans 3:4) . . .let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, . . .
And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that Russell sometimes lied.
I'm not talking about those times when he contradicted himself in the Watch Tower, claiming he hadn't said something that he had, for example. I'm talking mostly about trying to manipulate the legal courts with untruths. These occasions seem obvious when I look at the court case he lost to his wife. (Personally, I think anyone who only reads the uncontested testimony would think of what Russell did to his wife as absolutely disgusting.)  But those issues will be chalked up to "he-said-she-said."  But there were occasions when Russell committed perjury, and had to carefully walk back his own previous testimony to avoid the consequences. (If anyone really cares, this information is already public, so I can point it out if necessary.)
There is also this claim that Russell was an extremely successful businessman who spent his fortune on something that would not benefit him financially. Well, people do this all the time, especially if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. But then again, it was his father who had proven himself financially successful before Russell was born. 
And, then when Russell was sure there were only the few months left before the Bride's "rapture" between early 1876 and Spring 1878, did he really spend that fortune? Russell admitted in the Watchtower that he only gave a maximum of about $700 in total to that entire effort before Spring 1878. And he gave every indication that he thought that enterprise could even be profitable, if it weren't for mismanagement and unnecessary spending by Barbour. He knew exactly how much profit came from the selling of hymn books, the Three Worlds, and the "Object and Manner" tracts he had written himself. And in any case, it spring-boarded his name from a co-editor of the Herald, to the editor of the Watch Tower.
That doesn't make him dishonest, of course, but I started thinking of Russell as a little less than perfectly honest when I noticed that he wrote articles containing ideas from other people and never credited his source for those ideas. Instead, he wrote it was now God's time to begin revealing his plans in advance to his servants, that it was God's time to give the key, to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom. Although he goes to the trouble of asking for the self-promoting endorsement of  the primary expert on the Great Pyramid (Piazzi-Smyth) over the accuracy of many of "his" pyramid claims, he never gives credit to the person he copied so much of it from (Seiss). His article on the "seven times" published by George Storrs is the same. You would think he came up with it himself.
But did Russell actually "spend  his fortune" or "sell his business interests" even after 1881?
According to the 1907 court case, Russell was involved in many investments and businesses many years after he sold the clothing stores. There was real estate and rental properties. Also there were Coal Syndicates, Rock Run Fuel and Gas, Silica Brick, Brazilian Turpentine, Pittsburgh Asphalt, Pittsburgh Kaolin, U.S. Coal and Coke Company. And, of course, United States Investment Company which was his own holding corporation, then later used to handle Watch Tower Society assets.
Also, there were his interests in the Solon Society promoted in the Watch Tower, for which Russell was accused of defrauding some of the brethren. And, the better known issue of selling bags of wheat seeds through the Watch Tower whose claims for it were obviously exaggerated.
Also, even before I read the Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, which reviewed 150 pages of previous testimony in 1908 when C.T.Russell appealed his loss, I was already in agreement with what I later read that the Superior Court concluded:
". . . the verdict [against CTR] was fully warranted . . . . His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear than he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated aspersions on her character or her mental condition . . . other than that she did not agree with him in his views . . . He himself says that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character . . . the general effect of his testimony is a strong confirmation of her allegations."
And of course, Russell had already tried to smear her reputation in the pages of the Watchtower itself. The pettiness of those Watch Tower articles has always bothered me. It's widely known I think that it was his wife who did a lot of the work and even the writing of "Divine Plan of the Ages" and perhaps large parts of additional volumes, yet when Russell sent men to kick her out of her living quarters, Russell also took her money and kept her purse, which would force her into the care of the same people (relatives) that Russell claimed (in the Watch Tower) were the bad influences on her sanity.
Instead of paying her alimony, even as appreciation for her work on the Studies Volume that sold about 5 million copies, Russell ended up letting Watch Tower readers take up a collection to pay her and the court costs. In 1909, he emptied the money from the Pennsylvania corporation and transferred about $300,000 in value to the New York Corporation and all of his personal investments were now held by the NY corporation. Therefore he claimed that he didn't have a penny to give her.
None of these specific issues will mean much on their own, due to the nature of divorce cases and the like. But, in my opinion, when you combine the probability of uncontested testimony with his more obvious perjury in court, and the fact that he still refused to give his ex-wife alimony after losing the case, it tells me that he wasn't actually as "justified" as he claimed to be. (By "justified from birth" Russell said that he meant he didn't have the same need for contrition since he was free of purposeful sin.)
This is off the original topic of Russell's apology, to be sure, but I haven't found it yet. And I think that some of this information will be relevant even when I do find it.
Also, this doesn't mean we can't appreciate Russell's excellent Bible commentary and emphasis on Christian doctrines and Christian character. It reminds me of when Jesus said:
(Matthew 23:2, 3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

I just re-read what I wrote, and realize it gives a much worse impression of CTRussell than I intended. I believe what I wrote above, so I don't see a need  to rewrite it. Much of it came from notes when I tried to defend Russell against some things that Edmond Gruss had written, along with my own attempt to use what Rutherford wrote to defend Russell in "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens" (1915).
But I don't think of Russell as Pharisaical in any way in spite of Matthew 23:2,3. I do think that Russell played a key role in congealing the "Great Awakening" and "Restoration" movements into a much more "Christian" brotherhood. He realized early on just how different the particular set of "best practices" and "best doctrines" were from the other Christian organizations. And although he didn't like the use of the term organization, it made no difference, because he wanted to organize a more Christian brotherhood "out of Babylon the Great" as early as 1881. This doesn't mean that Babylon fell in that year, or even in 1919. But it was some of the most important progress made in the whole 19th century.
 

I find that all this "1914 Overlapping Generation", "Gog of Magog", and "King of the North" stuff does nothing but distract me ...and even if it is all true, it SOUNDS phony, and destroys any credibility that I might otherwise perceive.
I have resolved to put such things, and all similar things that have no practical, real life consequences ON THE GROUND, where the "rubber meets the road" on a mental "suspense list" shelf, and ignore it completely.
Otherwise, I agree with GB Member Dan Sydlik, and will try to do the same.

People invariably relate experiences both good and bad.
If you happen to have been in the same room as the event being reported, you have greater credibility with yourself if you agree with the judgment that it's "good" or "bad" because you were present.
Of course this doesn't mean that your judgment is correct. A third person or even a fourth of fifth person might disagree.
Eyewitness testimony isn't very good. This is why the police interview everyone they can when investigating a crime. No one expects the testimony to be consistent or correct.
It's more like plotting points on a graph. The more points plotted, the more likely you have an accurate picture of a given graphed function.
On the other hand it's important that the eyewitnesses not have time to rehearse their testimony or time to synchronize their testimony with those of others.
Actual footage of an event from multiple angles is best and if you can also get audio that adds value.
A person's attitude, their previous experiences and the things they believe to be true and righteous vary and this is true even among Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now on the synchronization side of things we can see that people quite naturally seek out others who see things the way they do and are not particularly pleased if there isn't agreement.
I see the grumbling lot not as liars, but as those who as a result of various factors has chosen to play a different movie of the annoying events in their lives and with a different music track to these events.
I remember reading in a book somewhere that in a relationship the more things you have in common (as long as these are positive things) the better. I'm talking about a value system as well more importantly. But, they countered that having identical values isn't sufficient as it needs to be determined how these values rank in relation to each other. In a scarce or competing resource situation, how will these things be prioritized?
Some people are more "feelings" oriented and if something doesn't feel right, even if it is right it isn't enough for them and this is why you have to dig deep and see what it is in your own mind (because we all have feelings) that feels right or doesn't feel right and really figure out why.

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.
However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.
So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?
One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.
Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)
A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’
One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.
The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:
We’re the apostates, my friends
and we’ll keep on fighting till the end
No way we’ll lost this
Be sure you choose us
Cause we’re the apostates of he world.
 
 

… reminds me of when I was a puppy, looking through a chain link fence at a cow next door, calmly chewing grass. She was dressed in a flowered cotton print sun dress with clashing high- heels, a large plastic snap together “pearl” necklace, and a Mexican sombrero, with large chicken feather. 
 
Obviously the work of some cult.
At least the cult I prefer dresses better!

You can see the same situation w/regard to people who lost money in an investment scheme. Now you and I wouldn't say that anything valuable was lost by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but these have, but they adopt an invalid strategy for losing value - they spend more time arguing w/Jehovah's Witnesses. It's the sunk cost fallacy. We see this sort of thing in relationships all the time. How many people who after living perhaps 17 years as minor children to less than perfect (or even terrible) parents blame their lives decades later on their parents?
I would argue that clearly these didn't feel they were getting a raw deal (in their view) until they felt they were and they felt that they wished they could have gone back in time and had a do-over. Who hasn't wished they could go back and change some decision?
Point is that it's not baffling, but in many cases it isn't useful to continue to rail (at least in an emotional way - some adopt a more studious approach and write books contra-JW's) against decisions past-made.
The other case is that these likely have social relationships which these would have likely wanted to retain, but for the decisions these have made, they can no longer maintain.
Some feel honestly that they have made the right decision and that they could simply not play along w/it all no matter the cost, while others not as sure of themselves lash out in an attempt to provoke the kind of response which would justify the way they feel.
I would say to these to perhaps consider the possibility that their own feelings are self-caused and that any happiness or sadness these are feeling are natural reactions to the way in which these events have been presented by the self to the self.
Further, if what these are doing does not yield greater comfort or satisfaction it should be asked whether these are injuring themselves because they haven't accepted that they made decisions and that all that led to them becoming Jehovah's Witnesses and them leaving as well were their own decisions as well. Are these self-flagellating in an attempt to atone for the sins they imagined they made which led them to where they are today?

I have recently discovered that a good reply to the accusation that a person is wrong but obstinate, i.e. “you always have to get the last word in, don’t you?“ Is…
”Since you did not address my last point, and replied as you did, I DID get in the last word.”
 

To put down an unpleasant dodo with a quick retort is well-nigh irresistible, but I try not to do it unless the obstinacy seems entrenched and unchangable, and even then it is probably not for the best. 
The benefits of speaking with obstinate ones is that it affords opportunity to see if you can keep yourself “restrained under evil.” Sometimes you find you cannot, and then it’s back to Bible 101 for you!
the longer version of “you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it,” includes the line, “We’ll steal people from your church if we can, and you’ll do the same to us.”
It was late in life that I discovered this. With common ground established, I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions with people whom I used to do nothing but cross swords with. 
 
 
 

Or you could do like this one sweet little sister who said jauntily "Fine, your blood is on your own head then"

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

I don’t know. I think those two tone red/flesh colored pants are too tight to pass muster.

Speaking of dress and grooming, I always wanted to wear the bright primary colors that some of the brothers who were also brothers in Houston would wear at the DC.
I've always had ghetto taste, but my wife stops me.
 

You wouldn’t know a waste of time if one bit you in the rear end.
Now here’s a waste of time:
”Good morning, brothers. Our first talk today is on the subject of dress and grooming.”

Sometimes to that kindof thing  I just say "Wow!" then shake my head while pursing my lips, turn around and keep walking.
(I've found out from my wife that this can really piss people off) 

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 
“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)
*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

That's rich.
I suppose it's like when you go to a door and someone wants to argue w/you about the trinity.
I ask "Have you spoken w/Jehovah's Witnesses about this before?"
HH says "Oh, yes, many times"
Then I say "Well I doubt I could be any more convincing than them. Could I ask you a question though?"
HH brightens "Sure!"
The I ask "Since belief in the trinity changes nothing as far as my own behavior is concerned, why do you suppose Jehovah's Witnesses take such an unorthodox view?"
HH pauses ...I'm imagining he's not had this question from a theological pervert before...
I ask "Are they incorrigibly unsaved or evil?"
HH "I wouldn't say that."
I ask "So are they just stupid? Or is becoming a cult member just really damaging to your brain so it doesn't work any more in a reasonable way?"
HH "I wouldn't say stupid, and maybe I'd say they're a cult, but most seem pretty normal."
Me - "Kindof odd isn't it. Something to think about. Have a great day!"

Okay…I’ll shut up now …😉

Yes I agree with what you have said..but it’s not up to us to tell others not to go or proceed…it boils down to a personal choice…
To be a teacher..lawyer or social worker or nurse now…we have to go to university…..we must learn to live with in the world…yet remain in good standing before Jehovah..

I think you're under the impression that I bothered reading everyone's remarks. I didn't. Nor do I need to to know everyone is just engaging in some sort of scriptural fencing exercise or shadow boxing. At this point in the online world every argument is almost useless if the goal is to convince someone other than ones self. Anyone who wants to find an answer to literally any question can google it and read and agree or read and disagree. In the end Jehovah will judge whatever it is you've judged and judge it rightly. Sure, people are going to go at it and maybe it keeps them sharp, but in no way is it anything in my view other than an exercise.
In the online world you can never know if someone isn't just wasting your time. (like I am even now)