ComfortMyPeople

We should preach because we want people to share the joy that we share. We don't preach because we are making choices about who seems most worthy of becoming a JW. If that were true I think we would be looking into better ways to get to territories we can't currently reach very well or very often. Instead we repeatedly hit the easiest territories, and the most popular in my congregation appear to be the ones from which our average demographic is mirrored. Rarely do I see a Witness go out of their way to speak to a homeless man or people in shelters. "Old Folks Homes" (assisted living) are worked hap-hazardly. We are not the ones doing any of the saving. Our preaching, in fact, is much like the way the mouth naturally speaks out of the abundance of the heart. It's a joy to share good things with our neighbor. In another sense, it's a bit like prayer. Jehovah can read our thoughts constantly and there is no specific need for Jehovah to listen to a specific prayer to know who we are what we need how sincere we are in asking for forgiveness, etc. But just like with another human, we should find our relationship with Jehovah to be warmer and closer when we take the time and focus to speak about our petitions, supplications, and burdens. It's our chance to speak out of the abundance of our heart.

(Romans 2:14-16)  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.
 
According these words, some people will not be judged as belonging to some religion, but regarding the deeds they did and their conscience approve or disapprove
 

Yes, I am referring to priority and emphasis. Of course Biblical and prophetic understanding serves an important need. It was especially important for the apostles to come to recognize how all the Hebrew Scriptures had, in their own way, pointed to Christ. Understanding this is just as important of a spiritual need today, assuming of course that the spiritual need is encouragement and motivation through a better understanding of God's love for us, and in order to emphasize what Jehovah has lovingly promised to those who love Him.
(As you know, I do NOT think that it serves any true spiritual need, when, for example, we claim that a supposed claim of understanding of prophecy should be used to motivate people to follow because we have special knowledge of the times and seasons, as if we were some kind of prophet. It may serve the opposite of a spiritual need, and in fact motivate people to follow just because of a certain time period, or even tied to a certain date or generation. In addition, such claims often lead to stumbling others, when it turns out that we were only guessing, while presumptuously implying that we had been spirit-directed in these guesses.)
I agree completely that Galatians 2:10 fits in this context. I had just barely stopped myself from mentioning it myself. On Mark 12:32, I heard no such comments, but I also don't know that I quite understand your point. It's easy to understand why there were constantly new widows and orphans to look after as times were harsh, and Judea and Galilee were basically in a constant state of revolt where Romans could impress any man into service for themselves, or execute them. Men risked their lives in rickety ships, among robbers, on dangerous construction sites, and of course pockets of armed fighters were regularly killing and dying until things boiled over in 66 - 74, with Jewish fighters holding out well into the second century. And, as Paul said, everyone failed to uphold the Law perfectly. James gives counsel in his letter that appears to fit the situation of Christians failing to uphold these precepts and the "kingly law" due to class issues, prejudice, etc. You almost seem to say that it was more important to think about the widows devotion than think about why she was not being helped out of her situation as a poor widow. This would be a bit like saying we should not wonder about why people were being beaten up and ignored in Israel when we can focus on the good deed of a Samaritan man who didn't avoid him like his fellow Jewish neighbors had done.
In the context of this topic, however, I am also toying with a much more controversial point. Who is to say that there is not a small group of people somewhere, perhaps a family living next door to us, or in a small village in China, with whom Jehovah is even more well-pleased than he is with persons in our own congregations? If they are loving their neighbors, feeding the hungry, clothing and housing the poor, and emphasizing justice and support for orphans and widows, who is to say that Jehovah does not impute righteousness and "Christianity" on them for purposes of judgment?
These persons may say in the judgment, "when did we do these things for Christ?" And he will say to them that because they did these good things for their neighbors, their fellow humans, that they did it to Christ.
 

Perhaps it is one of the best ways to find the proper meaning of the following verses, among several others:
 
(Matthew 5:18) 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. (Matthew 5:34, 35) . . .neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet;. . . (Matthew 6:10) . . .Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. (Acts 3:25) . . .: ‘And by means of your offspring all the families of the earth will be blessed.’ (Acts 17:25, 26) . . .. 26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, (Ephesians 1:9, 10) . . .It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . . (Colossians 1:20) 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. (Hebrews 2:5) 5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. (2 Peter 3:13) 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. (Revelation 5:10) 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 21:1) 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth;. . .  

The ORIGINAL, of course, was none other than Frederick W. Franz giving his infamous graduation speech to the 59th class of Gilead, which was just one number off from being the 60th class of Gilead, and 60 times 100 is SIX THOUSAND, which was a surprising and startling and happifying thing over which we can rejoice. These are his ACTUAL words:
And when you come to think about it, dear friends, it's really remarkable. Today, do you know, is the seventh day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Five. [Loud audience stirring can be heard.] And do you know what that means according to this diary, Hebrew diary, from the land of Israel? Why this is the second day of the month Tishri of the lunar year Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Six. And do you know what that means? That here on this day of your graduation, why, it is the second day of the SEVENTH MILLENNIUM of man's existence here on earth. Isn't that something? Isn't that something, friends? [Loud applause from the audience.] That the opening days of the seventh millennium of mankind's existence is signalized by the operation of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in full compliance with the terms of its charter, sending out the fifty-ninth class of the Gilead School for missionaries. And furthermore, I'm told that, eh, by the arrangement of the New York Corporation, we already have some twenty brothers and sisters who are going to form class number sixty in the Gilead School. And, very interesting that at the end of sixty centuries of human existence here on earth, why class number SIXTY is going to start its schooling at the opening of the seventh millennium of mankind's existence. These are, eh, surprising things, startling things, HAPPIFYING things over which we can rejoice.

I've shared my opinion that many of us (hopefully) associate with Jehovah's Witnesses, not because we think it's an automatic ticket to salvation, but because it provides an environment that best matches (as far as we know) what we would expect the first century congregation to look like in the twenty-first century. It provides the environment to do good for one another, spiritually encourage one another, give materially to one another, preach and teach people about God's kingdom, raise the spirits of the broken-hearted both inside and outside the congregation, live a moral life based on the principles of the Bible that provides a "witness" to the Bible's value and usefulness even in this modern age. It provides a social circle that allows our Christianity to flourish, but also allows us to see the warnings and pitfalls of our human condition. We see brothers and sister that we love dearly for their humility, talents, love of truth, love of God, and love of neighbor. We see brothers and sisters that we are concerned about for their contentiousness, presumptuousness, haughtiness, legalism. But all this is also what the first century saw: a range of qualities.
Many Witnesses associate because they think that associating really is the "ark of salvation" and that it is therefore an automatic ticket to salvation as long as they don't stray too far and can rush back under this "wing of protection" in case they are slacking off at the time that the "Peace and Security" cry gets convincingly loud enough. (Or some analogous announcement that seems like it's a last-minute sign to straighten up and fly right.) I've talked to enough young brothers and sisters, and my grown children have talked to enough brothers and sisters, that I know I can use the word "many" when I speak of those who think like this.
As far as Biblical reasons can help us see whether there is only one true religion, we know that there is only one true religion. But the Bible never says that there is one physical organization that embodies that one true religion. The true religion is looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation. The true religion is prioritizing love, justice, and mercy over rules of conduct, and rules of organizations. The true religion is the humble, loving attitude of our heart toward Jehovah and our neighbors, even our enemies. It has nothing to do with a showy display of prayer and process or an audience. Organizations require specific works; the true religion requires loving motivation based on faith.
Ideally, there could be a human organization, directed by God's spirit, that attracts all the people who practice that "one true religion." We believe we have found something close to that which is why we both associate with the same organization. But if we don't also clearly see the flaws, then we will begin to think of that organization as our salvation, which is blasphemy and idolatry.
Jesus himself said that if they are not against us they are for us. There are other senses in which those who are not for us are against us, but this does not negate that we should find the true meaning of the former. Jesus also said that wheat and weeds (tares) would be indistinguishable until the very end, judgment day. Jesus also (in Revelation 2 and 3) does not speak of a central governing committee that makes decisions about what is acceptable in a Christian congregation and what is not. Jesus speaks of holding each congregation separately accountable for the actions they take for and against various teachings and practices. And of course we have the example of Paul in Galatians 1 and 2, where he appears to demolish the entire idea of one central body of elders as the governors of their faith. In about the year 49 C.E. when most apostles were still alive and several of them still evidently operating out of one congregation in Jerusalem, it would have been very tempting to think of them as some kind of single governing body whose word and decisions would become the "rule" in all the worldwide brotherhood. But Paul indicated that this was a "foolish" mistake.

KM School (for elders) up until 1974/5 included training for elders on medical issues (blood/pregnancy/transplants/psychology) especially when it was taught by Brother Schroeder in Pittsburgh. But Bert Schroeder also had some crazy ideas about medical/health issues which have since been dropped from the Watchtower, such as claiming that a heart transplant (or blood) from a criminal could make you a criminal, that the heart is the physical seat of emotion, etc. (Some were just personal ideas that never would have been put in the Watchtower anyway, such as believing that people who changed from left-handed to right-handed when they were younger would become hypoglycemic in later years.)
Most medical issues have been dropped from elder training, and the expression that Jack Ryan quoted is considered all-encompassing:
There are groups of elders in the HLC who are trained to know that this isn't true, such as with blood issues, so that would not be embarrassed if they were to make such a claim in front of hospital professionals. But most elders, and therefore most Witnesses who learn from them, have a feeling, for example, that there are never occasions when people really need to die from lack of a blood transfusion or from allowing a life-threatening pregnancy to continue. These Witnesses, including non-HLC elders, will believe it is the fault of the medical professionals if things go wrong. This is why there have been more malpractice suits brought by JWs against doctors and hospitals that are actually discouraged by the WTS and those with more medical training.

This is from the March 15, 1975 issue of The Watchtower:
"Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born."

Ectopic pregnancies, when detected, are usually treated by surgically removing them. I always understood that this procedure was ok for Jehovah's Witnesses. But the subject came up during pioneer school. The circuit overseer started explaining that abortions are NEVER acceptable. A human is a human as soon as conception happens. But then he asks if there is ever a reason to break this rule. So I decided to raise my hand and mention the Reasoning book under Abortion where is says it's up to the individuals involved to make a choice if it's during childbirth. I also mentioned ectopic pregnancies. 
Well, this didn't go over so well with him. Oooh noooo! He said the information I had was incorrect and the it's NEVER acceptable even if it means death for the mother and that such things don't happen anymore with all the medical advancements. 
I was very surprised. Especially since ectopic pregnacies have risen. If a JW woman refuses the procedure to have it removed she risks major blood loss and loss of life. I was and still am surprised by his response. I spoke to other elders about it and they either had no idea what an ectopic pregnancy was or if they did they told me it's one of those things where it's acceptable.
I didn't find ANYTHING talking about ectopic pregnancies in the Watchtower articles. 
Has anyone here had an ectopic pregnancy? What did the elders say?

This is so true. It shouldn't, but it still surprises me to hear about famous people like Mike Wallace (CBS:"60 Minutes") attempting suicide, Anthony Bourdain (CNN:"Places Unknown") committing suicide, among others.. Most of the cases of suicide appear to be related to long-term clinical depression, which famous personalities will naturally hide for as long as possible.
Even when a person appears to have committed suicide over a specific incident it is often true that they have battled depression for a long time and considered suicide more often than people know. A specific incident such as a financial loss, scandal, or loss of a loved one might just be the "final straw." Reports from psychiatrists have sometimes confirmed that even the old "romantic" notion of an elderly man or woman who dies within weeks or months of the death of an elderly spouse is often merely a form of depression where the surviving spouse stops caring for themselves, stops medications, etc. 
This is no doubt true, but it can be misleading. While I was at Bethel for just 4 years, there were two suicides and one attempted suicide. All were persons who appeared to be serving Jehovah whole-heartedly. Not long after I left Bethel, a well-known brother who had served at Bethel at very high levels of responsibility for decades jumped to his death. He had threatened suicide over an incident concerning Brother Knorr some 50 years earlier. A Gilead graduate (a sister) committed suicide during Knorr's time.
I don't know anything about the truth of the claim, but psychiatrists have reported on their general findings about treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses. From what I can tell, there is no evidence that Witnesses suffer depression any less than any other group of people.  The highest groups are often reported as ex-soldiers, dentists, doctors.
I think we also need to remember that those who leave Jehovah's Witnesses over scandal or moral failings, in my experience, are very often anxious to return to the organization as soon as possible. But those who leave over doctrinal differences or "conscientious objectors" to the Witnesses are not allowed to come back because they reject one or more doctrines. Because they are therefore "apostates" they are usually treated much more harshly by their families and have therefore suffered the loss of ALL their loved ones, not just a spouse or child.
I notice that @Jack Ryan has often pointed out the problem of the Witnesses' treatment of such ex-JWs: grandparents who reject their grandchildren, parents who reject their children, grandchildren who reject their grandparents, etc.
I do believe that Jack Ryan is an "apostate" but I think he also does us a favor in bringing these things up. It's less likely, but even an average person at the door who is not an apostate could bring them up, too, and we would not be prepared to defend our position on shunning. Sometimes when the media have brought up this question to responsible persons in the organization, their answers have even misled the press by claiming that we don't shun. This is a false statement, and shows that they were not prepared to defend the Biblical position.
Watchtowers in the 1980's made it clear that we should shun our loved ones even if they still [claim to] love Jehovah and believe the Bible. But when Jack Ryan brings it up, I think he makes us think about what it means to be "having no natural affection" (2 Timothy 3:3).
So yes, there is always a danger that we are "associating" with "apostates" on forums like this. I think it's a matter of one's own conscience whether we treat this as association in the sense of joining and supporting the sinful conduct of a person. I personally appreciate the opportunity it gives us to ask our own questions more honestly and follow the Biblical instruction:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason. . . "Everyone" could include apostates, media, posers, even Satan himself. Michael disputed with Satan long after he had become apostate, and was still very "civil" with him. (Just as the remainder of the verse above in 1 Peter reminds us for "everyone . . . doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.")
(Jude 9) . . .But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms. . .  

The thing people often fail to realize is that there are EXTREMELY righteous people out there, inside and outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are dullards.
They do not know they are dullards .... and it doesn't bother them a bit.  It's like being dead ... you don't know you are dead ... but it makes it HARD for those who love you, and everything about you.
My very best guess about Stephen Lett, who I call "Poppin Fresh" (The Pillsbury Dough Boy), is that he is a very fine Brother who is truly one of the Anointed, and God loves him dearly ... although the cynical side of me visualizes him  taking huge bags of money and a shovel out the main gate of Warwick, in the dead of night,  across the street, and into the woods , to the massive Real Estate acreage he has in his  name.
Sorry ... I just cannot "turn it off".
My best guess is that he DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE THINGS HE SAYS ARE NOT TRUE ... which would make him totally innocent of the charge that he is ANY kind of liar.
As John 9:41 says, paraphrased "...Justice must be tempered with mercy for Blind pawns.".
Even blind pawns that think of themselves as enlightened Power Players.
For a person to be ANY kind of liar .... he has to actually KNOW that what he is saying is not true.
 
 

That "succinct" answer is a perfect example of the "skirting" I referred to earlier:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
    No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27. First of all the more generally correct answer is YES, not NO. The question was do Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL that they are the only people who will be saved? In my opinion, millions of them do feel exactly that way, whether or not this matches the official position. In cleaning out 50 years of my parents house for the last week I have read a lot of my deceased grandmother's correspondence with elders, pioneers, and good friends she had all over the world. I was struck by the way assemblies attended in many different nations were often summarized. These ranged from the 1950's up to about 2010. Included in so many of them were expressions like: "Isn't it great to be associated with the only people whom Jehovah will spare through this old system."
Also if we look at the exact wording of the succinct answer you referred to, notice that it never says that anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved through Armageddon. The answer is given as "NO" for only two reasons. The first reason is because many non-JWs from centuries past will have an opportunity for salvation through the resurrection. Presumably they will become Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1,000 year reign as we also teach that we will teach them. I'm sure you have also heard convention speakers talking about how in the resurrection we will hear stories from faithful men and women of Bible times, but then we will have the opportunity to teach them what Jehovah has been doing with us.
The second reason for saying the answer is "NO" also speaks vaguely about who may survive Armageddon: "Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God." (It's the new motto for the old "Millions" campaign.) This also does not say specifically that any non-JWs may survive Armageddon. Most Witnesses apparently presume that this means that our preaching work may result in more non-JWs becoming JWs.
This brings up another point about the idea that something nearly miraculous is yet to be seen in countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Expecting that something like this might have to happen first is counter to the idea that the end may come at any time like a thief in the night. The end could happen 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight, or before I click "Submit Reply." But that couldn't be true if we need to see a miraculous new distribution of JWs around the world, first.

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.
When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.
It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.
I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As you read this.... remember PERCEPTION is 90% of everything. Sometimes it even trumps the truth itself for centuries. It is that important.

I suspect we should consider that most businesses no longer require suits (business casual and clean is now ok for most jobs)

I try to not bring my electronic devices to my business meetings. It sends the wrong message I think.  What is wrong with the Bible and songbook (actual books)?

Let's also consider what a Kingdom Hall full of Mercedes and Audis appears like to the public.

I remember how I felt as a regular pioneer showing up in California one day at a KH with all their expensive cars. WRONG MESSAGE!!!

Remember what Jesus said about the RICH?

Just some random thoughts when I saw this on Facebook.

Any ideas?
View the full article

Is it possible that in raking over old "manna" we are sure to find "worms"? Exodus 16:20.

C.T.Russell therefore claimed it was appropriate to refer to the 144,000 (in which he included himself) as "The Christ" and "The Eternal Father" and "God manifest in the flesh." In fact, this was not just about creating titles, so that, for example, the 144,000 could say they were "the Prophet Greater than Moses."
C.T.Russell actually claimed he was a part of the sacrifice made on behalf of the world. He claimed he was a part of the Atonement that would that would justify mankind. He was very literally included in the "Savior" of mankind. In fact, Russell taught that Christ was not his Mediator. Not the Mediator of the 144,000. At first, for nearly 30 years, he taught this topic correctly, but then he received "new light" by which he claimed that this idea of Jesus as Mediator of the 144,000 was now part of the"smoke of the dark ages." 
In our issue of 1906, p. 26, we said, "Our Lord Jesus in his own person has been the Mediator between the Father and the 'household of faith' during this Gospel Age." This statement is incorrect. No Scripture so declares. It is a part of the smoke of the dark ages which we are glad now to wipe from our eyes.  The book "What Pastor Russell Said?" p. 99-100:
CHURCH—Re Need of a Mediator. Q99:1 QUESTION (1907)—1—Do we as individuals need Christ as our mediator before we become members of His Body? ANSWER.—I answer that if we had needed Christ as a Mediator, then God would have provided Him as a mediator, and the fact that God did not provide Him as our mediator, proves that we do not need Him as such. The Scriptures never speak of a mediator except from the standpoint of a covenant. . . .  If we are faithful we will be members of the mediator class of that new covenant. In other words, you and I are invited to become members of the mediator of the new Covenant. . . .  We are under the original covenant, which required no mediator. The church does not need a mediator. This was repeated several times until Russell died, and was even kept on as official doctrine under Rutherford. It shows up in the October 15, 1921 Watch Tower, but was officially changed in the April 1, 1934 Watchtower. In time, of course (1979) it was changed to mean that ONLY the 144,000 could have Jesus as their mediator, even though up to 1974 it had finally been applied to all mankind. 
But the main point, related of course, was that the 144,000 are included in the sacrifice and atonement. This was taught even from the first few Watch Tower magazines. (e.g., Watch Tower September 1880, p.139). Tabernacle Shadows had said:
the followers of Jesus are represented by this "Lord's goat," but also that their sacrifice, reckoned in with their Head, Jesus, constitutes part of the world's sin-offering. . . .  yet even now, any member of the "Royal Priesthood" may say to those who believe and repent, "Thy sins are forgiven thee"--as did our Head, by faith looking forward, as he did, to the completion of the sacrifices for sins (p.77,100) The 144,000 were referenced in the expression "Christ and his joint-sacrificers." In the WT February 15, 1909 issue:
Thus the sacrifice of Christ, Head and Body, has progressed for over eighteen centuries. We believe that the consummation is near at hand. When the High Priest shall have accepted the last member of his Body, and shall have finished the sacrificing, he will apply, beyond the vail, the blood, his own blood—the blood of his members—on the mercy-seat, on behalf of all the people. This was not just Russell of course. It was also a teaching under Rutherford until 1939, just a couple years before he died. For example, the Watch Tower in May 15, 1928, p. 147:
". . . the blood of Christ, including the body members', is presented and used to make atonement for the sins of the people." and in 1935, p. 284:
"The slaying of the Lord's goat and the carrying of its blood into the holiest of all to be sprinkled on the mercy seat there foreshadowed the sacrificial death of that class who would constitute members of the body of Christ, and therefore constitute a part of Christ. . . " The essential part of this teaching still lasted through the writings under Rutherford, Knorr, and Frederick Franz:
*** w51 1/15 p. 56 par. 25 Participation with Demons Forbidden ***
So for the members of the body of the Christ to have ‘life in themselves’ means to share the privilege with Jesus of bestowing the benefits of his sacrificed life upon obedient mankind during the thousand years of his kingdom. They will become his heavenly bride, “the Lamb’s wife.” As such they will mother the earthly children of the “Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”, Jesus Christ. (Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9, 10; Isa. 9:6) So the “little flock”, the “bride” class, are the exclusive ones that drink the blood of the Son of man as well as feed on his flesh. *** w78 3/1 p. 10 Memorializing Christ’s Death—How Much Longer? ***
It was the opportunity to gain inherent life with the Christ in the heavens, “life in yourselves.” (John 6:53) By reigning with him in heaven they could pass on to mankind the life-giving benefits of his sacrifice. Same as the 1985 edition of "Reasoning from the Scriptures:"
Thus those who are granted to have "life in themselves" like Christ will share with him in imparting to mankind the life-giving benefits of the ransom sacrifice. In 1986, this expression was no longer applied just to the anointed but could include those who come out of the Millennium. (w86 2/15).

Yes, because unfortunately so far one has been finding out things from 3rd parties, and most are false,  but just to complicate things, some turn out to be true.  So in my humble opinion it would be better if we were informed directly in the first place, so that we could happily ignore information from those 3rd parties......transparency is the word.
 

Balance is always good, and I know that's probably what you are looking for. There will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") to deny the elders assigned to the GB any credibility at all, and there will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") just to remind us where we should ultimately look to always find credibility. And to some, making note of any error on the part of respected elders is the equivalent of apostasy and poison.
We don't disdain any older men or dismiss them for their failures, because we all fail many times, and if any of us were given the same responsibility I dare say we would fail as soon as we started.
But does this mean we should not take notice of the errors of even our most respected elders? How would we know if they meet the qualification "free from accusation" if we always ignored any accusations?
I think the answer is found in the Bible in just about every place where elders and those who take the lead are mentioned. We are asked not to severely criticize, but never asked not to criticize. Notice:
(1 Timothy 5:17-21) 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. 18 For the scripture says, “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain,” also, “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. Paul instructs a very young elder, Timothy, to be careful about accepting an accusation against an older man, but not to ignore it, and in fact to accept it if the evidence is verifiable. So when Paul goes on to say he should "reprove before all onlookers" those who practice sin, the context is reproving "ALL" even if they be older, more respected elders. In fact, Paul adds the counsel that he needs to observe these instructions "without prejudice or partiality."
What is even more interesting to me, is that the other famous time when Paul mentions counseling older men without prejudice or partiality, he is referring to reproving the "Governing Body." That's in fact, the very context of Galatians, where we teach that those highly respected elders that Paul spoke about here were the Governing Body at Jerusalem. Normally, when Paul speaks of accusing an older man, he does not speak in abusive terms, but when it comes to the Governing Body, all bets are off. Note another paraphrase of Galatians which actually reflects very accurately what Paul was conveying:
(1:6-9) "There are certain people from the Governing Body at Jerusalem that are causing you trouble, and I'm surprised that you weren't able to see through the distortion. Sure, you might say, but they are the Governing Body at Jerusalem, 'Why should we question them?' Because, I say, I don't care if it's we or even an angel out of heaven speaking declaring anything different from the Biblical good news, let him be accursed. Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. (1:10-20 ) Now you might say, but Paul, surely even you had to accept the authority of the Governing Body at Jerusalem, didn't you? How could you have an apostleship if the Governing Body didn't approve it? But that's not true at all! That's crazy! You think it's men whom I need the approval of, or God? You think this message I've been preaching came through the Governing Body? No! When God chose to reveal the good news to me, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. In fact, it was THREE WHOLE YEARS before I even saw ONE member of the Governing Body, Peter. And even then, I only stayed with him for two weeks. And I didn't see ANY of the other apostles, just James. I swear, I'm not lying! Nobody even got to know me around Jerusalem and Judea. (2:1-4) I never met with the Governing Body until I had already been preaching for FOURTEEN YEARS! And even then it was because I had a revelation to tell THEM. It wasn't that the Governing Body had anything useful to tell me! The whole reason I went is because the Governing Body was making a serious mistake. (Galatians 2:4-14) 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they . . .  recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas . . .
Of course, on the one hand we are supposed to be "imitators of Paul." But when it comes to imitating the way in which Paul found fault with the Governing Body, we would more likely hear: "Who do you think you are? The apostle Paul?" So there is probably some lesson and some balance that we are supposed to get out of this message in Galatians. But in any case, it's up to all of us as Christians to remain alert to what the respected older men are saying, because they are needed to take the lead in the example they set for the rest of us. We would never get in any trouble if they told us, this week we take the message to streetcorners, this week we take it to Russia, this week we take it from house to house, this week we give food and supplies to victims of this or that natural disaster, this week we collect coats for the homeless, soup for the unemployed, this week we will clean the Halls, this week we will meet in a convention. The primary thing to watch, just as with the Galatians, is whether the message is being distorted.
(1 Timothy 6:3, 4) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. . . . (Titus 2:1, 2) 2 You, however, keep on speaking what is consistent with wholesome teaching. 2 Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance.
(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 4 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.
(1 Timothy 3:7) 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
etc. etc.

I think you are right. It was around 1980. And remember that team (group) mentioned in the Awake! magazine you quoted?
*** g84 4/22 pp. 22-23 MEPS—An Exciting Leap Forward in Publishing ***
Industry Changes That Led to MEPS As many readers know, the publishing industry has been revolutionized by new methods of production during the past 20 years or so. Ever since the last century, operators of linotype machines turned hot, molten lead into single one-piece lines of metal type. These lines of metal type, called slugs, were then arranged into pages by a compositor. From these pages of metal type, molds were made for casting heavy lead printing plates that were used on rotary letterpresses. In the early 1960’s, by far the majority of newspapers, magazines and books were printed on letterpresses. Today practically none are. The method of printing with type produced from hot lead became obsolete almost overnight. Any factories using hot lead, if they wanted to continue printing, were soon forced to change with the industry. Thus practically all printing of newspapers, magazines and books is now done on lithographic offset presses. In January 1978, printing on rotary offset presses was begun at the headquarters printery of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York. The first publication was the color-illustrated My Book of Bible Stories. In offset printing the image to be printed is not raised as it is in letterpress, but it is on the same plane, or level, as the surface that surrounds it. This method of printing is accomplished by taking a photograph of the printed page and then using the film produced to make thin offset printing plates. To make these thin offset printing plates to produce My Book of Bible Stories and other literature published by the Watchtower Society, photographs had to be taken of proofs of linotype-produced pages. The film negatives were then merged with negatives of the pictures or illustrations. It was this slow, mechanical, prepress system of producing type from hot lead that needed to be replaced by some faster method. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses investigated how to do this. That investigative "group" was pretty much completely disfellowshipped. T.Cabeen, R.Watters and a lot of their pressroom friends had the nerve to bring rosy reports about offset, plus the very successful experiment with the "Bible Stories" book that their same team had finished. This angered C.Chyke, R.Wheelock, M.Larson, etc. It meant that a younger generation was about to take over. By 1978, there was a bit of a backlash already, and then it also was known that Tom Cabeen, who spearheaded the offset printing work, was a good friend of R.Franz -- and B.Schroeder and T.Jaracz and G.Smalley were already gunning to get R.Franz and friends out of there after the success of the Aid Book. So as this younger group was pushing for further expansion of offset, some of the old guard wanted to prove them wrong and make some more of the biggest investments ever in letterpress. To them it would be like proving Jehovah right and proving Satan wrong. By late 1979, however, they finally took the biggest prize embarrassment (the world's largest letterpress press) off all factory tours so that no one would get a picture of it. It's mention was removed from the printed tour brochure.

Not really. You are mostly quoting what Seybold said, not IBM. The relationship with IBM soured quickly and often. One high-level IBM executive who could interface with IBM was a JW and a local brownstone-style apartment/house was made available to him. Any JWs who had worked for IBM or had programmed in Assembler on IBM Series 1 or IBM 360 equipment were invited to apply to Bethel and lived like all other Bethelites. My own brother who had no interest in applying to Bethel was asked to come in due to his work programming microprocessors and he stayed for 2.5 years. Non-JW IBM experts were called in to meet and discuss the project all along, and they were constantly frustrated by the decisions of Bethel overseers.
Meanwhile there was a separate project going on up in Wallkill creating the pieces of the MEPS typesetting system. I drew up a couple of Greek fonts for it, and three years before they would ever see a part of it, I was even sent (alone) to the Athens Branch to help them set up a small pre-press facility so that they could ramp up to handling their own translating and page preparation there in Athens.
One problem was that MEPS was all proprietary, and neither IBM nor IBM-trained JWs, could ever figure out how to get the IPS to talk to MEPS. After a few years either one could do a few things very well, but IPS (with IBM) faltered - and it was too expensive to get IPS to handle non-Roman fonts. MEPS, which had been assumed by many not to be the ultimate winner, was given free rein, no one to really watch over them, and the "kids" up in Wallkill made their own decisions about it.
In 1977 there was already a non-working MEPS prototype up in the Factory 1 building, on the 9th floor (of an 8 story building) where the new computer department was. Wires fed down to a phototypesetting machine in a darkroom in a graphical arts department on the 8th floor. That never worked, at least not for 4 or 5 more years. But they were still able to use some of what they bought, like a large stat cameras in the darkroom had the ability to manually shine light through a negative with a font on it, which would then enlarge, one letter at a time, onto a piece of film below. So for years we could at least use it to make headlines in all kinds of fonts of any language, including Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, Greek, etc. It's just that it took about 5 to 10 seconds to line up each letter. Until then, fancy fonts were done by hand -- calligraphy and calipers and French curves and Koh-I-Noor ink pens.
It was Seybold, not IBM, who came in to see demonstrations after several years when the equipment became useful. They were rightfully impressed, especially by the MEPS. By 1982, after 5 years, both were useful. IPS had allowed several dozen typesetters to sit in front of terminals instead of hot lead. We were still using molten lead for some typesetting, but that phased out completely by about 1982, I think. It was better than the first commercial hit, Aldus Pagemaker, and ready two years prior. Of course, Pagemaker and other solutions were widely available in 85 and took off with the Macintosh. Much cheaper versions had already been made for Apple II, IIe,  and IBM PCs, but these all suffered from pixelation, as no true raster-based fonts were integrated at that time. By continuing the work on the MEPS we never had to go with a commercial solution.

This is pretty astute. Personal extrapolation is at the root of much of what is "kooky" about the notions held by some Jehovah's Witnesses. I had to persuade one recently that it is unlikely that animals will be included in the resurrection. I thought this was an unusual idea until I met an Anglican clergyman even more recently who believed the same thing, citing Romans 8:22 as scriptural basis for this. My queries about the possibility of being knee-deep in gerbils met with quizzical looks in both cases, but I felt it wasn't something we needed to fall out over.
This idea of commiting the "unforgivable sin" is also subject to personal extrapolation, but with more serious implications than the possibility of a resurrection for one's favourite pet.
@Jack Ryan seems to have been subjected to the idea as a kind of "bogeyman" threat.
@JWInsider has provided some good references on the matter, but forgive me if I say that they still seem to rather skirt than define it.
1 John 5:16 provides food for thought here when saying "There is a sin that does incur death".
Scriptural examples provide the best guide in determining what this "(unforgivable) sin" might be. We can contrast David, Mannaseh, the apostle Peter, and Saul who became Paul with Adam and Eve, the 1st century religious leaders (as a class), Judas, to discern the reasons why some were forgiven and some not.
Paul gets to the heart of it in the letter to the Hebrews at Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26, 27. The key expressions here are:
"For it is impossible......................... to revive them again to repentance,"  Heb 6:4-6
"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left" Heb.10:26
So "willfull practice of sin" , and, particularly, "no repentance" seem to be the key qualifiers here. These descriptors refer to a state rather than a particular action, determination of which is firmly in the hands of "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen 18:25), and "a man who he has appointed" (Acts 17:31).

I think we have always pretty much stated what the Insight Book states:
*** it-2 p. 969 Sin, I ***
Jesus said they had “no excuse for their sin” because they were witnesses of the powerful words and works proceeding from him as the result of God’s spirit on him. (Joh 15:22-24; Lu 4:18) Those who, either in word or by their course of action, willfully and knowingly blasphemed God’s spirit thus manifested would be “guilty of everlasting sin,” with no forgiveness possible. (Mt 12:31, 32; Mr 3:28-30; compare Joh 15:26; 16:7, 8.) This could be the case with some who came to be Christians and then deliberately turned from God’s pure worship. Hebrews 10:26, 27 states that “if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and there is a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition.” And this from the early 1950's:
*** w52 2/15 p. 126 Questions From Readers ***
What is the unforgivable sin against the holy spirit that Jesus spoke about?—B. E., New York. Jesus had just cured a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb. The crowds marveled, but the Pharisees scoffed and said Jesus did it by means of Beelzebub. Jesus refuted their claim by showing that if Satan expelled Satan he would be divided against himself and his kingdom could not stand. Also, if Jesus expelled demons by means of Beelzebub, by whose means did their sons expel them? Then he said: “Every kind of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in the present system of things nor in that to come.”—Matt. 12:22-32, NW.  
Therefore, the clearest example would be seeing Jesus perform a miracle, know for sure that such a good evidence of the holy spirit could only have come from the power of God, and then claiming that his power must have come from Satan or his demons. When we think about the only possible motivations for anyone saying such a thing when they KNOW otherwise, we get a sense of how serious the "unforgivable sin" would be.
One could try to extrapolate that the GB are direct proof of the miraculous power and evidence of God's holy spirit. If someone truly believed this and then claimed that the GB's "power" actually comes from Satan or his demons, then I suppose you could stretch the analogy. But since there is no claimed miraculous power, and no claims of direct inspiration from Jehovah's holy spirit, the entire idea seems non-applicable to me. 
Still, I have heard it. It's part of fear of apostates. Some are in mortal fear of learning what an apostate might be thinking or accidentally seeing one of their publications or websites. Pretty much the Witness definition of an apostate is that they are persons who no longer accept what the GB says, and are therefore rejecting the GB as God's only appointed channel. Of course, for some reason Geoffrey Jackson himself said it would be presumptuous if the GB were to claim to be Jehovah's only channel of communication for Christians today. Similar things have been said more recently in Watchtower articles that followed up on this idea. Therefore, by that same definition, if it were true, then a current member of the GB may have just committed the unforgivable sin. The irony is that this was said under circumstances that were quite similar to the following:
(Matthew 10:19, 20) 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. So, if we believed that way, we might have to accept that it was the holy spirit that made it clear the GB are not always led by holy spirit.

What would you do if you were someone who took very seriously the idea that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 were speaking about the time we are living in, especially the time surrounding the year 1914? You are someone who believes strongly that the time period you live in is the the one that will see Armageddon, and you believe it's important that others learn this truth, too. How would you go about convincing people?
We know that we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, still carry on the legacy of someone who took that idea very seriously: Charles Taze Russell. I know that his time period produced a lot of people like him, but I was thinking about the sheer unlikelihood that anyone would be able to start a following with his specific beliefs when we compare them to Matthew 24, etc. I think this is why his success is sometimes looked at as proof that God blessed his efforts in spite of his doctrines, not because of them.
He started publishing a magazine, tracts and books that taught that some of the most important events that most Christians had been waiting and praying for, had already occurred, but that they had missed them: He taught that Jesus had already returned in 1874. He taught that this long-awaited PAROUSIA, which they thought to be a bright manifestation like lightning, had actually been invisible to everyone in the world. He taught that Jesus, as King of God's Kingdom, had already begun when Jesus became king and started reigning in 1878. He taught that William Miller, the man who started a movement that ended in the "Great Disappointment," was actually being used by God to begin drawing attention to proper issues of chronology, and to lay a true foundation of this chronology, back in 1844. He taught that since 1799 his contemporaries were in the "last days" and would remain so until the last days ended in 1914. But there were many more specific issues with this religious movement he is credited with starting. These seem so counter-intuitive, as if they were exactly the wrong way to go about starting a following that would be focused so much on Matthew 24, etc. For example:
We can still pray for his Kingdom to Come, but "in truth" it had just come a few years ago and they missed. (see above) Jesus said it would be as visible and surprising as lightning shining from one end of the heavens to the other end, but "in truth" it had been invisible. (see above) Jesus implied that wars, earthquakes, famines and pestilence would be seen during the final generation, but in truth Russell taught that these were not "signs" and that they had nothing to do with the final generation, but were merely the experiences of humans over the last 1,800 years. Jesus implied that a great witness work would lead people out of all nations but "in truth" Russell taught that all the people who would be part of Christ's Bride, the Body of Christ, the Church, the 144,000 had already been selected and the door was shut back in 1881. (Russell thought the preaching work was generally useful for witnessing to only a "lower plane" of Christians who would not serve as kings and priests with Jesus, even though they'd still make it to heaven because that's where all Christians went, according to Russell. But, as odd as these things might have seemed, we can look at even more specific lines in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 to see a few more ways in which Russell, you might think, would have been working against getting people to listen to him. He seemed to purposely go out of his way to "do the opposite." You'd think that this might have turned more people against his teachings. For example:
Matthew 24:45 speaks of a "faithful and discreet slave" and we usually think of someone who is discreet as not just wise, but careful never to come across as haughty or presumptuous. Yet Russell who had seen his former publishing partner try to claim that he, Barbour, was that faithful, discreet slave, Russell soon began publishing material that pointed to only himself as that "faithful and discreet slave." He began publishing letters to himself that addressed him as that faithful and discreet slave, and referred to some of his writings as "food at the proper time" (meat in due season). He called himself "God's mouthpiece" and referred to his writings as more effective than the Bible itself at bringing someone into the truth of God's word, adding that someone who read his works for just a few months would learn the truth, but if a person just read the Bible for a few months they would go back into darkness. Matthew 24:26 said (KJV) "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." ASV (and NWT) used the term "inner chambers" instead of "secret chambers." Jesus was evidently helping the disciples to avoid the mistake that would be made if someone said Jesus had indeed returned, but that he was currently not visible to them, yet this person claimed special knowledge about where he actually was. Russell already taught that Jesus Parousia had been invisible, so how could Russell find a further way for people to "believe it not" in this matter? Simple, Russell accepted the idea that God's supernatural witness, his prediction of Jesus' Parousia, had been found in the desert, inside the Great Pyramid. In fact, not just in the desert, but also in the secret, inner chambers of that pyramid. Luke 21:8 in the translations that Russell usually used, says:  "And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them." (ASV).  It was almost like Russell said to himself, "Hmmm . . . Jesus said that no one should go after anyone who says, 'The time is at hand.' " "Hmmm... I got it!" Russell says, "I will write a book to distribute around the world and call it: 'The Time Is At Hand.' " It was one of Russell's best selling books, and it showed how chronology would let people know the times and the seasons, even the very month and year when Christ's presence and kingship began. But how would Russell prove himself to be a person not to be followed based on the first part? Was there any way that Russell could come in the name of Jesus and say "I am he"?  How close could Russell get to saying "I am he" or as the the KJV words it: "I am Christ"?  [The KJV puts the word Christ in italics to indicate that it is not in the original Greek.]
Turns out that he was able to get much closer than most people think. As I'll get to in the next post.
 

If we take Luke 21:28 to mean that a person might come in Christ's name and claim that he is representing Jesus Christ then I think Russell covered that possibility. After all, as alluded to above, Russell said:
"If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible,  topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes THE BIBLE IN AN ARRANGED FORM. That is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself…Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years- if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures" (Watchtower, September 15, 1910, p.298). Well, if you claim to be speaking for Christ, in his name, that's good start: Tell people that if you read the Bible alone, if you read what Jesus said directly, you won't get the light of the Scriptures, but if you read Russell's books (including "The Time Is At Hand!") and not read a page of the Bible, you'd have the "light of the Scriptures" by the end of two years. And even if you've studied the Bible for 10 years, you will go into darkness within 2 years if you continue to just study the Bible.
But what about taking this further. Is there any way of Russell actually coming closer to saying that he is the Christ? Doesn't seem likely, even if he set himself up as God's mouthpiece and the representative and only channel of the present truth then available to the body of Christ.
Russell made it clear he was the ONLY channel speaking for Jesus:
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.) I AM THE CHRIST
Obviously, we aren't going to find Russell using those words, "I am the Christ." But let's look at what he does say about the Christ:
[Next post]
 
 

RUSSEL SAYS HE WANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TERM "THE CHRIST"
Russell taught a special doctrine called the Mystery Doctrine. The mystery doctrine claimed that Russell along with only a few other Christians alive in his day, were "The Christ". He said that not just Jesus, but that he, Russell, and those who strove to be on the same "higher plane," were also "The Christ," "The Messiah". He said that Jesus himself was NOT the complete Christ, just the Head, and that the Christ, the Messiah, included not just the Head but the Body. There was no complete Christ until the last member of the Church was chosen. Throughout history, Russell included the previously chosen members of the 144,000 including the apostles and early Christian martyrs, as included in "The Christ." He would include men like Waldo, Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.
A lot of people don't even know about this teaching, but it's not like they tried to hide it at the time. Here are some examples:
It has also been shown from time to time that the Christ of scripture is a complex being, presented to our minds by the figure of a man—Head and Body— Jesus Himself being the Head and believers being the many members of the one body. This being true it follows that there is a progressive development of Christ from Jesus in the flesh, until the last member of his body is exalted to glory. (Watch Tower, November 1880, p160 R) Very shortly now, this mystery of God, this company of divinely-begotten sons, will be FINISHED—completed: “The church of the first born,” of which Jesus is the head. will soon cease to be, God manifest in the flesh. The entire company shall be glorified together, and “shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Malt. 13:43.) They shall arise in power and strength to bless all the nations of the earth. (Watch Tower, July 1882, p369 R) [Yes, you heard that right, Russell and company are not just Christ, they are also "God manifest in the flesh" -- that therefore includes Russell -- God manifest in the flesh, along with other specially consecrated believers, not all Christians, of course, but those with the "higher calling."]
Paul declares (Col. 1:27) that this mystery which hath been hid front ages and from generations, now made manifest to his saints, is “CHRIST IN YOU. THE HOPE OF GLORY.” This is the great mystery of God which has been hidden from all previous ages, and is still hidden from all except a special class—the saints, or consecrated believers. But what is meant by ‘Christ in you”? ... the Apostle John says that the anointing, which we (consecrated believers) have received abideth in us. (I John 2:27.) Thus the saints of this Gospel age are an anointed company—anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21, 1 Peter 2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute Jehovah’s anointed—the Christ. ( Divine Plan of the Ages, p.81-82) This was truly a mystery never before thought of—that God intends to raise up not only a deliverer, but a deliverer of many members. This the “high calling” to which the consecrated believers of the Gospel age are privileged to attain. (84) [You can see that Russell never got too far away from a Trinity Doctrine, but his Trinity was that God was made of The Father, The Son and the 144,000 , the rest of God manifest in the Flesh, the consecrated anointed believers of the high calling, the 144,000.]
"this is the mystery mentioned in the scriptures; to wit, that the great Messiah so long promised should be composed of many individuals." (Watch Tower, February 1, 1914, R p5392) ...that is to say, members of the Christ, the anointed, are the Christ. (Convention Report Sermons, p.460). THE promised Messiah, the Deliverer of the World, ...the Great Prophet, Priest and King, ...is not our Lord Jesus Christ alone...but also the little flock...these unitedly are the Christ, the Messiah. (Watch Tower, May 1903, R p.3191) There are literally dozens of other Watchtower articles and publications to this same point, but it's curious that this made Russell claim that he, along with Jesus and the rest of the 144,000 could also go by the name "God manifest in the flesh" "partakers of divine nature" "Everlasting Father" "The Great Prophet" "Immanuel" "Lifegiver" "Gods" (with a capital "g") "The Prophet Like Unto Moses."
We conclude then that the titles, Mighty God, and Everlasting Father, are titles which fully understood, are very appropriate to Our Lord Jesus Christ. And we might add that so perfectly is his Bride--body--church, associated with him, both in filling up the measure of the sufferings-- being joined in sacrifice and also in the Glory that shall follow, that the same titles are applicable to the Church as his body--for "He that hath freely given us Christ, shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" "Therefore all things are yours, and ye are Christ's and Christ is God's." (Watch Tower, October 1881,  R p.298) Under the heading "YE ARE GODS" (Watch Tower, November/December 1881, p.301)
"I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6. Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"--not any longer human, but "partakers of the divine nature." When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings--hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born." The Watchtower printed its last article in support of the Trinity doctrine in 1880, but here in 1881 (Nov/Dec), we have a new family of Gods, Jehovah the Father, all his sons and joint-heirs, and Jesus being the chief. Father, Son and 144,000. 144,002 Gods in one family of Gods.