ComfortMyPeople

There were just so many relevant quotes that I didn't take the time to type out the full month and year, just the page number with the F or R next to it. The F is a reference to the New Creation book, Volume 6 of Studies in the Scriptures. Those other references with just an R next to the number are the Watch Tower Reprint page numbers, which is, of course, the quickest way to refer to the entire set of Zion's Watch Tower and Watch Tower issues from 1879 to 1916. If you need to match them to a month and year, just go to http://www.htdbv8.com/  (Harvest Truth Data Base) and sort "Original Towers" by Ascending Chronological Order. All you have to do is recall a couple of unique words from the original article and it will likely show up on Google on one of the several Russell publication sites. I prefer agsconsulting.com to pick them up from. So ultimately the information is coming from Google searches.
If you are talking about some of the references to our beliefs about Armageddon from the 1940's through the 1970's (99.9% etc, these were recently discussed elsewhere on the forum.)

He did. I found a copy. Attached below. Try from about the 6 minute mark through the 9 minute mark.
Also note this picture from Rutherford's book Religion (1940) p.16. Notice the plumes on the head of the giant on the left?

This came from Seola:
"Mounted upon the back of each huge beast was a black dwarf robed in scarlet and holding a guiding wand in his hand. In front and rear were seen a band of gigantic men, clad also in scarlet, with black plumes upon their heads, and marshalled in battle array. These I knew must be the terrible beings of whom my father had spoken, Darvands, the offspring of angels and women..." (Seola - 1878, Page 63,4). The original Seola had two additional races joining humankind, giants and black dwarfs as slaves (because the author was a little bit racist). A&W got rid of the black slaves, and also got rid of all references to storms, clouds, and rain prior to the Flood, even references to clear skies, and changed them all to references about the hard-to-see-through firmament or "water canopy."
Other references to the giants in Seola describe them with headbands (as shown here and still shown in recent publications) and with leaves (shown here) and with talismans (perhaps shown here as what appears to be a rock in the hand).

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

A foghorn creates a sound that cuts through the fog. So if you meant that as a compliment, thanks. But that wasn't my intent because I was merely stating something based on Russell's own words. I realize that he distinguished himself from pure "universal salvation" believers. My point was that, if we don't dismiss Russell's own words, we can see that he was much closer to a universal salvation believer than we are (as JWs) and therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that Russell may have expected many demons to repent, even though they were perfect and we tend to view loss of perfection as rebellion. After all, he expected most of humankind to live on the earth, and most Christians (of all varieties) to go to heaven.
Many of us grew up with the very different ideas about salvation that Rutherford started to push and which Fred Franz promoted with numbers attached. Franz gave talks and wrote articles assuring us that BILLIONS would be destroyed forever at Armageddon, even putting the percentage of those who would be slaughtered at 99.9% on the side of Satan. Because of this we might not easily understand that Russell, while not a Universalist, tended to agree with them to an extent quite different from most other Christian religions of his time.
When Russell wrote an article on Universal Salvation he made points that would seem agreeable to many of them: [R 1436,7,8]
UNIVERSAL SALVATION.  "We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe."--1 Tim. 4:10. It is very generally conceded among Christians that Universalists are the only class of people who have any claim upon, or use for, this text of Scripture; but although we are not Universalists, we also, with Paul, trust in the living God [Jehovah], who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe. Thus the Apostle declares that in one sense the salvation which God has promised is to be universal, while in another sense it is to be restricted to believers. . . . But, while thus the Savior of all, there is a particular or special sense in which God is the Savior of those that believe and accept this reconciliation and the opportunity offered of making it everlasting salvation. This salvation is conditional: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31.) This is an unequivocal promise of actual and permanent salvation to every individual who believes, i.e., heartily accepts. To such an one, God not only stands in the attitude of a savior, ready and willing to save, but he will go farther and actually accomplish his salvation; and this is the special sense in which he is the Savior of them that believe. . . . Others, while claiming that God is willing and ready to save all, practically deny it by claiming that the necessary believing must be done in the present life-- which practically excludes three-fourths of the race from any opportunity of sharing in it, since more than that proportion have died without any knowledge of the only name given under heaven or among men, whereby we must be saved. This view contradicts God's Word; because for even one member of the human race to be left unprovided for--to be left without the needful information and opportunity-- would render false the statement which God makes, that he stands as a Savior to all men. The entire matter is clear, however, when viewed from the standpoint of the Plan of the Ages-- which shows that through the redemptive work of Christ God has provided salvation for all from all that "was lost" in Adam; and that the knowledge necessary to the acceptance of this provided gift, while it has reached only the few in the present life, is to be testified to all in due time--in the coming age, in which Christ and his Church shall reign over and bless, with his gracious offer, all the families of the earth. We should keep in mind that Russell (and Rutherford for many years) also had quite a different view of Armageddon than that which developed over time in the Watch Tower publications. Today, many Witnesses fret over what will happen with Hindus and Buddhists, for example, many still thinking that Jehovah must destroy any and all (plus their kids!) who had some opportunity to hear the good news as preached by us, because any who had a good heart condition would surely have rushed over to our side. How else can horses be practically swimming in blood?
Relative to the beliefs we held in the 1940's through the 1970's, Russell was more of a believer in universal salvation.

I notice that none of those quotes you gave indicate that Adam will NOT be resurrected. Most of the time, this idea about Adam being resurrected or at least ransomed and redeemed was "buried" in the expression "Adam and his race" which I will show below. But first there is a very clear expression of it here:
We should not forget that Adam and Eve in some respects foreshadowed Christ and the Church. Jesus personally is the great Savior of mankind, whose death constitutes the Ransom-price for the sins of Adam and the entire race. He is to be the Great Life-Giver, or Father of mankind. During His Millennial Reign He will give back earthly life to Adam and as many of his race as will receive it  -- Watch Tower, December 1912, p.373 R.5141 There are others just as explicit as that one, but most of the time, the reason the point is missed is because of the more complex expressions mentioned above, which I will highlight in some of these below:
Under the divine arrangement the redemption of Adam from condemnation of death will ultimately affect all of his race, to the extent of releasing them from the sentence of death, and to the further extent of furnishing them the light, the knowledge and the opportunity of coming into Christ; but it will be only those who will avail themselves of this privilege, and come into Christ, that will be made alive, in the full, proper sense of that word--lifted up out of death completely. (F698 New Creation) Thus, too, Adam was not given an uncounted experience with sin, but for his first transgression was sentenced so completely that nothing short of a ransom could release him from his sin and its penalty, death.  R1261 He who redeemed or purchased back Adam and his race from the sentence of death R1261 No subject occupies a more important place in God's Word than the resurrection, except those two other doctrines so closely identified with it--the ransom, which is the basis of all hope in a resurrection, and the second coming of the Lord to establish his kingdom, under which the fruit of the ransom (resurrection) shall be extended to Adam and his race in general. R1258 The death which Jesus experienced was exactly the same kind as the one which destroyed Adam-- the soul of Jesus died, as the ransom price for the soul of Adam (including Adam's posterity). R4994 it was necessary for Jesus to become "the second Adam" as a perfect man that as the Second Adam he might give his life a ransom-price for the first Adam, thus redeeming him and incidentally all of his posterity. R4556 There is, however, no sentient being in the sense of consciousness, or knowledge, or appreciation of pain or joy, or of any other experience, but the Divine Creator who first gave being has declared that in the case of Adam and his children it is his purpose to provide a Redeemer through whom all may be restored as completely as before they came under the death sentence.   R4657 Could be 100 more, but I think this should suffice for now. Even though Russell was not always consistent with himself, I have never seen a quote from him that could clearly mean the opposite.
 

I think these first two points got covered. It's interesting that we don't have much information on just what it was that appealed to Russell. Russell apparently came pretty close to believing in "universal salvation" and this would include a number of fallen angels according to his thinking. He seemed sure that Adam, although perfect, would be resurrected to an opportunity to eternal life, although I don't recall if he was ever so sure of Eve's chances. I don't recall this being speculated about much lately, although most JWs will now say that Adam has little chance because he was perfect and was not deceived and therefore rebelled.
There are some Bible Students who claim that this book was sent to Russell in 1878. But right from the start, evidently, Russell saw it as a book that might enlighten his followers about spiritism. If this is true, he could have accepted it as an "automatic writing" book, where the author acted as a spirit medium. At least that's what later Bible Students implied. Some Bible Students evidently say that Russell knew the author, although this could have happened after he read the book and he might have made contact at that point. (The author was the wife of the Governor of Vermont.)
These first two points of the review, however, give no clue about those claims. Only that the book was in striking harmony with the Scriptural account in Genesis. So on to the third point.
The book throws light on the subject of the devil and demons and the influence they exercised both before the flood and and now again in the time period of the books publication: 1878-1924 or thereabouts. Just how it throws light on their influence is not clearly spelled out. The book will also aid those who carefully consider it to avoid the bad effects of spiritism.
If indeed the book came through a spirit medium, it's not clear exactly why Bible Students should buy this book to help them avoid the effects of spiritism. Does the book give us insight into the clever ways that the demons can influence us? Does it tell us something new?
So on to the fourth point:
For anyone who cares, the evidence points to a well-known Bible Student and long time personal friend of Russell named Ed W. Brenneisen, who lived in Dallas based on his letter to the Watchtower in 1900:
MY DEAR BROTHER:--We cannot ever hope to have you and the other dear brethren (who assisted so graciously and unselfishly in making the gathering at this place on Sept. 29, 30, and Oct. 1 such a profitable one for our spiritual growth and upbuilding) fully understand this side the second vail what a deep spirit of gratitude and love fills our hearts for you. In every possible respect has the convention passed beyond our greatest hopes, and to whom but our very present Lord can we ascribe such unmistakeable direction in even the minutest detail? To him and the glorious Father be all the praise and glory, yet we forget not to thank him for the humble, loving instrument he has used of late years, so effectually to dispense and serve present truth to the balance of the household of faith. May the Lord continue to keep and richly bless you as that faithful servant. With much love,   E. W. BRENNEISEN,--Dallas, Texas. In 1909, he was travelling as a convention speaker with Russell, MacMillan and others. The following is from the Nova Scotia convention. Other later (1915) convention reports show him also speaking with Van Ambergh, R.J.Martin, Menta Sturgeon and Rutherford.  Russell was the sole editor of the Watch Tower while he was alive, but listed 5 persons in his Will who would be on an Editorial Committee. These five persons were:
WILLIAM E. PAGE, WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH, HENRY CLAY ROCKWELL, E. W. BRENNEISEN, F. H. ROBISON [and if any of them were unable to fulfill they should choose the replacement from a secondary list of five alternate choices] A. E. Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo. H. Fisher (Scranton), J. F. Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar [whose names were never to be attached to any Watch Tower publications after Russell died]. I mention that last point from Russell's will because Brenneisen, being a close friend, might have been alert to the fact that Russell didn't want any of these brothers to attach their name to anything they wrote, which might explain some of the "secrecy" behind the A&W book. Of course, this became moot, because within a couple of days of Russell's death, Van Ambergh immediately sent a letter that started the process of getting members of the Editorial Committee to resign.  Page and Brenneisen both responded with letters announcing their resignation in time for the December 1916 issue, just one month after Russell died. Van Ambergh put the condition that they must live at Bethel to be on the committee, which was evident Page's letter, too. Rutherford and Hirsh immediately replaced them on the Editorial Committee.
I can't really tell what relationship he had with Rutherford, but I have only seen hints that it didn't start out well.
On to point #5:
I have documentation from the Society itself that printing the Finished Mystery was at a cost on the order of 20 cents, even though it was done by outside printers. This book, shorter and lighter, should have been about half that amount, or about 10 cents. I don't know how many were printed, but it must have been expected that this would be purchased by some in groups of 10 or more, meaning that there was an expectation that it would be redistributed in the same way that colporteurs and other book salesman were selling books in those days. Readers of the Golden Age were expected to see a great value in this book to order it in quantities of 10 or more. The profit per box would have been about $8.50 after shipping, but the profit per 10 sold separately would have been a lot more like $16.00 but would have been nearly 10 times the amount of work, and would probably require more marketing in the Golden Age.
It seems like a dirty trick to tell readers of this Watch Tower publication that this A&W book provided a good way to guard yourself from spiritism without admitting the part about it being produced (they believed) through a method that the Watch Tower had defined as spiritism.
I also find it odd that they would see the need to run an advertisement that ends with the words, this is not an advertisement.

This stuff is all very new to me. Until tonight I have never read about any spiritists, and the only one I'm learning anything about is Johannes Greber at the moment. If possible, I also plan to learn a bit about what Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) may have claimed that made Woodworth draw a comparison between himself and her. Russell and Woodworth seemed to imply that there were some similarities among the claims of "spiritists" so I suppose that any of these groups is a place to start. In the meantime, please tell whatever you think is relevant about this Atlantean Society. 
The following "foundation" material should be long enough that no one who doesn't really want to read it will want to read it.   Also, I normally would try to spend enough time to absorb a few hundred pages of material about the subject before I share anything, but I am getting a lot of the following from some sites I downloaded years ago, and I have not really checked out the material for myself yet. Page numbers for the references may even be off, because I do not own Greber's book and have no access to it. I only have direct access to the Watchtower's side of this story.
Johannes Greber wrote a book called "Communication with the Spirit World" in 1932, in which he claimed that it was a Christian's duty to communicate with the good spirits and be able to distinguish the bad ones.
If, therefore, we, as faithful servants of God, or at any rate, as honest seekers after the truth, try to get into touch with the world of good spirits we are committing no sin, but rather, obeying one of God's commandments; an important commandment, for only through contact with the world of good spirits can we arrive at the truth. There is no other way. . . .  From these fetters of error mankind can be freed only, if God will send his spirits as heralds of the truth. (Page 6, 7) At the same time, even throughout this same year, Rutherford claimed that because the "Holy Spirit" had ceased in 1918 that God was sending his angels as ministers and heralds of the truth for those in the Temple class.
Curiously, we just saw where Russell had spoken about the beliefs of spiritists as to whether the spirit was able to materialize only in the dark or also in the light. Russell said, this in 1911 which Woodworth re-quoted in the Finished Mystery in 1917 along with the idea about repentant fallen angels from Noah's day:
The "chains of darkness" we believe to be a figurative statement signifying that they were no longer permitted to materialize in the light and, generally, not able to materialize at all. (September 1911 Watch Tower) Greber had a lot to say on this very point, also discussing about 6 levels of spiritistic activity (often through mediums) that could include speech, speech through an inspirational medium, automatic writing, seance table tapping and materializing in the dark. Some, they say, could use material or materialized objects.
"It is therefore childish and a sign of your profound ignorance in such matters, to ridicule the fact that many spiritistic phenomena can be produced successfully only in the dark. Some of your scientists even assert that darkness is insisted upon only because it facilitates the concealment of 'spiritistic humbug'." (Page 91) On page 79, 80 of the book Greber discusses the phenomenon that lies behind the E.R.A. machines that the Society once promoted:
[This section of quotes has been moved to a later post; see below.] Greber also claimed that the way to keep from talking to a bad spirit was to have them take the vow. An oath, he called it, in the name of God that they were not lying.
"You know that I am telling you the truth in this, as I have done in all else. You have had plenty of proof of the fact that I am a truthful spirit. For this you have my oath, taken in the name of the Almighty, the true God." (p. 263) Speaking of oaths related to spiritism, "The Vow" that Russell pushed as a kind of loyalty oath was something that the Bethel family repeated every day as part of their morning worship, similar to a daily pledge of allegiance. This was the very item (The Vow) over which Woodworth says he came under the control of the demons, and about which the demons offered him true Biblical and spiritual knowledge. (Because, sometimes the demons tell the truth, he said.) It's what kept Woodworth from accepting that Russell was the Faithful and Discreet Slave, until Russell proved that he really was by pointing out a flaw in Woodworth's reasoning. Here is a portion from the 1975 Yearbook:
*** yb75 pp. 51-52 Part 1—United States of America ***
At Bethel was located C. T. Russell’s study. Downstairs was the dining room, with a long table that would accommodate forty-four persons. The family would assemble here to sing a hymn, read the “Vow” and join in prayer before breakfast. . . .Would you like to hear the vow that was daily impressed on their minds? Entitled “My Solemn Vow to God,” it goes like this: “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. May thy rule come into my heart more and more, and thy will be done in my mortal body. Relying on the assistance of thy promised grace to help in every time of need, through Jesus Christ our Lord, I register this Vow.. . . “I Vow to thee that I will be on the alert to resist everything akin to Spiritism and Occultism, and that, remembering that there are but the two masters, I shall resist these snares in all reasonable ways, as being of the Adversary. . . .Recitation of this vow was later discontinued among God’s people at Bethel and elsewhere. Another curious parallel between the Watchtower publications and Greber was that the medium Greber communicated with believed that the fallen angels could repent and be saved. On page 297 of Greber's book, he says that even Lucifer would ultimately be saved. The point is also repeated that Lucifer and Christ Jesus were brothers, Christ being made first, then Lucifer second. (Page 267-268). Rutherford also repeated this same point in his own books that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers.

I don't mind bringing it back to its A&W roots here. Angels and Women (A&W) was already discussed around these parts once, and I think you had apparently done some good research on it, if I remember right. I don't think it does much good to guess what was going on in the minds of Russell, Woodworth and Rutherford, but Allen pointed to the particular Golden Age magazine that provides an explanation for a start.
I think we can start there or even go back a little farther. (To the first announcement in The Golden Age, July 30, 1924, p. 702.) I have numbered some sentences and paragraphs of that article so I can reference them.
Review of Book    "ANGELS AND WOMEN" is the title of a book just off the press. It is a reproduction and revision of the novel, "Seola" which was written in 1878, and which deals with conditions prior to the flood. Pastor Russell read this book with keen interest, and requested some of his friends to read it because of its striking harmony with the Scriptural account of the sons of God described in the sixth chapter of Genesis. Those sons of God became evil, and debauched the human family prior to, and up to, the time of the great deluge. We call attention to this book because we believe it will be of interest to Bible Students, who are familiar with the machinations of the devil and the demons and the influence exercised by them prior to the flood and also now in this evil day. The book throws light on the subject and is believed, will aid those who carefully consider it to avoid the baneful effects of spiritism, now so prevalent in the world. The book is revised and published by a personal friend of Pastor Russell, and one who was close to him in his work. It is published by the A. B. Abac Company, New York city. The publishers advise that the regular price of the book is $2.00; but to all subscribers to The Golden Age, it will furnished at $1.00 per volume, when ordered in lots of ten or more. This is not an advertisement, but a voluntary comment. Remember that this is from the first announcement in July. It wasn't until December 1924 that they started explaining what they thought was most important about the book. The original book was written in 1878, which brings up an interesting question (speculative) about whether Russell read it prior to a point he made in the very first Watchtower in July 1879 when he said that truth is truth even if it comes from Satan. This was a phrase that both Rutherford and Woodworth re-quoted from Russell on occasion.
But Russell said more on the subject. I don't want to skip too much from context so I will only deal with this first point from the numbered paragraphs above in this post:
In a 1911 Watch Tower, with the same idea repeated again in 1914, Russell claimed that some of the "fallen angels" were probably already being judged in fulfillment of Paul's words saying "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" Russell thought these would be the same angels held in Tartarus in bonds of dense darkness. But now released with a higher degree of freedom. Depending on how they handled this freedom, some would no doubt be repentant and gain forgiveness. The following is from the September 1911 Watch Tower in the article: "The Judgment of the Angels." Keep in mind that the theory behind the promotion of the book "Angels and Women" was that it was dictated in 1878 by one of the fallen angels who had repented and desired to do God's will. Since about this time, the anointed might even have currently (since 1878 at least) held some kind of power over them and might be involved in judging them.
-------------------------rest of this post is a long quotation from the 1911 Watchtower--------------------------
THEIR JUDGMENT PROBABLY NOW
We have answered in previous issues of THE WATCH TOWER that this trial will be, we believe, at the very beginning of this Great Day. And why at the beginning? For the reason that there is only one way, so far as we can see, in which these fallen angels can have a trial, their trial consisting in having a fuller opportunity to sin, if they so desire, or an opportunity to show, if they wish, that they are sick of sin and desire to return to harmony with God. . . .
THEY ARE CONFINED TO EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE
The Apostles Peter and Jude tell us that after their wrong course these angels were separated from association with the heavenly and holy angels, who were in harmony with God, and were cast down to tartarus, to our earth's atmosphere, "to be reserved in chains of darkness until the Judgment of the Great Day." What does that expression mean? The "chains of darkness" we believe to be a figurative statement signifying that they were no longer permitted to materialize in the light and, generally, not able to materialize at all. But of late spiritists claim, and we believe truthfully, that these spirits can now materialize in as real and tangible flesh as any human being possesses. As they state, and as the facts prove, this can be done only under certain circumstances; they still have a great deal of difficulty in materializing in the light. The "chains of darkness" still seem to be on them to some extent.
Spiritists further claim, however, that the spirits are breaking these bonds and that gradually they will be able to do fully in the light everything that they can now do in the dark, and even more than this. The Bible corroborates what the spiritists claim, only that the spiritists teach that these things are done by the dead; who, the spirits tell, are more alive after death than before. Spiritists assert that it is the spirits of dead human beings that materialize. But the Bible takes the opposite position and says that these spirits are the fallen angels, and that so far as humanity are concerned, the dead are totally dead and must remain so until the resurrection.
So, then, the Bible and the Spiritists are in decided conflict; and yet there is this harmony that we speak of, namely, that at the time of the Judgment of the Great Day we may expect the bonds restraining these spirits to be loosened. Of course God could hold them in restraint; but He will now permit these fallen angels to have a great lease of liberty. Then will come to them a great trial and testing, or judgment, in respect to their willingness or unwillingness to do according to the Divine will.
SOME OF THEM PROBABLY REPENTANT
It would not surprise us if some of the fallen angels who sinned in the past have repented and have had long centuries of experience with the unrepentant ones; and that these have suffered persecutions from those of evil mind. And so there may thus be two classes among the fallen angels; the one class desirous of doing the will of God and the other class, like Satan himself, wilfully opposed to the will of God. The trial time will prove each of these angels and manifest to which class each belongs.
We think, too, that we see in the Scriptures a passage which we had not seen with the same force before --a Scripture that seems to give a thought along this very line. It seems to imply that at a very near date probably these fallen angels will have wonderful power, such as they have never had since the days of the flood, and that this wonderful power will be used in a very malevolent manner, to stir up mankind to evil doing; and that this will be the key, the secret connected with the awful time of trouble which the Bible tells us will mark the conclusion of this Age and which will constitute the forerunner or beginning of the New Dispensation.
. . .
The Bible says that Satan is the Prince of the Power of the Air, that he is the Prince of Demons. (Eph. 2:2; Matt. 9:34.) Therefore we understand that in this symbolical sense "the powers of the air" are the demons; that these powers of the air that are being held until the saints of God shall have been sealed in their foreheads, are these fallen angels. As soon as the power that is now controlling them shall be removed, we shall have a reign of evil all over the earth. The evil spirits will do all the evil that is in their power, and this will constitute the trial of all the fallen angels--the lifting of the restraints to see whether they will go contrary to the Divine will. All who thus manifest their alliance with evil in any way will become subjects of the Second Death; while others who show their loyalty to God will mark themselves as worthy, presumably, of everlasting life.
It may be something in connection with the saints that will constitute the test of these angels. However, we need not wait many years until we shall know.
 
 

There is nothing wrong with the single idea that the due time is near. Even if it is 1,000 years in the future, it is nearer now than when we first became believers. The book of Revelation appears intended to bring that day "close in mind." It makes it easier to imagine by giving us imagery and symbols that make us desirous of getting through the "pangs of distress" as @John Houston mentioned, and finally reaching the "new heavens and new earth" of Revelation 21 and 22. Revelation itself mentions that the "due time is near."
(Revelation 1:1-3) 1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near. Peter provides a good commentary that fits both Revelation and Jesus' revelation in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Peter gives us a practical way to view these revelations about Christ's parousia.
(1 Peter 4:7-10) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. (2 Peter 3:11-13) 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 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. 2 Peter 1 pointed out that Christ's parousia could be 1,000 years off, or even on the order of 1,000's of years off. People would even be ridiculing Christians for the fact that things are still going on as they always were, so that it was obvious that the parousia had not yet begun. They were already doing that when the letters of 2 Peter and Jude were being written. People were still doing that in the year 1000 C.E. and 2000 C.E, and although it gets harder to see how things could go one, Jehovah might even allow things to go on to 3000 C.E. But this does not mean that the end is not "near" or "close." Then end of all things, the day of the Lord, could arrive tonight at 6:30 p.m. But for all of us , it is as near as the end of our own lifetime, after which our very next thought or breath would be in the "new heavens and new earth." No matter what, that's how Christians should live their lives.

The topic bellow is not accepting any further comments so I have no choice but to start another topic, although this thread will probably be really short...
I  wanted to comment on this remark made by @Alessandro Corona : "Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has".
That the book was written through automatic angel writing is mere speculation and not based on any know facts.  The publishers Leopold Classic Library commented on its re- print: ....."our view is that this is a significant literary work, which deserves to be brought back into print after many decades...... We hope that you will enjoy this wonderful classic book”  I have the book, and agree with both Leopold publishing and Br. Herd (if he really said anything like what was quoted). It is a romantic novel of the caliber of well known classics and if you can get a hold of it (Amazon has it) then I recommend it for your library.
I think the rumour originally got started because it was said that  Ms. Ann Eliza Smith, the author, had never read the Bible and despite that, her observations regarding that time (antediluvian) were remarkably accurate so much so that is was deemed she must have had this information communicated to her via an angel. I find it unlikely that she didn’t know anything about the Bible since most people at that time did, and one of her other novels (From dawn to sunrise) apparently deals with “the historical and philosophical religious ideas of mankind”. She herself says that : “the theory upon which the story is founded is in strict accordance with the sacred writings of the Hebrews and traditions of other ancient nations”.
Anyway, for those who want to know more about the novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seola
Note what the footnote says about the music that she said had inspired her: “A book review publisher called, "Good Company-Sunday Afternoon: A magazine for the household" released an article on the novel Seola in 1878. The magazine believed the compositions that motivated Smith to write the novel was the prelude to the “Creation”, one of Strauss’s waltzes, a scrap of a symphony of Saint Saens, and Wagner’s Centennial March, all played simultaneously in a small room”. 
Also note the reason Br. Russell recommended the book was because: "we believe it will be of interest to Bible Students, who are familiar with the machinations of the devil and the demons and the influence exercised by them prior to the flood and also now in this evil day. The book throws light on the subject and is believed, will aid those who carefully consider it to avoid the baneful effects of spiritism, now so prevalent in the world".
Of course this kind of reasoning was very popular at the time because as was said "spiritism was now so prevalent in the world"*. However now, we would just consider the novel an interesting read as any other, well written story, (that was made up but based on facts), would be.
*It seems the popularity of spiritism (called spiritualism by wikipedia) got it's modern start in Europe and the USA in the late 1800's with the "help" of the Fox sisters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_sisters
 
 
 
 

Important for the appointment of elders
The Australian government will also decide on the appointment of the elderly.
New enforcement act requires the bodies of the elderly to be legally examined if the new possible appointments are free of charge of paedophilia.
Only if the ruling reports that the person has no criminal record of problems with children, he may receive the new card that allows him to deal with children.
Among other things, it is ascertained whether there is a criminal record and the person in the past was already noticeable in the treatment of children. This method is based on the recommendations of the royal commission which had been investigated by Jehovah's witnesses in 2017 in July 2015 and March.
Until now the only question to the candidate on the issue of appointments was: " have you ever harassed or sexually abused a child?" And of course, the answer depends on sincerity.
The appointed elders or service assistants who have successfully passed the check will receive a pass to enable them to work with children. If the appointees act without this card, this results in extreme fines. Possibly even a prison sentence.
This review also applies to the elderly and previously appointed service workers. On Wednesday, 13 September, during a meeting in Sydney, the appointment of a ministerial servant was announced, with the reference to the working with children check.
Known by public and Brother Elders Letter 
Will this spread to the rest of the civilized world?

I imagine the US government would do the same if New England tried to secede. 

I know that the counsel about not exposing dirty laundry is sincere, and for this I thank you. As far as I can tell, such counsel should not apply to this particular situation. Obviously, then, we see our duty in this regard quite differently, and so, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15,  I feel I should explain. 
The dirty laundry is already hung up for everyone to see. This is the Internet. Anyone can simply Google the information claimed in the original post of this topic, and they will discover that there is plenty more information out there. As usual, some of it is true and some of it is false.
So we are back to discussing the old dilemma about whether we should reveal truth in response to falsehood, or just ignore it. For the most part, we just ignore it. But there are times when it is obvious that the person posting does not necessarily know that the claims contain false charges. Or perhaps they know for sure that the information is skewed toward the false but that there is still some truth in it, and yet, other people who read the skewed information may not know what to believe. Perhaps they think it's all true, or all false. Perhaps their first instinct is to call the whole thing "rubbish." But what if calling something "rubbish" is not really honest either, because perhaps it contains more truth than falsehood? Is there any value to pointing out the error? What if an interested person who has Googled the information now sees us as a people who are just too anxious to cover up facts?
Through private messaging on this forum someone just asked me why I think JWs have so much turnover. I know that we are always anxious to say that our moral standards and expectations are very high and we are expected to judge those people who leave on their own as persons who just didn't want to live up to those expectations. But in speaking to many of these persons, we often come away with a different picture. I think it's more of a matter of realizing that nothing is quite as perfect as it appears at first. When people first study and are baptized, it is with the understanding that we have the only true religion in the entire earth. Therefore, it is expected to be the most perfect. Even though they are warned that it isn't perfect, it still sets up the highest expectations. Then they learn that not all the brothers and sisters live up to the moral standards as well as they expected. They learn about or perhaps see examples of lack of love, or even racism, shunning, child abuse, or gossip. When they are disappointed, they often start to believe that there is no religion that is really what it claims to be, and they often leave all religion altogether. In spite of the focus of ex-JWs online, I think it's rarely about past JW or IBSA history, or related issues with doctrine.
If this were merely about the error of a brother or sister who made a false step in the past, then we would do best to just ignore it. Love covers a multitude of sins. But what if the errors are being denied specifically because it would reflect on the trustworthiness of current doctrine?
That last question reminds me of your own statement here:
Does telling the truth about the past undermine respect for information we now get from the same channel? What you said appears to be an inadvertent admission that it does. If it does, then it is probably all the more important that we offer a true and honest perspective. I should mention that personally, I don't even see much real importance in wallowing in the problems of yesterday or last week, much less the problems of 100 years ago. This applies to the Governing Body, too. I know that one person here often comments that no one should try to use the past examples of Bible Students to shed light on our current beliefs as JWs, even if we consider the same "Governing Body" to have begun in 1919. But I don't even consider the Governing Body of last year to be the exact same "channel" as the Governing Body of this year, even if they be the same persons. That's partly because none of us are expected to be the same from day to day:
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18) 16 . . .  certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. . . . 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting. On the other hand, it must necessarily be the case that if an honest approach to the Governing Body's past can undermine the respect for the present Governing Body, then this is almost a direct admission that both the present and the past is being misrepresented. And, of course, it's easy to show that we regularly misrepresent our past almost every time we print a book about it or make a claim about it. We do it as individual humans and we do it as an organization. It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are. It's what's behind the instinct to call something "obviously rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbledygook" even if it's more true than false. (That's the reason that I included that paragraph about Rutherford that you reviewed as you did. In fact, there was a lot more truth to it than falsehood. Not just as a Bible Student, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Rutherford really did believe that the holy spirit was no longer available to us after 1918, and that new truths could now be revealed with the direct help of angels. And the idea that Jehovah's throne was in Alcyone, the brightest star of Pleiades, was still being promoted and taught from the 1880's into the 1930's, and not dropped officially until well into Knorr's presidency in November 1953. Details available upon request.)
One of the most dangerous problems among many Witnesses that we can see today is the equivalence that is made between the Governing Body and Jehovah. Surely this is what serves the same interests of the one behind spiritism. Idolatry is also something Jehovah hates.
On this forum, several persons who have presented themselves as sincere Witnesses have recently said that the way we "follow the Lamb wherever he goes," is to follow the Governing Body wherever they go. They have said that they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR than to accept the Bible where it is known to differ from the current teachings of the Governing Body. The slave has become greater than his master. Witnesses here have defended having this kind of faith in men even where they KNOW personally that something is amiss.
This is a good reason to be completely honest, and not try to whitewash either the present or the past. I think it's important to show that we are not trying to please men, and to make it clear why we should NOT put our faith in princes, nobles, or any humans, where we feel that faith is related to salvation:
(Psalm 146:3) “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." (Luke 16:15) “. . .For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

How do you understand Br. Jackson’s summary?
 
I didn’t think it was relevant to the topic, but I can give an example of fallibility, again using what Br. Jackson said in the previous quote: “and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light"
 
I am not questioning that God has the “power” to use whichever avenue he chooses to communicate, even today.  I am saying that it is reasonable to conclude that the avenue he is using today is his inspired Word, because with it “the man of God is fully equipped”  and needs nothing else. (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Anything we as JWs have ever taught always goes back to the Bible, even if our understanding of some of it has been erroneous in the past.
This brings me to your next question
We all have the Bible, and we can all pray for holy spirit. Which means we can all be guided by it, by means of the Bible, similarly to the GB. “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”( Luke 11:13), “for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.” (Luke 12:12)  etc.
WT 12/1/15 mentions:  Making Study Time More Enjoyable and Productive
“The first step to take is to pray. (Ps. 42:8) Why? We should consider the study of God’s Word to be part of our worship. Therefore, we need to ask Jehovah to put us in the proper frame of mind and to give us his holy spirit. (Luke 11:13) Says Barbara, a longtime missionary: “I always pray before I read or study the Bible. After that, I feel that Jehovah is with me and that he approves of what I am doing.” Prayer before study opens our mind and heart to accept fully the abundant spiritual food that is before us”.
There are thousands more examples of how we all have the same capability, all you need to do is enter “holy spirit” , "Bible" and  "prayer" into the word search in your WT library….
When Jesus talks about the Slave in Matthew 24:45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time”  I notice  that Jesus never says they will have some special understanding  that no one else will be capable of, or that they will have an exclusive channel of communication or means of getting information other than the Bible. Jesus merely says that the Slave will be in charge of dispensing the spiritual food. Jesus also said he, not the Slave or any other man, will be with all of us as the head of the Christian congregation. 
So, where the slave differs to us is that they are anointed, and charged with the dispensing of spiritual food to the domestics, of which they are also a part. (Of course we know that the anointing itself isn’t a guarantee that the person will stay anointed forever, that can change).
 
 
 

Well,....the Awake #3  in the topic IS THE BIBLE REALLY FROM GOD?  “INSPIRED”—WHAT DOES IT MEAN? states: .....the expression “inspired of God” means that the Source of the information in those writings is God......... Some Bible writers actually heard God’s message conveyed audibly by an angel. Others saw visions from God. In some cases, God communicated his message in the form of dreams   
The Insight book  p. 1206  says this: Inspiration The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source…….. “Inspired Expressions”—True and False. The Greek word pneu′ma (spirit) is used in a special manner in some apostolic writings. At 2 Thessalonians 2:2, for example, the apostle Paul urges his Thessalonian brothers not to get excited or shaken from their reason “either through an inspired expression [literally, “spirit”] or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” It is clear that Paul uses the word pneu′ma (spirit) in connection with means of communication, such as the “verbal message” or “letter.” For this reason Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (p. 126) says on this text: “By this the Apostle intends a spiritual suggestion, pretended prediction, utterance of a prophet.” (Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976) Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament states: “By spirit. By prophetic utterances of individuals in Christian assemblies, claiming the authority of divine revelations.” (1957, Vol. IV, p. 63) Thus, while some translations simply render pneu′ma in this and similar cases as “spirit,” other translations read “message of the Spirit” (AT), “prediction” (JB), “inspiration” (D’Ostervald; Segond [French]), “inspired expression” (NW)".
So, the Slave is not inspired i.e. does not receive any communications from the spirit realm. But they are spirit directed (as we all are to a certain extend) and there is a difference.
I will let Br. Jackson explain what it means being spirit directed:
Q By what mechanism would you understand God's spirit to direct your decisions?
Br. Jackson:  "Well, what I mean by that is, by prayer and using our constitution, God's word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision - and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light.  So we would view that as God's spirit motivating us because we believe the Bible is God's word and came by means of holy spirit". Source: ARC public hearing
So in summary, to say that one of the anointed may have received some kind of communication from one of the anointed in heaven regarding the great crowd is not in line with anything we believe regarding that kind of communication happening IN OUR DAY. The way Jehovah communicates with us today is through the Bible.

@AllenSmith I don't know why you quoted most of
the the WT. The problem is not when the resurrection to heaven was to have taken place but these assumptions:
and
Both these statements are speculative.
This is basically saying that Rutherford was contacted by one of the resurrected anointed and told (in a vision or a dream perhaps?) who the great crowd was. Is this likely, considering that Jehovah does not communicate like this with anyone on earth today? It makes no logical sense. We know the Slave is not inspired, and we also know communication with the spirit world, except with Jehovah, through Jesus, by means of prayer, is forbidden.  So the idea about communication between the anointed in heaven and earth TODAY is not Scriptural at all. The only thing that leads us today is the holy spirit, Jehovah's active force, and as we know, anyone can ask for it and receive it, and it is not a person.

I know. This is the craziest idea ever put in writing in any of our magazines. When I read it at the time I couldn't believe it...especially when used to support the identity of the great crowd and in turn to support the resurrection occurring between 1914 and 1935.  I wonder who came up with that idea and how it could have been sanctioned. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect in Russell's day, not 10 years ago! I think I've already had a rant about this somewhere, if yes, sorry for the repetition

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.
The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.
The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.
So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.
 

Quite right. And I suspect necessarily so. Unfortunately, human emotion is a powerful driver of action that crosses the boundaries that Jehovah sets. Jeremiah made that clear at Jer.10:23. Although it is simple to state that in a case of disfellowshipping, " blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue", to what extent should this be applied? Many left to their own devices will over-restrict, or excercise too much lattitude, despite the desire of Jehovah to dignify us with principle rather than law. As an example of the latter: "In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally)." WT 1981 15 Sep.
So someone has to set a bar somewhere at times. Parents have this right: Eph.6:4, and the same applies to those with shepherding responsibilty in the congregation: Heb.13:17.
For example, despite the fact that at the start of the Christian congregation when about 3000 or so joined "All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed." Acts 2:41-47. They didn't need detailed directions on this matter one would have thought, not with love as a fruitage of the abundantly present holy spirit surely?.  But, a little later, with numbers growing, we find "the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."  Acts 6:1. How could this possibly be? How could true, spirit anointed, spirit-gifted Christians be so self-centered and heartless?  
We know that the measures taken to deal with this matter would have necessitated specific directions. (Acts 6:3-6). The apostles left the logistics of this to suitably qualified representatives. Would those directions have been put in place by Jehovah? Or was it more a case of Jehovah allowing humans to make the arrangements to deal with a specific matter at that time.
I know this is different from the logistics of how we implement the scriptural requirement to "quit mixing in company" with unrepentant serious sinners to whom we are related. But the principle is that responsible shepherds in the congregation at times MUST make rules, in this case, to ensure the spritual cleanness and safety of the members of the congregation. 
Sometimes, the placing and implementation of a rule made by human representatives in Jehovah's organisation will elicit the following response:
But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?
Really, it is to Jehovah (and of course Jesus, the Head of the Christian congregation) that those charged with shepherding responsibility will answer. We surely know that, as the principle earthly shepherds today, the Governing Body are as subject to the direction of Jesus as Head of the Christian congregation as were those of the first century described in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. And this applies to all with shepherding responsibility. And in discharging that responsibility, rules have to be made, even tightened up at times, unpopular though this might be. Otherwise, how would the words of the wise ones ever serve as oxgoads? Ecc.12:11.
Extrapolating on what is not included in the video is interesting, but we can make many alternative scenarios can't we? Obviously Sonya was set in her wrong course. She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave. To liken her to Aaron's sons might be a pointer to the extent of her bad attitude. She could always have returned to the Kingdom Hall at any time, but there is no indication she ever tried to set matters straight over the many years. Surely the visit by the elders before her return was not the only attempt made to get her to return over the years. There are many possible scenarios there. What is important is the outcome, and I am certain this drama is factual having seen many similar incidents.
But really, you know this and quite rightly you have stated that
Of your own conduct I think you mean, but is He not also Judge of those who provide the counsel we follow today? Or do not follow for that matter? Best result always comes to those who wait on Jehovah and work with what He allows.
Pro.19:21 The Living Bible
 

Agreed JWI ... in context, you are exactly right.

JTR, where we differ in our view point is that I do not believe that shunning disfellowshipped ones is being used for the consolidation of arbitrary political power and to generate fear among the cowardly.  I have no reason to believe that. (Just like I have no reason to believe Br. Herd would wear a 25K Rolex, knowing there are friends out there struggling on the brink of poverty).  I believe those who impose these things genuinely believe it is the right thing to do. That does not mean I am going to agree with it, nor do as they say, and I will let Jehovah be the Judge.

Come back to me on that after you've seen the video  Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers .

I definitely don't want to be doing that. But can you see the difference between the 1981 counsel
and the 1974 counsel
I see a big difference in the spirit of the admonition. (And especially so after watching the video)
Very true, and I feel the same way
Yes, true of course. That would be something the family who wishes to have contact with a disfellowshiped one would keep in mind. It would not be something that would be flaunted.
But that's the thing, I do not feel that I am running ahead or criticising anything that Jehovah has put in place, because I do no think Jehovah has put it in place! Not in the way it is being applied NOW, as per the video you will see on Tuesday, or whenever your midweek meeting is. (I know you are probably stating this generally and not specifically pointing at me, although if the cap fits it should be worn).
I do like your example of Abraham and Sarah.
I have a feeling it's not the actual discipline of "excommunication"  that they have a problem with, I think it's the right to associate with loved ones, regardless of what they may have done. Again, the WT of 74 points that out too: " Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring"  One can exercise that right whichever way one wants. Someone may not want to have anything to do with a relative who is a cold blooded murderer. But then there are others who will stick to their offspring regardless. However, we, JWs, are being told not to have anything to do with an "excommunicated" loved one.  One of the questions to the video is  "What helped them (Sonia's parents) to remain loyal? " Answer paraphrased from the video: "What helped them to remain loyal to Jehovah all these years I was disfellowshipped was the Bible account of Aaron...how he was told not to mourn over his sons who were  killed by Jehovah to show the entire nation they supported Jehovah’s judgement".  See how the entire spirit has changed? Now the right of blood relatives to see each other has become "pretend they don't even exist".
The other question was " How did their loyalty to Jehovah benefit Sonja"? Answer paraphrased from the video: "They knew, if they had associated with me even a little, just to check on me, that small dose of association might have satisfied me.  It could make me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah".  I have always felt there was something wrong with returning to Jehovah so one could associate with family again. Matt 22:37
We know Sonia was disfelowshiped for more than 15 years. One of her children looks like they could be at least 12. We are never told whether Sonia married her children's father and there is not a single mention of Eric again (the guy she got disfellowshiped for) She may have continued to live an immoral life, and after Eric had a dozen boyfriends, smoked pot and had each of the two children by a different man. But somehow, I have a feeling it would have been mentioned that she continued living an immoral life. What seems most likely though is that she married the man with whom she had the children. We also see that the grandparents had nothing to do with the grandchildren as this would have been indicated somewhere. When they started going to the KH they all sat at the back in the second school like outcasts. That was made clear. It doesn't even indicate that the children celebrated Christmas or birthdays. All in all it seems that Sonia's only "crime" all those years was that she remained disfellowshipped because she had not made formal steps to come back to the congregation.
 
 

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article. When it comes to the thoughts of early Christianity, I can only assume that "a god" is closer and much better than translating "the God." (THE God is understood, of course, by just translating "God" in a monotheistic context.) But I think that Paul explains it even better by saying:
(Philippians 2:6-10) 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— (Colossians 2:8-10) . . .to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.
 
The basic idea is shown in the word for "godship" is pretty much the same as our word "divinity."
*** Rbi8 Colossians 2:9 ***
“Divine quality.” Lit., “godship.” Gr., the·oʹte·tos; Lat., di·vi·ni·taʹtis. *** Rbi8 Romans 1:20 ***
“Godship.” Gr., Thei·oʹtes, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹni·tas. *** Rbi8 Acts 17:29 ***
“Divine Being.” Gr., Theiʹon, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹnum. But although very common, the definite article is not always necessary to refer to THE God. It's still sometimes dependent on context. We don't translate "In a beginning, the Word . . . " just because the definite article is missing. And it could go either way here in John 1:49
(John 1:49) . . .Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (NWT) This would just as proper as:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” (not NWT, but common in other translations) But it would sound odd to say:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are a King of Israel.” But I think even this last one is just as OK as saying "a god" in John 1:1. That's because there might have been so much emphasis on the word "King." It's as if Nathanial was saying, you are not just here as a man, you are here as a KING!!!
I think that's quite possibly a way to look at John 1:1. Saying "a god" is just fine as long as we remember that the point was saying the same thing, that Jesus was not just in heaven as any other angelic being, but Jesus was in heaven as a GOD!!!
 

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.
I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.
One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . . When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.” Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains: “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”  

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.
This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).
Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.
Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)
So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)
But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.
But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.
But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.
John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.