Foreigner

I woke up this morning and was pleased to see a red 17 on the notifications bell at the top of this page. I thought that perhaps someone had made some thoughtful posts to read.
Alas and alack! All 17 were just down-votes from @Foreigner (Allen Smith's [BTK's] long-running spamming account).

You probably remember the time about 4 years ago, when I first mistook Allen Smith for a disgruntled ex-JW trying to make JWs look bad. At that time I came to the defense of other Witnesses on here (the old jw-archive.org forum at the time) and made it clear that all other Witnesses that I know, or have ever known, weren't at all like him. I certainly hope you not playing a game just to make JWs look bad.
Then again, you appear to think that my goal is to make JWs look bad, although I would say that I'm pushing for improvements. Even if you can't see a need for any improvements in processes and doctrines, you might still understand why others could want better explanations for certain difficult doctrines, and want more transparency when it comes to certain decisions and policies.
At any rate, I still find many of your points interesting, especially when you are talking to others here. When you talk to me, however, you seem to give up too easily, avoiding evidence offered, and offering non-responsible material in return. You do yourself no favors by merely lashing out with ad hominem vitriol, because it makes it look like you didn't have anything reasonable to offer.
For example, I asked:
You're answer was this:
Maybe it's just me, but I really can't get the sense of this answer. I can't see how it lets your reasonableness be known to all.
(Titus 3:2) " . . .  to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable."

No, of course God does not want us to misuse nor misunderstand scripture, and to understand scripture we need to ask God for help, which as you mention is the holy spirit. But holy spirit can only do so much. Since we are all free moral agents, but are imperfect at the same time, we CAN make mistakes in understanding where holy spirit is leading "us" (the person in question). Just because the holy spirit guides, doesn't mean that someone is capable of following it perfectly all the time.  Look how long it took Jonah to finally do what he was told. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) including the anointed. I think one of your problems John is you are waiting for someone to interpret the scriptures to you perfectly.  But the irony is, how would you know? How would you know what that one person is saying is better than what another person is saying? Jesus gave people identifying marks so we can recognize his true followers. It's not complicated. Matthew 7:21, John 13:35, John 17:16 etc... The Bible  lets us know clearly and unambiguously what is important to God. That's not complicated either. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 1 Corinthians 5:11, Ephesians 4:28, Colossians 3:8, Corinthians 7:1, 1 Timothy 5:8, Galatians 5:20, 21 etc....
Perhaps they are not going beyond what is written. How would you know?
Yes, in fact God and Jesus want us to be obedient; "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account"... (Heb 13: 17)
But complete obedience is first and foremost to God. It's a no brainier. The GB know that. Yes, God and Jesus support trustworthy older men. Paul told Timothy: "You, therefore, my child, keep on acquiring power in the undeserved kindness that is in Christ Jesus;  and the things you heard from me that were supported by many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men, who, in turn, will be adequately qualified to teach others". (2 Tim 2:2). And as you know, not only do God and Jesus trust older men, but they trust all Christians who strive to obey God, since they entrust them with "shining as illuminators" and with preaching the good news
"“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house.  Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" (Matt 5:14-16)
 

To be honest @JOHN BUTLER, I just couldn't be bothered to give you a detailed reply because your reasoning is so out of whack. But here goes:
As far as I am aware there is not much difference between an error and a mistake, they are just synonyms of each other. Once you put the adjective "deliberate"  in front of any of those words, then it changes the meaning to being  ummmm....deliberate, intentional, calculated, wilful etc. And no, I do not think their errors are deliberate. To which you will no doubt say I am brainwashed. It's good to have an opinion John, it doesn't mean someone is brainwashed, to the contrary.
Sure. But ultimately it is God. 
It's still up to God to grant that, not up to the GB. You could be part of the WT/JW etc. and still be disapproved by God. Just being a part of something is no guarantee.
The WT org. didn't foretell anything new, it just repeated what the Bible already foretold.
As for moral standards, you already forgot how high they are. You don't remember if someone is found to be unrepentantly flaunting God's moral standards they are out on their ear? 
Already covered above
Your opinion 
You are reading FAR too much into this! My inconsistency has nothing to do with the intention of twisting anything. Just laziness.
1975 was speculation. To be baptized as JW to be saved is a belief. Armageddon being close is also a belief.
Sorry, can't finish. Got to go. Will carry on later.
 

Good observation and reminder. I think it's always a good idea to keep in mind the "customs" and general attitude of society in times past when judging a situation from the the perspective of the present. It explains a lot of things. For example we can see why the organization was so weary of certain things in the past, which it now accepts. (organ transplants, vaccinations, cooking with aluminium etc.....etc...) We can also better understand things in the Bible, some of which might sound positively traumatic to the "modern" mind.

Had anyone ever noticed that Russell allowed himself to be identified as the "angel of Jehovah" here?
(1 Kings 19:7) 7 Later the angel of Jehovah came back a second time and touched him and said: “Get up and eat, for the journey will be too much for you.”
This was long before Russell had been identified (in print, at least) as the "angel" of the church at Laodicea, or "the seventh messenger."

You can also use this image to play "Where's Waldo?"

I've learned it's never a good thing when I see more than 6 notifications, especially if I've been away only a few hours...

LOL! You are reverting to the habit Allen Smith was infamous for: trying to use a quotation to prove someone wrong, when that quotation fully supports what you are opposing. It seems like the problem with so many opposers is that they are so anxious to oppose that they are blind to the evidence in front of them, or they forget to look carefully at it.
You really should just take some time and try to deal with the evidence at hand. So far, you have answered none of the items of evidence raised. And so far, every bit of evidence you have produced is exactly in support of what I have been saying all along. I agree 100 percent with your evidence. As usual, it helps make the same points I already made.
In this case, of course, you are quoting from the letter from 1914 that Alex Evans (a "colored" brother from Louisiana) wrote to the St. Paul Enterprise newspaper, in defense of Russell personally holding the title of the "faithful and wise servant." It starts about a third of the way down into this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160722143304/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm
And speaking of opposers, I notice that you have now, on multiple occasions, stated that you believe that Russell actually did hold the office of "faithful and discreet slave."
Can you explain why you think that Russell was the Faithful and Wise Servant when the Watchtower currently teaches that the slave did not come into existence until 1919 (well after Russell had died in 1916)?

...but the most amazing thing G. Washington ever did is arrange to get Barbara Bush's picture on the One Dollar Bill.
... just a little juxtaposition to balance out Billy's equally imaginative  post.
 

I know that George Washington used to sign his letters "Your  Most Humble Obedient Servant - G. Washington", which I suspect was understood as "... which you know damn well I am NOT!".
He also wore a white powdered wig, a lace "blouse" with lace around the cuffs, and skin-tight breeches that left no doubt to his gender.
He also carried a dagger, a sword, and a 55 caliber one shot pistol .... which if you dress like that, is probably a good idea!
 

It's easy to misunderstand Russell's position on this parable, but once you learn more about the historical context, it's easier. Above, you have highlighted "fellow-servants". This might imply to some that Russell did not see himself and as that individual servant. Note, though, that D613 is exactly the footnote that the "Divine Purpose" book gave earlier to show how the once-correct view gave way to seeing Russell himself as "that servant." It's called "D" of course, because D is the fourth letter of the alphabet and it's from Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 4, p.613.
A more careful reading shows that the reason Russell explained the "fellow-servants" was to show how these are plural and yet "that servant" is singular, which to him, he claimed, meant that only one individual would distribute to his fellow servants who would then pass it on to yet others --and therefore, those fellow servants were not the one specially-used individual called "the faithful and wise servant."
Using the current NWT, Russell's explanation was this:
(Matthew 24:45) 45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave [Charles Taze Russell, individual, singular] whom his master [Jesus Christ] appointed over his domestics, [fellow-servants, plural; fellow distributors of Watch Towers and Studies in the Scriptures books (Millennial Dawn books)], to give them their food at the proper time?
I'm sure you know that "gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character. I don't think Russell was exactly like this, but clearly, in keeping with the style of the times, Russell knew that it would not do to just crassly put his own name on this interpretation. A rule of the time was that you get others to praise you; it had to come from the mouth of other people. I don't know if Russell ever had to ask for it, but it was common in the 19th century for a speaker to write up a self-praising introduction about himself for another person to read when introducing him.
Sometimes this made for some "work-arounds" that appear kind of comical today. For example, from the same book you are quoting (Expanded Biblical Comments), we have this from the parallel parable in Luke:
[NTC - Luke 12:42]
. . .
Who then— . . . the Lord would appoint a servant in the household to bring these matters to the attention of all the servants. R3355:6, 2693:6
That faithful—. . .
Wise steward— . . . Not a composite steward, because we are not to recognize a . . . class; and the word "that". . .  implies a particular one. R3356:1 The angel of 1 Kings 19:7, the preparer of the Dawns and Towers. R4211:6*
Same story, here of course. Woodworth (this book was mostly his doing) had to work with contradictory material in using Russell's "Dawns and Towers," as the view had been adjusted in 1896. (Dawns=Millennial Dawn aka Studies in the Scriptures, and Towers=Zion's Watch Tower and later Watch Towers.)
But notice that the idea of ONE individual servant brings matters to the attention all the fellow servants, and it can't be a composite steward or "class" but a particular one. It doesn't name "Russell" but does mention the preparer of "Studies in the Scriptures" and the "Watch Tower." 
I wonder who that could be!

.... Just as a point of interest ... if I was a wretched cur, wouldn't my God be the human that fed me, and took me to the Vet?
Seriously though ... I seem to remember that both Allen Smith and BillyTheKid46 have both alluded in the past to being mentally ill, and castigated those of us (?) who were ridiculing his/their "condition", when in fact I knew nothing about it until he/they brought it up.
I make jokes about this or that person being mentally off, but then again I make jokes about everything and most of the time it is in jest, and the other person is mock-insulting me right back, which is what guys do.
I even make disparaging jokes about myself, if I think the jokes work.
I personally believe that Allen, Billy and Foreigner and perhaps one other are the same person, as a matter if casual speculation .... but perhaps we are making the mistake of assuming that the "Fantastic Four" are mentally competent, and at least marginally sane ... and therefor holding him/them to a higher standard than would be reasonable.
What disturbs me is when a person that appears to be borderline insane "has" a fantasy .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle, in addition to another possibly fantasy arsenal, and is as insulting and bitter as he/they is/are.
In 1972 I spent 6 hours in a psych ward from an allergic reaction to a drug I was taking for asthma, as I was delirious, my estranged first wife sent me there after the ambulance rescued me from the asthma .... and I walked around for awhile looking at the "crazy people" in the ward, and decided I had to get out of there quick, or soon I would become like them.
The "doctor" wanted to keep me for further observation, although I was fine, until I said "You know, of course, that I am not going to pay you.", and I signed myself out.
The point of this shaggy dog (cur?) story is that interacting with crazy people can make an empathic person just as nutso as they are, and I suppose that is why even psychiatrists have psychiatrists.
If you get a chance, be sure to see the movie "One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest", with Jack Nicholson getting electric shock therapy, walking out and winking at the Indian.  That scene was worth the whole movie!
"Sling Blade" .... was another story!
 
 

There is of course, a simpler explanation .... " WDS - The sword that cuts both ways."

I think that people were noticing some language issues, and he mentioned dyslexia, hardly in a category of "mental illness."
But there is good reason for concern, not the least of which is the evidence that not just the three names, but literally more than 30 different names have been used by him. The "projection" and "blame-shifting" and something I'll call "grudge echolalia" seem to come too natural to be faked. And I think several here have suspected certain obsessions and pathological tendencies.
That said, I think his defense of the WTS is actually sincere.

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing
 

A lot of material in there. This came up as "03. Light Brighter Part A.PDF." Are we to assume there is also a Part B? or even Part C? I notice that there is also mention of a "1925 folder" and that "03." implies more parts, too. Are these also shareable? Privately if not publicly?

I have not been looking at sunsets out here ....
I have been doing VALUABLE RESEARCH!
As it turns out, BillyTheKid46 (BTK46) is the reason that Tight Pants Tony (TPT)  has such a fixation over tight pants!
If the pants are TOO TIGHT, it makes the head swell up into a giant yellow crazy face!
 ..... Or a jet black tall hat in an otherwise sepia colored cowboy bandito photograph!

Yes. I do think that all of the anointed, each and every member of the entire Christian "congregation" or "body of Christ" have the capability to fulfill the role of faithful and discreet slave, during their life. The same actually holds true, by practical extension, to all members of the congregation.
This doesn't mean that everyone needs to have a say in doctrine, teaching, or instruction, shepherding, or that everyone needs to preside, or give feedback to the GB. It just means that every Christian has been given something  (gifts and talents, energy or ability to: work, console, encourage, help widows, comfort, preach, sing, prepare physical food, prepare a talk, raise children, help orphans, help someone sick, contribute money, help someone in need, carry water, drive an invalid to the meetings, etc.)
The principle is in Ephesians 4:12, Romans 14:19, etc., especially verses where the Greek word " οἰκοδομή oikodomḗ " is used. It means to build up, with the implication of building up a household, edification. It's related to the idea of the "faithful house servant managing the domestics" or "faithful steward" ( οἰκονόμος oikonómos; a house-distributor) who serve one another to keep a household running smoothly in Matthew 24:45, Luke 12:42, etc.
Metaphorically, food builds up, strengthens, maintains, gives energy, contributes to health, etc. In many of the following verses (and many others) the idea of "building up" uses this word also meaning "to edify" or, in effect, to feed. Each Christian is involved in soberly "feeding" on another. (Hebrews 10:24,25)

Ephesians 4:12
to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,

Romans 14:19
So then, let us pursue what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Romans 15:2
Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

1 Corinthians 12:7
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.

2 Corinthians 13:9
In fact, we rejoice when we are weak but you are strong, and our prayer is for your perfection.

2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice! Aim for perfect harmony, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

2 Timothy 4:5
But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
And yes, I know that some would say that this applies initially and perhaps especially to the office of persons in leadership positions like Peter (representing apostles) who was told by Jesus, to "Feed my lambs/sheep." (John 21:17)  But this special shepherding work, as Peter points out is something that all elders should share in. Peter even uses some of the same language that Jesus used in the illustration of the faithful and unfaithful stewards:
(1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .Therefore, as a fellow elder, . . .  I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
 

There was absolutely no intent at being clever or sly on my part. But you really show your paranoia though. Attributing intent where there was none.

No

WDS .... the gift that keeps on giving!
 

I can understand what Russell was saying. In his mind, he was probably thinking that he made the Bible more readable and understandable. And that as a result it would stick better in people’s minds. I feel his motive was genuine. But that does not mean that his statements were not presumptuous and dangerous. The danger is that as a result many will fixate themselves on every utterance of this “prophet” at the cost of actually checking the Bible itself. Not only that, but gradually people will take what this “prophet” says as gospel truth, no matter what it is, without checking or without a wait and see attitude. And this situation we find ourselves in today. I posted an example of the resulting hysteria above.

This is very true and there is a perfect example of how "obsessed" some can become. Just the other day I noticed a thread on a JW only chat forum, regarding the latest WT study articles (October 2019). There had been a glitch on the jw.library app and only the questions to the articles appeared. (It didn't help that some of those questions were quite provocative). The speculation among the friends was getting so out of hand, so much so that one brother was compelled to make this comment in answer to someone who intelligently remarked that this was obviously just a glitch:


It has to be remembered though that these 30 or so brothers and sisters who make batshit (pardon the expression) crazy comments do not necessarily represent the whole worldwide brotherhood, although maybe it could indicate that on average 2 out if 30 are reasonable, and it appears that 14 of them agreed with the ridiculousness of it once they actually thought about it, and 3 saw the funny side of it.
This whole thread showed how out of hand the friends get with their immature thinking because after the glitch was repaired, and the whole articles appeared, they carried on undeterred in their craziness!
P.S. The WT in question: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/
 

In those days I am sure there were quite a number, and only a fraction were Jehovah's Witnesses