HollyW

Copying JW Insider's idea of coming up with a question you might have to wrestle with at someone's door, I thought this might be interesting to see how you would reply to this question:
If the men on the WTS Governing Body were to come right out and say they are infallible, would they lay claim to anything different than what they've already claimed?
Here's some background research you might be presented with.
They are men who claim to be God's sole channel of communication to mankind, they claim what they teach is directly from God (this goes all the way back to Russell who claimed his inaccurate dates were God's dates), they claim you can't understand the Bible without them to teach you, and they claim you have to believe their teachings so thoroughly you aren't to even harbor thoughts that differ from what they are teaching, on pain of excommunication.
ZWT July 1, 1894 ::R1677 : page 226:
We see no reason for changing the figures-- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92. We advise that it be read again. ZWT - 1894 - R1611 thru R1747 / R1668 (211)
WT February 1, 1952, p.79-8:

We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste. The truths we are to publish are the ones provided through the discreet-slave organization, not some personal opinions contrary to what the slave has provided as timely food. Jehovah and Christ direct and correct the slave as needed, not we as individuals.

WT June 15, 1957, p.370:
Such is true not by their determination of it, but because God himself has so directed. “God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased,” is the way it is pictured in 1 Corinthians 12:18 (NW). It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.

WT October 1, 1967, p.591:
Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect.  

WT December 1, 1981, p.27-28:
Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.  

WT August 1, 2001, p.14:
First, since “oneness” is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.” By regularly taking in the spiritual food provided “at the proper time”—through Christian publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions—we can be sure that we maintain “oneness” with fellow Christians in faith and knowledge.—Matthew 24:45. 

WT November 15, 2013, p.20:
At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives.

My personal opinion is based on the fact that there is no ancient manuscript of the NT that contains the name Jehovah or YHWH. This is admitted by your organization, but you call it my opinion....

So you cannot give your account of the gospel, instead you create a new topic of discussion.....nope, not going to follow you there. If you cannot have a discussion, only diversion, then I guess we are done here. 

I did understand what you said, it is the Greek to the English that I am hoping to understand. English is my native language, not Greek.  Thus obeying those who “rule over you”, must be understood differently than, “obey God as ruler rather than men”, wouldn’t you think? Acts 5:29  It is this “fine connotation” that must be understood – who we obey and how, which I have earlier explained.
 
 
 
 
I don’t believe I did dismiss Gamaliel’s words, since I stated they were true; the connotation can't be used as a crutch to “wait on Jehovah”.  We can't sit back and wait to see what happens to those who have "taken the lead", men at fault and under the guise of God's priesthood, and anointed ones acting as prophets, yet claiming to be uninspired; but we ourselves are to struggle to get in through the "narrow door" of truth. This is out of love, faith and respect for not only God's righteous standards, but for His Son's.  Those faithful ones who were appointed by God give us a clear understanding of this. 
I repeat:  “Since God is unchanging, he certainly wouldn’t change to justify the Watchtower if it has transgressed his decrees.  When it came to transgressions made against God’s Temple, he let the people know about it, and does so today.  Rev 11:2; Eze 44:6-9; 2 Chron 23:6; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Dan 11:31; 8:11; Matt 24:15,16; Mark 13:14”
And from the words given by God to His prophet:
Thus says the Lord of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
 “They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
 “But who has stood in the council of the Lord,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
 “Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath,
Even a whirling tempest;
It will swirl down on the head of the wicked.
 “The anger of the Lord will not turn back
Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;
In the last days you will clearly understand it.
“I did not send these prophets,
But they ran.
I did not speak to them,
But they prophesied.
“But if they had stood in My council,
Then they would have announced My words to My people,
And would have turned them back from their evil way
And from the evil of their deeds.
“Am I a God who is near,” declares the Lord,
“And not a God far off?
“Can a man hide himself in hiding places
So I do not see him?” declares the Lord.
“Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord.
“I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ 
How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart,  who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal?
 The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?” declares the Lord. 
“Is not My word like fire?” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock?  Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the Lord, “who steal My words from each other. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the Lord, “who use their tongues and declare, ‘The Lord declares.’
 Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams,” declares the Lord, “and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit,” declares the Lord.
“Now when this people or the prophet or a priest asks you saying, ‘What is the oracle of the Lord?’ then you shall say to them, ‘What oracle?’ The Lord declares, ‘I will abandon you.’ 
Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, ‘The oracle of the Lord,’ I will bring punishment upon that man and his household. 
Thus will each of you say to his neighbor and to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ or, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ 
For you will no longer remember the oracle of the Lord, because every man’s own word will become the oracle, and you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God. 
Thus you will say to that prophet, ‘What has the Lord answered you?’ and, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’
For if you say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’ surely thus says the Lord, ‘Because you said this word, “The oracle of the Lord!” I have also sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’”’
Therefore behold, I will surely forget you and cast you away from My presence, along with the city which I gave you and your fathers. 
I will put an everlasting reproach on you and an everlasting humiliation which will not be forgotten.” Jer 23:16-40
If God does not tolerate false prophesy, and the leading of His sheep down a crooked road of changing doctrine, why would we; especially if we proclaim our love for Him and His Son?  Isa 59:8
Good day to you, sir.
 
 
 
 
 
 

If you care to see vivid documentation (actual paperwork) of misquotes of various sources used by the Watchtower, I suggest watching this video. Do you remember the incident involving the Awake Magazine, 1/15, misquoting Raman Singh? 
My quotes from the Watchtower are verbatim, as are Shiwii's, unlike a common practiced by the Watchtower.  
JW org - Lies, Misquotes and Deception
Proverbs 28:25-27 - 
He who is of a proud heart stirs up strife,
But he who trusts in the Lord will be prospered.
26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.
27 He who gives to the poor will not lack,
But he who hides his eyes will have many curses.
28 When the wicked arise, men hide themselves;
But when they perish, the righteous increase.
Allen, Christ's Kingdom cannot be held by anything man has created.  John 4:21-24; Luke 17:20-23; John 18:36

Sigh.  I know you get such satisfaction in your condescending attitude to all who are not JWs here, but do you notice they generally don’t repay in kind?

According to the words above, an organization isn’t necessary to have a relationship with the Father.  Would  you agree?  No, you can’t agree.  Dedication has been churned up well with dedication to an organization.  Allen, you can’t deny that your dedication to God is mixed with dedication to the Watchtower, as all of your words fall back on. 

Definition of dedication:  “a feeling of very strong support for or loyalty to someone or something : the quality or state of being dedicated to a person, group, cause, etc.”
“If we are to have Jehovah’s favor and blessing, we must support his organization and accept adjustments in our understanding of the Scriptures. Par. 15

All who remain loyal to Jehovah and his organization will have his continued blessing.  Par. 16

From Are You Moving Ahead with Jehovah’s Organization?  5-2014 WT

So tell me, which dedication to you choose?  That outlined in the quotes above, or the quotes from this Watchtower? 
Our personal relationship with God is not based on any dedication to an organization, which is what the quote you felt the need to highlight carefully for my benefit, clearly brings out.  God is the giver of life, period. We either accept or not.  Luke 12:34 Isa 44:18



 

 

Yes, of course. The reason was not hidden at all. And while it is controversial, I said it only seems to be foolish, at first. Did you notice how you claimed I said I said it was foolish, when I said "this one might appear silly at first"? Do you see how that is dishonest? Do you see how you would have pointed out the same dishonesty if someone tried that kind of wordplay on you?
I believe it is very serious because it speaks to how well we appreciate truth. I brought those same concerns over from the "Millennium" topic to this topic for the same reason. I'll explain:
It is easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ's invisible presence would start in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ would begin his reign as King in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly claimed that "they" predicted, decades in advance, that the time of trouble seen in 1914 was evidence that what they had predicted (at least since 1904) was correct.
Yet all of those claims are false. "They" didn't predict decades in advance that Jesus would begin his presence, his kingship, or the type of trouble that was seen in WWI. ("They" predicted a vastly different kind of trouble, with a completely different outcome). 
I have put the quote marks around the word "they" to point out that the claim has been worded in different ways so that the following ideas might be believed: "sincere Bible students predicted," "Jehovah's Witnesses predicted," "Bible Students were proclaiming," "Charles Taze Russell and his associates proclaimed" "the pages of this very magazine pointed to the time," "The Watch Tower publications had been predicting,"  etc., etc.  
The claims have sometimes been worded in a way that is clearly false, yet they have been repeated several times. After the Proclaimers book, however, the Watch Tower publications have become more careful about not making these statements in such direct false terms. They have resorted to implying it, instead.
Implying something often enough, however, is just as misleading as stating it in false terms. Any lover of truth should be very concerned about this. We should not just be concerned with the idea that people are being misled, but we should also look at the same point from a higher level and ask why. What is the reason that this same point has been implied dozens of times?
The God's Kingdom Rules book gives us another glimpse into the reason, and it's very consistent with the reason that invariably follows the context of prior claims just like it. It's so that we have more trust in the men who "discerned" these things in advance. If we can be impressed that a "true prediction" as important as this one could have been predicted so many years in advance, then we will be more apt to believe that the persons behind that prediction were "spirit-directed." We will be more apt to believe that the entire "spirit-directed" organization that these men represented must have been blessed with powers of discernment that carries over into all other teachings. In other words, our belief that they were able to make this prediction can lull us into a false sense of security. It may have the effect of motivating us to defend a false teaching because we feel it must be "spirit-directed.
I personally believe that our teachings about hell, Trinity, political neutrality, Jehovah's sovereignty, etc, are the best around, but this shouldn't lull me into thinking that we don't have to test all the teachings. Perhaps the teaching about the "overlapping generation" is a false teaching that we should be questioning, and yet relatively few are questioning the teaching. More persons appear to be defending it as best they can. Also, the misleading idea that the early Bible Students "discerned" Christ's invisible presence in 1914 has been made a key element in the definition of the "overlapping generation" theory. This is not very likely just a coincidence.
Ignoring our responsibility to question every teaching can be dangerous for Christians, because it can make us unwilling to follow the Bible's counsel not just for ourselves, but then we are no longer in a position to help our brothers and sisters if we see that they might be taking a false step.
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21) 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are. . . .
(Acts 17:11) . . .carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Proverbs 14:15) Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.
(Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;
(Romans 12:2) . . .so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(Ephesians 5:9-10) 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. . .
 

Wise words!
Sometimes I can only guess that you don't really understand that, while your sources contain information that is very interesting, it's usually information that I already agreed with. When it's relevant to the topic, very often it even supports of the point I was making. I've seen you include information that I was about to use. Of course, in the case of the various Bible Student groups, we can't just accept everything they say without question. Some have also shown that they are capable of distorting their history, in those "episodes" of their history that they find embarrassing or difficult to explain. (And some are not yet embarrassed about certain beliefs or "episodes" where they should be. Some still don't recognize what Rutherford correctly recognized about their own view of Russell, for example.)
The point you brought up about Russell and the Peoples Pulpit was not very relevant to what Russell taught anyway. It's true that there are some differences between what Russell said about himself and what various Bible Student groups said about him. These differences are interesting but not relevant to what the current Watch Tower publications mean when they speak of Bible Students discerning Christ's invisible presence in 1914.
On the very irrelevant point about Russell's claims about himself or the Peoples Pulpit Association you already countered your own claim for me, and provided the relevant argument that agrees completely with the point I was making when you said:
Thinking that some particular name sounded better, but then going right back to "resuming" the title "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society" in the same year, was probably the very reason that so few people in the world associate Russell with the Peoples Pulpit, and why a relatively large majority of those who know about Russell only associate him with the WTB&TS and IBSA. You also mentioned that some Bible Students said he wanted full and complete control over the PPA. That's true, but it's exactly what he wanted (and had) over the WTB&TS, too.
The reason I hesitate to engage with your argument in more detail however is that, too often for my taste, you tend to sound not just nasty but also dishonest. I think you already know that this is the reason you have lost the respect that you seem to crave, even from fellow Witnesses. When you make false claims and get caught, you can merely claim as you did here, that 'that's what you meant' when your actual words show that meant something different. More often you merely ignore it when it's pointed out that your point was wrong, then pivot off to another subject where you often make more false claims, and you usually remember to offer up a few random insults and project a few of your own bad habits and fallacies onto other people.
If you would like to engage in a real dialog with anyone on any of these subjects, I think you already know what you should do differently.
(1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
(Colossians 4:6) . . .Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.
(Philippians 4:5-7) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.
(James 3:17, 18) 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
(Titus 3: 2) 2 to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable, displaying all mildness toward all men.
(Titus 3:9-11) 9 But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. 10 As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition, 11 knowing that such a man has deviated from the way and is sinning and is self-condemned.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
 
 
 

I think this is a good question. I know from comments some Witnesses have made that they already believe that we should treat the spiritual food at the proper time as if it came from an infallible source. One of the elders in our congregation (who offered the closing prayer at the mid-week meeting this week) often "gushes" about the Governing Body in his prayer, and I cringe for how this sounds to any new ones. It is very common to hear many brothers mention (in prayer) how thankful we are for the provisions that the "faithful and discreet slave" has made for us, and this seems to be in better taste.
But the real answer to your question is that they never would and never will. They don't believe they are, and they never will. If any one of them suggested it, he would likely be kicked off the Governing Body for suggesting something so fallible. They definitely don't treat each other as infallible. Bethelites say that the argumentative spirit is even more palpable among them now than it was in 1980 when political factions among them reached a peak that I thought it could never reach again. But the arguing is now done by proxy through the Governing Body "Helpers," and appears to be getting worse as they all get older. If anyone doubts this, just ask any Bethelite who has been anywhere near the door of the Helpers meeting in the last few months.
So it's an impossible hypothetical. But I'm guessing that the real question is whether we already treat the Governing Body as if they were infallible.
I think there are a few factors that can lead to this, and the types of quotations you made from Watch Tower publications provide the primary basis. The repetition of similar sentiments in congregation talks and prayers is the secondary basis.
The third basis is the way that we cover for them when errors are made, and this is partly due to appreciation for the unity of the organization and for the international brotherhood that has developed from this organization. To that extent, what we are doing is fine and right, for "love covers a multitude of sins."
But it's dangerous is when pride becomes the factor by which we defend any past lapse in judgment. This happens to all of us to some extent, because we can become prideful and arrogant that we have the only true religion, that Jehovah loves us more than our fellow man, that we are preaching to others because we are better and more righteous than they are, that our doctrines are not only correct but that opposing doctrines come Satan rather than human error.
This attitude of pride goes right to the top of our organization, and this is why it sometimes shows up in the self-righteous statements that sometimes slip through the editing process and appear in print. At the highest levels people saw this in Brother Rutherford, and one well-known and well-respected brother even won a case in court against him for Rutherford's abusive behavior. An old friend of mine at Bethel (A.Worsely) who was in court that day defended Rutherford and felt badly for having lied in court to do it, yet he says he lied because of fear of the same abusiveness. Brother Knorr was also known as a vindictive, petty "dictator" when it came to anyone who questioned his decisions. Knorr thought of many of the jobs at Bethel as menial and demeaning and would therefore use them as punishment when someone spoke up about an injustice. He punished older brothers by changing their job from the Home Office to the factory-bindery. He removed privileges from people he saw as gaining too much attention for themselves, even if it was only for the sin of writing "Faith on the March" (A.H.MacMillan) or defending Cassius Clay (H.Covington). A friend of mine, the former editor of the Awake! magazine (C.Quackenbush) was only one of several older brothers invited back to Bethel immediately upon Knorr's death, while I was at Bethel. People (including myself) saw this attitude continue in F W Franz and Ted Jaracz who would also become abusive and vindictive when their views were not seen as 100% correct.
From what I'm told, the current Governing Body are a much more peaceful group, but the Helpers, the ones who prep them on issues (and who are now involved in voting them into office) are vying and jockeying on a lot of issues these days, some doctrinal and some financial.
That background should help you see why such a claim would never happen, but our own pride in our organization makes us treat our doctrine as sacrosanct. Even if we know it could change at any time, we defend current doctrine because of the teaching about the "faithful and discreet slave" who gives us "food at the proper time." The idea is that even if it isn't 100% true, it's "true for now" which is sometimes implied by "food at the proper time." This used to be taught using the same words that Seventh Day Adventists use (and other Second Adventists and Bible Student groups). They called it "present truth" based on the same misunderstanding that Russell and others had about 2 Peter 1:12. The Watchtower has used expressions to defend past incorrect teachings as incorrect but really just 'the right thing but at the wrong time' or 'the right time, but expecting the wrong thing.' Our view of Romans 13:1 between the 1929 and 1961 has been treated as an incorrect doctrine, but sometimes it's pointed out that this wrong doctrine was important for the progress of the organization at the time. Other wrong doctrines have been treated as tools for "testing and refining" of God's people.
A better view of changing doctrines is put in better perspective here:
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. God leads them progressively so that the truth constantly grows brighter, they reflect more fully God’s glory, and they are transformed more and more into his image. (2 Cor. 3:18) They come to know him more intimately. Their needs are fully supplied, everything for their spiritual welfare being provided. (Phil. 4:19) Such progress involves changes, readjustment of their thinking.
Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940’s Jehovah’s witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position. Since 1962 they understand the “superior authorities” of Romans 13:1 to be the rulers of worldly governments, whereas up to that time, since 1929, they had held a different viewpoint. Other examples could be cited. Does this show that Jehovah’s witnesses do not have the truth? Does this bring into question the basic principles of their teachings?
Not at all. Jehovah’s witnesses do not claim infallibility. They are being taught by God. (Isa. 54:13) Never will they know all things, but they will continually be learning from the inexhaustible wisdom of God as they walk in his truth.

The article goes on to discuss some issues, including the importance of believing in "types and anti-types" although this has recently changed again (2014).
Most Witnesses have the proper attitude, because we have been taught that the GB is not infallible, even during that one meeting a week when they meet together and make decisions.
 

I asked this in the Controversial section, and though it was read quite a few times, no one has ventured a reply.
In the new brochure reaching out to inactive ones, there seems to be an implication that inactive Jehovah's Witnesses can confess violating WTS rules for 40 years and not be disciplined for it, but rather will be welcomed back to each congregation with open arms.  The brochure tells of one coming back after 40 years of being inactive, who during that time had celebrated holidays, gone to other churches, been involved in politics, and probably much more. 
Has something been left out of the brochure....something like 'yes, you'll be welcomed back with open arms....as soon as the elders say you can be, but until then you'll be shunned for your 40 years of sins that you just confessed to them.' ?
I ask because the articles about inactive ones returning to the Kingdom Hall have always said something about  "Loving discipline may be required." There's even been instructions to those who may be asked to study with an inactive JW, such as this in a 2008 wt:
[w08 11/15 Help Them Return Without Delay!, p.12, par.2] If they assign a publisher to study with an inactive person desiring help, what should be done if the conductor learns that the individual has committed a serious sin? Instead of giving counsel about any judicial or confidential matter, the publisher should suggest that he speak to the elders. If he fails to do so, the publisher himself should inform the elders.
But the 2015 brochure, Return to Jehovah, doesn't mention discipline being required.  If elders can question the sincerity of someone's repentance because he or she waited a month or two before confessing it to the elders, wouldn't it be even more doubtful that a person confessing after 40 years is truly repentant?
 
Holly
 
 
 

Hello Arauna,
You are saying that everyone who leaves the organization is wicked, even if there is no sin committed; still, if one sins their judgment of being found “wicked” is up to Christ. Rom 14:10   What if one leaves simply because they desire to develop the pure qualities that God and Christ expect?  Failed prophesy, slaving for earthly treasures, and slaving for men is not what Jesus or the apostles taught.

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.  Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.  “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.”  Mark 9:38-42

Rom 12:2 tells us “not to conform to the pattern of this world”.  The organization has admitted it is a hierarchy of power, a pattern we see clearly in Satan’s world.  This scripture also says we are to be transformed by the “renewing of our mind”.  Again, Paul speaks of this in Eph 4:20-25

“That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus.  You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires;  to be made new in the attitude of your minds;  and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”  Eph 4:20-25

If we renew our mind in Christ, we are breaking away from the earthly pattern of worship - "not on this mountain" or any other.  John 4:21-24  
In order to develop qualities pleasing to God, we give and serve Him with exclusive devotion – he is not an organization aligned in the same manner as all else in the world. 
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything (an “earthly Zion”) in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”  Exod 20:4,5

And He has made no exception to accommodate an organization.  You said, and which is very true, “Because the Christian personality is our identifying mark for survival when Armageddon arrives.”


This is the identifying mark given you at baptism:

“Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?”

Over 50 years ago, the Watchtower shed a little light on the truth:

"A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit." Watchtower 1955 Jul 1 p.411

Wt 1966 10/1 pp 603-4 "We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah." 

Shouldn’t we ask, why the change of teaching? Deut 11:18 Shouldn’t we also ask, who really are the potential wicked ones, those who desire to dedicate their lives exclusively to God and Christ, or those who serve an organization, teaching inconsistent, changing doctrine?  Luke 12:1

 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  Matt 22:36,37

No man has been given authority to judge one as “wicked” who desires to follow this teaching and the standards God has set in place.  Many anointed ones and many sheep have left the organization to serve Christ and the Father exclusively, yet the organization readily marks them as “wicked”.  Rev 13:16-18


Mark of the Beast 
 

 

 

I gave you your history and you don't want it. It come from their own publications! how can you continue to deny what they themselves wrote? 

I appreciate your opinion on the Greek Interlinear.  I wish I could understand how although the Greek is a rich language, you said, “In Greek though there is no difference in the meaning however you may want to word it”.  In my mind I’m trying to see a full spectrum of interpretation with one Greek word and its meaning, each time it is read. Yet, in the bible the same Greek word brings about a different use according to scripture. While there are most definitely fine connotations or wording in English, there also appears to be so with Greek.  If I only could speak the language. How many times has the Greek word for worship been discussed and argued over when it concerns God, Christ and Satan? 
I know you don’t want an answer, Praeceptor,  but I must clarify something.   What you quoted from me, is pertaining to the anointed ones who permit a “wicked slave” to rule over them, even “beat” them if their thoughts are contrary to scripture; by the GB giving authority to the elders to“kill” them for rejecting doctrine, and organization, but also for their testimony of Christ.  Matt 24:45-51; Rev 13:15.  They receive a symbolic “beheading” as John the Baptist did for proclaiming Christ. Shunning and disfellowshipping is a cutting off of all communication and socialization, is it not?   Mark 6:27; Rev 20:4; John 15:20; Matt 10:21,22; Luke 12:49-53; John 16:2; Heb 13:13; Matt 5:10,11
What Gamaliel said is true, but do we use this to support the idea that we “wait on Jehovah”?  Gamaliel was not a prophet or an apostle. Since God is unchanging, he certainly wouldn’t change to justify the Watchtower if it has transgressed his decrees.   When it came to transgressions made against God’s Temple, he let the people know about it, and does so today.  Rev 11:2; Eze 44:6-9; 2 Chron 23:6; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Dan 11:31; 8:11; Matt 24:15,16; Mark 13:14
Always concerning idolatry, God let the people know it, and we realize they suffered for it, as in Moses’ day.   (Isa chapter 2)
“So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. Elijah went before the people and said, ‘How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.’ But the people said nothing.” 1 Kings 18:21
We know what happened after this powerful display that Elijah used to judge the hundreds of prophets that relied on Baal.  1 Kings 18:18-40
Although I have posted these before on this forum, it’s important to be reminded of the hypocrisy within the organization.
WT ‘90 11/1 p. 26 "As Christians, we face up to similar challenges today. We cannot take part in any modern version of idolatry—be it worshipful gestures toward an image or symbol or the imputing of salvation to a person or an organization." Our Relative Subjection to the Superior Authorities
Kingdom Ministry ’90/11 p. 1 Directing Bible Students to Jehovah’s Organization:
"Bible students need to get acquainted with the organization of the “one flock” Jesus spoke about at John 10:16. They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah’s organization is essential to their salvation. (Rev. 7:9, 10, 15) Therefore, we should start directing our Bible students to the organization as soon as a Bible study is established."
In the same month, out of the same mouth, comes two different understandings of salvation.  Which opinion do you choose?  Jer 23:16; Ezek 13:1-19; Matt 24:24; 1 Thess 5:3; Rev 3:18
If we support false, changing, hypocritical doctrine, God does not sort us out as worthy.  Rev 18:4; 2 Cor 11:3,4; Rev 3:15-18
“The prophets prophesy falsely,
    the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way.
    But what will you do in the end?”  Jer 5:31
 
 
 

 
 

You have gone through a lot of effort, Allen.  I did read it, and found it helpful, in ways other than what you were implying, I’m sure.  Yes, 2 Peter 3 can be quite enlightening.

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;  but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 3:14-18

“In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be” ws13 7/15 pp. 3-8

 Previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, “this generation” mentioned at Matthew 24:34 meant “the contemporaneous generation of unbelieving Jews.” That explanation seemed reasonable because all other recorded uses that Jesus made of the term “generation” had a negative connotation, and in most cases, Jesus used a negative adjective, such as “wicked,” to describe the generation w 08/2/15 p 21-25

How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about “this generation”? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.  Watchtower 2010 Apr 15 p.10 Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose

“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless”

Do you see how the GB grasps at straws? How do you excuse such confusion promoted by the GB, Allen?  Have you forgotten the thousands before you who believed completely, wholeheartedly, intently in “truth” to later find it was wrong, a lie?  Do these people’s lives matter to anyone in the organization?  Is it any way gratifying to know that these ones lived a lie, and were devoted to it? 

Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon ("BA'AL protect the king", but check with Praeceptor, please) shares much in common with the GB.

“But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this.  And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels (2 Cor 4:7; 2 Tim 2:20) of His house (1 Pet 2:5) before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. (Heb 13:15; John 15:5) And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.  Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.  “And this is the inscription that was written:  MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.  This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting”  Dan 5:22-27

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.  Heb 10:31

Rev 19:20
Last Harlot and Her Beast

 
 

 

Hello,
Thank you Praeceptor, it is good to know you speak Greek.  I would ask you many questions if I could.  One off the top of my head is why would you suppose the Watchtower Kingdom Interlinear translates it as “among you”?  Actually, its translation enhances the unity of the Body of Christ.  Eph 2:20; Phil 3:17; 1 Cor 14:32,33; 1 Cor 12:7,17,18,21,22,25,26,28

To “go before, lead”, is harmonious with my thoughts earlier. Translating this word into English seems to have some flexibility. Heb 13:17

YLT - Be obedient to those leading you, and be subject, for these do watch for your souls, as about to give account, that with joy they may do this, and not sighing, for this is unprofitable to you.

NIV -  Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

The question to ask is, who has the right to “lead” God’s people?  If you feel the elder body, a false priesthood not appointed by God, has been given authority to issue “commands” over the sheep using doctrines of men in the name of righteous leadership, shouldn’t sheep question whether Christ’s commands are the overriding principle used by those who “rule over” them?  If these ones are breaking the law of proper worship, should they be listened to?

Jesus told those whom he chose, to feed his sheep, not that all can’t do so, but he gave this primary responsibility to the Body.  John 15:16; 21:17 These are the anointed ones, not those appointed on the basis of “scriptural qualifications”, or if one meets the required amount of field service hours per month.  This is a direct spiritual appointment made by God, any other man or woman is not involved.  1 John 2:20 (Matt 25:21)

“We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.  But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him:  Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.”  1 John 2:3-6

So, the question is, does the elder body follow Christ’s commands, or those of men?  Matt 15:9

The anointed in Christ are the true priesthood (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Acts 17:24; Col 2:17; Rev 5:9,19), and are to offer “fine fruits”, but who have stooped down to a GB/elder body who lord it over them, and all sheep.  Rom 11:9,10; Rev 13:11,15  They are those “among you” who are expected to ‘go before”, to lead, not through dogmatic obedience to doctrine, but directing one to obey, not men, but God’s word, as Jesus did.  John 12:47,48; Phil 2:8; Heb 10:9

Jesus warned his disciples of “ruling over” others, in the same way the elder body rules over the flock. Mark 10:42-45 (1 John 2:20,21)

“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Mar 10:42-45

Does the elder body take Jesus’ admonition to “lead” through serving and slaving for others as Jesus did?  And what about the “high officials” the GB?  No.  These false prophets have given authority to the elder body, to spiritually judge one as dead, breaking not only one commandment, but many.  Rom 14:12; Luke 21:36

Rom 14:10 – “ But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”

“Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.  Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.  But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.” 1 John 2:7-11 (John 14:23)

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”  Mark 12:30-31

These last words leave no room left to give love, devotion, admiration, or loyalty of any kind to an organization, or to “kill” one’s brother or sister through man’s judgment. 1 John 2:15-17; Acts 7:48-51 The organization uses Heb 13:17 to the farthest reaches of the rich Greek language, as you say, and that is, “I have dominion”, not only over the sheep, but over God’s chosen Temple, his Holy Place.  Matt 24:15; Dan 9:27; 8:10;  1 Cor 3:16,17; Rev 11:2; Matt 5:13

Those who have been appointed to “watch out for your souls” – Christ’s sheep, as well as each other, also have a heavy accountability for not listening directly to Christ.  Matt 25:24-30  Truly, what the organization has fabricated is a “disgusting thing” in God’s eyes, and a rejection of Christ, by the rejection of the Body of Christ.  John 12:48-50

The account in 2 Sam 19:24-30 was handled by David, an anointed one by God.  Is there really any comparison to the elder body and the discipline they mete out according to a rule book? 

I, too, take the stance of 1 Timothy 6:3,4,20,2 balanced with 2 Cor 10:4,5; Col 2:8 and Eph 5:11-14


Disgusting Thing

 

 

 

"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."
Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.
But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.
1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.
2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment. 
3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.
The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)
In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:
. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would  not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.
The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***
Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27.  *** end of quote ***
[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]
 
This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.
The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:
[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:
The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .
It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence. 
Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower.  But notice the context:
Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.
Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."
But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.
Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:
"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . .  The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .
The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:
The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,
The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:
The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.
 
This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.
The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.
It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.
I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

Be careful, here Eoin. You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.
I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?
There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'
A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:
Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915."  . . .  Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914." Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after." Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near." But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***
Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***
"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***
That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.) 
A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.  
*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***
So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in  October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910.  Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***
 
The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?
The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:
*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."  *** end of quote ***
In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:
"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)
The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."
*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***
"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon".   *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be  after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".
However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.
 

True. This is what I meant about "stretching" it a bit. As I'm sure you know, there are several more quotes where the wording creates something misleading, but rarely a complete falsehood. This one pushes the "truth" to its limit, but if you notice it is not technically false. It's true that they were "on hand in 1914." But saying that they "readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year" could mean that by sometime between 1922, 1925 and 1931 some were beginning to readily discern it. It wouldn't have been impressive, but it could have said:
"The first group was on hand in 1914, and within 30 years, almost all the people from this same group who remained loyal to the Watch Tower, readily accepted that 1914 had seen the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence in that year."
There are also several more quotes from the 1930's era that parallel the quote from October 1, 1930:
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple [in 1918] is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***

Can I put an end to this argument (discussion)? On page 50, paragraph 5 and 6 of the book says:
"As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878, and that the Kingdom would not be fully set up until October 1914. The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven. Do mistaken ideas such as these cast doubt on whether Jesus was guiding those faithful ones by means of holy spirit?
6 Not at all! Think again of our opening illustration. Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them. Thus, faithful ones prove willing to be corrected and humbly adjust their views.—Jas. 4:6."
 

As I started to point out in my last post, several versions of this same comment have been made dozens of times before, sometimes with careful wording that indicates the writer knew there were limits to what he could claim, and sometimes with not-so-careful wording. Some of these come across as technically true, but misleading. There are even a couple of cases where the wording created not just a false impression but a true falsehood.
The most interesting versions of this pattern go back to the time when Rutherford was still in the midst of re-working doctrines that had been considered true in Russell's time. Here's one that gets right to the point about what was or was not "discerned" in 1914:
*** Watchtower, October 1, 1930, p.291 ***
Understanding that the ''day of Christ'' began when Jesus came to the temple of God, in 1918, it appears that the rebellion must precede that day. The beginning of the falling away or rebellion against God's organization would also mark the beginning of the disclosure of the ''man of sin'', even though none of God's children then on earth understood the matter. The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof. Likewise the faithful have for some years seen the manifestation of lawlessness and now begin to discern the meaning of the term the "man of sin".
*** end of quote ***
 
There are also many published statements from this time period that give a clearer picture about what really was being discerned with reference to the date of Christ's presence between 1914 and 1931. It's difficult to get a clear view with just a couple of snippets, so if I get a chance, I'll look up some of the quotes again and post something either here or in the "Millions" thread.

Eoin, the key is for the WTS to tell the truth about when it was that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  That way you'll finally believe what several of us now have already told you: i.e. it was not in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  It wasn't until long after 1914 that they began to discern the sign of his presence in 1914.
You're absolutely correct that they could not have discerned something that was not there, yet that is exactly what they said they were doing from 1876 to long after 1914.

You still keep missing the point.  It was NOT in 1914 that they "began to discern".  The statement in the book shows, at best, ignorance of the WTS history. At worst, it is an outright lie, just as the one on page 22 is.
If it's because of the former, whoever wrote it should not be allowed to do write anything more until he or she has thoroughly researched it so they know what they're talking about.  But then, how did it get past the men on the GB? 
It it's because of the latter, every JW should be thoroughly researching this without fail, as you have begun to do.
But, again, look at what you keep calling what you say Jehovah and Jesus found to be "food in due season."

by all means, please correct my thinking on this one statement made by the WT :
 
"Come to Jehovah's organization for salvation" - Watchtower 1981 Nov 15 p.212
 
I believe it means that they have claimed the title of God, as He is the only one who can save. 

What difference does bound vs CDROM have to do with apostasy? Is there a new teaching out now, that if you have bound volumes you are now an apostate? Do tell....

very different, the apostles did not draw people to themselves, like this statement we're talking about has, but instead pointed to Jesus! So there is a big difference between the WT and the apostles. 

As usual with WTS bans, the beard ban has undergone some 'adjustments' so that if it's a cultural thing in ones area, JW men are permitted beards now (still not for women, though ;))
So when you say "thank you" to Russell, do you believe he hears and answers you?