Some interesting comments that seem to indicate a belief that most members in a church are/were nominal, and "true" Christians need to be in some magical way, informed by god as to what is "true faith."
Have I read this correctly?
I'm also not defending the JWs or their elders? The Jw's hav'nt got "truth" any more than any other group of believers. Throughout history Christians have argued with each other, and even killed each other over "truth."
I've just been re-reading the early Christian document known as First Clement, thought to have been written (possibly) 96CE. Clement, whoever he was, it's claimed he was a presbyter (elder) in he congregation in Rome, and is writing to the congregation in Corinth, which had experienced an extreme division. The writer claims that the Corinth Christian once were, "all humble and without pretensions, obeying orders (who issued those orders?) rather than issuing them."
But things changed, "there arose rivalry and envy, strife and sedition, persecution (i.e. some Christians persecuted other Christians) and anarchy, war an captivity."
And, that's the point I want to make. Churches have always had fights, arguments and schisms. It's unlikely that the Corinth congregation, at the end of the first century was the first to have that experience of heated arguments over doctrines and beliefs and authority.
Now jump forward hundreds of years to England. King Henry V111, well-known for his efforts to oust the Roman Catholic church from England, whatever his reasons. Was he revolting against apostolic authority (Like the Corinthian congregation at the end of the first century - according to Clement?) What do you think?
But go forward in time, to Elizabeth the first. The church in England was now controlled by men who were like the rebellious Christians of ancient Corinth. From the viewpoint of the Lord (the father or Jesus - take your choice) were the men who rebelled against Rome right in what they did, according to Clement? This (sort of) new church in England, the fore-runner of the contemporary Anglican Church, then set about murdering many of those who remained faithful to Catholicism. In doing so were they like the ancient rebellious Christians of Corinth.
(See the HistoryExtra web-site: Elizabeth I’s war with England’s Catholics:
England's Elizabethan Catholics were public enemy number one. Their Masses were banned and their priests were executed. Jessie Childs reveals what life was like for 'recusants' and 'church papists' in a hostile Protestant state
https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/elizabeth-is-war-with-englands-catholics/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering the questions I asked is difficult, Who was right? Who was wrong?
I'd say (these days) they were all deceived into thinking that they'd found "truth" when they had not. I don't believe any of the crap they were arguing about, they were all deceived.