1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

[Alithís Gnosis]

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This makes no sense to me. If it was published in 1971, how does it become a 1999/2000 issue? It would be a  1999/2000 issue if it was published at that time. It belongs to the 1970's which you've already logged. Strike 1999/2000.

True. I should have used a few of the other sources that pointed to 1999/2000. Remember that the 1970's were pointed to since 1956 or even before. Then more strongly in 1966 building up to a maximum around 1968 to 1971. The particular quote I used may have been using the term "shortly, within our twentieth century . . . [Armageddon will take place]" to  loosen the prediction away from the 1970's and allow an extra 20 years at the most. Or it could have just been intended to be a book that strengthened the parallel discussion of the 1970's without ever mentioning the 1970's . The main point of the book was that the nations would know that a prophet had been among them since the 1919 period, so there may have been some hesitance to point out in the very same book that this prophet had been pointing to the 1970's as the appropriate time for God to act on their behalf.

After the 1970's were over, then we could say that any references to 1999/2000 from that point on would be using the end of the twentieth century as a true terminus ad quem (the latest possible date of an event). So when 1980 rolled around this was published:

*** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward.
• As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end.

This does not count as breaking the Biblical rules of date-setting, because the assumptions are built in. It only shows that the writer was thinking about the end of the 20th century as a possible "terminus ad quem." At that moment, the implied age of understanding the events in 1914 was being reduced to 10 rather than 15 as stated before, (and it would soon have to be reduced again to include 1-day-old babies). The word "if" saves this quote even if the spirit of the quote was to break the rule.

This next one comes a little closer to breaking the letter of the rule, not just the spirit:

*** w84 3/1 pp. 18-19 par. 12 Kingdom Unity a Reality Today ***

• And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—“will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that!

In a court of law, juxtaposing the 1980 quote and the 1984 quote, it is easy to see that the second one is trying to close the gap allowed by the first one. The first one allows that the generation could technically go on past 2000, defined by the number of 96 years olds and older who might still be alive that year. The second reminds us that "the end" need not wait until the end of the century, and there is much evidence that it's not just a little closer than the end of the century, but "much closer." Still, a good lawyer might convince a judge or jury that no "terminus ad quem" was defined here, technically.

In the next quote, however, the "letter of the rule" was broken here, not just the "spirit of the rule:"

*** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” ***

• The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century.

There we have the undeniable "terminus ad quem" which someone questioned later that same year so that a correction was made through a QFR and finally an adjustment was made to the bound volume and subsequent electronic copies.

*** w89 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• We have ample reasons to expect that this preaching will be completed in our time. Does that mean before the turn of a new month, a new year, a new decade, a new century? No human knows, for Jesus said that ‘even the angels of the heavens’ did not know that. (Matthew 24:36)

There was no time to fix the error in the original issue, of course, but it was changed to this very idea in the bound volume.

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Plot your remaining numbers on a graph. No finer evidence will emerge of how we have improved over time. All bunched up at the beginning. Nothing for 40 years. The chart would be the envy of any quality control group.

It's more informative to plot breaks in the "spirit" of Jesus; words at Matthew 24:36 and combined with Luke 21:8:

• (Luke 21:8) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.

Obviously we can still be encouraged that this system will not go on forever, and that man has already proven that he cannot even attempt to take the place of God's kingdom. Therefore we can be encouraged that the end is ever closer, and pray that Jehovah's will be done with reference to the time when that Kingdom comes and God's will is done in heaven and on earth. But we are always breaking the spirit of Jesus words if we point to a specific time period, or specific signs seen during this time period, and say this is evidence that the DUE TIME for the end has now approached. On that count, I would have to admit, as we all would, that these words of Jesus are ignored several times a year. So the "plot" only thickens, every time we think we have figured a way to define "that generation."

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Alithís Gnosis said:

AL,

Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:

The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/

I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.

I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).

---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------

Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades.

The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'

Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.

Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.

The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.

When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, tromboneck said:

If anyone, young or old, have been anointed  during the time when ALL those of the first group have died off, these newly anointed ones would not be recognized as part of "this generation" that Jesus said would not pass away. 

True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914.

So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation. 

So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120)  People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today.

How far off is that reasoning?

[Alithís Gnosis]

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too.

Correct. Free speech should NOT BE CENSORED just because someone doesn’t like the outcome. Political correctness should not be part of a religious forum.

As an agnostic? Censoring everyone that opposes a view by demonstrating facts from fiction shouldn’t be used against anyone that expresses “free will”, with their opinion. I have seen enough, to see it doesn’t matter to imply rudeness if everyone here has done that in some fashion.

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all…

[JW Insider]

The new JW Broadcasting with Sam Herd includes his talk to the Gilead Graduation class.

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb_201712_1_VIDEO

There were several items of note, but this one seems important. In the introduction he mentions evidence that Jesus has been around Jehovah for at least 4 and a half billion years, based on that morning's text plus a rock found in Australia. And yet, the Father knows so much more than Jesus. Therefore we have only begun to touch on a few things. It's like we are new-born with our eyes barely open. He makes fun of things we thought only twenty years ago. At the 6 minute, 45 second mark he starts to say the following:

• When measured by Jesus, we're newborn infants. We barely have our eyes open. Barely. What we see is not what we're going to see -- in years to come. We're just looking; we're just learning. We're touching things -- and for the first time. Just think in the past 10 years how many things we've touched for the first time -- even though we've read the Bible over and over again and we've listened to it being read to us over and over again. But, we've just touched a few things: like the generation. Ahhh! [purposely making a sound as if something was bad-tasting in his throat and he needed to spit it out] Twenty years ago we -- "Ahhh" -- the generation. [with a dismissive hand movement] And now we know all about that generation, right? And so many other things.

Then Brother Losch starts singing a gospel song "Oh Happy Day! . . . when Jesus washed my sins away." He also touches on the NA'OS issue with respect to the Great Crowd serving not just near the temple or before the temple, but IN THE TEMPLE. I liked his statement: Have a positive outlook: Don't be sad that some rosebushes have thorns, but be glad that some thornbushes have roses on it. Then Brother Breaux tries to prove that Jehovah forgets using a verse in Hebrews that says he doesn't. His theme was work is more important than titles. Gary Breaux has told people privately that he was surprised that his talk on the two-witness rule was added to the monthly broadcast last month. I thought that Brother Breaux also related a story about District Overseers that could give some insight into the experience with those special talks on 1975 that were being given by District Overseers in the late 1960's and 1970's. Here are his exact words, taken out of context, of course:

• I'd like to tell you another little story about a brother that had somewhat of a difficulty with this [showing love]. When I was a young circuit overseer, uh, the District Overseer I had was, uh, I was afraid of him. Everybody else was afraid of him, too.

[Srecko Sostar]

16 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Got a reference for that?

i will look for

[Srecko Sostar]

On 12/4/2017 at 14:14, JW Insider said:

the Art Department at Brooklyn Bethel

this mentioned history is interesting. Inspiration of artist who making pictures have several sources, i guess. :))

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

16 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Got a reference for that?

i will look for

If you are going on publicly published material, it's based on two or three principles put together. You can start with this one.

*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

• But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

In it's entirety, this was a very good and balanced article I thought.

Edite to add, whoops, @Noble Berean and @Srecko Sostar, the above was not the paragraph I meant to include:

*** w74 8/1 pp. 469-470 par. 15 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

• In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

15 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

That's not true,

Ajajajjjjj :))) Ok..., Please go to video lesson from your 2016 convention, here is link for you to not losing time in searching. From 4:15 and on, Author of this video giving lesson to JW members how things should be in congregation. Every scene in  WT video production have Its Special PURPOSE. It is not by Chance Who is Sitting Where. Actors not picked by self on what chair to sit. Producent did that for them, Producent know why is important who is sitting where.  This Is Message, This is how things need to be, This is way to introducing example that must to be imitated. Because JW members have to Obey all Instructions from Organization no matter how that can look from Human Standpoint (WT study edition nov 2013). "All of us MUST BE READY TO OBEY ANY INSTRUCTIONS we may receive, whether these appear SOUND from a strategic or human standpoint OR NOT."

Video: Mother, Father and sister are sitting separate from family member (daughter, sister) who will be announced from stage about dfd decision by elders. So please, JW members must more carefully observing, listening and looking what is content of videos, cartoons, articles, public talks and so. If you can not see what is obvious to notice... if you not want to believe to some other people who point you to look on some thing.... then no one can help you, only God. :))))

link for video:

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Alithís Gnosis said:

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all

Other than a certain dead horse involving an entire thread that I have beaten until the flesh has fallen off the bone and should certainly desist from by now and will unless I see an advantage in bringing it up again, I am not aware of this happening. Has it?

There was something odd about Allen, but I gave up trying to figure what was what. The Librarian said he had been booted for rudeness, but I thought that was long ago. Now he apparently cloned himself and I see several manifestations of himself. Let no one say  @AllenSmith is not an enigma. 

Has he ever been rude? Probably. But there are no end of people here who have been nearly as rude, and countless ones who are deliberately offensive, attributing evil motive to Witness headship when they have no basis whatsoever for doing so. Besides, as long as we are quoting Greek on this thread, let us quote Aristotle: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Cut him slack. He brings legal decisions to the table that nobody else thinks of.

Or maybe there are other examples I do not know about. It's is hard to keep up, especially when the Librarian redirects comments into new threads like some great anti-typical shell game.

[TrueTomHarley]

10 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is not by Chance Who is Sitting Where. Actors not picked by self on what chair to sit. Producent did that for them, Producent know why is important who is sitting where.... Because JW members have to Obey all Instructions from Organization no matter how that can look from Human Standpoint 

Yeah, that way when she sits down she sits where the camera is pointed so the video does not consist of an empty chair. They are not the first filmmakers ever to have done that.