ComfortMyPeople

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

I guess you've pretty much completed the list. I can't think of anything else....
Although I must add that some of these reasons in themselves are not enough for some to quit. There are some in the truth, and faithful, in spite of feeling some of those things on the list. And there are many who just don't even know about some of these issues....heck, many don't know why we believe in 1914. They assume it's because of WW1 and that's good enough for them. Some things are just too complicated to analyze and "make sure of", and so they remain kind of blissfully covered over. I agree, knowing about some of these things can be faith shaking. Ignorance is bliss indeed. And yet, there is so much that makes sense also. To me, at least. As an organization we are a work in progress and in the past we were made out to be...well..."almost" infallible. It is only in recent years (and perhaps due to unfulfilled interpretations) have we, as an organization, admitted that we are not always going to be right. More to the point; the Governing Body isn't always going to be right, in fact they are only "scratching the surface" (Br. Herd quote). It is a very difficult thing sometimes to trust someone who has failed you in the past. And yet this is what is being asked of us. But the good thing is we have an infallible source to fall back on, the Bible. So in my opinion, when there are scriptures that are a little ambiguous, but are interpreted in a certain way by the Slave, from past experience, should I be blamed if I find it hard to embrace this particular interpretation, and  would rather wait and see?
It is a very difficult thing. Do you think it's possible to have a good and close relationship with Jehovah, and yet be wary sometimes about what the Slave says? In the past these two things were inseparable. If you were not agreeing with the Slave, you were automatically against Jehovah.

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

Is it more that the conclusions were false? Evolution and creation use the same "proof", just draw different conclusions.
Here's a question.
Since 1975, 10.5 million have been baptised. Add in the av pubs of '75 gives 12.6 million. The average publisher count for  2017 was 8.2 million.Allowing for the current crude death rate, 1.7 million have died since '75, so at least 2.7 million have gone AWOL or disfellowshipped. (Approximations of course).
Why is this?
Is it: Lack of confidence in leadership? Disobedience to moral requirements? Lack of desire to preach? Preference for materialistic goals? Fear of man? Expected "end" took too long? Stumbled over other's immorality? Believe apostate distortions?
Or is it: Don't believe we are in last days? Don't believe 1914CE was when time ran out for Satan? Don't believe Governing Body are spirit appointed and directed? Disillusioned over end-time teachings?  Suspicions of financial irregularity? Don't agree with "shunning" non-dependant relatives? Don't agree with prohibition on primary blood components only?
Or what?
 
 

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

Technically yes, but practically, we know, and everyone else knows, when that statement was made it was not referring to babies born in 1918 and people living till they were nearly a 100. It was was talking about those who were in the audience at the time and perhaps of average age, which would probably be 35 to 45 year olds?
 
Actually I never knew that!
Yes please. I don't know much about it. I just know that this talk was given and that obviously it was.....well......wishful thinking at best and totally false at worst. And I guess it had a lot to do with the 1925 campaign.
What I wondered was if our latest publications have mentioned anything about it. I can look it up too...
PS. The last mention of "millions now living will never die" that I have in my WT CD library is from 2009 WT . The article was a life experience entitled "Ninety Years Ago I Began to ‘Remember My Grand Creator" one excerpt says this:
"Some months before this incident at school, our family had moved to live near Glasgow in Scotland. About that time, Father attended the public talk entitled “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” It changed his life. Father and Mother began studying the Bible and often talked together about God’s Kingdom and the blessings to come. I thank God that from then on my parents brought me up to love God and to put my trust in him."— WT/2009/7/15
Most likely today this brother is dead...
 
 

Nothing needed to be done to explain it away for nearly 100 years, because there was still a chance within the first 100 years, that the prophecy might have come true. (At least the prophecy made in the title of the talk might still have come true, even if almost all the other details of the prophecy and its foundation had still failed.)
And after 100 years any "scandal" over it is long past, and could easily be dismissed with favorite phrases like "the light gets brighter." 
The statement made in March 1918 ("Millions now living will never die.") has only recently become a truly "false" prophecy in that a fulfillment of sorts was still possible up until a couple years ago. Technically, you would need at least 2 million persons to make the plural "millions" part come true, and we would evidently have needed Armageddon to come sometime around 2016 in order for 2 million 98+ year-olds to still be alive, who had just born in March 1918. Perhaps, some worldwide estimates of the number of 99+ year-olds in 2017 could have been around to potentially survive Armageddon. As of now in late 2018, however, there would have to be 2 million 100.5-year-olds, going on 101 in the next few months. According to average best estimates there are now far less than 1 million 100-year-olds. In fact, barely over 500,000 as seen in the PEW chart that Google returns if you ask "how many centenarians are currently alive in the whole world."

Another point that would make it even more difficult to be fulfilled would be the fact that back then these millions were going to be unbaptized, worldly people who would simply begin "not to die" as of 1925 and thereafter. It did not refer to the great crowd of Revelation 7. It referred to people of all religions and non-believers who would survive Armageddon because it was Jehovah's purpose, as stated at the time, to save almost everyone through Armageddon into a time when they would simply stop dying. Remember that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7 were still going to heaven along with the 144,000 kings and priests, according to Russell's and Rutherford's teachings. The only difference between the 144,000 in heaven and the great crowd in heaven is that the great crowd were not of the "higher" heavenly calling and were not part of Christ's Bride.
By normally obscuring this fact, and wrongly claiming that the "millions" were the equivalent of the "great crowd,"  the Watch Tower publications have been able to just "chalk up" the prophecy to over-optimism in thinking so many would respond to the Bible Students in such a quick period of time after 1918. It is very rare for the Watch Tower publications to admit how closely this prophecy was tied to the year 1925. In other words, when the great tribulation does come in the next few years, as expected, it will only have been a few years off.
Understanding the original prophecy in its full context is a good idea, in order to understand how and why the references to it have evolved over time. Maybe in another thread?

Just as the "Ministry of Truth" did in the book "1984" by George Orwell, the Society is revising History, wherever they can, to change graphic images ( posters, handbills, and other things that might be used in a current illustration) to read "Millions now living MAY never die." (emphasis mine).
The book "1984 was SUPPOSED to be a fictional dire warning of how societies evolve into a perpetual tyranny over time, and showing how it could happen.
We us it as a policy manual.
In "1984"  England  had evolved into INGSOC, and the way they maintained total social control was by changing the past by changing all historical references .... and by controlling the past, controlled the present, and controlled the future .... making it difficult or impossible to check the past for truthful references to ANYTHING.
The Society today is actively using this technique to change the past. In many cases the bound volumes of the Watchtowers and Awakes have been revised and do not show what was in the original magazines, and convention videos today mentioning our history make you wonder if they are talking about something that happened somewhere in a parallel Universe.
The "Millions now living may never die" is only THE classic example of rewriting the past, to control the present, and by controlling the present, control the future.
Here are two videos that explain "1984".
Watch them and weep.
 
 

The Dystopian World of 1984 Explained.mp4 George Orwell's 1984, Part 2_ Crash Course Literature #402 (1).mp4  
NOW ... find the movie "1984", and watch it. It has a superstar of yesteryear in it ... but you hardly notice.
 
 
 

Sounds like a waste of time. But I'm retired, so I'll tell you what I would come up with:
..."millions now living will never die."... This was a risky prophecy to make. But the risk probably didn't seem too high at the time since, after the failure of 1914, Rutherford said that people had more on which to base their faith in this prophecy than Noah had on which to base his faith in Jehovah telling him there would be a Flood. He said that there was more Bible evidence for 1925 than there was for 1914. But it turned out to be a false prophecy. So it turned out to be a "lie" in the Biblical sense, but it might not have been intentional if the human sources of this false prophecy believed it, and those who repeated it had faith in that human source. "'The Finished Mystery,' the posthumous work of Pastor Russell" . . . This book quoted many times from Russell, but was definitely not the posthumous work of Pastor Russell. (For that matter, the title of the book was a lie, because it promoted itself as the final explanation of the mysteries of Ezekiel and Revelation, yet almost every explanation of the "mystery" in it is now considered to be false.) The Watch Tower publications explained why they called it the "posthumous" work of Pastor Russell in a very odd way. It was because, as a spirit creature who had just died, Russell was supposedly still alive in the spirit world (heaven) in 1917: "Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work." according to "The Finished Mystery" page 144. It was clearly believed that Russell could still continue to influence the Watch Tower Society's publications in a way analogous to how Jehovah influenced the Bible writers. "Since 1881 everybody ridiculed Pastor Russell . . ." Not everybody. Some believed him. Most people in the world had still never heard of him. According to current WT publications, many created a "cult" around him. Rhetorical hyperbole, not necessarily a "lie." "Since 1881. . . the International Bible Students Association" . . . The International Bible Students Association [IBSA] did not exist until 1914 when it was incorporated in London. Before then Bible Students used the simple name "Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." Some refused a name, and some even called themselves Russellites and names related to Millennial Dawn, etc. This is not a "lie," just a potentially misleading ambiguity. "Since 1881. . . Pastor Russell's [and IBSA's] message that the Bible prophesied a world war in 1914." The Bible never prophesied a single world war between multiple nations, but this could be a matter of interpretation. The Bible never prophesied anything whatsoever to do with the year 1914. In 1881, and for the next 20-some years, Russell and the IBSA promised that 1914 would be the year when the expected worldwide trouble would end, not begin. All human systems would collapse in 1914, governments, institutions, religions. There would be chaos for several months, but there would be no earthly governments remaining who would be capable of prosecuting such a war. The 7/15/1894 Watch Tower, p.226 said: "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." "but the war came on time." Very misleading. By the time late 1913 had rolled around, Russell pretty much gave up hope and faith in this 1914 date and moved it to 1915. For a few months even into 1914, Russell even gave up altogether and talked about there being no chance of all that was expected actually happening on time, and he conceded that they must have been wrong, and talked about the prospect that 100 years from now [2014], people might wonder what all this talk had been about. As it was, in about 1904 they had moved the expectation of the great time of trouble to 1914 (sometimes 1915) and began holding to the idea that this time of trouble might happen around October 1st or 2nd 1914. A world war broke out in July and gave them hope that this might be the beginnings of a worldwide collapse of all nations, governments, religions and other human institutions, where the only government with continued authority would be that of literal Israel in Palestine, and God would take a spiritual Israel to rule from heaven in 1914. It turned out, instead, to be a world war between several nations, and many more nations existed after the war, than were numbered before the war -- the opposite of the expectation of all nations disintegrating. Also Israel didn't get back on the map until decades later, and Israel never did become the only remaining human government on earth. Nothing predicted about 1914 ever came true. The most important things proved to be quite the opposite. "and now the message of his final work" . . . Again with the false attribution to Russell who did not work on this book. It was written by George Fisher and Clayton Woodworth along with the claim that Russell had communicated from beyond the veil as a spirit creature to write it posthumously (after he died). "It is an absolute fact. . ." . . . The phrase most often prefixed to bigger than usual lies, especially to sell products. You don't usually have to look at the next phrase to know that it won't usually be true. "It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible. . ."  Like I said, you didn't need to look. It's absolutely false. "It is an absolute fact. . . foretold by every prophet of the Bible" . . . Just like with the books, it turned out that it was not predicted by any book of the Bible nor any prophet of the Bible. Calling it thus is just an embarrassing way of trying to say you are a prophet speaking in Jehovah's name, sticking your neck out further to make sure that people will later see you as a false prophet if your fantastic guesses don't happen to come true. "well worth a few evenings' time for investigation." . . . Quite the opposite. In fact, anyone who wants to discuss the book today among Witnesses will usually be suspected of apostasy. Even though it is still touted as a book that supposedly had the "ring of truth" no one can go more than a couple pages in the book without coming across something that Witnesses now recognize as false, if not embarrassingly false. And remember, the purpose of this investigation was to prove to yourself that Armageddon was culminating in 1925. "The Golden Age" . . . The idea was that the Golden Age had already begun when the Millennium dawned back in 1874 and various advances in the world, new technology, and even medical advances and theories (that turned out to be from quacks and fraudsters) were supposed to give evidence that the Millennium had started 45 or more years earlier. "both for two seventy-five (don't say dollars)" . . .  This speaks for itself. Internally, the persons who distributed most of these books were spoken of as selling the book, and book salesman could make a profit if they sold enough. The sales process was not so different from the way "colporteurs" in those days were selling books along with Fuller Brushes, Carter's Little Liver Pills, Bibles, Encyclopedias, etc. (Books by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] were a profitable moneymaker for colporteurs for many years. See below.)  If you followed the sales instructions and learned the pitch you could make a profit, whether you believed in the content or quality of the material or not. This reminds me of a story I heard about colporteurs who used to sell the books of Mark Twain in the late 1800s and early 1900's. They could be had in about 4 or more levels of quality. The idea was also to upsell them on a better quality book if the householder agreed to a lower quality, or if they said no to the price of the highest quality (leatherbound, embossed, lithographs, etc.) then they might finally agree to a lower quality. It was a very irritating process to the householder. The goal of course was to get them moved to absolute most they might pay, so they might even split it up with part now and part cash on delivery. Just a quick search didn't find me the story, but I did notice this in a book called "Mark Twain's Road to Bankruptcy," below. You can see that "colporteurs" were not considered the best of society at the time.

I stay with Jehovah's Witnesses because the core theology is sound, and true .... and not because of the 85% arrogant self serving drivel I have to endure, and the resultant damage on the Brotherhood ... for three reasons:
1.) I appreciate what is actually true is exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses, and there is nowhere else to go, and
2.) I have learned to expect as a natural right NOTHING from anybody, and
3.) I do not fear death as some do .... might be a good chance to test what I think I know.

Grey Reformer:
Your entire thinking processes are contaminated by your honorable but misguided agenda.
You cannot defend what is indefensible, and expect to win an argument based on reason and logic when evaluating TRUTH.
What I just quoted from you is SCARY ... to a logical mind.
It uses the same lack of reasoning that "...all prostitutes wear shoes ... so all people that wear shoes are prostitutes".
Grow up !!

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?

Malarkey: American English, of unknown origin; perhaps from Greek μαλακία (malakía, “stupidity, idiocy, nonsense, bullshit”).
This word always makes me laugh.
This whole subject is another of those areas strong on detail but thin on fact. It seems that some are almost obsessed over identifying who is or who isn't anointed and also get rather bogged down in the murky waters of "times and seasons" as they relate to the rather specific time periods in Daniel and the Revelation.
In my limited experience, most of those I have known with the heavenly hope have little doubt over it, and don't actually shout about it. I can see the necessity to make such information public however in the face of Christendom's apostasy and the need to preach the current kngdom message. 
I never entertained such a belief myself, even when educated as RC, and apart from a brief period of extra-terrestrial notions during a pre-"truth", pyschadelic era which I no longer remember, I have always had my feet very firmly planted on terra firma.
Discovering the Bible teaching that there would be two destinies for mankind was pretty reassuring. Understanding that everlasting life on earth was actually a God-given prospect was enlightening to say the least. Considering that there would come a time when a unique group of prospective, earth-destined, Armageddon survivors would appear on the world scene at a time close to that event, and that individuals with both hopes would "overlap" (there's a contraversial word) and share space with each other on earth for a while was pretty exciting. Over time, I came to realise that my personal inclusion in that post Armageddon population, (given God's approval of course), could be either by survival or resurrection, depending on time and unforseen circumstance. This was a welcome, albeit sobering element to the rather euphoric notion of imminent deliverance.  
It seems pretty clear that the majority of Jehovah's servants since the time of Abel have entertained the prospect of living forever on earth. A small number since Pentecost 36CE have been personally invited to go to heaven for a specific purpose, a number as small as 144,000 of chosen, tried and tested individuals, destined to rule with Christ in heaven itself.
Of the rest of the population since Abel, apart from those with a genuine heavenly calling, there is no difference between the interim destiny of Jehovah's servants and the vast majority those who were not, as made clear at Acts 24:15.
Pe-Israelite, there were many worshipers of Jehovah, some we know, some we don't. During the time of the Israelite nation, it was quite possible for people of the nations to join with Israelites in the worship of Jehovah as the record makes clear, and although they could have an unrestricted relationship with the true God according to the parameters of the time, they were restricted as to cetrain privileges and prospects, many of which they may well have had a limited perception given the appalling lack of spirituality amongst Jehovah's named people at times.
So, on the basis of these sketchy details, it seems that to suggest that since the first Century there would be (hundreds of) thousands drawn to Jehovah on the basis of a genuine heavenly hope to which they then proved unfaithful is, quite frankly, mularkey.
Despite the attempts of false Christianity to obscure the Bible's message, individuals were irrepressible in their loyalty to what they perceived of the message of scripture. Some like Wycliffe and Tyndale we know by name. There must have been many we do not. 
With the heavenly hope held out with little alternative over centuries, it is no wonder that many who embraced the scriptures would profess this even in the more scripturally post-Reformation enlightened days, but to suggest that the majority of these, right down to the 20th Century were actually genuine anointed and destined for Gehenna due to their apparent unfaithfulness is more...mularky! They were just God-fearing folk with wrong ideas. And Lord knows we have had a few of these even amongst genuine anointed ones in more recent times.
I have met genuine Christians who were asociated with the Bible Students prior to 1935. They uncomfortably partook of the emblems prior to understanding the significance of Revelation 7:9-10, because there seemed to be no alternative. They were greatly relieved to learn that there was an earthly destiny held out to active worshippers associated with the congregation and not just something to be achieved by non Christians through a resurrection, something apparently denied if you knew you were a Christian, but entertained a heavenly calling inappropriately.
So long and short of it for me until proved otherwise is that many have been drawn to Jehovah through the centuries, including the Christian era. Some have had specific enlightenment into God's purposes and have been greatly privileged in His service to the benefit of others. All faithful anointed are included in this group, despite their small number of only 144,000. But there have been countless others known only to Jehovah who have been attracted to whatever truth was available at the time and have faithfully held to whatever their perception of it was.
Interestingly, many who thought they were possibly of the "great crowd" were actually not. They have died and are in the same postion of any other servants of Jehovah since Abel, but currently dead. Was it not holy spirit that revealed their destiny to them? And yet they are not deemed "unfaithful" are they?
As for those intriguing time periods? I'm waiting for a bit more clarity there.
Malarkey!  I love that word! ?

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.
THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.
After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.
So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.
======reference=======
FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.
FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"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!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.
FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

Actually it's not a fantasy. It's the "now" that's the problem. No one can say "when" millions living will never die, but it's not a fantasy, as one day it will be a reality.

Heard anything from ANY platform?
Seen any evidence in ANY publication?
Know about any internal "reform" movement?
Heard about any Governing Body Member quitting in disgust?
I have not, to ANY of the above.
THAT'S how I know.
Hard evidence.