J.R. Ewing JR

I can vouch for him. He never did.

Arrgghhh! It is nothing but scurrilous slander!! I'll not take it, I tell ye. How do ye feel about walking the plank, ye braggart?
I have never once engaged in annoying behavior or an extra account!

Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

I don't think we can criticize the WTS itself for revealing hypocrisy, and in this way being critical and judgmental about religion and other parts of society. It is part of our belief system that wheat would grow alongside hypocritically similar-looking weeds for example. The WTS has not been guilty of going beyond fair use in the content of most of their work. There have only been minor exceptions that I know of. It's also possible they did not get the rights to Seola, but I'm not sure. When they wanted the rights to the Diaglott, they bought them. They licensed the rights to print the American Standard and Byington.
I know that when someone found a story told from the perspective of an unborn child in a Reader's Digest, for example, an Awake! article was produced over the exact same idea and a lot of phrases remained intact. But a lot of work was put into making it different, so I don't think it was plagiarized on purpose. Similar complaints about Awake! articles have less basis. Sometimes an author writes a non-fiction book on a particular subject and another author says he or she can do a much better job, and comes out with a book with nearly the same title. I have done work for commercial publishing houses, and I know that when a specific genre of writing makes a publishing house some money, another publishing house often puts out a call for anyone who has worked on a similar book.
More often than not, the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material. There have been cases when internal material, never intended for public publication has been "leaked." Leaked material can seem damning, but unless everything is leaked it will always tell a partial picture. And the leaker is often interested in making it seem as if the partial picture is the while picture.
However, if material that was already intended for the public, or put out on a public website (jw.org) is leaked, this is where the WTS might find a PR problem trying to suppress it. But even here, they would have no legal problem trying to suppress it if they wanted on many sites that are primarily known for quoting large chunks of material or giving out access to publications on their own non-JW sites.

-fair use rule as far is "fair" for those to whom critics is addressed. WTBTS is proud when can address "argumentative, Bible based" critics, judgement, revealing of hypocrisy in other parts of human society (religious,as first choice and then other, politics and trade systems).
But when observers, critics, ex members or even JW members questioning, reveals inside spiritual and hierarchical structure of doctrines, rules, instructions and corporational moves in aspects of money and such part of life inside WT, then WT consider such behavior as "not fair use", even against law of "publishing rights" or "intellectual property" and against WT freedom of speech, freedom of religion.   
Double standard? or theocratic warfare methods?

Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing."  Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. 
You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important.
So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

LOL!!! Cyberbullying and multiple accounts that everyone is guilty of.

 
 
 
 

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.
 

 
 
 
 

 

This just about caps it for me.
I came into the "truth" by a similar route although a little later than JWI, Truth Book, Things in Which It Is Impossible, Life Everlasting, Lamp book. In that whole time, nothing significant was stated to me about 1975 at all, other than (what I felt at the time was) incomprehensible mutterings about the end of 6000 years since Adam's creation. The few 1975 encounters I did have came a bit later, more 1973-4.  I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.
The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings. I need to be persuaded now that 1975ism wasn't predominantly an "American" thing as my experience of the matter, apart from one already mentioned brother, as a topic of talk or conversational  significance, was minimal.

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.
I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.
I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?
This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.
I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.
I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.
But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.”  Matt 12:36
Does this exclude the Watchtower leaders who mislead thousands with failed prophesies?  
Our responsibility is to uphold Truth – never a lie.  Our responsibility is to uphold scripture, not men’s doctrines.  
Can you see this?
“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.
I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
 But if they had stood in My counsel,
And had caused My people to hear My words,
Then they would have turned them from their evil way
And from the evil of their doings.” Jer 23:21,22
The way many JWs cater to the Watchtower’s leaders, is as if God has turned a deaf ear to their sins.
“Am I a God near at hand,” says the Lord,
“And not a God afar off?
 Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?” says the Lord;
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord.
 “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’  How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart,  who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams which everyone tells his neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal.  Jer 23:23-27
Armageddon - fought in the valley of decision.  It is here.  Surely, you must be feeling the battle of truth against lies, as we speak.  Eph 6:12

Oh no, no , .... satan would corrupt me too as he has done with all other also :)))

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

The Bible needs to be studied at a personal level.
If in the study of the Bible I come to understand that some teachings are wrong, I must act according to conscience.
I have dedicated myself to Jehovah and not to GB.
The Bible is not "imperfect spiritual food", it does not lend itself to rewards, corrections or "new light".
The Bible is the truth.
Obviously, I can go wrong in good faith during my Bible study. However, the Bible encourages you to study personally and ask Jehovah for help.
If the GB says something that according to my Biblical knowledge is not in harmony with the Scriptures, I will listen to my conscience. If we believe that the "truth" is the Word of God (John 17:17) then we realize that sometimes this organization has adhered more to the truth while "at other times" has less adhered to the truth. This is the organization that has taught me many beautiful, true and just things.
This organization, in its time, was surely blessed by God.
It does not mean, however, that "this organization" can not become a "chopper machine" since brothers (in the majority) are not able to do a personal study, to challenge, to question any "truth" not to be labeled as apostates.
For this reason, it will be necessary to create a distinction between those who really love the Word of God (study and seek to understand it) and those who love tranquility (who does the research in our place and tells us what to believe and do not believe).
Israel was also God's people, but to understand the will of God, "read the law book day and night."
Not simply ask the priests or the High Priest.
The priests could deflect (and are often misguided) but the Word of God remains unchanged.
We have many Biblical teachings and examples.
Many of us have become "unconscious worshipers".
Worshipers of people, "circular", the personality, the overseer; Watch Tower, Videos, and Cartoons.
Jehovah considers us personally responsible.
Pay close attention to the prophecies.
 

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want.
In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

In the Internet age, nothing can be buried. The whole convention was combating disillusionment. I think the org knows that, and they're worried about people viewing anti-JW websites and blogs. They come up on the first page of Google. By addressing controversial matters directly, they have full control over how the story is framed, and the story presented will satisfy most JWs. Then, they're less likely to consider other sources on the matter, or they may discredit other accounts as apostate exaggerations. I have family that lived through 1975, and the convention video bothered them a bit. Not faith-shaking, but an annoyance. They knew people who sold off property and made major life adjustments. They did so earnestly and in good faith that the organization was telling the the truth. They were essentially painted in a negative way in the video--as overly extreme. But that kind of faith in the organization persists till today. What's changed since then? Are people freer to question what they hear from the org?
On the WOL? Are you referencing the exact quotes supporting 1975 preppers or the admission of guilt?
The message of trusting the Bible over men is a good one, but why not go all in? Why not admit the source of the 1975 frenzy? It wasn't just some loony JWs...it was the organization that promoted the idea in their literature. It didn't come from nowhere. It cheapens the message to show only a half-truth.

Yes. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of fish got washed up on that beach.
I was there, but some sound thinking advice earlier meant that I didn't connive with 'seventy -five. However, there were some who actually borrowed money on the strength of it!! They were a bit miffed as well.

Both. 
Yes, WOL "changes in doctrine" and also Watchtower library CD,  by typing in 1975, or other key words.
I think you are misunderstanding. Part of the misunderstanding is because opposers paint it that way.

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.
It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?
It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

I am sorry you don't believe me, Saladin.  Most do not, since my message is not very palatable.  It is your choice.  If you dare to read anything I have written on here, you will find consistency in my direction to explain who the anointed are as God's Temple, what they face in the organization, and why it is important to leave the abomination "standing"/sitting in God's Temple.  2 Thess 2:1-12
I am not sure if you are using the excuse that restrictions have been imposed on you, not allowing you to answer more, or if you truly have no further words to tell me.  Although, I am willing to discuss.  
 
 

Dear Witness,
I can only answer with the restrictions of not being part of an overt group this way,

By exposing contradictory statements.





Perhaps those that are allowed by managment to be as salty with their responses can further your agrument.

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"
That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.
However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.
http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html
 
 

It is interesting. They sued those apostates for using "spiritual food" without copyrights permission.
How about JHVH copyrights ownership on truth, love, justice, thoughts, feelings, words ....water, food, air...
Again, WT is Company and because this reason they sued people for using their printed and electronic material. But main reason for WT suing them is revealed facts that expose WT "wrongs" about Biblical subjects and every day  living. In fact disputable matters are in theological sphere in first place. And then comes other items in connection on corporative and structural functioning in hierarchy  of WT. Regarding using of this secular world, money, policy, politic ...  

I meant gaffe from a logical point of view, obviously, not how it affected people's lives. I made it clear how I felt about that in my reply to Gone Fishing. 
Gaffe also means "an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder"
So the reasoning in the 1972 WT was a blunder, a mistake, and obviously, later on,  a cause for embarrassment to those who made it, and those who read it.

I send my letter of dissociation to Zagreb Branch and they never published it. :))))
Elders said to bro and sis not to read if they receive something from me. And to destroy it :))))))))))