Grey Reformer

That's a good one. First I am Allan, now I'm somebody else. I think there is something wrong with the mental stability of some here when people are free to chime in whenever they want. I guess that means you are James and Srecko.
But, this distraction of yours seems to playout everytime you get caught in a deception. A Trump ploy.

So how has this been explained away today? I don't seem to recall anything...

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.

This is just a small aside, for entertainment purposes. But I was reminded that it might be worth mentioning when I read about smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks, desperation, frustration and negative discourse.
A lot of people have probably noticed that over on the right side of the page you can usually find a little box like this one:

Out of habit I glance at it whenever I read a recent post, for reasons that might become obvious in a minute. Less than an hour ago "Grey Reformer" disappeared and I suspected that another name might take its place. Sure enough, within a couple minutes "Gray Reformer" was no longer online and the name "Alithís Gnosis" took its place. I knew what to expect, because I recognized the name as an alias of someone who evidently keeps a couple dozen such alias names. I expected a barrage of down votes or laughter votes or "sad votes." This time it was a short campaign of "sad votes." Then, as expected, "Alithís Gnosis" disappeared from the "Who's Online" list and the name "Grey Reformer" was found it its place again.

Probably just a coincidence ?, but the same thing happened a few days ago when another of his aliases went offline (I won't say who this time)  and it was immediately replaced by "Grey Reformer." This was right after that other easily recognized alias also took the opportunity to offer a short barrage of down votes. Full disclosure: I have seen this same coincidence happen literally dozens of times with the same set of aliases.
Coincidences don't necessarily give a true picture, but they can certainly be entertaining.

How is it any different from ex-witness view then, that you agree with their distorted facts? That means you are deliberately adding to the false narrative that you are trying so hard to convince people here you are again'st. People can't have it both ways. This doesn't make any sense on an intellectual level when people support opposing views. Either directly or indirectly by agreeing with incoherency through up or down votes.
You have contradicted your stance with the Watchtower. But, I guess this is what's happens when you go to an apostate site like JWfacts to gather the material.
Then why be judgmental toward the Watchtower. If you don’t want to judge former witnesses for their hatred and prosecution? Then why is it so simple to imply the Watchtower has done something wrong, when in reality as you stated, it never did.

Where is the red line for that kind of behavior? That people find it easy to pile on, on a misconception.

There seems to be a consensus that bigger fonts drive some kind of a point. Being outraged with distorted facts is exactly the position the public holds by those that remember or consider. Nowadays, it seldom does to the outside world. It matters to ex-witnesses the most since they plaster it throughout the internet. It matters here to keep a forgotten distorted view to promote that same agenda.

That means there is nothing different here that merits a good Christian discussion. It is simply an excuse to an end means of a negative portrayal of a failing system.

That’s right, those that stayed alive until 1975 got to be part of the 6000 years existence of mankind, and they also got to see the dramatic global changes that started humanity downward for the worse. So, yes! Stay alive until 1975.

True Christians became one step closer to God’s fulfillment. No one, but no one can change that with distorted Watchtower publications. People can read ALL of them in its proper context, and perhaps experience the delight 1975 brought to those loyally serving god. They savored and relished every minute of it. To know at some distant point, none of this will matter, for all of us will be judged according to our deeds.

There seems to be a disconnect when it comes to sincerity. Former witnesses here never have any.

Seems a bit dishonest since apostate sites quote Watchtower publications as you do. What does that prove? That you think in the same lines of distorting the facts? How about some actual facts that everyone here implies.

How is it any different from ex-witness view then, that you agree with their distorted facts? That means you are deliberately adding to the false narrative that you are trying so hard to convince people here you are again'st. People can't have it both ways. This doesn't make any sense on an intellectual level when people support opposing views. Either directly or indirectly by agreeing with incoherency through up or down votes.
You have contradicted your stance with the Watchtower. But, I guess this is what's happens when you go to an apostate site like JWfacts to gather the material.
Then why be judgmental toward the Watchtower. If you don’t want to judge former witnesses for their hatred and prosecution? Then why is it so simple to imply the Watchtower has done something wrong, when in reality as you stated, it never did.

Where is the red line for that kind of behavior? That people find it easy to pile on, on a misconception.

I believe you fall short on this one since it can be applied to you and others here.

Indeed. Who's denying that former witnesses are the least honest people alive? My question is, why then defend their views with your own opposition and with the same distorted publicans they use here by so many of you. So, no one should deny, deny, deny the falsehoods anyone says about the Watchtower and 1975.

Then what's your point about taking the wrong approach to a topic that you know to be false. Former witnesses distort the facts, as it's done here. So, what's the difference if you call yourself a witness and it amounts to the same distortion.
Who is being dishonest here?

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?

Currently, at Warwick World HQ, it takes translators to decipher an apology before it is printed in the publications.

Speaking of CANDOR ... the following cartoon is how "candor" works at Warwick World Headquarters, as well as at other businesses ... EVERYWHERE. 
We are NOT immune to this!
It's a cartoon ... but what makes it funny ( and grabs your chest in a queasy sort of way generating sadness ...) is because there is SO MUCH TRUTH, in this satire of what is REAL.
 

Here is a joke for you:
QUESTION: What do you call "candor" ... bundled with insincere kindness?
ANSWER::  No one knows, as truth is being deliberately obscured.
 
 

Your homework (should you decide to accept) is to print out the above CANVAS on an 8-1/2x11" piece of paper and find the six things that are deliberate lies, and write it  on the margins of your paper.
 

Seems a bit dishonest since apostate sites quote Watchtower publications as you do. What does that prove? That you think in the same lines of distorting the facts? How about some actual facts that everyone here implies.

Agendas can be proven wrong with FACTS.
Facts cannot be proven wrong with Agendas.
No matter how noble the motive ....
Wrong is Wrong.
 

" STAY ALIVE 'TILL '75"
The climatic conclusion met with thunderous applause of the 1967 Charles Sinutko Assembly talk "Serving With Everlasting Life In View" !
After his opening weasel wording  he forgot his plausible deniability statement in the beginning, and ramped it up to a crescendo conclusion  that had the crowd roaring!
"STAY ALIVE 'TILL '75"
 

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

I can see where it would become a problem for people that admit one thing, turn around and stab people in the back. Actual facts are in black and white. Many here are merely instigators to purge on the intelligence of others, with actual known facts that JWinsider has already admitted to. I don’t need to resort to ad-hominem attacks or hurl insults. But I guess that’s a handicap for those that you disagree with. Sorry for not being part of your distorted team. I have a conscience and I’m faith when obeying God. Thus far, the only point made here, former witnesses are wrong about 1975, and some of you are wrong to think they’re way by giving the same company line. Which truth should we follow, God and Jesus, or Satan? God and Christ never hide or distorted the truth to get their way, while Satan did.

I believe you fall short on this one since it can be applied to you and others here.

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.

...is that a puzzle, Grey Reformer?
If you cannot put something in your own words, perhaps if you actually said it out loud, you would realize how goofy the premise is.
Go on .... give it a try!
I will take a long nap while you work on it.

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.)