Evacuated

I have a thought to throw into this discussion. What about the fact that the king cannot FULLY come into power with his full complement of corulers, correct? So would this also be true in this instance? Without the entire 144000 in heaven, will JESUS complete his conquest of earth, removing Satan. So when they are all in heavenly form, 144000 and the King, JESUS will be in full power to fulfill his commitment as the Messianic king of God's Kingdom, ushering in the welcomed new system of things.

I'll try a naive take on this in view of all the "wiseguy" comments above.
We have an anxious man in the foreground. In addition to his own personal anxieties, he could be beleaguered by worries regarding sickness, disasters, breakdown of law and order (speaker guy), whether situations are real or imagined, and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or the general experience of others. This relates to the climate of "the last days" described in the Bible at, for example, 2Tim.3:1-5; Luke 21:9-28; Rev.12:9-12, and experienced by all mankind. In the midst of these "critical times", those seeking to serve the true God acceptably experience many anxiety-inducing pressures. The WT article accompanying the illustration presents a range of strategies that God's servants might employ in managing the situation .  

I'll try a naive take on this in view of all the "wiseguy" comments above.
We have an anxious man in the foreground. In addition to his own personal anxieties, he could be beleaguered by worries regarding sickness, disasters, breakdown of law and order (speaker guy), whether situations are real or imagined, and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or the general experience of others. This relates to the climate of "the last days" described in the Bible at, for example, 2Tim.3:1-5; Luke 21:9-28; Rev.12:9-12, and experienced by all mankind. In the midst of these "critical times", those seeking to serve the true God acceptably experience many anxiety-inducing pressures. The WT article accompanying the illustration presents a range of strategies that God's servants might employ in managing the situation .  

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

Ooh wow! Beautiful Southern Lights! ❤️️
More pictures from the same (I think) event in Nov. 2015.
Thanks for posting 

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

Good point. Also, if that last aerial picture of the lake were shifted just slightly to the right, you would see IBM Sterling Forest, a place I went to every year from 2002 to 2012. (We had several contracts with them for backup, disaster recovery and key server mirrors for our data center.) It was only an hour away from our own company headquarters in NYC, and only 1.5 hours from my house before rush hour.
 

Of course, back then the pre-Watchtower site looked more like this:
 

I was thinking that, but you know it doesn't seem that far from Brooklyn and there a lot of people in between.  Check Google map: Warwick Headquarters

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

I was thinking that, but you know it doesn't seem that far from Brooklyn and there a lot of people in between.  Check Google map: Warwick Headquarters

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not?
Give it time. 
Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread.
It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?).  

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

Well...we won't find fanaticism listed in Gal 5:22-24, although fanatics might say zeal is not there either.

@JWInsider
Don't misunderstand me either. My apparent escape from "1975-ism" does not mean I see it as a minority fad amongst more irrational eccentrics in the congregation. Not at all. Your description of your own experience shows how one could be "embedded" in a "world" governed by this particular attitude. In your case, it appears all-encompassing, with ancestry, family, peers and role models, religious environment, career and education path, all governed by this thinking on the end time. It also illustrates to me also the world of difference in experience between those who are born into the world of Jehovah's Witness and those, like myself, who have sought out the movement as an adult. Something like the difference between the man and the travelling merchant at Matt.13:44-45.
I am well aware of the tendency among many brothers to sensationalise endtime speculation. This is reflected in the rather clumsily constructed 1968 WT expression you quoted above "one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end." I can almost hear the accompanying table thump! Even lately I have encountered responsible brothers who press for my agreement with the view that we will be unlikely to have our next Regional Convention in this system of things. And this in the face of the fact that the Society is already arranging the bookings for those delegates attending the 2017 Special Coventions abroad!
This 1974 article was not specific on a "1975"  reason for postponing child rearing and showed that many had made such a decision for secular reasons. However, there will of course be those who did let a date unduly factor in their life strategy and who may well have made sacrifices on the basis of a faulty criteria. But there are also those who made, and still make, similar sacrifices without undue influence from a distorted view of "times and seasons". There are still others who chose not to make such sacrifices but who continue to serve Jehovah acceptably.
Jepthah had not considered the full implications of his vow had he? And as for his daughter? (Judges 11:30-40).
Notwithstanding the reasons any have for serving Jehovah to whatever extent they do, surely Solomon's words hold true, and this is how we should encourage our brothers: 
*** Ec 8:12-13 ***
I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God.
Hmm. "Incited" or "inflamed" more like.
Perhaps a new topic could be "What is the difference between zeal and fanaticism. Illustrate."

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.
Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.
I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’  book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: 
*** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast ***
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? 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. 
Later though, there was this comment:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” 
James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words  in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans  to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories!
So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. 
We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6.
But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc.,  it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14). 


 

 

@JWInsider
Don't misunderstand me either. My apparent escape from "1975-ism" does not mean I see it as a minority fad amongst more irrational eccentrics in the congregation. Not at all. Your description of your own experience shows how one could be "embedded" in a "world" governed by this particular attitude. In your case, it appears all-encompassing, with ancestry, family, peers and role models, religious environment, career and education path, all governed by this thinking on the end time. It also illustrates to me also the world of difference in experience between those who are born into the world of Jehovah's Witness and those, like myself, who have sought out the movement as an adult. Something like the difference between the man and the travelling merchant at Matt.13:44-45.
I am well aware of the tendency among many brothers to sensationalise endtime speculation. This is reflected in the rather clumsily constructed 1968 WT expression you quoted above "one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end." I can almost hear the accompanying table thump! Even lately I have encountered responsible brothers who press for my agreement with the view that we will be unlikely to have our next Regional Convention in this system of things. And this in the face of the fact that the Society is already arranging the bookings for those delegates attending the 2017 Special Coventions abroad!
This 1974 article was not specific on a "1975"  reason for postponing child rearing and showed that many had made such a decision for secular reasons. However, there will of course be those who did let a date unduly factor in their life strategy and who may well have made sacrifices on the basis of a faulty criteria. But there are also those who made, and still make, similar sacrifices without undue influence from a distorted view of "times and seasons". There are still others who chose not to make such sacrifices but who continue to serve Jehovah acceptably.
Jepthah had not considered the full implications of his vow had he? And as for his daughter? (Judges 11:30-40).
Notwithstanding the reasons any have for serving Jehovah to whatever extent they do, surely Solomon's words hold true, and this is how we should encourage our brothers: 
*** Ec 8:12-13 ***
I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God.
Hmm. "Incited" or "inflamed" more like.
Perhaps a new topic could be "What is the difference between zeal and fanaticism. Illustrate."

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.
Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.
I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’  book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: 
*** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast ***
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? 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. 
Later though, there was this comment:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” 
James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words  in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans  to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories!
So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. 
We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6.
But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc.,  it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14). 


 

 

Well...we won't find fanaticism listed in Gal 5:22-24, although fanatics might say zeal is not there either.

Yes. I understand, very insightful application of the "parallel" illustrations.
A little of that comes up every year. The 2014 Memorial was a bit over-hyped this same way:
*** km 3/14 p. 2 par. 4 Will You Seize the Opportunity? ***
Will this Memorial be our last? (1 Cor. 11:26) We do not know. 
 
Rutherford used to make statements like this in the closing comments of the annual conventions. It can turn out to be true one of these times, too, of course.
True. And that is why I never indicated that it was about 1975, only that it was about the "imminent" end of this system. And you are right, the article also pointed out the possibility that your child might starve to death, or even "stab you in your belly."  
*** g74 11/8 p. 10 Is This the Time to Have Children? ***
Thus a mother in Sweden wanted . . . her thirteen-year-old daughter . . . to learn Bible principles. She asked her husband to assist . . .  She suddenly drew a knife, and screamed: “Stay out, or I’ll stab you in your belly!”   Almost daily similar experiences are heard of or read about. They even occur in so-called “good” homes, and in families where efforts are made to bring children up properly. Young couples who observe the deteriorating moral climate are not infrequently heard to remark: “I’m glad we don’t have to rear children in this wicked system.” They are determined to wait for better times to have their young ones.
,
"They" certainly weren't waiting until the problems of this system got a little better, were they? The 1974 Awake! was written at a time when there was an average 6-month lead time for Awake! articles from the time they were written until they were published, and a 4-week lead time for the Kingdom Ministry. Therefore this article about having children was likely written at almost exactly the same time as the following from the 1974 Kingdom Ministry:
*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
 
I think of that a lot. It's true that I may have been involved with a congregation that made more out of 1975 than others, although I think that all 20 congregations in our circuit were all about the same. But even though I made decisions based on some of the articles above (and the assembly talks that went with them) I never thought it hurt me. And even if it had hurt me, it would still not have hurt me in the long run. 
Perhaps. I was surprised to discover several more things just in the last year that indicate that  Rutherford must have thought he had inherited a "cult." 
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
 
I think the difference in zeal and fanaticism matters less than the motive or content driving that zeal, or even fanaticism. As Paul said: 
(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. 
 

Dear Eoin Joyce, I fully agree with your words, when you mention that we’re all enjoying of a spiritual banquet. For example, the last regional convention with its videos, our new Life and Ministry Meeting, the Broadcasting… and many others. And I also think you’re completely right when you think about some of us as a little bit children if we concentrate on the icing, the dressing and so. Ten points my brother -you make me smile while reading your words-
And, in agreeing more with your statements, if we focus in the cake, the meat, the salad in our spiritual table, any other things pale. And what you probably mean with the “meat of our banquet” well, I feel myself privileged, as we all JW should feel. The teachings of the “slave” class in the last century and more, have had an enormous influence in our lives. Positive influence. And I’m not only talking about the Bible and God’s help (obviously the main factors), but also the help of the brothers on charge of the worldwide work. I would be ungrateful, very unfair if I did not acknowledge that.
Now, let me point out one example, following your argument, with which I agree. Take us the example of the resurrection. I think we, the JW, should be grateful to the teaching of brothers, from Russell epoch until now, because in spite the Bible is the universal book any Christian church read, all these churches believe in life after dead, hell fire, soul immortality and many other false teachings that invalidate the basic, wonderful truth about the resurrection. Truth that, therefore, I thank first to Jehovah, but also to his servants responsible to discover these truths and teach them to the brotherhood. Do we agree?
Perfect. This is the meat. Now, here they come these individuals (perhaps myself, or JWI) with our worries, perhaps, what I’ve mention in my post regarding the adjustment about the resurrection of unborn babies. My complaint in this post is the lack of humility I found in the brothers with responsibilities in producing the information. Yes, of course, I am the main example of pride! How I dare to criticize! What I was trying to say is that if, for example, I offend you in my post, you correctly would expect I apologize, right? Then, my complain is, if some of our information, our teaching has produced some unnoticed damage, why not recognize it? Yes, perhaps is the icing.

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.
Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.
I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’  book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: 
*** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast ***
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? 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. 
Later though, there was this comment:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” 
James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words  in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans  to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories!
So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. 
We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6.
But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc.,  it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14). 


 

 

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.
Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.
I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’  book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: 
*** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast ***
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? 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. 
Later though, there was this comment:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” 
James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words  in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans  to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories!
So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. 
We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6.
But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc.,  it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14).