JW Insider

I sincerely doubt that, too. There seemed to be a time from 1912 through about 1936 when we find surprising links between some Bible Students and the occult, and various loose connections to spiritism and even claimed demonic influences. But I can never see F.Franz as the type. I don't know what years you are talking about here, but Klein was in and out of Writing for several years and would have known that everyone had to defer to F.Franz as the only one who could explain the various prophecies and parables and who the Jehu class or Jephthah class or Gideon class was. That kind of stuff has been tied to demonism since Russell's time.

No he didn't. Where do you get your information from? He continued to believe that Jesus was enthroned in 1878 until the day he died (dying in the latter part of 1916). The Watchtower continued to teach 1878 for another 10 years, and promote it in books for about 20 more years. But I would agree with you in the sense that they expected 1914 to be a milestone in the earthly, visible outworking of that same Kingdom. It would become visible to the earth in the form of a non-Gentile earthly rulership starting that year. As the Watchtower said in November 1914: This prophecy was fulfilled, as pointed out in the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, in the year 1878; and ever since that time, the star of Judaism has been rising; the Jews have become more prosperous ever since, as they themselves realize. Nowhere have they been so prosperous as in these United States, where they have received their greatest blessing; while in Russia and Germany they have been persecuted to some extent, but not in the same degree as formerly. But this article was written after October 1914, when some adjustments were necessarily in order. When they saw the European war in 1914, they were confused, but assumed it would be the fight that would finish the gentile nations amidst the rise of the Jewish nation. They were now focused on 1915. And, although one could say that the conflict in 1914 was seen as another manifestation of the Kingdom, it was similar to how the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 had also been a manifestation of the Kingdom. The invisible Kingdom was expected to reverse the fortunes of the Jews in 70 and God's Kingdom would not be "established" on earth. So I agree there was a tenuous connection to the earthly visible part of that Kingdom in 1914, but not to Christ's enthronement. As Russell said in the same Watch Tower in November 1914: Many of us concluded that as far as we could see, October of this year would show the end of the Gentile lease of power; for when October comes we are getting down to the end of the Jewish year. The year 1914 actually ended Sept. 20, 1914, Jewish reckoning. Now the question comes, Have the Gentile Times ended or not? Some perhaps may be inclined to say, "No; they have not ended." Others would say, "When the Gentile Times shall have ended, we would expect that the Gentiles would be entirely ousted from all power and control, and that Christ's Kingdom would be established. Were there not a great many things that we expected would take place when the Gentile Times would end?" The time of chaos was expected to begin in this new year 1915 ("before 1916") but now they would be looser with the time expectations. Russell tried to say, in effect, relax, the timeline has slowed down. As one evidence in the same article he notes: Some think that just the next hour after midnight would see a great, grand change everywhere--evil blotted out in sixty minutes or in sixty seconds. But would it be a reasonable expectation that the Gentile kingdoms would be snuffed out inside of an hour or inside of a day? . . . Now look back and see what happened immediately after the expiration of different time periods. For instance, there are great day periods mentioned in the Bible, namely, the 1260 symbolic days, the 1290, the 1335 and also the 2300 days. . . . The 1260 years ended in 1799. From their beginning to their culmination, the power of persecution held sway. When the 1260 years ended, was anything done in an hour, in a day, or in a year to stop the persecution? Nay! . . . Only within the past few years have we reached a maximum of speed on railways and steamships. Apparently they have begun to slow down. Very few trains now go faster than twenty-four miles an hour; . . . We will not go into details further; we merely wish to impress the thought that these fulfilments of prophecy did not come suddenly, but gradually--that they had a particular time for beginning, and were sure of accomplishment. In view of these lessons from the past, what should we think about the future? We should not conclude that everything would be transformed inside of one minute, or one hour, or one day, but gradually. This leads us to expect that the remaining prophetic periods will have a similar fulfilment, and that September 20 of this year, 1914, probably marked the end of the Gentile Times. If so, what we are witnessing now amongst the nations is a conflict to their finish. This is exactly what we should expect. Evidently the Lord is behind the matter; the Lord's Kingdom will manifest itself more and more. . . . .Should we expect that the Lord would reveal Himself the very moment Gentile Times end? . . . Just how long after the Gentile Times close will be the revealment in "flaming fire" we do not know. Seemingly, following this great war will come the greatest "earthquake" that ever occurred--a revolution that will involve all the civilized nations. Then Socialism may loom up, but will be short-lived and develop into anarchy. That anarchy will be the "flaming fire" revealing the new Kingdom, taking vengeance, bringing retributive justice upon the world--preceding its blessing. We might expect it to be five, ten or twenty years. But there is something, on the other hand, that leads us to anticipate that it will not be very long. The Lord has told us that He will "make a short work of it." Just how short the work will be would be conjectural. Every one may have his own opinion. At one time the Lord speaks of it as being "in one hour;" another time, as "in one day;" and the Apostle speaks of it as coming like travail upon a woman with child--suddenly. We remember also that there is a certain parallel between the Jewish Age and the Gospel Age. The forty years' Harvest of the Jewish Age, which began with Jesus' ministry, 29 A.D., ended in the year 69 A.D.--just as we believe that the Harvest of this age began with 1874 and ended with this fall, 1914.

Each one will carry his own load. I don't feel any remorse or bad feeling toward the Watchtower for recommending that I quit school to pioneer. I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of full-time service and am very thankful for the experiences it afforded, too. My parents even sold their house just before 1975 so that my father could spend more time closer to a newly formed congregation and my mother could pioneer, too. By then I was living 100 miles away because I had just turned 18, so having two out of three kids out of the house might have influenced the decision as much or more than 1975, but it was on their mind. I do think that persons like R.Franz should have done more to curb the influence of F.Franz in what I think was his obsession with 1975. The way R.Franz tells it, it was several people who knew better, but didn't do much about it.

It's not a lesson to me, because I have always known this. I have never claimed to write any better than anyone else. I only asked about the meaning of a word that I assumed might have been used correctly, but which didn't make much sense in context. Anytime someone asks what someone meant, it's the same as asking about the meaning of word(s) used. No reason to get angry just because someone asks what you mean. I welcome it when someone asks me what I mean, and I welcome it when someone points out my mistakes. Also quite different from you, I don't consider bad spelling and grammar to be any kind of "fail" on your part, my part, or for anyone else. That's why you don't see me degrading others, or making fun of grammar or bad spelling. In this case I really wondered what actual meaning was intended in the several recent instances of that particular word I asked about. I also knew why you might seem sensitive about it, but I also really wanted to know what you meant. I know how important it might be to impute wrong motives to me. But if you think you know something different, why not share evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations? It's another example of Fred Franz' obsession with 1975 and something akin to numerology. You're right. I did learn something from that. Curious too that, before I knew about that Canadian incident, I had already expressed concern that the recent videos being shown with the guns and hiding in rooms could have an unpredictable effect on some Witnesses. Interesting. Do you have evidence? I never saw "hysteria" anywhere. Just a lot of serious people who seriously believed that the period around 1975 was destined to be a very important date related to the time of the end. By serious, I mean they truly believed, but they were also happy about it. I was also both happy and serious about it too. My parents were different as to how they took the predictions about the 1970s, but circuit overseers were encouraging quitting school to pioneer, and I quit school at 15 (1973) to do just that. Naturally, I discussed that plan with my parents in 1972, but was asked to finish out my high school "sophomore" year. My mother liked the idea that it could be as early as 1974, because that would allow for a lot of growth from the increased activity, but it would still come at an hour we were not expecting it. My father was more like: 'It could come anytime between now (1972) and the end of the 80s, picking the 80s because he didn't see world conditions lasting much beyond that. (As the 80s approached he was quick to pick up on some of that "end of the century" talk, always tending to push the end out about 15 years.) My mother surprised me yesterday because she said I might want to wait until I'm 67 to collect Social Security instead of collecting when I turn 62. I didn't say anything, but thought: "Wow!! What a difference half-a-century makes!!" I have Penton's book, but must admit that I haven't read even a quarter of it yet. Is that where your evidence of Canadian hysteria comes from? I think you are referring to F.Franz Gilead talk. If you listened to it you would see that he said it was Knorr himself who came up with the idea of the School of Gilead to send out evangelizers, and it was Knorr himself who sent out these first missionaries under the direction of the Watchtower Society. He didn't need a committee to approve. He was, as F.Franz said in the talk, NOT just a figurehead, he was NOT a "do-nothing President." F.Franz considered a president getting direction from a committee, to be the equivalent of the "tail wagging the dog." (He didn't use that expression in the same Gilead talk, but it was implied.) I think you might be saying that just like Jesus sent out the 70 instead of the unapproved leaders, that the WTBTS or GB or FDS can just as easily represent the approved leaders who send out true missionaries as opposed to the unapproved leaders of Christendom. That might be a true statement, but it was not what F.Franz had in mind when he made it clear that no "ecclesiastical body" should have that responsibility. He made it clear that he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. I don't think it was lost on some in the audience that F.Franz knew his time in that office of president would be just a few months away. Yes, you're right; he was correct in saying that. It was his rant against governing bodies (and committees) that seemed out of place, even though he used plenty of scriptures to back it up. He showed how even the apostolic body in Jerusalem was not a centralized body acting in the capacity to send out missionaries. No. It doesn't. In fact that was one of the most ambiguous passages in that May 1, 1968 Watchtower about 1975, when it said "1975! And Beyond." It stated that perhaps some can't see beyond 1975, but Witnesses should see ourselves continuing right on into a new system. These were very carefully crafted words. I recalled the date problem in the Russell story of his announcement of the "end of the Gentile Times" and it reminded me that F.Franz used this opportunity to also announce the "end of the 6th 1,000 year day in the 7th 7,000 year creative day. His, as I recall, also produces a date problem. But it was to show that he was still obsessed with the unscriptural doctrine of the 6,000 years being significant. It is against scripture in that it's based on the idea that either Jesus and the angels either can't count, or this scripture is false: Matthew 24:36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

This sounds correct, and it's an excellent way to explain how the holy spirit would lead them into all truth, yet Paul said that still see incompletely and imperfectly, as if looking into a hazy mirror. This is why I was a bit disappointed at the implication by GJ that seems limiting when it says that holy spirt created the Bible for us (true) but it seems like the holy spirit is not described as playing a part in the process of helping the GB understand it. It's presented as if the HS has already done its work and congealed itself into the Bible, but reading and rationalizing and remembering how verses might apply is the way the holy spirit "acts." He did mention prayer but gave no connection to the process. It ends up sounding like the way people apply Dylan lyrics to their lives or Shakespeare quotes to describe an experience or a "moral" of a story. (The difference being that the Bible "contains" holy spirit.) His analogy to the Bible as a "constitution" was very appropriate for the legal setting, but it too is a bit disappointing in the context of how the Governing Body, in effect acts like a congress to pass new and improved bills (doctrines) based on a majority if not unanimous voting. And there's that historical problem. If holy spirit is needed to understand (and I thin it is) then what does this say about doctrines that are constantly changed, sometimes back and forth.

If you are looking for reasons not to believe these experiences, it's always easy to find such stories that are told in ways that make them unbelievable. I know there are several Mormon missionary stories that use the idea of two angels protecting someone on his left and right, which also matches a Mormon scripture. A story of 26 angels guarding someone (non-Mormon) was treated by snopes.com, a would-be fact checking site for all kinds of email stories and Internet rumors. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/26-guards/ “Potential victim’s attacker is scared off by guardian angels” is a common glurge theme. (Another widely-circulated tale about a girl who barely avoids becoming the victim of a rapist also draws upon this theme) In fact, that link to "rapist" is to another snopes debunkable which has been told in versions quite similar to the Witness version: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alley-oops/ Many non-Witnesses would be happy to believe that such an experience happened to a Witness, but many Witnesses would be troubled by the fact that non-Witnesses have claimed such experiences, too, and would probably doubt those claims. As you say, however, we cannot question that there may indeed be many cases of divine protection. An thought about why "some and not others" is found in the latter portion of the response to the second link above about the rapist. It's a bit off topic so I won't go into it further, but thought you might find it interesting

Perhaps it's misguided, but it's a view from "Witness" that I agree with 100 percent. Fred Franz was very intelligent, of course. But when I recorded two interviews with him for over an hour each, I was forced to come to my own conclusions about him based on the content of things he said, and certain expressions he used. I think most of what you need to know about him comes from his September 1975 Gilead Talk which I have already linked to in the past. I'm not talking about his argument against an active Governing Body that would form a committee, or ecclesiastical body of some kind, although even that says something that he would use that opportunity for a political speech directed at the other members of the Governing Body disguised only slightly by working in some awkward references to the Gilead students. (Like, 'And don't you get the idea that you need to form committees in the countries to which you have been assigned!') The Watchtower summarized his talk with only vague references to what it was really about: *** w75 11/1 p. 672 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work *** Addressing the graduates, F. W. Franz showed why they were not being sent by any ecclesiastical body such as exists in the churches of Christendom. According to the Scriptures, neither Philip nor the apostle Paul, two outstanding evangelizers or missionaries in the first century C.E., received missionary assignments from the apostolic body at Jerusalem. Both men did their work under the direction of the real head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. Paul had, in fact, been directly chosen by Jesus as an apostle to the nations. Later, at the direction of God’s spirit, Paul and his companion Barnabas were sent out from the Antioch congregation. Both men recognized their assignment as having come, not from men, but from Jesus Christ. I'm referring more to his comments about 1975 in that same talk. The typical anti-JW sites, usually cut off the talk before he gets to these comments because those sites are more concerned with his views against the Governing Body. But I'm sure you can find the whole talk somewhere. It's what he says after he pulls out his Jewish calendar to show how it was now the 2nd day of Tishri 1976, and therefore now, "the 2nd day of the 7th millennium of man's existence here on earth." That statement got what sounded like the biggest cheer of the talk. I don't know if he intended it, but it recalled the day that C.T.Russell came down to the dining room on October 1st, 1914 per the Watchtower of that time period (and later changed to October 4th, and currently stated as October 2nd) to announce that the 'Gentile Times have ended!' F.Franz then rambled on about some wonderful, "startling, surprising, happifying things" of numerical significance, since this was the 59th Class, meaning that the 60th was about to start later that year, and "60" should remind us that 6,000 years is 60 centuries. Isn't that amazing!?!?! That this class 59 was only one number away from 60, which somehow gave new significance to 1975. If you pay close attention to his books on Daniel's prophecy (and others) you will see some of the same types of unspiritual thinking. For me, F.Franz proved to be a prime example of why we should not put our trust in a man: (Psalm 146:3) . . . Do not put your trust in . . . a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.

LOL. Thanks. It wasn't by choice, and it's not the first time I have typed "every" for "ever." Among a lot of other mistakes I make is a common one for me where I type "Babylong" for "Babylon" and "imaging" for "imagine." Unfortunately the built in spell-check here will only flag the "Babylong" error. And for some reason I almost always type "it's" even when it's "its." Another one that rarely gets flagged, so I often neglect to change it.

On this particular matter anyway. The next line after Prov 3:5,6 is verse 7: "Do not become wise in your own eyes." I think that the majority of witnesses back in the 1970's were already aware that any discussion of prophetic books or chronology was always written by him or was a repetition of ideas he had already written. This goes all the way back to discussions of every Bible book or passage that touched on prophecy since 1942. In the 1968 Watchtower he was actually arguing against points he himself had made in 1955. But books and articles on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelation, Daniel, Haggai, etc., along with obscure meanings of Jesus' parables were all from him, and except for his own changes, no one else dared "mess" with those explanations until he died. These interpretations of prophecy, also, were not written in such a way that they were open to questioning. There was one explanation and it was "the truth" until he changed it.

I'm saying that all the argumentation was put to use in order to counter the cautionary statements, even cautionary statements of Jesus himself. And look at the expressions and how carefully they were crafted to come as close as possible to saying what people were admittedly thinking. And they were encouraged to think that these conclusions were the ones that God would consider the most appropriate and most fitting and the one that would best fit his loving purpose. Note the question at the bottom of the page for this paragraph in "Life Everlasting:" 30 LIFE EVERLASTING-IN FREEDOM OF THE SONS OF GOD 43 HOW appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ, when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:s) It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the "Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence. -------- 43. What act on God's part would be most timely for mankind and most fitting in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose? The answer obviously is that it would be most fitting for God to make this upcoming 7th period of 1,000 years to be the start of the millennial reign of Christ. Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do? It's also pretty clear from this "hubris" why Frederick Franz was sometimes called "the Oracle." This is an expression I heard myself more than once.

You are asking how I could say that F.Franz was using deception to get people to think he was saying something he wasn't really saying. And you want to know how, if that was true, I could also say that: Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting -- In Freedom of the Sons of God.") Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it." This is exactly why I said what I did. He knew the assumption that was being made by his listeners. He was creating that assumption by coming as close to saying it without quite saying it. But he would never endorse that assumption. He was not dumb. Far from it. He heard how the audience was laughing and applauding, just as he had heard how the Service Department was responding with statements in the KM about how we might have only have a few short months left, and that it is heart-warming to hear of people selling their homes to spend the rest of this system in the pioneer work. He knew what District and Circuit Overseers were saying about how, if you read the Watchtower carefully, you know what they are really trying to say. "Stay Alive Until '75!" In fact, he knew that this was exactly what people were saying in the 1920s: "Stay Alive Until 1925!" He knew what people were thinking because he admitted he knew --in the same talk. So he gets the big laugh by talking about all the things that MIGHT happen in 1975, and then adding "but we're not saying." When he says 'and don't any of you go saying' he can tell by the laughter and applause that they are taking it as if they have some secret information that they know because they are entitled to know, but not the rest of the world. It actually would have been very easy to clarify, but he never did. And I realized that everything he was saying in that talk could be understood ambiguously, and I think this is the same "game" he was playing way back in 1968. For example, he knew that people would be saying: "But what about the scripture where Jesus said, no one knows the day or the hour." Circuit overseers would take this verse and comment, "Yes he said no one would know the day or the hour - but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" How had F.Franz handled it? He addressed that verse by saying that "now is not the time to be toying with that verse." What does that mean? Again, ambiguity: *** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . . That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now. . . it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. 1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND! 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. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! 36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? When you make one or two ambiguous expression in the midst of 10 clear ones, it's understandable and you still have clarity. But when 8 out of 10 are ambiguous and only 2 shows clarity (by mentioning speculation, or possibilities). It's easy to reinterpret the clearer expressions about possibility into the ambiguous ones that can be interpreted as expressing a higher level of certainty and confidence.

Not only did I emphatically state just the opposite about Fred Franz, I happened to be one here who exposed the apostate recording as a manipulated "fake" recording. But the recording I linked to is not manipulated. The recording does not show Fred Franz endorsing the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. It shows how he speaks in such a way that he repeatedly elicits the most vocal response from those who see that he is endorsing the closeness of the end to the year 1975, and even a remaining possibility for the year 1975, but never endorsing the assumption. It does create a deception. But there really is a difference. Over time, I expect that all the emphasis on 1975 really did shift the focus away from that Adam-to-Even time gap, by minimizing it to a period of only weeks or months and not years. It must have been minimized almost into oblivion because before the year 1975 was even finished, there was suddenly a lot less talk about great urgency and heightened watchfulness. The convention talk titles show this. I just checked the Kingdom Ministry for the use of the word "urgency" for the decade of the 1970's. It was used ZERO times in 1976. You would think, that if anyone still "believed" in the 6,000 year rhetoric after 1975 commenced without evidence, that the word urgency would have doubled and tripled right up through 1978 or even a bit further. But it drops to nearly nothing, in fact completely disappearing between August 1975 and December 1977. Disappearing for 28 months, and just as sparse until the decade of the 1970s runs out.

Exact same thing that Allen Smith accused me of stating, too. It's still just as untrue. Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.") The Watchtower that same year said: *** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. But it was always more about the closeness to 1975, since 1975 marked the 6,000th year of that 7,000 year period. You might be aware that I've been consistent about that point all along on this forum. 1975 got emphasized because of that available point of measurement, yet it was NEVER stated that the world would end in 1975, nor that Armageddon or the end of this system would occur in that year. The point was that it MIGHT, which was a very true statement; we had no reason to believe it couldn't. And we had every reason to be extra alert because we were given many reasons to believe that the end of the system must have been about to occur, not necessarily in 1975, but at least in the decade of the 1970's. From just before the 1970's started, right up until early in the year 1975, the year was emphasized because it was "Biblical" date in a sense, but no one ever said that the end could not come before 1975, or even a few years after 1975. Combined with our view of world events at the time, this made sense and many statements were made that would convince a normal person that Armageddon could come in 1975 or within a matter of months, not years, beyond 1975. *** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. To a careful reader, this statement says that at the most we had about until October 1977 until we entered the last thousand years of that "rest period" which would (appropriately and lovingly and purposefully) run parallel with the thousand year reign of Christ. (Because after 1977 it would now no longer just be a measure of months, but years, in the plural, and we had just been told that it may be weeks or months, but NOT YEARS.) Then a small note in the same Watchtower reminded us that another factor might add or subtract 6 months to that limit. This could potentially have pushed that maximum limit out until April 1978. This explains why the talks, the Awake! and Watchtower magazine covers, Circuit Assembly lapel badge messages, and even Watchtower subscription campaigns (in the late 60s and early 70s) made several references to the "mid-70s," "the decade of the 1970's," "What will the 1970's bring?" "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" etc. *** w71 9/15 p. 561 pars. 10-12 Set Apart from the World *** With populations exploding all over the earth, many nations now stand at the brink of starvation, and disaster is predicted by experts for the mid-1970’s. Rather than fit in with political promises of a bright, materialistic tomorrow, this devastation on earth fits Jehovah’s prophecies on mankind’s waywardness in the “last days.” . . . And now, as we enter the 1970’s, an astonishing picture presents itself. *** w69 11/1 p. 668 How to Avoid Regrets *** Just as we looked back over the past five years, let us look five years into the future. That will be the year 1974. What will we be regretting then? What are we doing right now, or failing to do now, that years from now we will wish we had done or had done differently? Jehovah has provided sufficient information so that we can definitely know the trend of future events. His Word reveals that we are without question fast approaching the end of this entire wicked system of things. (Matt. 24:3-14; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:17) . . . So when the end of this system of things soon comes, what will be our greatest need? But it was not even a new point about the end of the 6,000 years ending in the 1970's: *** w74 8/15 p. 507 No Spiritual “Energy Crisis” for Discreet Ones *** In 1943 the Watch Tower Society’s book “The Truth Shall Make You Free” did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence in the 1970’s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ’s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E. Back then (in 1943), the end of 6,000 years was not 1975, but 1976. And it was also not a new point to discuss the gap between Adam's creation and Eve's creation that could effect the expectation of the 1,000 year reign starting immediately that year. The only difference was that all the arguments were for a longer time gap between Adam and Even, and by 1968, all the arguments were for a shorter time gap between Adam and Eve. *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers *** . . . six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began. Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name. (Gen. 2:19 footnote d, NW) It was not until after Adam completed this assignment of work that his helpmate Eve was created. Since God created nothing new whatever on the seventh day, Eve must have been created on the sixth day; and this the divine record confirms in its account of the sixth day: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Gen. 1:27, NW. The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date. This was the big difference in emphasis about 1975. Note, how every point of "delay" above is refuted just 13 years later: *** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. 31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or “histories” that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . ” The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated “was forming” is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a “helper” for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as “had been forming.”—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le). 32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins. 33 This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time. The pronouncement at the end of the sixth day, “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good,” proves that the beginning of the great seventh day of the creative week did not wait until after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

I believe you probably have seen such a list. But I never made such a list. I could try, but I'd probably only get about 14 of them right. Still, I imagine it would be difficult to track and manage all of these personas without a list of some kind. So I wouldn't doubt your claim.

You spelled sauna wrong. I won't marry you.

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression: And also here: At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

Such a meeting could be for anointed persons to answer questions about what they have learned in previous years of independent Bible study. If everyone is sharing in a group, it's easier for some to speak up after others have spoken up. It could be led like a class with sets of specific questions, partially in the form of a survey. Or it might just sound like a Watchtower study that no one had studied for in advance. The conductor would have a paragraph read with a certain idea and then he would ask for comments on the material. The goal would be to find out what things that some of the anointed have learned in their own studies that they wish the GB might be able to share. Or an oft-questioned doctrine could then come up and persons who volunteer could offer their thoughts and questions about it. And there might be a segment on what some of them may have thought was another possibility when it comes to prophetic explanations. They would not have to reveal their current views if it makes them uncomfortable to admit a difference, but just a brainstorming of ideas that have gone through their heads in the past. Naturally not everyone would participate and not everyone invited would want to attend. There are a lot of JWs who always thought that something like this had gone on in the past anyway. And Brother Sydlik had made a comment on more than one occasion that we should just scrap a certain doctrine and "start over from scratch." You mentioned that anointed and independent Bible study has already been a goal for some. I think a lot of people have the idea those Bethel Bible studies led to the apostasy disfellowshippings at Bethel in 1980. But as far as I know, this type of independent study had been going on, at least for some, since the late 1960's. In fact, the anointed brother who opened up his room to one 2 hour session and one 1 hour session on another day of the week, had been doing this ever since the Aid Book research began, and it was an excellent way to share things learned that wouldn't fit in the Aid Book. (Part 1 was released on 1969) There were a few who just loved Bible Study, and it was kind of an overflowing excitement that the host usually had, and it would affect others. I think a lot of people have the idea that ALL of these were dangerous just because a couple members of the Writing Department who were also involved in such things were asked to leave Bethel. But this was because of their personal beliefs, extracted after an inquisition that offered a bit of amnesty for anyone who heard anything that sounded like apostasy from a "higher-up." But this was not a part of the Bible study groups. Even if the host didn't believe in 1914, for example, he wasn't about to bring that up in a Bible study where Bethelites of various ages and backgrounds might get upset, confused, turn him in, etc. (Although I understand that one small group actually did use their Bible study night as a cover for discussing views against 1914, the limited mediator doctrine, etc.) These types of studies were even hosted by F.Franz who would answer questions in the steam room for people who held him in high esteem. Then he would take a passage in Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., and start expounding verse by verse. The one time that I went to see what it was all about, he was focusing on Jeremiah. I don't think it follows that independent Bible study results automatically in division. Besides, it would never be allowed unless the GB were looking for a different approach to our doctrines, and it would need to coincide with an approach that didn't claim to know the ONLY correct doctrine on some issues. As others have mentioned, you can simply propose the most likely version based on evidence, and humbly request anyone with additional evidence to come forward and share.

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

They very well could. I am not one of the anointed and I therefore don't know exactly how that particular expression of the holy spirit manifests itself. We say it has a lot to do with how sure such individuals are, in their heart, that they are "invited" to heaven. I expect it has a bit to do with "feeling" that they have long felt that the calling to eternal life in heaven is much more appealing and much more sure than the prospect of living forever in a paradise earth. Beyond that, I have never heard an anointed person express much. Although I expect (and have been told by longtime non-anointed brothers) that within themselves there is a certain inexplicable "joy" involved in that heavenly calling. I have never personally heard an anointed person describe it with that term. I'm positive that some would, however. I say this, because I think that there would be certain sense of "I just feel it! I know we have this one right!" when an issue that has come up to the Governing Body has been resolved in a positive way, perhaps by updating or completely changing a teaching or practice. It's hard to imaging that there wouldn't be something like that, because I'm sure all the rest of us have felt a kind of warm fatherly love when an issue we struggled with has been resolved through prayer and scripture, and sometimes through new circumstances that either highlight a proper direction, or resolve an issue by showing a way out of the problem. Or sometimes we just feel a certain kind of "pure joy" at reading a Bible passage for the 10th time and seeing something that is not only new but helps us appreciate Jehovah better, or will help us with our own or someone else's problems. This is why I think that Brother Jackson's testimony seemed a bit mundane. Perhaps there is more to the "sureness" or some kind of "sign" seen in the fact that others bring up the same scripture they were concerned with, but help them see it in a new way. Perhaps there is more to the way each of them personally feels that a prayer is personally answered with some unstated "connection" to the right answer. But in any case, Brother Jackson boiled it all down to what sounds like a prayer, followed by a scripture search to sort of see what pops out at them. It does sound more mental than heartfelt, more rationalized than motivating. And I understand that making a big deal about the difference in the words "heart" and "mind" can sometimes be artificial, but I think you know what I mean. It reminded me of comments such as these in 2016: *** ws16 January p. 22 pars. 6-8 “We Want to Go With You” *** So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else. . . . They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18. Of course, I'd be just as happy if anointed ones did meet to study the Bible together, and send their suggestions to the GB for evaluation and distribution. Doesn't mean that they would split off from the congregations and be disunited. The Society gets missionaries together, pioneers together, elders, circuit overseers, branch overseers, doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, building specialists, orchestras, choirs . . . why not a meeting or two with those who claim to be anointed?

Could either one of you tell me what you mean by "doctoral" in these cases? A "doctoral" understanding is the understanding of someone who is a a doctor or who has a doctoral degree. But that wouldn't make any sense in any of these examples.

In the recent Annual Meeting there was an implication that the Governing Body might get special direction from the holy spirit possibly before others. But there have also been comments by the Governing Body stating that no person claiming to be anointed can claim to have more holy spirit than a person who claims to be a member of the great crowd. This explanation above is a bit mundane, but perhaps this is the reason. The Governing Body has enough experience now to realize that by prayer and using the Bible, they go through the scriptures and see if there was a Biblical principle at all that would influence their decision. Or they could have decided something in the past but a scripture comes up with respect to a subsequent discussion (not necessarily on the same topic?) and this scripture is recognized as one that they might have missed in the earlier decision. It's "THAT" which is viewed as God's holy spirit motivating them, not because anyone feels anything special about a decision but apparently strictly because of noticing any Biblical principle that might apply to the decision after praying and going through the scriptures.

Great answer!

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.

It might look that way. But I think many of the GB (more than one-third) could have believed that voluntarily submitting in support of a military organization was breaking integrity to God. Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations. The Pharasaic, legalistic issues come into play when someone questions, then, why we would submit at all after imprisonment (because the typical sentence in most countries was often to just do 2 to 5 years of the same thing the brother just refused to do voluntarily, and the instruction from the Society was to follow orders of the court in that case. (Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.) That's always a tendency, but it is not the case that they are corrupt, just human. I think the problem took 50 years to fix because it had a long tradition. It had become one of those "strongly entrenched things" as the Bible calls them. Perhaps it was seen as possibly going against something that Rutherford had received through one of those "flashes of light" that he claimed to get, perhaps received at a time when Jehovah needed to influence him more directly than he influences the GB today. Remember, that if we "rank and file" publishers have trouble understanding the workings of the holy spirit and inspiration, it must be an even touchier subject for those who claim they have no more holy spirit than a member of the great crowd, but who also know that their decisions will effect thousands or millions. How do they know if Rutherford might have been right when he claimed, for a while, that angels, not holy spirit, brought "flashes" of insight "directly" to the earthly part of God's "temple?" By changing a doctrine, even if it seems wrong, the current GB might feel they are "standing on holy ground." That time period when military service and alternative service questions started was the same period that brought Jehovah's Witnesses victoriously through persecution, Hitler and WWII. And now the GB are going to question that past and say that a big part of it was wrong all along? It's always so much easier to just let things go as they always have until the issue reaches a crisis or boiling point.