JW Insider

I personally don't remember anyone mentioning that rumor until near the end of his TV show run. I do remember a controversy in the 1980's about an episode where Mr.Rogers visits a pretzel factory and the episode presented the idea that the pretzel was initially a treat for children who said their prayers and it was twisted into a shape that supposedly represented a child saying his prayers, and when completed, the final shape had three "separate but equal" spaces (not his words) to represent the Trinity. I vaguely remember that this caused some controversy not just among local Witnesses, but that some Mid-Western church had brought it up. I didn't see the episode until my own children watched it in the 1990's. To their credit the WTS did not ban pretzels, although now I always look at them a bit like "hot cross buns."

Your post was worth an up-vote just for this one point alone (about not participating in warfare). In general, it's my own favorite when discussing why Witnesses have a right to claim "authority" and "high ground" over other religions who feel we should have no right to try to convert others, or imposing our own view of the Bible as better than theirs. Other doctrines like Trinity and Hellfire are up there too, but this one should appeal most closely to the true practice of Christianity. Wisdom is proved righteous by its works.

No, I've never seen you do that. Nor have I seen myself do that. What I wrote was that you are often seen "opposing some small bit of truth that shouldn't even matter that much in the long run" and that you don't actually deal with the evidence. You often just throw out unrelated points in response to evidence. Even if these unrelated points are perfectly true, they have nothing to do with the evidence you are opposing and denying. In this case, you are even opposing the Watchtower's version of events. If that question was directed at me, I never thought any of these particular points were unclear (about ALL arrangements being set in place by the end of the millennium), nor did I ever say they were. Perhaps you are referencing the fact that earlier you said: "I [Allen] think I [Allen] have been quite clear . . . " After you said that, I pointed out that on this particular topic you have been very clearly opposing the evidence, and the Watchtower, too. Your method of responding to evidence by throwing out a lot of unrelated points is clearly typical for you, but it's also very clear what you are likely doing. From past experience interacting with you, I'm guessing that you find it impossible to admit a mistake. That's OK with me. I don't particularly like that style; it's not for me, but it's one I've seen a lot. I wouldn't judge you over this, but for your sake, I hope it's not a reflection of your offline persona. In the meantime, I'll assume you still have found no evidence for your theory about Russell's teaching regarding the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9-17.

Your answer: I certainly don't claim to understand everything about Russell's ideology. I'm actually not even insisting that he erred in judgment. He may very well be right when he claimed that the great crowd of Revelation 7:14 will be in heaven. Our own current teaching on that particular verse could change. Of course, this would not change the Scriptural fact that a great crowd of people would survive the great tribulation and live on earth. And it would not change the fact that Russell also knew --from places outside this particular verse-- that there would be a great crowd of people on earth, which you and I already accept. But it makes no sense for you to complain about a claim that Russell might have erred if you also admit that there was a time when he didn't have all the facts and would only eventually receive God's guidance in certain matters. I'm sure that you yourself would also admit that he might have erred in judgment before having all the facts. But you haven't been clear if this means that his "initial" judgment was wrong and he eventually came around to seeing that the "great crowd" would NOT be in heaven, or if he never believed what he said, and/or meant something different all along. Neither choice would explain why Rutherford also believed the "great crowd" would be in heaven . This was something Rutherford believed up until at least 1933, and probably up until closer to 1935. I'd be happy to change my opinion about what Russell said, if you could show the evidence that he meant something else, or didn't mean what he said, or changed his opinion on this matter over time. That's not just for you, but for anyone who can show any evidence. Based on years of interaction, I have a feeling that you dig in your heels and insist on making claims without evidence because you seem anxious to prove your own superior knowledge about Russell and the Bible Students. On certain points, I think you have provided valuable references and resources. On this point however, it's not just Russell's own words you are up against, but you are also opposing the more current understanding of the Watchtower when the beliefs of Russell and the Bible Students are reviewed: *** w64 12/1 p. 724 Out of the Tombs to a “Resurrection of Life” *** For many years Christian Bible students understood the “resurrection of life” to include (1) the church or congregation of the 144,000 joint heirs of Christ, and (2) an unnumbered “great company” of spiritual Christians not included in the 144,000 but serving under them in heaven I think you've seen evidence that the Watchtower is correct here, and that your claim is incorrect. Bible Students held this belief from as far back as the 1880 Watchtower, and put it in print as recently as 1933. I didn't double-check the Watchtowers of this period, but I see it in Vindication (1932) and Preparation (1933). (When the Jonadab class was still considered separate from the "great multitude.") It's possible that it was even repeated up until the doctrine was changed in 1935. Here's a mention of that in 2003 and elsewhere: *** w03 2/15 p. 19 par. 9 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? *** But on May 31, 1935, in a discourse given at a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., it was Scripturally explained that the “great crowd” (“great multitude,” King James Version) refers to the “other sheep” who live during the time of the end. (John 10:16) After that convention, some who had previously partaken of the Memorial emblems stopped partaking because they realized that their hope was earthly, not heavenly. *** w98 2/15 p. 20 par. 8 Glorious Freedom Soon for the Children of God *** In 1935 the “great multitude,” or “great crowd”—formerly thought to be a secondary spiritual class that would be “companions” of the bride of Christ in heaven *** w95 2/1 p. 13 par. 16 A Great Crowd of True Worshipers—From Where Have They Come? *** For a time Jehovah’s servants believed that the great multitude (or, great crowd) of Revelation 7:9, 10 . . . Because the Bible says that they are “standing before the throne,” it was thought that they would be in heaven, not on thrones, ruling as joint heirs with Christ, but in a secondary place in front of the throne. They were viewed as less faithful Christians, ones who did not show a spirit of true self-sacrifice. In 1935 that view was corrected. You said that following a quote from Volume 2 of "SiS" The Time is at Hand. Unfortunately, that quote and that book also does not support your opposition to Russell's clear statements, and your opposition to the Watchtower's more recent statements quoted above. That book was written when Watch Tower publications were still consistent that both the 144,000 and the "great multitude" would go to heaven. After this you quoted quite a few things from Volume 3 of "SiS" Thy Kingdom Come, especially the portions about the wheat and tares. If you read more of Russell's words on the subject you will see that the portion you quoted was not relevant to his understanding of Revelation 7:9-17. Russell did have a confused belief about the tares, but this was necessary because if you read the contemporary Watch Tower articles on the subject you will see that he actually did tie the tares to other Christian groups and religions of Christendom, and he therefore had to try to remove the idea that being "burnt in the fire" referred to their destruction. After all these "burnt" ones were still going to heaven in Russell's view. Watch carefully how Russell managed this amazing feat, in the same book you quoted, Thy Kingdom Come: Is not this a most remarkable agreement between this stone "Witness" and the Bible? The dates, October, 1874, and October, 1881, are exact, while the date 1910, though not furnished in the Scriptures, seems more than a reasonable one for some important event in the Church's experience and final testing, while A.D. 1914 is apparently well-defined as its close, after which the world's greatest trouble is due, in which some of the "great multitude" may have a share. And in this connection let us remember that this date limit--A.D. 1914--may not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it may also witness the purifying of some of that larger company of consecrated believers who, through fear and faint-heartedness, failed to render acceptable sacrifices to God, and who therefore became more or less contaminated with the world's ideas and ways. Some of these, before the end of this period, may come up out of the great tribulation. Many such are now being closely bound in with the various bundles of tares for the burning; and not until the fiery trouble of the latter end of the harvest period shall burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage shall these be able to make their escape--"saved so as by fire." They must see the utter wreck of Great Babylon and receive some measure of her plagues. The four years from 1910 to the end of 1914, indicated thus in the Great Pyramid, will doubtless be a time of "fiery trial" upon the Church . . . What Russell did here, of course, was to replace the fiery destruction of the tares (weeds) with the idea that these actually represented the place from which the "great multitude" would be saved from. The "fire" became a time of "fiery trial" with a purifying effect. It becomes 4 years of a great tribulation (from about 1910 to 1914) that would come on the Church. The "great multitude" would be saved out of this "great tribulation." This fire would evidently also burn some of the tares, but notice how he turns the focus of that fire to purification and salvation: "burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage" and being "saved so as by fire" and "the purifying of some of that larger company." This particular sleight-of-hand interpretation was soon dropped from Russell's teachings, and the tares began to refer only to those fit for destruction, while the less worthy "great multitude" continued to be seen as having a heavenly destination. (See the full article from the February 1916 Watch Tower, for example, quoted in a previous post.) Understanding who Russell referred to doesn't have to fail modern readers. There are people who can even read Shakespeare, or the KJV of the 17th century and understand it. Reading Russell's English is relatively straightforward compared to older English. I hate to have to point it out again, but I get the feeling you are doing something that you have become infamous for doing in the past. Your name has become almost synonymous with opposing some small bit of truth that shouldn't even matter that much in the long run. And then when you are shown that you are opposing the evidence, and even opposing the Watchtower in this case, you dig in your heels and start going on about things that were not really related to the question. And another favorite tactic, apparently, is to copy quotes from somewhere that might seem relevant and might make some people believe that you found "evidence" you were right. Perhaps it even convinces some people. But it's very difficult for me to see how you can look at evidence of something and just oppose it or deny it without responding to the evidence and without giving any counter-evidence.

Yes. We know that the Bible itself says that for many, a time will come when it will be too late for some to repent. But as you say, we don't know when, exactly in the timeline this point occurs. We know that it would be "wicked" for any of us who truly know God's undeserved kindness to use it as an excuse for badness, using the idea that we could always repent at the last minute. But there are so many things we don't know about God's judgment. For example, what if the Great Tribulation goes on for three months, and Armageddon goes on for 25 seconds? What if the Great Tribulation is 100 years long and Armageddon is 200 years long? I think most Witnesses anticipate a period shorter than the common 3.5 and/or 7 year speculation that is often attached by fundamentalists and literalists to either or both of these events. But we have no direct knowledge from the Bible about these timelines, except from Revelation, a book which we usually interpret non-literally. Therefore I don't think most of us would be deeply offended if the Watchtower someday taught that the Great Tribulation turns out to be the entire history of mankind. I don't expect that, and I don't believe it, but there is a lot of flexibility available in the interpretation of symbols. For that matter, who is to say whether any great majority in Christian countries have faith in the same Jesus who taught "undeserved kindness" and heart motivation as opposed to those who think Christianity is about a reward for righteous works? Allen Smith has previously questioned whether it is, in fact, only a smaller minority of Jehovah's Witnesses who are really Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesus said at Luke 18:8: (Luke 18: 6-8) 6 Then the Lord said: “Hear what the judge, although unrighteous, said! 7 Certainly, then, will not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, while he is patient toward them? 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” The "type of faith" here is in a God who gives justice, not based on our own merit or works or legalistic requirements, but based on our petitions and desire, as he loves us enough to patiently "put up" with us in our sinful state. This is a difficult concept for most works-based organizations promoting Christianity. There could be an implication that those in supposedly Christian nations are in pretty much 'the same boat' as those in nations who have barely (or never) heard of Jesus. And speaking of patience and those "3 billion." Every year that goes by brings an even greater number of people who are not being reached. If as Peter says, that the patience of our Lord means salvation to more people, then there is no evidence that this salvation is related to our efforts to preach to more people. The number of persons alive who will have effectively never even heard of Jehovah's Witnesses (or Jesus) goes up every year. If the end comes today, this might be, as you say, "3 billion." If the end comes in 10 years, the number of persons alive at that time who will never have heard of us (or Jesus) might be "3.5 billion." If the end comes in 20 years, the number of persons alive at that time who will have never heard of us (or Jesus) might be "4 billion." So if it were based on our efforts as Witnesses to reach these persons, then the patience of our Lord would mean greater death and destruction to billions more people.

Yes, I agree that Russell's first thoughts were apparent. Which is why Russell made it clear from the start that he believed not just the 144,000 would be anointed and go to heaven but that the great crowd would also be anointed and go to heaven. (Although of a less worthy class.) The book you are quoting, above is Divine Plan of the Ages, also known as "Studies in the Scriptures" (or Millennial Dawn), volume 1. That book also shows that Russell believed the "great crowd" would go to heaven. Quoting from page 214: They will have everlasting, spirit life as angels have it, . . . . They will serve God in his temple, and stand before the throne, having palms in their hands (Rev. 7:9-17); but though that will be glorious, it will not be so glorious as the position of the "little flock" of overcomers, who will be kings and priests unto God, seated with Jesus in the throne as his bride and joint-heir . . . I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this particular point about Russell's supposed "initial thinking" that only the 144,000 would go to heaven. It is clearly not true, and I'm sure you saw the evidence from what Russell himself said. And now you are quoting another of his books, "SiS V.1," and hinting that this unrelated quote has some relevance to that question. But "SiS V.1" is just another book that shows that Russell was consistent. But I don't get why it's so important to you anyway. If Russell's "initial thinking" was right, and he later changed it to something wrong, then how does this prove that "God gradually opened up his truth," which you also quoted above. At any rate, Russell was consistent on this point, as far as I can tell.

No. I was referring to what Melinda quoted about Abraham and Sodom, and what Jesus said about how the men of Sodom "would" have repented if they had seen the types of works/signs that Jesus gave to some in the first century.

Yes. This is right. This is why I said "some" would remain until the end of the thousand years before being destroyed.

True, I only meant that if you agree we are are now living in a time near Armageddon that your statements would apply at a time near Armageddon. Not intending to read into it anything more specific, but wondering just how close to Armageddon your words might still apply (for some). The "great crowd which no man was able to number" were to become "spirit creatures" in heaven. The 144,000 were "more than conquerors" but the "great crowd" (great multitude) were also conquerors, yet unworthy to become "more than conquerors." Page 297 of "What Pastor Russell said" includes the question and his answer: Does the Great Company receive life direct from God on the spirit plane? Answer -- Yes, they receive life direct in that they have been begotten of the Holy Spirit, and when they are begotten they are just the same way as the little flock, because we are called in the one hope of our calling. They do not make their calling and election sure, but not being worthy of second death, they therefore receive life on the spirit plane." I don't know how we would know Russell's "first inclination" even if you are right. One of the very first issues of the Watch Tower that Russell published included the following, in November 1880, p.4 (R156): As the exemption from the seven last plagues in Goshen preceded the final deliverance from Egypt, so it seems that the "sea of glass" condition which is "mingled with fire" precedes the final entering of the temple in heaven of this "great multitude" of victors. And one of the last issues of the Watch Tower that he published, February 1916, page 75-76 states virtually the same thing. Here, then, we see the difference between two classes in the Church, all of whom are spirit-begotten, all of whom are called with the same High Calling . . . But although they cannot be recognized as the Bride class, we praise God for His mercy in indicating that they all belong to the company of virgins, the Bride's companions who follow after her. . . . The water of life which Jesus will give the second class will be everlasting life on the spirit plane like unto the angels. . . . Rutherford repeated this same position about the "great crowd" (great multitude; great company) going to heaven up until at least 1932.

I'm sure you are correct. And speaking of the time near Armageddon as a literal decision point might be very appropriate, too. But none of us knows exactly when that final decision point would be for those who do not yet know better. Jesus is given authority to judge the heart, and we might wonder why Jesus said what he did about those in Sodom. (See the comment about Abraham and Sodom from @Melinda Mills.) He said that if those persons in Sodom had seen the miraculous signs that Jesus was then giving persons the opportunity to see, that those men in Sodom would have repented. Jesus was here claiming that he could judge the heart condition of the men of Sodom. Why? Around Armageddon, which could be a literal time for that final "decision point" we envision that there will be clear signs from heaven. Will any persons at this time, who see these signs from heaven, have a heart condition like those persons in Sodom, who would have repented? Does this have any meaning to the one who judges the hearts? The same could go for the billions of unrighteous who are expected to be resurrected. Our teaching about them says that many of these will be kept around and remain alive for 1,000 more years and then finally destroyed at the end of that 1,000 years. But won't many of these billions of unrighteous persons see the obvious signs from heaven that are transforming the earth during this time? If a person sees this and still doesn't want it, their heart condition is clear. Many persons, we expect, will be so steeped in their wicked lifestyle at Armageddon that they will prove their inability to repent and deserve a judgment of eternal death. They receive this judgment because Jehovah and Jesus, righteous judges who can read the heart, will make that judgment -- knowing in advance how they would react even if offered an opportunity for 1,000 years of signs from heaven. But some of the billions who are resurrected will be allowed to stick around for up to 1,000 years, even though it is therefore clear that they too could have been judged again almost immediately upon resurrection, long before they get destroyed at the end of the 1,000 years. If our view of the 1,000 years is right, there is some other reason that they are treated differently or even judged by a somewhat different set of criteria. This is not something for us to worry about now. Just as it is not something for us to try to judge in place of Jehovah. Historically, C.T.Russell envisioned all the millions or even billions of Christians going to heaven, and only 144,000 of them chosen to be Christ's bride. But he also expected about 20 billion "worldly" non-Christians to stay on earth through resurrection or survival where, over the years, they would be transformed into perfect subjects of God's kingdom. Russell, as you know, sometimes said things that made people believe he supported nearly a "universal salvation." Rutherford, too, as part of the argument for "Millions" of "worldly" people then living being able to survive Armageddon into God's new world, also saw post-Armageddon as a time of transforming the minds of billions of persons who would see these signs from heaven and repent. Rutherford, in the "Millions" campaign, argued that a person could hardly be expected to want to go back to their "worldly" wicked ways once he has seen this transformation to paradise in the Millennium. Even with the scriptures you quoted, we don't know the final time when you could say of these persons, "but that is what some of you were." It's also clear that many have already had opportunity to transform their lives based on knowledge of God and Christ and have already had opportunity to present themselves as either "sheep" or "goats."

At airports, three times now, I have been caught by the TSA at airport security with several ounces in my possession. Each time they let me go, but it was confiscated. Embarrassing.

Yes. Some Witnesses would take that literally. But in the last couple of decades, there has been a toning down of the talk about who will be destroyed and who will survive. JWs expect to survive as a people, but there has been a lot more talk about Jehovah's justice and how we can't predict just how many others will survive, based upon their circumstances, age, mental capacity, opportunities to know about true Christianity, or even to know about Christianity in general. Witnesses rarely say they will be the only ones to survive Armageddon. We are not the judges. We don't know if thousands of other persons will survive, or millions, or even billions. Jonah, we recall, thought he was calling down destruction on the capital of a world empire, in effect, therefore, the entire world -- and for a while he was disappointed when Jehovah saved all the people he expected would die. From another perspective, #3 in that list was Armageddon, which we believe will be an obvious display of Jehovah's purposeful and selective judgments through his chosen King and Commander, Christ Jesus. This will not simply be a completely chaotic time of destruction. A scenario similar to the one Witnesses envision is that Gog/Magog will attack, and Jehovah will selectively protect the persons he wishes to protect. Many persons will no doubt witness such spectacles of Jehovah's selective judgments, and realize they are not random, but purposeful. This would have to be interpreted as a true and spectacular judgment message from heaven. That means that, in effect, EVERYBODY who witnesses Jehovah's judgments will now be one of Jehovah's witnesses at this point, even prior to the spectacular and miraculous resurrection of persons brought back from just recently and long ago, with their memories intact. The newly resurrected, too, therefore, become witnesses of Jehovah's judgments, power, purpose. You will have to ask other Witnesses if they anticipate God's judgments working out differently. For me, this is a personal opinion but it can still fit the range of variations possible from current Witness teachings. It might have been difficult to allow for such variation even 25 years ago.

The way we understand it is a way that makes "simple" sense when we have already accepted the entire context of all that we aleady teach about the end-times. By end-times we can start from the the Russell-related messenger of the late 1800's preparing the way, and up to 1914 when Jesus is crowned king, along with a 1914 battle where Satan and his demons are released for a short time to wreak havoc on the earth and persecute God's people, along with a "first resurrection" that we say might have begun around 1918 or at least probably somewhere between 1914 and 1935. So it is due in large part to accepting these beliefs about the "recent" past, that we believe the next things that will happen must include the following, in this order: Great Tribulation Gog of Magog surround God's people to attack (before the 1,000 year reign) Armageddon Destruction of Gog of Magog (before the thousand year reign) Binding of Satan and his demons The 1,000 Year Reign Release of Satan (at the end of the 1000 years) Gog and Magog surround God's people to attack (at the end of the 1,000 years) Destruction of Gog and Magog (at the end of the 1,000 years) Satan and demons thrown into lake of fire This is spelled out in text and in "charts" here: *** w15 5/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers *** https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150515/gog-of-magog/ So from the viewpoint of someone who has already accepted a different solution to the order of these events, our "simple" solution, might seem rather confusing. I'm not suggesting that we have it completely wrong, or that we should adopt a completely different solution. But I know that many persons might be confused as to why we (or the Bible) speak of Gog/Magog poised to attack God's people twice, and even more confusingly, why Gog/Magog is destroyed twice. One of the alternate solutions even seems to remove the need to add parentheses to a portion of the verse in Revelation 20:5, as if it's an interruption to the order of events. Those parentheses are not in any of the original manuscripts of the Bible, so someone might wonder if it can make sense without seeing them as an interruption. I don't think most of these other solutions are any more convincing than our own. Ours has a couple flaws, but so do some of the other solutions in my opinion. I'd be interested in Shiwiii's opinion on this whole end-times scenario to see if it can be made to fit any better.

I also don't think flippant reporters who make fun of cats and dogs on the same page that reports deaths: "Hundreds of dogs and cats defy mandatory evacuation order" along with Florence leaves at least 9 dead further down the page.

You are a thinking person. I'm sure that spending time in prison for reasons of conscience or religion will do that to you. I don't believe that Jehovah will forget the good works of all persons and religious persuasions. And I'm not one who believes we as Witnesses are handling every possible Christian ministry in the world that helps attract persons to Christianity. We are Christians, and we try to be the best we know how to be. We handle a particular ministry of evangelizing and teaching spreading knowledge and appreciation of the Bible, and of doing good for one another, especially those related to us in the faith, and we look for others who will share our particular faith and hope (paradise earth, etc.). Others may handle some of the charitable ministries in a better way, we constantly try to improve our teaching ministry. This takes nothing away from Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry or Tyndale or Wycliffe etc, who were key players in the past, and I would not doubt that there are many individuals who excel at Christian teaching today, too. As you know the Watchtower often quotes from scholars and experts in many fields, including history, theology and Biblical studies, manuscripts, ancient languages, etc.

True. That's when we prefer to invoke Galatians 6:10: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999442#h=1 Love Toward Those ‘Related in the Faith’ GENUINE Christians have a familylike bond among themselves. Indeed, since the first century C.E., they have referred to one another as “brother” and “sister.” (Mark 3:31-35; Philemon 1, 2) These are not just words; they constitute a description of how worshipers of God feel about one another. (Compare 1 John 4:7, 8.) Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:35. Such love was evident in July 1997 when a prolonged drought was followed by torrential rains and flooding in Chile. Suddenly, many were in need of food, clothing, and other items. In disaster situations, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to follow Paul’s admonition to the Galatians: “Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.”—Galatians 6:10.

Even if everything we taught doctrinally was incomplete or tainted with some error, I could still find truth in this statement just quoted. You can find waters of truth at your local Kingdom Hall, because there are people of varying backgrounds and age and former beliefs who have come together to learn and be motivated by Christian activity and a Christian lifestyle. It's the "heart" (desires/motivation) of the individuals that makes it pure. Morally, we are a very clean people, and we give morality a very high priority. There is a kind of joy in the oneness of purpose of the worldwide association of brothers and sisters. Racism and ageism is reduced to a minimum. Anyone would be willing to help out any other one. We are built up and encouraged by the experiences of others. In dire circumstances, we know we will be offering extra support to our brothers, and we can expect support from our brothers. We have come very close to recreating the first-century Christianity (even with its expectation flaws) in the twenty-first century. Of course, I know there are specific exceptions here and there to all the good things we could say about Witnesses in general. And if we have been in other churches, religions or ideological associations, then we probably know that many of the things we cherish about the worldwide brotherhood are available even in a secular social club or band of brothers in an army platoon. But I think ours can go a little wider and deeper, meaning that we have support in a wider array of life situations and circumstances. And as to "depth," ideally, we should be willing to protect one another, or even give our life for one another as if we were all members of the same literal family. As to doctrines, 85% or more appear absolutely correct to me. We still thirst for Bible knowledge from trusted sources. We assemble not just for the association, but because we hope to learn something new or be fortified anew by something we have nearly forgotten. But it's true we are often ready to believe all things to the point of excessive gullibility. Yet, if it were really true that the negative/positive ratio were 85%-15% then we'd be 'of all men most to be pitied.' But even on a day when I'm most ready to "make sure of all things," I can still run through one of the most recent Watchtowers and find very little that moves the needle on my "Beroean" sensors. I think it's our duty to point out where something seems unreasonable to us (or if the "food" might be spoiled now and then) but this should have almost no effect on our relationship with our brothers and sisters. I'd love to see us remove what appears to be some of the more obvious errors from our doctrine, and that's my focus on this forum of course. We don't have that ability to discuss on jw.org or in the congregation.

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

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

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement. I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.) EVIDENCE I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness. b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous. †2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs. II.II That which manifests or makes evident. 3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications. b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation. †4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs. 5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof: PROOF Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true. 1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.). 2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration. 4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof. ------------------- Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921) "Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)

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

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

Yes, the Millions campaign was the 1925 campaign. The 1918 sermon was based on the 1925 date as found in the 1917 book, "The Finished Mystery." The "canvas" offer for that book, remember, only required that people stay alive until 1925 in order to be among the "millions" who would never die. By, 1920, the entire talk was published and expanded upon a bit, in the booklet "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." They would never die because millions of people alive in 1918 would still be alive in 1925. By 1921, the new book, "The Harp of God" came out, which also used the 1925 promises as a theme. In fact, note what is embossed on early covers of that famous book. If it's hard to read, it's repeated on the inside title page. "Proof Conclusive that Millions now Living will never Die." (This was removed in the 1928, 2nd edition.) It was advertised in newspapers with the year printed in the advertisement. The following example from April 1921, saying: "to apply it to ourselves requires positive knowledge based upon indisputable evidence. Thousands of profound Bible scholars can prove from Bible prophecies which have been fulfiled during the last 5 years that those living until the year 1925 can live forever if they choose to do so." ". . . [H]ear and consider definite Scriptural proof for this proclamation."

Nothing needed to be done to explain it away for nearly 100 years, because there was still a chance within the first 100 years, that the prophecy might have come true. (At least the prophecy made in the title of the talk might still have come true, even if almost all the other details of the prophecy and its foundation had still failed.) And after 100 years any "scandal" over it is long past, and could easily be dismissed with favorite phrases like "the light gets brighter." The statement made in March 1918 ("Millions now living will never die.") has only recently become a truly "false" prophecy in that a fulfillment of sorts was still possible up until a couple years ago. Technically, you would need at least 2 million persons to make the plural "millions" part come true, and we would evidently have needed Armageddon to come sometime around 2016 in order for 2 million 98+ year-olds to still be alive, who had just born in March 1918. Perhaps, some worldwide estimates of the number of 99+ year-olds in 2017 could have been around to potentially survive Armageddon. As of now in late 2018, however, there would have to be 2 million 100.5-year-olds, going on 101 in the next few months. According to average best estimates there are now far less than 1 million 100-year-olds. In fact, barely over 500,000 as seen in the PEW chart that Google returns if you ask "how many centenarians are currently alive in the whole world." Another point that would make it even more difficult to be fulfilled would be the fact that back then these millions were going to be unbaptized, worldly people who would simply begin "not to die" as of 1925 and thereafter. It did not refer to the great crowd of Revelation 7. It referred to people of all religions and non-believers who would survive Armageddon because it was Jehovah's purpose, as stated at the time, to save almost everyone through Armageddon into a time when they would simply stop dying. Remember that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7 were still going to heaven along with the 144,000 kings and priests, according to Russell's and Rutherford's teachings. The only difference between the 144,000 in heaven and the great crowd in heaven is that the great crowd were not of the "higher" heavenly calling and were not part of Christ's Bride. By normally obscuring this fact, and wrongly claiming that the "millions" were the equivalent of the "great crowd,"Â the Watch Tower publications have been able to just "chalk up" the prophecy to over-optimism in thinking so many would respond to the Bible Students in such a quick period of time after 1918. It is very rare for the Watch Tower publications to admit how closely this prophecy was tied to the year 1925. In other words, when the great tribulation does come in the next few years, as expected, it will only have been a few years off. Understanding the original prophecy in its full context is a good idea, in order to understand how and why the references to it have evolved over time. Maybe in another thread?

That's not really the story, in my opinion. The Watchtower has often admitted that the title of the talk used the word "May" in February 1918, but that it was changed to "Will" in March 1918, and it never changed back. Looking at over 200 references to it in more recent decades, there were some time periods when the talk was referred to only with "May" and no reference to "Will" was given. This is likely what JTR refers to, but it wasn't as blatant as he implies. Overall, in recent decades, there were over 200 recent references to it as "Will" and only about 20 references to it as "May." The Proclaimers book gives a fairly accurate account of the talk, even if the discussion and impact of the talk and prophecy appears purposely minimized.