JW Insider

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Aaaah, I thought there was a book that mentioned the "millions will never die" not just a sermon. I am connecting the dots now, thank you! It looks like Rutherford also authored a book with that title.

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.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

So since this topic is about 1975, it doesn't apply to this, however the question regarding honesty is the same, are we being honest about the millions and 1925? How is the statement "proof conclusive" being  explained today, since the proof was obviously false.

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.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

And I guess it had a lot to do with the 1925 campaign.

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."

On 9/11/2018 at 5:15 PM, Anna said:

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

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,"  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?

On 9/12/2018 at 3:31 PM, Anna said:

So was that it? The "WILL" became a "MAY"?

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.

14 hours ago, Alithís Gnosis said:

As wrong as JWinsider is, he has a good imagination for conspiracies. LOL! People like Anna love it. Can you say secret lovers?

@AllenSmith34,

In just the last couple days, in my opinion, the following aliases have all been juggled by the same person. There may have been others but these are the ones that have interacted with posts I have been reading.

@DespicableME @Malum Intellectus @Alithís Gnosis @Grey Reformer In some of the recent threads, some of these aliases have only been used for up-voting and down-voting. And no, All, I did not hack your account to expose this. Except for Gray Reformer, which didn't show up until August 7, the first three just mentioned were all created by you in the same month, December 2017, and I knew all of them to be you within minutes. Anyone here who was alert to the way they were used immediately after they appeared, and who watched the "Who's Online" list, would have known this just by watching carefully. From now on, as you apparently know, you can mask some of the exposure by keeping several of your aliases logged in at the same time by using multiple computers and/or by using multiple browsers on the same computer. There are several different popular browsers that can all be used simultaneously, and each can be logged in to a different alias account. The downside to that is that you might find it necessary to set up a new set of names since about two dozen of your aliases are already fairly well-known.

Again, these ideas are based on opinion and coincidences; you do not have to worry that anyone has hacked your account(s) to expose these things.

1 minute ago, Grey Reformer said:

First I am Allan, now I'm somebody else.

True. (Although I expect you intentionally misspelled it, just then.)

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

Sounds like a waste of time. But I'm retired, so I'll tell you what I would come up with:

• ..."millions now living will never die."... This was a risky prophecy to make. But the risk probably didn't seem too high at the time since, after the failure of 1914, Rutherford said that people had more on which to base their faith in this prophecy than Noah had on which to base his faith in Jehovah telling him there would be a Flood. He said that there was more Bible evidence for 1925 than there was for 1914. But it turned out to be a false prophecy. So it turned out to be a "lie" in the Biblical sense, but it might not have been intentional if the human sources of this false prophecy believed it, and those who repeated it had faith in that human source.
• "'The Finished Mystery,' the posthumous work of Pastor Russell" . . . This book quoted many times from Russell, but was definitely not the posthumous work of Pastor Russell. (For that matter, the title of the book was a lie, because it promoted itself as the final explanation of the mysteries of Ezekiel and Revelation, yet almost every explanation of the "mystery" in it is now considered to be false.) The Watch Tower publications explained why they called it the "posthumous" work of Pastor Russell in a very odd way. It was because, as a spirit creature who had just died, Russell was supposedly still alive in the spirit world (heaven) in 1917: "Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work." according to "The Finished Mystery" page 144. It was clearly believed that Russell could still continue to influence the Watch Tower Society's publications in a way analogous to how Jehovah influenced the Bible writers.
• "Since 1881 everybody ridiculed Pastor Russell . . ." Not everybody. Some believed him. Most people in the world had still never heard of him. According to current WT publications, many created a "cult" around him. Rhetorical hyperbole, not necessarily a "lie."
• "Since 1881. . . the International Bible Students Association" . . . The International Bible Students Association [IBSA] did not exist until 1914 when it was incorporated in London. Before then Bible Students used the simple name "Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." Some refused a name, and some even called themselves Russellites and names related to Millennial Dawn, etc. This is not a "lie," just a potentially misleading ambiguity.
• "Since 1881. . . Pastor Russell's [and IBSA's] message that the Bible prophesied a world war in 1914." The Bible never prophesied a single world war between multiple nations, but this could be a matter of interpretation. The Bible never prophesied anything whatsoever to do with the year 1914. In 1881, and for the next 20-some years, Russell and the IBSA promised that 1914 would be the year when the expected worldwide trouble would end, not begin. All human systems would collapse in 1914, governments, institutions, religions. There would be chaos for several months, but there would be no earthly governments remaining who would be capable of prosecuting such a war. The 7/15/1894 Watch Tower, p.226 said: "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
• "but the war came on time." Very misleading. By the time late 1913 had rolled around, Russell pretty much gave up hope and faith in this 1914 date and moved it to 1915. For a few months even into 1914, Russell even gave up altogether and talked about there being no chance of all that was expected actually happening on time, and he conceded that they must have been wrong, and talked about the prospect that 100 years from now [2014], people might wonder what all this talk had been about. As it was, in about 1904 they had moved the expectation of the great time of trouble to 1914 (sometimes 1915) and began holding to the idea that this time of trouble might happen around October 1st or 2nd 1914. A world war broke out in July and gave them hope that this might be the beginnings of a worldwide collapse of all nations, governments, religions and other human institutions, where the only government with continued authority would be that of literal Israel in Palestine, and God would take a spiritual Israel to rule from heaven in 1914. It turned out, instead, to be a world war between several nations, and many more nations existed after the war, than were numbered before the war -- the opposite of the expectation of all nations disintegrating. Also Israel didn't get back on the map until decades later, and Israel never did become the only remaining human government on earth. Nothing predicted about 1914 ever came true. The most important things proved to be quite the opposite.
• "and now the message of his final work" . . . Again with the false attribution to Russell who did not work on this book. It was written by George Fisher and Clayton Woodworth along with the claim that Russell had communicated from beyond the veil as a spirit creature to write it posthumously (after he died).
• "It is an absolute fact. . ." . . . The phrase most often prefixed to bigger than usual lies, especially to sell products. You don't usually have to look at the next phrase to know that it won't usually be true.
• "It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible. . ."  Like I said, you didn't need to look. It's absolutely false.
• "It is an absolute fact. . . foretold by every prophet of the Bible" . . . Just like with the books, it turned out that it was not predicted by any book of the Bible nor any prophet of the Bible. Calling it thus is just an embarrassing way of trying to say you are a prophet speaking in Jehovah's name, sticking your neck out further to make sure that people will later see you as a false prophet if your fantastic guesses don't happen to come true.
• "well worth a few evenings' time for investigation." . . . Quite the opposite. In fact, anyone who wants to discuss the book today among Witnesses will usually be suspected of apostasy. Even though it is still touted as a book that supposedly had the "ring of truth" no one can go more than a couple pages in the book without coming across something that Witnesses now recognize as false, if not embarrassingly false. And remember, the purpose of this investigation was to prove to yourself that Armageddon was culminating in 1925.
• "The Golden Age" . . . The idea was that the Golden Age had already begun when the Millennium dawned back in 1874 and various advances in the world, new technology, and even medical advances and theories (that turned out to be from quacks and fraudsters) were supposed to give evidence that the Millennium had started 45 or more years earlier.
• "both for two seventy-five (don't say dollars)" . . .  This speaks for itself. Internally, the persons who distributed most of these books were spoken of as selling the book, and book salesman could make a profit if they sold enough. The sales process was not so different from the way "colporteurs" in those days were selling books along with Fuller Brushes, Carter's Little Liver Pills, Bibles, Encyclopedias, etc. (Books by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] were a profitable moneymaker for colporteurs for many years. See below.)  If you followed the sales instructions and learned the pitch you could make a profit, whether you believed in the content or quality of the material or not.

This reminds me of a story I heard about colporteurs who used to sell the books of Mark Twain in the late 1800s and early 1900's. They could be had in about 4 or more levels of quality. The idea was also to upsell them on a better quality book if the householder agreed to a lower quality, or if they said no to the price of the highest quality (leatherbound, embossed, lithographs, etc.) then they might finally agree to a lower quality. It was a very irritating process to the householder. The goal of course was to get them moved to absolute most they might pay, so they might even split it up with part now and part cash on delivery. Just a quick search didn't find me the story, but I did notice this in a book called "Mark Twain's Road to Bankruptcy," below. You can see that "colporteurs" were not considered the best of society at the time.

4 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

The truth usually hits at the heart of those that strongly oppose such logic. A smear campaign only brings out to light, what Christ meant about negative discourse. Evil. . . . This is why ad hominem attacks are a source of desperation to some, instead of frustration by others.

This is just a small aside, for entertainment purposes. But I was reminded that it might be worth mentioning when I read about smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks, desperation, frustration and negative discourse.

A lot of people have probably noticed that over on the right side of the page you can usually find a little box like this one:

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

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

Coincidences don't necessarily give a true picture, but they can certainly be entertaining.

7 minutes ago, Grey Reformer said:

How about some actual facts that everyone here implies.

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Malarkey: American English, of unknown origin; perhaps from Greek μαλακία (malakía, “stupidity, idiocy, nonsense . . .

Curious that the first primary public use of the word as reported in OED was spelled "malaky" which is very much like your suggested Greek etymology. OED says 1929 by J.P.McEvoy. It reminded me of the book of Malachi which has a different meaning, of course:

*** Rbi8 Malachi ***

• Meaning “My Messenger (Angel).” Heb., Mal·ʼa·khiʹ; Gr., Ma·la·khiʹas; Lat., Ma·laʹchi. See 3:1 ftn, “Messenger.”

Of course, with the Biblical Malachi, the Greek is actually "malakhi[as]" instead of malakia because it uses a "chi" instead of a "kappa" for the "k" sound. So of course there is no reason to think it could have been based on the Bible book of Malachi.

. . . . Unless it was because people who focused too much on Malachi were the kind who . . . .wait for it..... IGNORE AMOS*. [Click here for the drum sound rimshot]

*ignoramus, n. 2.2 An ignorant person.

9 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

You have contradicted your stance with the Watchtower. But, I guess this is what's happens when you go to an apostate site like JWfacts to gather the material.

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.

• THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!)
• The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes)
• The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes)

I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.

After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.

So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.

======reference=======

FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.

FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:

The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216

• "Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."

Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19

• "Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!"

"Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102

• But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"!

Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12

• "He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."

There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.

FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

“It was stated in the 'Millions' book that we might reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion; besides it is still shortly after 1925. ... Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything.” Watch Tower 1926 pp.196,232

“So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection.”” Yearbook 1975 p.146

“Ever since the 1870's, Bible Students had been serving with a date in mind - first 1914, then 1925. Now they realized that they must serve for as long as Jehovah wishes.” Watchtower 1993 Nov 1 p.12

Also, the picture of a portion of a 1920 WTS "Bulletin"

“There is no doubt that many throughout this period were overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended.” Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.52

“There were also other expectations concerning 1914. Alexander H. Macmillan, who had been baptized in September 1900, later recalled: "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?” Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.61

If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” Watchtower 1976 Jul 15 p.441

"The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975." Yearbook 1980 pp.30-31 [I changed the word cantor to candor due to a typo on his site.]

28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

had just completed a shift late on Thursday and was still in uniform as she returned to an apartment she erroneously believed was hers, police said.

Sounds like an excuse for murder to me.

1 hour ago, Grey Reformer said:

So, no one should deny, deny, deny the falsehoods anyone says about the Watchtower and 1975.

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.

1 hour ago, Grey Reformer said:

Who's denying that former witnesses are the least honest people alive?

I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.

1 hour ago, Grey Reformer said:

My question is, why then defend their views with your own opposition and with the same distorted publicans they use here by so many of you.

I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.

By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

4 minutes ago, Grey Reformer said:

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

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.

Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.

So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.

1 hour ago, Grey Reformer said:

Who is being dishonest here?

Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

And I think this could be because it was all termed so ambiguously, that there was room for interpretation.

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.

And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:

*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***

• “Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?”
• . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975.
• At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’
• In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation.

Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].

Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."

At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:

*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***

• At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done?
• The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity.

Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:

*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***

• Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?

THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!

So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.

*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

• THE SEVENTH DAY
• 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
• 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon.

Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]

A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."

Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

"Millions  now living will never dye !"

Millions still dyeing are Grateful Dead fans!

1 minute ago, Space Merchant said:

@JW Insider The whole Nike thing is being meme'd now so it is very likely to see such things after Nike sided with Colin Kaepernick.

Yes. I hadn't seen the "Believe in something" memes yet, so I hadn't recognized that this "meme" in the OP had two items that linked it to Nike, not just the "checkmark/wing" from the logo. Still, my surprise was that I happened to click on the post just seconds from when the notification came up, and so quickly the software had already pushed Nike links and competing sports ads onto the page. I realize that this is how some expensive web services can appear free, and I'm not at all irritated by it for myself. It bothers me a bit that people like children and elderly are not as aware about how their privacy can be invaded in nefarious ways, or that they might have given up protecting themselves at least mentally from the barrage of ads. To some young persons it's the new normal.

With a Samsung Smart TV and a FireStick and Amazon Echo and Cortana, I'll not be surprised that I can mention a brand or product vocally and see an ad pop up for that item.

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

This brings me to a sobering thought; could this be tantamount to “beating their fellow slave” ?? (Matt. 24:29) Certainly not all of the time, but specifically at those times under discussion, and especially when this caused some to be stumbled.

This makes perfect sense to me. And it should not cause us to disrespect the Governing Body. Jesus said that the stumbling blocks would surely come. Anyone at some time, could be a stumbling block, and they can also be forgiven.

• (Matthew 16:23) 23 But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.”
• (Matthew 18:7) . . .Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!
• (Luke 17:1-4) 17 Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be more advantageous for him if a millstone were hung from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones. 3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
• (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

But teachers will receive heavier judgment because it is their job to keep the little ones from stumbling, like a good shepherd keeps the sheep on the right path to green pastures. Still, if our brother commits a sin that stumbles others --even a sin of pride, haughtiness and presumptuousness, or beating fellow slave -- we are still to rebuke that brother. If that brother is an elder or governing body member, this should make no difference, as we are not to show favoritism. However, we should still hold back and perhaps wait until the second offense before seeing to it that an accusation is lodged.

• (1 Timothy 5:1) 5 Do not severely criticize an older man. . . .

• (1 Timothy 5:17-19) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. . . . 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

This does not mean we should avoid our responsibility to rebuke a person who sins publicly, even if they be on the Governing Body. But we should present our evidence to the brother(s) first, before presenting it to the congregation. After all, we might easily be wrong, and they should have an opportunity to present counter-evidence or an explanation.

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Does the expression "the friends" include the writers of the Watchtower and other literature which clearly present all these erroneous expectations? Or does not "Bible Students" include them?

Of course it should include them. But it would give opposers ammunition if the writers of Watchtower articles ever took personal responsibility for things they said. So far, I have only seen one Watchtower writer take personal responsibility in a public way, and apologize for mistakes he made while in the Writing Department. And he didn't do this until after he was disfellowshipped.

Whether it was the intention to have the public and other Witnesses conclude that the writers of Watch Tower publications were including themselves might become clearer if we look at a few more examples. I will just pick up a few more WT quotes that jwfacts.com had selected:

These first two are with respect to the failed predictions about 1914:

• “There is no doubt that many throughout this period were overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended.” Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.52
• “There were also other expectations concerning 1914. Alexander H. Macmillan, who had been baptized in September 1900, later recalled: "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?” Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.61

The idea is clear that "some" were reading into Watch Tower statements things which the Watch Tower publications never intended. There will always be "some" truth to such a statement. Yet the Watch Tower statements, especially those from Circuit and District Assemblies of the time, had derided people as lacking faith, lacking trust in the Lord, if they did not read those intentions into their statements. The very motives of Watch Tower followers were questioned because they believed what the Watch Tower said.

About "1975" it was already pointed out that the 1976 and 1977 responses never made any effort to clarify that WTS writers and leaders were to be included in the explanation of the mistake:

• If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” Watchtower 1976 Jul 15 p.441

Knowing that this was a missed opportunity, the Watch Tower Yearbook in 1980 finally added this about statements made during the 1979 summer conventions. (The brother who included this in the original talk outline was not disfellowshipped but was dismissed from Bethel later in 1980 possibly for admitting his beliefs about 1914 under interrogation):

• "The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975." Yearbook 1980 pp.30-31

Then the Watchtower itself, just a few months later, said in the March 15, 1980 issue:

• There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility . It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
• In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.

The first quote about probabilities vs possibilities was an echo of talk surrounding the 1925 predictions, too. But it also reminds me of what Ray Franz says about recordings of the talks that Fred Franz had been giving, found here on page 13 of 17 in the pdf,  http://web.archive.org/web/20031209184316/http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/9.pdf :

• In his talk, the vice president spoke of 1975 as a “year of great possibilities, tremendous probabilities.” He told his audience that, according to the Hebrew calendar, they were “already in the fifth lunar month of 1975,” with less than seven lunar months remaining. He emphasized several times that the Hebrew year would close with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, on September 5, 1975.

Martin, mentioned above is a person who fits the criteria of a person who can't see the truth about Trinity even though some of his scholarly "friends" themselves had proved him wrong, and Witnesses right, on some points. Some of his work is dishonest, and he too selectively quotes his sources to make them seem to mean something they don't really mean.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it was him that called out the Watchtower for misrepresenting his views (in a letters from readers) and the Watchtower responded that they unintentionally had. I was always impressed with that exchange.

You must be thinking of someone else. I think I know the incident you are thinking about but it's unrelated to Metzger. The WTS has come to appreciate Metzger now that they realize he is one of the most respected scholars who agrees with our take on the translation of all the questionable passages in the NT that are supposedly Trinitarian (except one). He is more recently referenced as a "Bible scholar" in the majority of cases, because he agrees with us in those cases. However, in those few cases where he disagrees, he is referenced in our publications as just a religious leader, trinitarian theologian, a seminary professor, and for some reason, even an "apostate" in one instance.

The closest thing to the example you speak of is the fact that Metzger took exception to the supposed criteria by which the NWT committee added the name "Jehovah" in several places in the NT where the Biblical manuscript evidence only uses kyrios (Lord). He pointed out at least one inconsistency, which indicated to him, that we were not really serious about our claimed criteria. So in 1960, someone representing his position asked a question about that point for the "Questions From Readers" article in the Watchtower:

*** w60 5/15 p. 318 Questions From Readers ***

• Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, a member of the faculty of Princeton, New Jersey, Theological Seminary, writes: “In the New World Translation it is stated (page 9 of New Testament volume), ‘To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.’ My question arises from the failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians 2:11, where the word kyrios, elsewhere rendered ‘Jehovah’ 237 times, is not rendered ‘Jehovah’ despite the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where the word Jehovah appears. Could it be that the Arian theology of the translators overrode their expressed rule of translating?” Do you deem this inquirer’s question deserving of a sound and thorough reply?—U.S.A.

The reply was actually in some ways embarrassing in that it mostly avoided the question and seemed to pretend that the actual question was something else. The response even included the claim that it was Dr. Metzger who had selectively quoted the criteria from the foreword of the NWT. The response is mostly a complete repetition of the criteria that Metzger had already questioned thoroughly, but the WT implies that he hadn't even read the criteria:

• If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the above volume through, then he should have learned on what basis the New World translators restored the divine name, Jehovah, to the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Beginning on page 19, he should have read the following: . . .

• . . . This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or of parts of them, have been made from the Greek into the ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew translators, including Professor Franz Delitzsch and also Dr. Isaac Salkinson and Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, used the name Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton (with vowel symbols) in translating the writings of Christ’s apostles and disciples, generally known as the New Testament.

What Metzger undoubtedly knew and what the WT QFT response avoids admitting is that these very nineteen translations sometimes provided "damning" evidence that proved Metzger's point. Some even put their representation of the "Tetragrammaton" at that very spot in Philippians, because (for the most part) these 19 translations were not some evidence of Hebrew-Greek scholarship.  Often they were just translations from Greek into Hebrew from Hebrew-speaking Trinitarian Christians who clearly wanted to make sure that Jesus was identified as the "replacement" of YHWH as Lord. At least one of those 19 translations was published by a "Trinitarian Bible Society."

----

Just an aside, but I just remembered. At Bethel, Brother Schroeder once saw me reading Bruce Metzger's "Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek." (I still have it, and still think it is the absolute best way to quickly gain NT Greek vocabulary.) He gave me some books to replace it with because he specifically said that "Metzger had attacked us."

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Didn't Rutherford hang the donkey round his own neck at some point?

Privately, that old mariner knew he had to wear an albatross-like "A" around his neck. But he did not wear the "A" in public as a scarlet letter.  Instead, just as with other times, the Watch Tower publications blamed the 'rank-and-file' for believing as they did. The next three of the following examples were picked by jwfacts.com at https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/blame-members.php :

“It was stated in the 'Millions' book that we might reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion; besides it is still shortly after 1925. ... Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything.” Watch Tower 1926 pp.196,232

“So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection.”” Yearbook 1975 p.146

“Ever since the 1870's, Bible Students had been serving with a date in mind - first 1914, then 1925. Now they realized that they must serve for as long as Jehovah wishes.” Watchtower 1993 Nov 1 p.12

That last one, in the image above from a 1920 Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) shows that the same thing was done after the failure of the 1914 date expectations. To the public, the WTS had only delivered a prophecy that a world war would start in 1914. This, as you know, is so misleading as to be a complete falsehood.

(You can also see where the expression "Stay alive til '75" was already foreshadowed 50 years earlier with the above: "and if you can keep alive until 1925. . .")

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The reason much criticism of churchmen is worthless is that their beliefs dictate their scholarship, not the reverse.

I've seen this to be true of many scholars, not true of the best scholars though. But I'd be careful about putting Metzger in that category. His personal beliefs appear to have changed over time due to his scholarship. It might be wrong, but I've read somewhere that Evangelical leaders tended to love him in the 1940's through the 1970's but began to see him more warily in later decades, until his death in 2007.

Bart Ehrman, another famous Bible text scholar, who studied under him, claims to have lost his faith as an Evangelical while Metzger was his mentor.

19 hours ago, Gone Away said:

And it helps me to understand the sensitivity (approaching bitterness) some obviously have on this matter.

I think it might be a good thing, up to a point, to have a sensitivity approaching bitterness. This would be especially true if we realize the depth of the loss of so many who went out from us. These "little ones" were truly stumbled, at least partly because many of us went along with a message that basically said the very thing that Christ warned us against. In this small way, we were being "anti-Christ." 

Christ had said, "If anyone says to you, 'The appointed time has approached' . . ., do not follow them." So, in 1973 we studied a book called "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached." In Russell's day, they often used a translation that said: "If anyone says to you, 'The time is at hand' . . . do not follow them." So Russell's second most famous book was called "The Time Is At Hand." Rutherford had done the same to an even greater degree with 1925. In effect, we as an organization had denied Christ 3 times. And what did Peter do when he realized the significance of his own three-time denial of Christ?

• (Matthew 26:75) 75 And Peter called to mind what Jesus had said, namely: “Before a rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

• (Matthew 18: 6-14) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of the stumbling blocks! Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes! . . . 10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven. . . . 14 Likewise, it is not a desirable thing to my Father who is in heaven for even one of these little ones to perish.

Bitterness of soul is also the appropriate response to loss of faithful ones, and the reproach of that same loss.

• (Micah 2:4-7) 4 In that day people will recite a proverb concerning you, And they will bitterly lament over you. They will say: “We are completely devastated! He caused the portion of my people to change hands—how he removes it from me! . . .  6 “Stop preaching!” they preach, “They should not preach these things; Humiliation will not overtake us!”  7 Is it being said, O house of Jacob: “Has the spirit of Jehovah become impatient? Are these his deeds?” Do not my own words bring good to those walking uprightly?

• (Ezekiel 21:6, 7) 6 “And you, son of man, sigh while you tremble, yes, sigh bitterly before them. 7 And if they say to you, ‘Why are you sighing?’ you will say, ‘Because of a report.’ For it will certainly come,. . .

  (Isaiah 22:4) That is why I said: “Turn your eyes away from me,
  And I will weep bitterly.
  Do not insist on comforting me
  Over the destruction of the daughter of my people.

There are times when such bitterness of soul, if combined with compassion, is clearly better than those remarks that indicate that we are uncaring about such ones who went out from us because it was their own fault, or even showing that we despise these little ones by calling them anti-Christ.

When Frederick Franz was pushing this 1975 agenda, he obviously knew that the biggest push-back to overcome would be that some of the brothers could use Jesus' own words against the idea, by saying that 'no one knows the day or the hour.' He had to "get out in front" of that objection, and he did it by trying to minimize Jesus' words in Matt 24:34. He may have been arguing that these words of Jesus no longer applied to us now that we had reached this new time period when, in his opinion, we so clearly do know concerning that day and hour:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• 1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
• . . . The Watch Tower Society over the years has endeavored to keep its associates abreast with the latest scholarship that proves consistent with historic and prophetic events recorded in the Scriptures. Major problems in sacred chronology have been straightened out . . . .
• 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”!

My own father was counseled and disciplined by the District Overseer for adding that same verse to a Circuit Assembly talk in St Louis, Missouri in 1970 (plus or minus six months). It tended to tamp down the excitement over 1975.

I also had heard my own father give counsel to another elder (a returned Gilead missionary) about not getting overly excited over 1975, and this was on about January 2, 1975. The other elder actually thought my father was in the wrong and argued with him about it. (My father had hired the other elder who thought my father was somehow "ashamed of the good news" by not wanting people to know that "this was the year" in his own workplace.)

Of course, all of this stuff specifically about 1975 and 1925 is nearly ancient history. Our real concern should be whether we are willing to be honest about it now, and just how alert we are now to follow the spirit of Jesus' words about not following those who claim they have some unique knowledge about the times and seasons. (And who therefore believe they have the special knowledge to say "the time is at hand" or "the due time has approached.") We are still in danger, of course, because there are many who would give the words of men a higher priority than Jesus' own words. And many of the brothers, even today, will look at the disastrously false and unscriptural "Millions" campaign and shrug it off with words about how at least it pushed them zealously to greater activity. In some ways, many of the brothers are just as anxious to push the same messages:

*** w97 1/1 p. 11 par. 18 Let All Glorify Jehovah! ***

• In the early 1920’s, a featured public talk presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses was entitled “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” This may have reflected overoptimism at that time. But today that statement can be made with full confidence.

Even the "overlapping generation" doctrine is being tied to a time schedule as Brother Splane and others have pointed out that even the second group of overlappers are already getting very old and many are already dying out. As more of the older anointed brothers continue to die out, we are creating the same kind of time limit all over again to the date for Armageddon. At least internally, we should all be bitterly weeping at such things.

58 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:

the 30th most used JW phrase used by 90% of all JW public speakers.

OK, I'll give you that one! But it's usually 'What can we glean from this scripture?"