Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    444

Posts posted by JW Insider

  1. 6 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

    It's dishonest for the organization to suggest that 1975 enthusiasm was generated by some rank & file JWs.

    Just because something is not true does not strictly mean it is dishonest. I have honestly seen perhaps dozens of people who knew all about the publications drumming up speculation about the 1970's but who were then very quick to blame themselves or decide that they weren't at all affected when they were. What I think I have seen is that blaming individual Witnesses instead of the publications for the speculation became a mental rite of passage for all those who lived through it but didn't exactly know what to say afterward. In 1976 we got the message that it was our own fault, and I think this came at the peak time to settle any confusion about what just happened. I remember thinking that this was easier if all of us just saw it as our own weakness because we don't have to worry about the reputation of Jehovah's organization, and we are all humble enough to take the blame. It seemed to me that whole congregations were breathing a sigh of relief that this was the solution. I think that most of us (I'm guessing 66%) were thoroughly convinced that it really was our own fault. Those who didn't fall for it were given a chance to judge themselves as slightly superior to those who did.

    And the reason it worked is that it was partly true. While the WTS had requested that we speculate about 1975, and it drove the parameters of that speculation so that we would see a high probability of end-time events taking place that year, we were never told specifically that Armageddon would come that year. Yet this was exactly what people were thinking. That was improper, individual speculation. The closest the Watchtower had said was that the 1970's would see end time events. The events would begin, not years, but only months from 1975. This is really the equivalent of saying, before October 1977, (because that would be "years" not just "months"). But there was enough looseness to the language and the tie in with expectations for the 1970's so that we should not have been surprised if the end took until 1979. But it was almost surely going to happen prior to 1979.

    In 1976 we really had been speculating about a specific year (1975) and we were never told to do that, per se. Yes, we were told to speculate, but there really were unwarranted conclusions being drawn from the speculation. It seems curious how even the internal speculation at the Society's headquarters was not going to wait until 1977 to see if it really would be only months, not years from 1975. They understood that when 1975 was only a few months behind us, that the whole speculation had to be put to bed. In fact, they put the brakes on the speculation beginning in the summer of 1974, as I recall.

    So all the initial enthusiasm had been generated by the WTS publications, but only up through 1973, and even then the most important enthusiasm had been at assemblies between 1968 and 1971. I think that HQ knew that there was something wrong with the 1975 thing in late 1973 and early 1974. They probably felt that after the counsel beginning in the summer of 1974, any individuals who still pushed 1975 with the same enthusiasm were on their own.

  2. 18 minutes ago, Anna said:

    So is it wrong to say that the dominance given to Babylon started with the destruction of Jerusalem?

    I think so. The dominance given to Babylon would have been when Babylon became the obvious ascendant heir to the Assyrian Empire. Egypt had dominance when they were the "world empire" then Assyria had dominance when they were the "world empire." Therefore, it would start around 609 BCE and end in 539 BCE, when Babylon was the "world empire." It's the exact same time period given to the 70 years of Babylon over Tyre.

  3. 1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

    Then it bottoms out at 0.2% + 2.... Whether it makes any difference when speaking of speculating...To the masses that didn't get it.

    It might be that low, assuming you don't trust the Watchtower's own reports. But if you're right, it means 98% of us were not obedient when we were asked to speculate in 1968 through 1973. This might give us a better picture of why the WTS brought the subject of 1975 up again, and it might answer @Anna's question about the lesson to be learned. 

    Here's what I think it is:

    1. The WTS has been highlighting the idea of obedience and following any and all instructions even if asked to follow a course that does not seem reasonable or rational. This idea, spelled out in 2013 below, has been repeated again this year.

    *** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***

    • At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking.

    2. But someone will point out that when asked to follow instructions in the past, such as when we were told to speculate in the late 1960's and early 1970's, many people ended up doing things that were considered wonderful at the time (like selling your home) but irrational upon looking back on that time.

    3. To answer this objection, the WTS knew it had to address the 1975 issues again, but remind us that this was the fault of individuals speculating on their own, and not the fault of the WTS.

     

    So I'm thinking that some brothers put the 1975 skit together specifically as a way to clear up that particular objection about the past, so that we are better prepared to be obedient without objections in the future. We don't want to be overly concerned with reasonableness. If we feel always tied to a reasonable, practical, sound or strategic instructions, we will need to adjust our thinking because these could be a hindrance to following instructions. Some would say this is similar preparation given to the soldiers in the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" by Alfred Tennyson:

       Theirs not to make reply,
       Theirs not to reason why,
       Theirs but to do and die.
     

    I'm not saying this is all bad advice. Egos get in the way of progress when one always relies on the absolute best solution. There is paralysis through analysis. Perfect becomes the enemy of good. People who are not humble need to leave well enough alone. But in trying to prepare people for the likely needs during such a time, which is based on speculation anyway, it's probably best to start with reasonable suggestions rather than telling everyone to prepare to follow advice that may sound unreasonable. If you are gong to speculate on what the advice could look like, then speculate on some specific scenarios so people know what you are thinking. Otherwise we are asking for a different type of follower than the ones that Jesus and the apostles asked for.

    • (Philippians 4:5-7) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . 6 Do not be anxious over anything, . . .  the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.

     

  4. 2 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

    It hasn't been *Proven* why 0.2% of people "chose" to speculate in 1975 and 99.8% of people didn't with the same information given...

    What does the JWfacts angle offer that the simple truth doesn't? I think the GB, might be is asking the same question now.̬

    And it hasn't been proven whether 99.8% chose to speculate and only 0.2% chose not to speculate. Unless you are referring to all the people in the world, most of whom never saw the information given.

    My guess, no better than yours, is the following -- referring not to persons at HQ, but to those whom the Watchtower refers to as "rank and file" publishers.

    • 33% chose to speculate that Armageddon was likely due in the 1970's  but without taking any specific actions
    • 33% chose to speculate and took specific actions based on a belief that Armageddon was due in the 1970's
    • 33% chose NOT to speculate, due to either apathy, spiritual weakness, lack of faith or obedience in the instructions of the WTS, a haughty feeling that they were above the silliness of date-setting, or a presumptuousness that their own view of Matthew 24:36 for example, was better than that being presented by the WTS --or hopefully,-- because they were spiritually mature, and had wisdom of experience, foresight, and an understanding of the unimportance of such speculation.

    My roughly estimated numbers only admit to about 66% in total speculating for various reasons, but I can easily show why these persons, whatever their actual number,  might have decided to speculate. It's because they were ASKED to speculate. They were given questions that called for speculation.

    For example, if I put these questions in front of you asking: "IS IT LATER THAN YOU THINK?" "Is Time Running Out for this Generation?" "What will the 1970's bring?" Then I am clearly asking you to speculate.

    If I then later had to admit that "considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975" . and that "there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility."  Then how could I claim that later that I wasn't ASKING 100% of people to speculate.

    We should really be focusing on why some chose NOT to speculate when 100% of us were asked to speculate. What were our personal motives?

    As to the actual numbers, I base some of it on adding up the yearly increase numbers to nearly 43% in the 6 years leading up to and including 1975 and adding up only about 9% in the 6 years following (including a couple years of actual losses). The difference is about 33%. For multiple years, the pre-1975 baptisms had spiked to double and triple their later averages in the years following 1975. The KM reported tens of thousands more people who had joined the ranks of pioneers in the years just prior to 1975. This appears to show that the speculators were much more responsive to WTS calls for speculation than you might guess.

  5. 17 hours ago, Anna said:

    Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

    Looks like some of the items I responded to under this topic were moved to the following two topics: (The first of the two was the one intended to answer this question about concrete evidence.)

     

     

     

  6. 9 hours ago, Anna said:

    So basically, from what I can see, the difference between the two dates is this:

    The 607 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the START of rebuilding the temple in 537/8

    The 587 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the END (completion) of the temple in 516

    Sort of. That sounds simple, but I think that it could cause some confusion, too. 

    The 607 calculation is based on claiming that 70 years ended in 538/7 and it is a CORRECT calculation of the 70 years. (plus or minus one or two years)  It's just that it has nothing to do with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. It's a very good calculation of the 70 years of dominance given to Babylon. And of course, we know that the 70 years of Babylonian dominance would result in a corresponding desolation to be fulfilled upon Judea. It is possible to interpret it, but there is no specific Bible statement that the years of Judean desolation would have to also last exactly 70 years, but there would be a definite correspondence, because the 70 years for Babylon would PRODUCE the years of desolation for Judea to fulfill its sabbaths. Also, there is no specific Bible statement that  period of complete and utter desolation for the entire 70 year period that was given to Babylon for dominance. If we looked for that literally we would probably never find proof of an exact period of full and complete desolation. It appears to refer to 70 years that started with a paralyzing fear of Babylon, followed by desecrations by Babylon, deportations to Babylon,  death and destruction by Babylon, and ultimately resulting in a destruction of the capital and temple, the further fleeing of inhabitants, and a near desolation of Judea lasting for nearly 50 years until Jews returned in 538 or so. That 70 years of dominance by Babylon resulted in 70 years of desolation of Judea from about 609 when Babylonian domination began to 539, when Babylonian domination ceased as Persia came to power. The 607 calculation can be made this way, but it is impossible to date the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple by using this calculation of the 70 years. The Bible does not say that there was a specific point starting from the destruction of the temple, for example, which is the unique point from which to start counting a period of 70 years of desolation of Judea.

    Then this is compared with a 587 calculation based on 70 years to a temple completion milestone dated to 516. This is just another period of 70 years, but it is not another way to calculate the first period of 70 years, which was 70 years of Babylonian domination according to Jeremiah. It is another period of desolation of the Temple site, but was defined as a period of 70 years of mourning and fasting and wailing over the events involved in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Therefore they could have started with the siege more than a year before the actual burning of the Temple. So this period could be called a period of 70 years as early as 518, for example.

    So while you present both calculations as DIFFERENT ways to figure the date for the destruction of Jerusalem, they are both CORRECT calculations for different periods, only the latter of which is closely related to the date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

     

    Just an aside as a postscript:

    Of course, there are others who would make the latter 70 years from about 587 to about 517 refer to THE 70 years of desolation, explaining, perhaps, why Daniel asks about the end of the 70 years as soon as the 70 years for Babylon are completed, but Daniel gets an answer that he has to continue to wait past 7 weeks of years (49 years) and then another 62 weeks of years for a real fulfillment. If those two periods are broken with a gap in the middle, then they could represent the time from 588 to 539 (49 years) and another period that might lead to the Messiah or a Messianic event. I don't buy the complication this causes.  

  7. 12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Every day I write several pages for the World News Forum. My wife always cuts it down to a line or two.

    Ahhh! So that's what I need. A wife as editor. Actually she cuts it down to ZERO lines when she catches me looking at this site while sitting at a convention. Between talks of course.

    12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Why couldn't you have gotten married at the Justice of the Peace and spared this poor brother?

    LOL. Of course, this brother should have told me he might be in trouble. He had written a commentary on Ecclesiastes that was really good and had also given a version of it as a non-outline talk in several congregations. The portion on marriage was so good that I have used it myself for wedding talks even in the last few years. (Nobody ties it to this poor brother anymore.) Fortunately my wife had the sense to balance the portion of the talk he gave with that of another brother from Writing who remained on good terms with the Writing Department until his death just a couple years ago.

  8. 7 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

    ---- So @Brother Rando..... what source in Hebrew did you consult for the Hebrew reading at the end?

    I see you cited 4 books above it..... but the last rendering is missing a source. Thx.

    Apparently the original paragraph is a summary of the preceding evidence quoted, and relies especially on Euseubius:

    https://jehovahwitnessqhub.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/the-scripture-that-trinitarians-falsified/

    is the link given above and is also the only place that Google returns for me when I look up that paragraph. (other than the discussion here.)

  9. 13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
    16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)

    This makes no sense to me. If he was dismissed for his renegade writing, why was he retained as a writer?

    Rumor was that he "knew where the bodies were buried" as JTR stated. Of course, that's not a literal expression, unless it included the old controversy about supposedly breaking California law with respect to the burial of J.Rutherford's body.

    I think the explanation was in the fact that he (RL) was a good friend of R.Franz, and had been one of the primary Aid Book authors. Brother Schroeder wanted to discredit the Aid Book as part of the process of raising himself up as the next "Oracle" after F.Franz. Only one of the major Aid Book writers survived. And even this survivor was also considered discredited, but these were days when you could save your hide by turning others in for their non-standard beliefs even if your own were exactly the same. Brother Swingle barely survived, some would say, only as a discredited curmudgeon. He lost his responsibility for the Writing Department having produced so many renegades, blamed on allowing too much freedom of research on the Aid Book. Brother L.Barry took over. But Swingle still had to complete his projects, and when Barry took the reigns, he found that most of the Writing Department could not produce the output of those who had practice on the Aid Book and similar projects.

    A presentation given by K.Klein, in mid-1980, at "morning worship" was revealing. He was trying to show how brothers in Writing must be the most humble people in the world because their work that they worked on for so long, could be torn apart by editors. He showed on the TV screen, a three page article, with marks all over it. Bad enough.  But he showed an earlier version of it with twice as many red marks and x's all over it, with notes in the margins, all from a big red marking pen, as if it were a school paper receiving and "F" that had to be redone almost from scratch if it were to pass even with a "D-minus"  I asked RL about this later, and he laughed about it, saying that Klein was especially dramatic about how his own work got torn up because he just couldn't write without making dozens of logical, scriptural and doctrinal mistakes. He didn't keep up, and he made no sense. His were the worst examples, so he thought that it was kind of funny that Klein would choose the topic for "morning worship." He told me about a time just a bit earlier when L.Greenlees came to him (RL) and raised his voice about something he disagreed with in an article. RL asked him to point out something specific that was wrong so he could change it, and this made Greenlees turn red and furious because, I'm guessing, it was about what he was leaving out, not what he was saying. RL said he just took the article, and said OK, and rewrote it from scratch on the spot -- in one take --but that it was rare for an editor to even make a single mark on his work, which was true of several of the brothers who had learned to work under the time pressure of large projects.

    I think that was the key. Another brother who had come to the Aid Book project team late in the process, was a bit slower and more meticuous, but his work on the Sermon on the Mount articles and similar "Bible gems" style articles were always very well-received and, I'm told, rarely got an editorial mark on them. (He was one of the brothers who gave my wedding talk.) He was dismissed from Bethel about a year after he gave my wedding talk.

    So the real problem, I think, was the level of production and speed, that the remaining brothers could muster up. The brothers from the Aid Book team had written most of the last few convention releases for the last few years. (Is This Life All There Is? Life Does Have a Purpose. Choosing the Best Way of Life. Commentary on the Letter of James. The majority of "study articles" in the Watchtower. All the convention talks presenting the various books. Articles in the Watchtower explaining Biblical matters and doctrine.) They hadn't just cut out 20% of the Writing Dept, they had cut out 85% of the production capability, and 95% of the research capability. They still needed them. Otherwise all new convention releases would have to be re-hashes of prior releases. Swingle never really thought that the dismissed persons had done anything wrong. Even Lloyd Barry still liked them and appears to have believed they were right about many of their concerns. Besides, they had given RL, for example, a "special pioneer" stipend and (I assume) he could count his hours spent continuing to write.

  10. On 12/6/2017 at 5:21 PM, Anna said:

    Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

    No. [on the topic of never wanting to admit fault]

    That comes from R.Franz in CoC. But nothing in CoC has ever been rebutted, and I have spoken to one member of the Governing Body who said that just because everything he said in the book was true, it's still poison, because the intent is to expose weakness, while love covers a multitude of sins. Two members of the Writing Department, not Governing Body, have said approximately the same thing. One said he never should have written the book, even though everything in it was true. Based on these words of people who worked with him, I find the book to be very credible from a factual standpoint. Also a "Public Relations" office person at Bethel, and personal friend of mine, has talked to me about things he said to outsiders (related to slight admissions of guilt on the part of the WTS in the past) that resulted in problems for himself among "higher-ups" at Bethel.

    Also, the person supposedly behind this idea in R.Franz' book is the same person behind the exact same sentiment on never admitting a mistake in the area of child abuse, and I do know for a fact that he, this same GB member (Jaracz),  pulled an article from a magazine on the subject after it had gone to the presses, resulting in a delay for the final publication of that same issue with the article replaced.

    Also, I was a "special request" tour guide for Bethel tours requested by outsiders who were not JWs, and who therefore might have included reporters unbeknownst to us. Therefore, I was personally given instructions by D.Sydlik and D.Songer and G.Couch about how to respond to questions that might seem like they are coming from someone who has no right to the answer. These included questions about an expensive press that had lost us millions of dollars and which we had finally decided to scrap, a similar situation with the early computer expenditures, and some bad press that the local Brooklyn Heights civic associations were evidently spreading about pollution fines we had to pay. When such questions came up, I was to say I didn't really know anything about these, even if I did, and if they came up more than once, I was to ask the appropriate persons mentioned above if there was a better answer. On the topic of paying fines for pollution from factory smokestacks, I was to say according to one of the brothers mentioned, that all factories, no matter how careful, will go over the limits now and then, but that the Watch Tower Society was scrutinized much more closely because there are those who are looking for bad press to pin on us. (I had no personal knowledge of any pollution, but I had heard the rumors, and the question was actually being asked.) But another person who was on the GB (Sydlik), when he heard about the suggested answer, was livid that it admitted error of any kind.

    And, of course, I have previously mentioned an experience, in a rehearsal for Bethel's "Family Night," while sitting approximately between Bert Schroeder and Merton Campbell, when they decided to make an old brother change the quote in his experience from many years earlier when he said that Bethel factories were once given an award for having the second cleanest factories in Brooklyn, with only Squibb Pharmaceuticals coming in first place. For the actual Family Night production, Schroeder had it changed to: "Both factories received a rating of 100%."

    The last two or three paragraphs just go to the credibility, in my opinion, of the tendency not to want to admit even the slightest error. This also fits the sometimes comical ways in which we "adjust" and "clarify" past doctrines so that they are more correct, even if they were ridiculously false in prior explanations. In an article about why we were completely dropping over one-hundred former doctrines, the Watchtower described it in typical fashion:

    *** w15 3/15 pp. 8-10 pars. 6-10 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***

    • Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,”. . . . As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.

     

  11. 1 hour ago, Anna said:

    I was hoping that the reason why 1975 was brought up again (at convention) was because it was a reminder that the Slave err, and that some of the new things i.e. the OVERLAPPING GENERATION theory was perhaps to be treated with caution.

    I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. The apology that appeared in the 1980 Watchtower over 1975 was actually as good as written back in 1976, and should have been the idea included in that same 1976 issue. But some brothers on the Governing Body were very vocal that you never admit a mistake because it will be used against you. (R.Franz wrote the 1980 apology but admits that he had to keep it weak because it had to be approved by those same brothers who would not agree to a stronger, clearer apology.)

    Even the following portion of the "Choosing" book caused no little skirmish, because it claims that "many stumbled" and blames it on looking to a particular period or year, but didn't clearly blame it on the individuals themselves, which could have implied guilt on the part of the WTS. I'm including the surrounding context only because I like it for the fact that it finds a way to discuss the "presence" and still ignores 1914. (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)

    *** bw chap. 10 pp. 169-170 pars. 41-43 Safeguard Your Christian Hope ***

    • Like Peter, the other faithful apostles taught their fellow believers to keep ever before them the certainty of Christ’s coming to execute judgment and to reward his loyal disciples. A prime objective of such teaching was to aid Christians to be found approved on the Son’s arrival “with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) As Jesus had done, the apostles continued to emphasize the importance of proving faithful to the end. That end could come either at their death or at “the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Peter 3:12) Since even the resurrection of Christ’s joint heirs is linked in the Scriptures with his return, the hopes of all true disciples are bound up with the arrival of the Son of God in the capacity of a glorious heavenly King. (Matthew 10:28; 24:13, 36-44; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:14-17) Thus, during the entire history of the Christian congregation, unshakable faith in the Master’s coming “with power and great glory” has been an aid in a person’s proving loyal to him.  42 Partly because of eagerness to be alive when Jesus Christ reveals himself in glory, there have been believers throughout the centuries who began looking to a particular period or a year for the windup of the ungodly system of things. This has happened right down to these “last days.” Since certain expectations were not realized, many stumbled and returned to the ways of the world. In fulfillment of Peter’s words, even today we hear the voice of ridiculers. (2 Peter 3:3, 4) In effect, they say: ‘What reason is there to believe that the Son of God is going to execute the ungodly and to reward his disciples? Why, nothing has changed since the time of creation. The original processes of life are continuing and give no indication of coming to a disastrous end in the near future. Men are marrying, and women are being given in marriage, babies are being born, and men continue to grow old and die.’ Thus they imply that the Lord Jesus Christ never will come to execute judgment or that this event is so far off in the future that it is of no immediate concern.  Such ridiculers have totally lost sight of the fact that either death or “the day of Jehovah” will inescapably overtake them. In either event, they will have no further opportunity to lay up treasure in heaven in the form of fine works. (Luke 12:15-21, 31, 33-40) Hence, for disciples of Jesus Christ there has never been a period of history when they could afford to be neglectful of their responsibilities. Certainly, the risk in doing so is even greater in our time.
  12. 14 minutes ago, Anna said:

    So what IS the lesson?

    We can't know exactly what the writer was thinking, but we can all see ways in which the scenario ties back to the theme "Don't give up!" One of the worst things you can do to a child waiting for a reward is to make promises about the time and place and then when you get there, reset the goal line, as they say. Going back to the illustration of running toward a final goal in Sinutko's talk, imagine if you were promising your child that if he could run a mile, you would buy him an ice cream cone. He had never run a mile before, and he struggled especially in the second and third quarter-mile lap. But seeing the goal ahead, he puts on that final burst of speed, amazingly, through pain and sweat, in the final lap -- and succeeds in running a mile for the first time!

    Then you tell him he needs to run another mile.

    • (Proverbs 13:12) . . .Expectation postponed makes the heart sick, But a desire realized is a tree of life.

    The idea or lesson is that this "expectation postponed" became a trial, a sickness. It could even be traumatic in the illustration of the running child.

     

  13. 57 minutes ago, Anna said:

    Just steering a little back to 1975, I think maybe the confusion and conflict in this thread regarding what "really" happened apparently come from the fact that some of us are talking about stage 2 and 3, and others about stage 4 and 5. So two different aspects of what was said about 1975, and both aspects are true.

    The 5 stages as posted by JWI, as a refresher:

    1.The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution.

    2.Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it.

    3.Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful.

    4.Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins.

    5. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing.

    I think this series of stages, while not definitive of course, helps put a framework on statements made during this time period and others too. For example, before 1925 the statements were very definitive about the "end" in 1925, and all caution was thrown to the wind in 1924. The statements became more cautious in 1925. There was another stage somewhere between 4 and 5 in those days where the Watchtower just denied that they ever said the things they said. Naturally, those who wish to defend the Watchtower Society against having made a false prophecy about 1925 will quote the stage#4 and stage#4.5 statements, and those who wish to embarrass the WTS will quote the stage#2 and stage#3 comments.

    As to the "finger-pointing" stage#5 note the similarity between the following two statements, especially the portion highlighted in red:

    *** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***

    • God's people had to adjust their thinking about 1925. . . . . A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) 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.

    *** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 15 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***

    • 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.

    *** w80 3/15 p. 17 par. 5 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***

    • . With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. 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.
  14. Just so you know @DespicableME, I removed my own comment regarding a link about a porn star who left the JWs. With that comment gone, your comment in response to it (referencing Ruud) seemed even more out of place, so I deleted it along with mine. I didn't do this as a censorship, just didn't want to make your comment seem more awkward than it was.

    Just so you know @Srecko Sostar someone (not me) moved your comments about copyright to a new topic, linked below, so I moved the other followup comments from this topic over there too, which included a couple of my responses. I ended up dragging over about 10 comments that had veered off onto that topic, also affecting comments by @DespicableME and @Noble Berean

     

  15. 22 minutes ago, Alithís Gnosis said:

    Then today plays well, *IF* Donald Trump announces to have the Capital of Israel moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as indicated by the media.

    That would be in agreement with those that stay on the watch. Luke 21:36

    1947-2017 70 weeks

    1967-2017 1 Jubilee

    Seemingly meaningless. Why would a Jubilee start in 1967? Also, how could a week equal a year so that 70 weeks is 70 years?

  16. 3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

    How would you looked, JWI, on secular WT rights in "publishing and multiplication" of, as claim is coming from WT, so called spiritual food, which/that is in fact obligation from FDS in regard to Masters command (to share), and Masters claim that His food is free for everyone, in connection to Bible "principle" - "Freely you have received; freely give." 

    How is possible, then/after that in mind, to looking for material benefit, compensation or something else that is possible to get according to mercantile rules and laws.

    The legal rights to one's own published material include the right to say HOW it is distributed. This means that even if what they published is free, they have a right to the context in which it is distributed. They can keep someone else from slapping on a different cover to each book and magazine to claim that the material came from someone other than the WTS. They can keep someone from copying their material and then claiming that the copiers had it first and the WTS copied from them. They can keep someone from distributing it from a website where each item is presented as if from some devil-worshipping cult, to try to cast the WTS in a bad light. They can keep someone from slicing and dicing their material to make it look like it says something it doesn't.

    And of course there are hundreds of other situations and rights that a publisher gets in order to protect their own work and protect the context of distribution.

    Some real-world examples have happened that match many of the cases I listed. For example, a spin-off "Watchtower Society of ????" somewhere in Africa or a one-time Soviet nation might decide that they agree with 50% of the material that comes from the WTS of PA or NY. So they discard or edit half of the material and distribute the "good stuff" under their own spin-off. This could cause confusion for the average reader in those areas when some of the same material is distributed by bona fide JWs with original WTS publications.

    To tie this loosely to the discussion, you might have noticed that it was not until the 1970's that the WTS went after a few organizations of this type, and had to change the name from "Jehovah's witnesses" to "Jehovah's Witnesses" (with a capital "W"). The intentionally "generic" look of the name made it easy for another group to steal. Something similar had happened with "Bible students" and "Bible Students" many years earlier. There was even talk at the time of changing the name alternatively to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." Don't know if all other countries practiced this so carefully, but it remained the practice in the USA that the word was never capitalized except in titles, of course -- sometimes not even in titles. Even the Supreme Court learned to not capitalize the "w" in titles of cases. Here are two examples from 1976, just before and just after the change.

    *** w76 3/15 p. 169 A Happy Family Life—How We Achieved It ***

    • After living in Vancouver for three years, and after our fourth son was born, one of Jehovah’s witnesses called at our door. It was the first time that this occurred in our lives. This eventually led my wife and me to become Jehovah’s witnesses. Let me tell you how this came about.

    *** w76 4/1 p. 204 Let Everyone Take Life’s Water Free ***

    • He observed the honesty and steadfastness of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the civil war, at which time many of them were hated and mistreated. The first week after the war he began attending their Bible-study meetings, and he is now a baptized member of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Aba.

    *** g76 3/8 p. 22 A Conspiracy Thwarted in “the Land Down Under” ***

    • In his reply, the archbishop tried to circumvent the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion by claiming that Jehovah’s witnesses were not spreading Christian teachings. Neither he nor his Protestant colleagues, however, were able to produce positive proof of seditious behavior by Jehovah’s witnesses.

    *** g76 3/22 p. 7 When Will These Cruelties Stop? ***

    • Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi are not some unusual “splinter group” with a separate set of standards or views, different from those held by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses world wide. Like Jehovah’s Witnesses everywhere they seek to be exemplary in payment of taxes and obedience to laws.

    So the change happened between 3/15/76 and 3/22/76. The March 1976 Kingdom Ministry used the name "Jehovah's witnesses" and the April 1976 Kingdom Ministry used  "Jehovah's Witnesses." No public explanation was given.

     

     

     

  17. 15 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

    The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.

    A lot of people think it's part of Christianity to think of God and Satan in similar ways, as if they are working together, and Satan is doing God's work for him by punishing bad as God rewards the good.

    After 60 years, the new NWT Bible removed the references satyrs in 2013 by changing the "goat shaped demon" references to just "wild goats." Here's an example:

    • (Isaiah 34:14) 14 And haunters of waterless regions must meet up with howling animals, and even the goat-shaped demon will call to its companion. . . .

    This was changed to:

    • (Isaiah 34:14) . . .Desert creatures will meet up with howling animals, And the wild goat will call to its companion.. . .

    Even the Greek word satyr appears to come from Hebrew. The following is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 34:14 and Isaiah 13:21 also.

     

    • (Isaiah 13:21, 22) 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight.. . .(NWT pre-2013)

    KJV:

    • (Isaiah 13:21,22, KJV) But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces:

     

  18. 4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Now he apparently cloned himself and I see several manifestations of himself. Let no one say  @AllenSmith is not an enigma. 

    Has he ever been rude? Probably. But there are no end of people here who have been nearly as rude, and countless ones who are deliberately offensive, attributing evil motive to Witness headship when they have no basis whatsoever for doing so. Besides, as long as we are quoting Greek on this thread, let us quote Aristotle: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Cut him slack. He brings legal decisions to the table that nobody else thinks of.

    Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

  19. On 12/5/2017 at 2:39 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

    -fair use rule as far is "fair" for those to whom critics is addressed. WTBTS is proud when can address "argumentative, Bible based" critics, judgement, revealing of hypocrisy in other parts of human society (religious,as first choice and then other, politics and trade systems).

    I don't think we can criticize the WTS itself for revealing hypocrisy, and in this way being critical and judgmental about religion and other parts of society. It is part of our belief system that wheat would grow alongside hypocritically similar-looking weeds for example. The WTS has not been guilty of going beyond fair use in the content of most of their work. There have only been minor exceptions that I know of. It's also possible they did not get the rights to Seola, but I'm not sure. When they wanted the rights to the Diaglott, they bought them. They licensed the rights to print the American Standard and Byington.

    I know that when someone found a story told from the perspective of an unborn child in a Reader's Digest, for example, an Awake! article was produced over the exact same idea and a lot of phrases remained intact. But a lot of work was put into making it different, so I don't think it was plagiarized on purpose. Similar complaints about Awake! articles have less basis. Sometimes an author writes a non-fiction book on a particular subject and another author says he or she can do a much better job, and comes out with a book with nearly the same title. I have done work for commercial publishing houses, and I know that when a specific genre of writing makes a publishing house some money, another publishing house often puts out a call for anyone who has worked on a similar book.

    On 12/5/2017 at 2:39 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

    But when observers, critics, ex members or even JW members questioning, reveals inside spiritual and hierarchical structure of doctrines, rules, instructions and corporational moves in aspects of money and such part of life inside WT, then WT consider such behavior as "not fair use", even against law of "publishing rights" or "intellectual property" and against WT freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

    More often than not, the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material. There have been cases when internal material, never intended for public publication has been "leaked." Leaked material can seem damning, but unless everything is leaked it will always tell a partial picture. And the leaker is often interested in making it seem as if the partial picture is the while picture.

    However, if material that was already intended for the public, or put out on a public website (jw.org) is leaked, this is where the WTS might find a PR problem trying to suppress it. But even here, they would have no legal problem trying to suppress it if they wanted on many sites that are primarily known for quoting large chunks of material or giving out access to publications on their own non-JW sites.

  20. 2 hours ago, DespicableME said:

    LOL!!! I have a question. What is infringement, and what is fair use? Public domain material isn’t included. . . .

    The use of Watchtower Literature without the expressed consent of the Watchtower. Wouldn’t that be a blatant disregard of copyright law?

    Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing."  Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. 

    You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important.

    So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

  21. 3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

    I do not know when Art Department started to making photos (and after videos) with JW members as actors of JW and non-JW for purpose of illustration in publications and after for real photographs of real people :)))) even in artificial, fictive, SF situations.

    It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

  22. 11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

    this mentioned history is interesting. Inspiration of artist who making pictures have several sources, i guess. :))

    You'd be surprised -- maybe not. New and old religious books and booklets and calendars from Christendom especially were common sources from which to "draw" inspiration. But for typography and graphical layout ideas, current magazine advertising was a common source. I know of a couple of blatant plagiarisms that the Watchtower never got in trouble for. Armageddon was going to wipe out a multitude of such sins before anyone could catch on. There is a good chance they will show up over time, however, as more printed material makes it to the Internet for comparison.

    There was nothing wrong, however, with the 1968 Awake! cover.

  23. 31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
    16 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

    Got a reference for that?

    i will look for :)

    If you are going on publicly published material, it's based on two or three principles put together. You can start with this one.

    *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

    • But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

    In it's entirety, this was a very good and balanced article I thought.

    Edite to add, whoops, @Noble Berean and @Srecko Sostar, the above was not the paragraph I meant to include:

    *** w74 8/1 pp. 469-470 par. 15 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

    • In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?

     

  24. The new JW Broadcasting with Sam Herd includes his talk to the Gilead Graduation class.

    https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb_201712_1_VIDEO

    There were several items of note, but this one seems important. In the introduction he mentions evidence that Jesus has been around Jehovah for at least 4 and a half billion years, based on that morning's text plus a rock found in Australia. And yet, the Father knows so much more than Jesus. Therefore we have only begun to touch on a few things. It's like we are new-born with our eyes barely open. He makes fun of things we thought only twenty years ago. At the 6 minute, 45 second mark he starts to say the following:

    • When measured by Jesus, we're newborn infants. We barely have our eyes open. Barely. What we see is not what we're going to see -- in years to come. We're just looking; we're just learning. We're touching things -- and for the first time. Just think in the past 10 years how many things we've touched for the first time -- even though we've read the Bible over and over again and we've listened to it being read to us over and over again. But, we've just touched a few things: like the generation. Ahhh! [purposely making a sound as if something was bad-tasting in his throat and he needed to spit it out] Twenty years ago we -- "Ahhh" -- the generation. [with a dismissive hand movement] And now we know all about that generation, right? And so many other things.

    Then Brother Losch starts singing a gospel song "Oh Happy Day! . . . when Jesus washed my sins away." He also touches on the NA'OS issue with respect to the Great Crowd serving not just near the temple or before the temple, but IN THE TEMPLE. I liked his statement: Have a positive outlook: Don't be sad that some rosebushes have thorns, but be glad that some thornbushes have roses on it. Then Brother Breaux tries to prove that Jehovah forgets using a verse in Hebrews that says he doesn't. His theme was work is more important than titles. Gary Breaux has told people privately that he was surprised that his talk on the two-witness rule was added to the monthly broadcast last month. I thought that Brother Breaux also related a story about District Overseers that could give some insight into the experience with those special talks on 1975 that were being given by District Overseers in the late 1960's and 1970's. Here are his exact words, taken out of context, of course:

    • I'd like to tell you another little story about a brother that had somewhat of a difficulty with this [showing love]. When I was a young circuit overseer, uh, the District Overseer I had was, uh, I was afraid of him. Everybody else was afraid of him, too.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.