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.

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.

• שָׂעִיר sa`iyr   (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/13/21/t_conc_692021 )

• (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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

12 hours ago, tromboneck said:

If anyone, young or old, have been anointed  during the time when ALL those of the first group have died off, these newly anointed ones would not be recognized as part of "this generation" that Jesus said would not pass away. 

True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914.

So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation. 

So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120)  People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today.

How far off is that reasoning?

2 hours ago, Alithís Gnosis said:

AL,

Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:

The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/

I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.

I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).

---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------

Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades.

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This makes no sense to me. If it was published in 1971, how does it become a 1999/2000 issue? It would be a  1999/2000 issue if it was published at that time. It belongs to the 1970's which you've already logged. Strike 1999/2000.

True. I should have used a few of the other sources that pointed to 1999/2000. Remember that the 1970's were pointed to since 1956 or even before. Then more strongly in 1966 building up to a maximum around 1968 to 1971. The particular quote I used may have been using the term "shortly, within our twentieth century . . . [Armageddon will take place]" to  loosen the prediction away from the 1970's and allow an extra 20 years at the most. Or it could have just been intended to be a book that strengthened the parallel discussion of the 1970's without ever mentioning the 1970's . The main point of the book was that the nations would know that a prophet had been among them since the 1919 period, so there may have been some hesitance to point out in the very same book that this prophet had been pointing to the 1970's as the appropriate time for God to act on their behalf.

After the 1970's were over, then we could say that any references to 1999/2000 from that point on would be using the end of the twentieth century as a true terminus ad quem (the latest possible date of an event). So when 1980 rolled around this was published:

*** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward.
• As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end.

This does not count as breaking the Biblical rules of date-setting, because the assumptions are built in. It only shows that the writer was thinking about the end of the 20th century as a possible "terminus ad quem." At that moment, the implied age of understanding the events in 1914 was being reduced to 10 rather than 15 as stated before, (and it would soon have to be reduced again to include 1-day-old babies). The word "if" saves this quote even if the spirit of the quote was to break the rule.

This next one comes a little closer to breaking the letter of the rule, not just the spirit:

*** w84 3/1 pp. 18-19 par. 12 Kingdom Unity a Reality Today ***

• And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—“will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) 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!

In a court of law, juxtaposing the 1980 quote and the 1984 quote, it is easy to see that the second one is trying to close the gap allowed by the first one. The first one allows that the generation could technically go on past 2000, defined by the number of 96 years olds and older who might still be alive that year. The second reminds us that "the end" need not wait until the end of the century, and there is much evidence that it's not just a little closer than the end of the century, but "much closer." Still, a good lawyer might convince a judge or jury that no "terminus ad quem" was defined here, technically.

In the next quote, however, the "letter of the rule" was broken here, not just the "spirit of the rule:"

*** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” ***

• The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century.

There we have the undeniable "terminus ad quem" which someone questioned later that same year so that a correction was made through a QFR and finally an adjustment was made to the bound volume and subsequent electronic copies.

*** w89 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• We have ample reasons to expect that this preaching will be completed in our time. Does that mean before the turn of a new month, a new year, a new decade, a new century? No human knows, for Jesus said that ‘even the angels of the heavens’ did not know that. (Matthew 24:36)

There was no time to fix the error in the original issue, of course, but it was changed to this very idea in the bound volume.

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Plot your remaining numbers on a graph. No finer evidence will emerge of how we have improved over time. All bunched up at the beginning. Nothing for 40 years. The chart would be the envy of any quality control group.

It's more informative to plot breaks in the "spirit" of Jesus; words at Matthew 24:36 and combined with Luke 21:8:

• (Luke 21:8) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.

Obviously we can still be encouraged that this system will not go on forever, and that man has already proven that he cannot even attempt to take the place of God's kingdom. Therefore we can be encouraged that the end is ever closer, and pray that Jehovah's will be done with reference to the time when that Kingdom comes and God's will is done in heaven and on earth. But we are always breaking the spirit of Jesus words if we point to a specific time period, or specific signs seen during this time period, and say this is evidence that the DUE TIME for the end has now approached. On that count, I would have to admit, as we all would, that these words of Jesus are ignored several times a year. So the "plot" only thickens, every time we think we have figured a way to define "that generation."

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We say Witnesses got all excited over something that turned out to be a big nothingburger. Give them the short answer - ‘Everyone is allowed one failed end-of-world date per lifetime. It is in the rules’ - and be done with it.

Yes. You've said this before, but of course the Watch Tower has now broken the Biblical rules about date-setting regarding several different time periods: 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1970's, 1999/2000.

The last one, listed as 1999/2000, might sound confusing. Here's how it was worded in the Ezekiel book, back in 1971:

*** kj chap. 12 p. 216 par. 9 “Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right” ***

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

On 12/3/2017 at 3:19 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Now this raises an interesting angle. Why is that some ex-witnesses can live with their choices and those who remain as witnesses, and others go all nasty and vindictive? Probably for a separate discussion? I might just post it if any think it is worth a look?

That's a good question. I suspect that Anna is right with the general idea that it is those who feel they suffered an injustice. This seems to be true of all persons who are vindictive. They are looking for a kind of "justice" usually believing they are acting against injustice. Of course the word "vindictive" itself is related to the word "vindicate" which can happen through winning a vanquishing vengeful victory -- or in some cases it can be accomplished with a kind word. When we pray for Jehovah's name to be vindicated, we are in effect asking for his name to be avenged in that it is either set free from false claims (or impending punishment) or set free by punishing those who spoke against it or made claims against it. I'll try to brainstorm a few scenarios:

• In some cases, of course, it's an ego so big that it can't let go of being told they were wrong.
• In some cases, the persons thought they were fooled and lost a part of their life when they would have otherwise tried their hand at a business, a career, a philanthropic charity, or whatever.
• In some cases, I suppose, that as Witnesses they learned that the right and moral thing to do when one learns the truth is to go out and convince others in spite of persecution or being made fun of or argued against. Thinking they now have the truth and it's the Witnesses who need to hear it, they focus on the very ones who taught them to preach about such things.
• In some cases, the person has become unconvinced of so many of the doctrines that they believe it is not worth joining or rejoining after earlier association with their believing family members. When those family members shun them, they believe that they have lost their family to a cult, because they think those with the crazy beliefs are shunning those with reasonable beliefs. And they will probably also think that the rule against association is just because their "cult leaders" don't want them to spending enough time with non-believers to see that the non-believers' beliefs are reasonable
• In some cases, persons begin to focus on (obsess over?) issues with things like child abuse, deaths from not accepting blood transfusion, control over a person's educational opportunities, control over their associations, etc., and they feel like some kind of justice warrior who must make the world right -- but decide that this must start with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Maybe it's just the loud 10% who are the only ones we hear about. Based on the Pew numbers, I have a feeling that most of us probably never hear much again from 90% of former JWs, and they just go quietly about their business and almost forget they were ever JWs. (Actually, that seems impossible, so I'm going to revisit that one.) I've met a few in service like this. So the ones we hear from must feel they have a good reason to speak up. If they seem vindictive, they probably want vindication. If they are nasty, then we can just be glad they are no longer with us.

It occurred to me that there is probably something about becoming a JW that is polarizing. I don't think anyone can easily forget their dedication vow. If they leave they probably think it's important to justify it to those who they once loved. I also think there is emotional trauma and even a level of PTSD in thinking someone loves you and then having your world turned upside-down on seeing their hatred (through shunning). This must be jarring. Of course, it's true that shunning is not a good way of showing that we love our enemies, but I see it as more of an immaturity on our part than a hatred.

On 12/3/2017 at 11:17 AM, AllenSmith25 said:

Not a problem, I get bored myself. I don't think spiritual gems include ex-witness analogy, or at least, I haven't heard it from the platform. But you could be correct if the GB is *reflecting* on past issues that seem to continue since 1874 for many. I'm sure, they need to remind people that have a concern from information gathered through the internet. Ex-Witnesses enjoy slicing and splicing videos, and taking Watchtower literature, omitting certain things, and adding their own words to it, and calling it, all Watchtower. I've even heard voice records of Fred Franz speeches manipulated about 1975 on the internet.

Very good points. Just like the early Trinitarians made additions and adjustments to the meaning of 1 John 5:7-9, because their own ideal meaning of Trinity wasn't there in any parts of the REAL Bible. Similarly, ex-JWs have actually gone to the trouble of splicing and editing a talk by Fred Franz, in which they remove his cautionary statements and make it look like he was promoting 1975 as the time for Armageddon, not just the end of 6,000 years on man's existence. I think many ex-JWs like to pride themselves on being able to take exact words and exact photocopies of older doctrinal material and using our own words against us. In this case, partly because  I think the full 1975 issue is not even understood, some have resorted to dishonesty because the actual point made in those days is not so damning as they wish it was. They wish it had been something very bad, so some (at least one case I saw) dishonestly changed the words of the original.

I was concerned when the GB brought up the topic of 1975 again earlier this year, and think that it was a great error to try to dismiss it by implying that it came from the unauthorized speculation of individuals in the "rank and file" as the GB sometimes have called us. A good part of this really was from speculation, of course Although I think this was the very goal of the person behind it. He was hoping for speculation. None of this foundational material about 1975 could have come from anyone but Fred Franz, because at the time he was the only one allowed to speculate about prophetic matters. He was called the Oracle at Bethel sincerely by peers who loved him, and sarcastically by those who were jealous (like Bert Schroeder). But Fred Franz was now giving us permission to speculate. It was even more than that. He put information out there and pretty much told us that it was time we should start speculating on what it means. He gave us a few guidelines about what we say to the public regarding this speculation, but he simultaneously guided the parameters of the speculation. He reminded us of all the things that we might see happening around this time period. If we listen to his ideas combined from several of his talks on the topic we can see why so many understood that he was hoping and implying that we get the following meaning (in loose paraphrase):

• Are we saying that the fall of Babylon, the attack on God's people, the Great Tribulation and Armageddon would start by 1975? No ..... but it could! (wink, wink, nod, nod) Just don't be telling the public that it will. [This is our own little secret bit of knowledge, because we know that God doesn't do a single thing unless he first tells his servants, the prophets.] So, if you know who it is the constitutes Jehovah's prophet today, it should be clear to you privileged few: what you can expect -- not necessarily in 1975 specifically, but definitely in the months to shortly follow. Let him who has ears listen!

I think there is plenty of evidence that we were being ASKED to speculate, at least up until 1974.  By 1974 we were being told to stop speculating. Don't know if it's true but R.Franz says that F.Franz had lost some credibility at this point from N.Knorr, because F.Franz had told Knorr that he needed to adjust the end of 6,000 years of human existence to 1974 instead of 1975. Knorr thought this finally asking too much, and asked Fred Franz to just leave it alone.

In fact, it was speculation that caused some to understand the partly ambiguous material as NOT applying specifically to 1975, or even necessarily to the short months following 1975. Some were speculating that it might still take years before the generation died out. They were speculating about how to combine the material about 1975 with the fact that the generation that saw and understood 1914 would have to have been born around 1900 and would begin dying out after 70 or 80 years. That could reach until 1980. Others were already talking about the end of the twentieth century. And rarely, someone would mention that someone in Siberia was known to live to be 120. That could take us all the way to the year 2020. So how should we speculate that this new information about 1975 meshes with the generation that could take us all the way until the year 2020, if necessary.

Fred Franz also promoted and wrote most of the Ezekiel book material to go along with this 1975 idea. The idea of promoting Ezekiel in was so that we could be reminded that "The nations will know that there had been a prophet among them."

• (Ezekiel 2:3-5) 3 He went on to say to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to rebellious nations that have rebelled against me.. . .  and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says.Â’ 5 As for them, whether they listen or refuse to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will certainly know that a prophet was among them.
• (Ezekiel 33:32, 33) . . .They will hear your words, but no one will act on them. 33 And when it comes true—and it will come true—they will have to know that a prophet has been among them.”

Ezekiel had been mentioned 5 to 15 times a year in most Watchtower, but suddenly it about 50 times in 1969, 306 times in 1972, 116 times in 1973, dropping back to only 6 times in 1975. Some have speculated that all this talk about Jehovah's Witnesses acting as God's prophet was only because of the teaching of God's word. But notice the time period and the references to the time period when the point was made. Note the years on the following articles, which of course coincided with the Ezekiel book which we were studying in 1972 and 1973:

*** w73 3/1 p. 150 Heeding Divine Warning Is Wisdom ***

• Better it is to know now, rather than too late, that there is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us, and to accept and act upon the Bible message, “not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) Those who wait undecided until what JehovahÂ’s Christian witnesses have been proclaiming ‘comes trueÂ’ “will also have to know that a prophet himself had proved to be in the midst of them.” (Ezek. 33:33) But such belated knowledge will not mean salvation for them, for it will find their hearts and their ways to be unchanged.
• What is to be gained by hesitating and doubting to the end that Jehovah can raise up and has raised up a genuine “prophet” within our generation? Certainly it will gain for no one the divine favor and protection needed during the speedily approaching “great tribulation.” If our course is to be that of wisdom and of faith, then, with Bible in hand, we will heed the warning of JehovahÂ’s true watchman and will take refuge where Jehovah indicates in his Word. Then, when JehovahÂ’s prophetic watchman gets the report that Christendom has been struck down, we, together with the faithful watchman, will continue to live.

*** w72 4/1 pp. 197-200 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ ***

• So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE “PROPHET” These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?. . . This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as JehovahÂ’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning, and have been joined and assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons who have listened to their message with belief. Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?
• . . .  EzekielÂ’s name meant “God Strengthens,” and . . .  At the time, they might not view or appreciate him as a prophet of Jehovah. Nevertheless, whether they paid attention to him or refrained, the occasion was to come when these rebellious people would “know also that a prophet himself happened to be in the midst of them.” Jehovah would confirm him as a prophet then by causing what Ezekiel prophesied to come true. (Ezek. 2:3-5) Ezekiel was further told: . . .Since the year 1919 C.E. JehovahÂ’s witnesses have found circumstances to be just like that . . . . To Ezekiel, in his vision, and, symbolically to the modern-day “prophet,” the spirit-begotten, anointed ones who are the nucleus of JehovahÂ’s witnesses today, . . . The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision. This would indicate that JehovahÂ’s witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as directed from heaven.  Yes, the time must come shortly that the nations will have to know that really a “prophet” of Jehovah was among them. Actually now more than a million and a half persons are helping that collective or composite “prophet” in his preaching work and well over that number of others are studying the Bible with the “prophet” group and its companions.

It was no coincidence, and definitely intended to help fuel speculation during this time period of 1975-era predictions, when these predictions were then accompanied by a claim that there was a prophet among Jehovah's Witnesses, directed from heaven to deliver a message that would be fulfilled. "Yes. the time must come shortly." 

 

13 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

Men  are  amazing....  from  a  SUPERMOON  to  SUPERMAN....   GREAT !! 

PS.  I  NEVER  SAW  A  MOVIE  WITH  SUPERMAN,  sorry  hahaha

Yes, but surely you have heard of the "MAN in the MOON."

Or we could compromise with "MON"

Anyway, these are very nice pictures of the moon. Also I saw it for that last couple of evenings, and it's very beautiful.

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.

 

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.

The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings.

Yikes! I just recalled that same phenomenon myself. I also knew a pioneer and a special pioneer who carried around that same Awake! magazine for years -- as late as 1973 and 1974 while I was pioneering with them.

While in the Art Department at Brooklyn Bethel, I learned that the artist who drew this cover had died a few years before but that he was remembered for his ability to create these special headline fonts with no help from stat cameras or photographic effects. He also had done the famous piece of graphic art for the Truth book completely by hand. I saw the drawer over at the Photoplate building in the 8th floor of Factory 1 where this brother ended up doing the same chart in 30 languages, also by hand. No one else could execute the fonts as he could.

An early copy of his Awake! cover was there, too. The Awake! cover "Is It Later Than You Think?" had been called the Hitchcock cover. I remember this because it was a Sister Hickock, I think, (the married couple Randy and Maureen both worked in Photoplate) who mentioned it. The  hypnotic, hallucinogenic style was probably supposed to conjure up the idea of a spiritist trying to look into the future. The Hitchcock reference must have come from the color scheme and ideas from posters like:

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

NO !!   SUPERMAN  IS  MOVING  FAST  IN  FILM,  BUT  THE  BIG  SUPERMOON  IS  A  SLOWLY   "GUY"     SUPERMAN  IS  A  SCIENCE - FICTION  FRAME,  BUT  MOON / SOMETIMES  A  SUPERMOON,  IS  REAL !! 

Thanks for the setup . . . 

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I found the excitement of the 6000 years more appealing than the prevailing wind of speculation, which was uttered through the platforms.

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.

I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Perhaps, in your culture it was different, but in mine, there was no hysteria attached.

I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Many people were counseled to understand what the Watchtower was actually saying. And IT DIDNÂ’T SAY THE END OF THE WORLD WOULD COME IN 1975!!!! That truth is an ex-witness propaganda excuse of a lie.

This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of manÂ’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.

My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.

I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.

I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.

But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

8 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

THATS  NOT  MY  TEXT  -  @JW Insider 

I fixed it twice, and each time I checked it, it had stayed the same -- my fix didn't take. I just finally fixed it and it looks like it will stay this time.

The twist on your picture is, of course, from the Superman series, which always included the words:

SUPERMOON!!! Can leap tall buildings in a single bound!

1 minute ago, AllenSmith said:

From opinion to opinion, what makes you think yours is better.

I don't say mine is better.

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.

I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.

• It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975.

He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.

1. The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon?
2. Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.

•  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying:

This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:

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.

Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.

• "The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635

"It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:

*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***

• WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects.

While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")

Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:

*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***

• WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1.

This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.

I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

4 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

If there is nothing more to calculate then what is it used to write, for example, that the two witnesses dressed in sack will preach for 1260 days?
1260 days from when?

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.

4 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

If there is nothing more to compute because the angel says to Daniel "happy who is waiting and arrives at 1335 days"?

If we do not have to calculate why Revelation and Daniel talk about specific days and also say when to start?
According to your reasoning both the angel who speaks to Daniel and also the vision of John have made a mistake.

Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.

4 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

You who are a reflective person, you will not believe that the 1260 days or 1290 or 1335 days concern assemblies, books, resolutions, is not it?

I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.

4 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

We must honestly ask ourselves whether we have gone from making absurd and ridiculous calculations (like those of the seventh millennium) to failing to see what is written in the Bible.

Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.