JW Insider

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.

2 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

All these "problems" would not exist if we had the humility to re-discuss the "start date" of this "incomprehensible generation".

Yes. I've seen some of your proposed math. But I am a strong believer in Paul's words that we need nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons (1Th 5:1). This must mean that there is nothing left to calculate. The very last prophecy that hung on a time calculation was the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jesus said it would happen that armies would encamp around Jerusalem in that same generation, before the people who heard him had died out. And it happened about 34 years after Jesus predicted it to come upon that generation. After that destruction the sign had occurred and the stage was set for Jesus' parousia to appear at any time, but that it would be a bright and shining parousia like lightning, Jesus says. He also says that the parousia will come as a surprise, as unpredictable and unannounced as a thief in the night. People would be going about their business, marrying and being given in marriage, and yet that day of the parousia would come upon them as surprising as the day when the flood came in Noah's time, or when the fire came in Lot's time. Right up until the time when the parousia appears, people will be saying "where is this promised parousia of his?" while most people are still going about their business much the same way as they have since the beginning of time. 

9 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

I gave a talk about the "overlapping generations" when it was "new".

Pointed out not to ignore things like retirement plans, etc., because this overlapping stuff could easily drag on another 100 years--likely longer as medical tech advances.

Jehovah has his own time frame.

We were told to be ready at any time for the fan to be hit. We weren't told to jump the gun. As many seemed want to do.

Hey AnonymousBrother. Great to see you back!!! And hopefully coming back to the States will be a good move, too. I've heard you tell of your retirement planning talk in the past. Although you are right about the math supporting it, there are congregations where such talk will not be so welcome, of course. I imagine you raised a few eyebrows when you first talked about "100 years" more in this old system of things. That's going to be seen as "apostate" talk in some circles.

But even this idea that the math can support "100 years" potentially produces exactly the problem we had in 1975. We all acknowledge that the end can come at any time, that's a given. But the "overlapping generation" math, even when using maximum ages of 120, and an "anointing" acknowledged as early as age 15, doesn't extend forever. (Could stretch to 2124.) But what happens if you were asked to give that same talk 50 years from now? The math would only support a maximum that's closer to 50 years. And what happens 90 years from now? The math would only support a number closer to 10 more years. That's the same thing that started in 1966, when the system was expected to go on for only 10 to 15 more years.

Brother Splane once laughed about persons who might be sitting at the JW Broadcasting desk years down the road after he's gone, so I know he's thought of the possibility. According to the "Watchtower," as I'm sure you already know, Brother Russell started to lose faith in 1914 near the end of 1913 and early in the year 1914, and he also began speculating about how people might look back and laugh "100 years from now" on what he had been predicting. 

On the Long Island Rail Road a few years ago, I spoke to a "Harold Camping" guy who, along with his wife, had quit their jobs because it was May 20, and only ONE day before their BIG day. I told him about our religion and 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, and 1925 and 1975, and how you have to consider what you will do if the end doesn't come as expected. I asked if he had thought about the kind of counseling members of his faith might need on May 22 if it doesn't happen. He spoke to me about how this new date was not wrong, and it would show a grave lack of faith to be considering the possibility that it wouldn't happen. I told him about Mt 24:36; Acts 1:7, and 1Th 5:1, and that Harold Camping was wrong about his "end date" on a previous occasion, and this man was completely prepared to handle those objections. He had a whole CD of information he was giving out that explained May 21, 2011 and had a good explanation for what went wrong on a previous prediction. I gave him my number and told him I'd be happy to talk to him on May 22.

At least Russell had been able to imagine people laughing at him 100 years down the road (2014). And many brothers that I knew were not taking 1975 very seriously either. This included my father, who even got in trouble for kind of letting that slip in a circuit assembly talk. Although my mother was a great believer in 1975, my father had a serious talk with me about 1975, confiding some of his objections about the fact that I was quitting school early to begin regular pioneering. He was of the opinion that we can believe it and be excited about it, but that it could be an embarrassment and reflect badly on Jehovah and his organization if we didn't count the cost, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that we might "kick ourselves" for, looking back. 

Just now, Anna said:

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 I think we are currently hurtling toward the same problem we created for ourselves in the 1970's.

Do you have something specific in mind, perhaps to do with the overlapping generation, or something more general?

Yes, the primary, specific driver of the problem is the fact that Brother Splane has already pointed out the fact that "GROUP 2" are getting "up there" in years, and he pointed to specific people as examples, showing how many of the prime examples from "GROUP 2" have already died. But while this is the driver there are, yes, I think there are a few more general items that combine and catalyze to provide the fuel for the transmission of this vehicle.

One of those general items is a subtle attempt to "herd the cats" back into a more well-defined pen again. The idea of obeying what we might not understand has now been implicitly repeated at least three times recently in various contexts. In 1966, when the first problem started, we were as a group, even more united in thinking than we were in 1925 when some brothers sold their property and created financial issues for themselves. Not everyone, of course, but thousands were just as united in thought as in 1914 when people were pretty much counting down to the very month and day on their countdown cards to October 1, 1914. Many at that time sold property and even bought life insurance policies to provide for their "non-Russellite" relatives when they would be taken. The difference was that, around 1975, we weren't looking to specific day this time, but to a short time period of just months, not years, after 1975 when the 6th creative day would run out. (Of course, brothers were only willing to wait until about December 1975 before forgetting )

The 2018 Circuit Assembly talk on using social media is another example of "herding the cats."

9 minutes ago, Outsider said:

Excellent. I have always told my friends this cult is driven by the devil. You ex-witnesses have it right. I'm letting all my friends know to visit this excellent website, to learn to defend themselves when they come knocking at the door. They should use their literature against them like you guys use it here, with scripture an all. I have, and they stopped coming, thanks guys for the excellent use of scripture to expose this cult. Keep it up, keep spreading the word.

Irony sharpens irony.

3 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

Your way off with your declaration. I didn't get the *quote* from there or alter the quote in any way, shape or form. I will not engage in personal theories that continue to gain support by the lack of facts by modern speculation, Sorry!!!

LOL! Thanks for the information. Google returned this same general content that you posted in about 11 places, but after checking several of them, the ones I checked were missing the fifth paragraph and the last paragraph found on your post, which is why I assumed that you might have added both these paragraphs yourself. My apologies for the assumption that you had provided both of the extra paragraphs as your own comment. It looks to me now as if you only added the final sentence/paragraph: "There seems to be a disconnect between what people actually thought about 1975 in the eyes of the world.... " The versions I found on YAHOO ANSWERS didn't have the missing paragraphs, but some had versions of the 10 extra paragraphs that I quoted from the longer version in the last post. These versions are each a bit different, but repeat many of the key paragraphs. Examples:

• https://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111008133433AA7SDXA
• https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130824022819AAzCbIj
• https://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100108180505AAc6yvr

My goal was to make sure that if I responded, I was going to be able to separate the part you wrote from the part you quoted. So thanks for helping me out on that point. Apparently, as you have now pointed out, you got your version from a place that perfectly matches http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2013/09/did-jehovahs-witnesses-organization.html

I had already glanced at that sight, but didn't inspect it because it was so quickly obvious that it was about 10 paragraphs too short to be the original answer. Anyway, the "Defending Jehovah's Witnesses" blog also agrees that it came originally from YAHOO ANSWERS and from BAR-ANERGES.

Not that these differences mattered much to the point being discussed, but I thought the author (BAR-ANERGES) wrote a very good thesis to discuss under this topic, because it is a fairly complete general answer that matches much of what I myself have said to people, in defense of 1975, and what my parents and many others typically say. So I thought it would be good to address all of it. (Along with anything you might have said in defense of it.)

@DefenderOTT

I know that you have already said (elsewhere) that you were not the originator of much of the post you offered above. Just to help clarify what you are saying, I noticed that the first four paragraphs are exactly what can be seen from a person who wrote this on YAHOO ANSWERS about 6 years ago. https://br.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111008133433AA7SDXA Those are the 4 paragraphs that start and then end as follows:

15 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

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

. . . . They were NOT saying that the end would come in 1975.

Then you apparently added your own words in the fifth paragraph above:

15 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

The truth is that from the start of discussions on 1975, JWs were told not to speculate on what may or may not happen. For some, it was a real test as to why they were JWs. Was it because of a date to save their necks or were they JWs because they loved and appreciated the Truth and Jehovah?

Then it appears that you went back to quoting YAHOO ANSWERS, quoting the next three paragraphs, which started and ended, thus:

15 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

The year 1975 can be calculated from the prophecies in Daniel and confirmed by the events foretold by Christ. . . . .  Combining this with the Bible chronology’s pointing to 1975 being about 6,000 years since man’s creation proves beyond any doubt that the world has entered its time of the end!

Then apparently you added your own words again to finish up the discussion.

15 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

There seems to be a disconnect between what people actually thought about 1975 in the eyes of the world....

I only went to the trouble of mentioning all this because I would like to respond at some point to those claims from YAHOO ANSWERS.

For reference, here is the remaining part of the quote that was found on YAHOO ANSWERS. Although it's mostly wrong, it's also partly correct, and it's well written, and I expect that the points will come up from time to time:

Quote

Those who question this fact are like a woman in her ninth month questioning whether she is pregnant!!

True Christians continue to “put spiritual things first” and place material things as less important. And when Christians make a decision to give up some material things they don’t later complain and blame others because they may not have some benefits that others have.

The accusation that Jehovah's Witnesses have claimed to be inspired prophets or have tried to foretell the future is absolutely false and a misrepresentation.

The flat-out truth is that the Watchtower Society has NEVER claimed to give prophesies, to be inspired or to be infallible. These accusations are deceptive because they blatantly rip the Watchtower's words out of context.

Notice this sentence in the "Purpose" statement that appeared in EVERY issue of the Watchtower up to the mid- 70's: ***"No, The Watchtower is no inspired prophet, but it follows and explains a Book of prophecy..."***

"Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures, God is not giving any more inspired visions or dreams. However, Jehovah's people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of the inspired visions and dreams that God's servants had in ancient times...Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded."--Watchtower, 1 January 1971,

There are scores of similar Watchtower quotes that go back to the 1800's.

Neither Russell, the Watchtower nor any JW's has EVER claimed to give prophecies nor to be inspired. They never claimed infallibility in their teachings.

The early Witnesses did not "predict" anything, they simply delved into the Bible trying to see how prophecies already recorded in the Bible were going to be fulfilled. Sometimes their understandings were a little off and they willingly corrected them.

Sincerely,

BAR-ANERGES

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

One work in progress at that time was Herbert W Armstrong. One of his works from 1956 accumulated to his booklet of 1975 prophecy. His magazine, “good news” spoke about Armageddon in our lifetime. That magazine was published in July 1975.

So, this idea that 1975 only came from the Watchtower, lacks facts and vision….

[I'm repeating here a post which is a response I just made to this claim about Armstrong, as it was moved to a new topic:]

And, don't forget that, in 1956, Herbert W Armstrong supposedly stole the idea from the February 1, 1955 Watchtower, which put the end of 6,000 years within one year of 1976:

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***

• In 1953 in preparing the chart that appears in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” a one-year error was brought to light. By the aid of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the difference between the two numbers appearing at Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 7:11 became apparent, especially since there are two different Hebrew words here maintaining a distinct difference. At Genesis 7:6 the number 600 referring to Noah’s age means 600 full years, being what is generally termed a cardinal number. Whereas at Genesis 7:11 the number “600th,” an ordinal number, means 599 full years plus a portion of another year. . . .  Inasmuch as previously our chronology considered Noah as 600 full years old when he entered the ark, instead of the actual 599 years and some months, as we now see, this has meant that the preflood dates must be shrunk by one year, this bringing Adam’s creation for the fall of 4025 B.C. Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October.—1 Cor. 15:45, NW.
• It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in man’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.
• According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began. . . .
• The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.

Of course, just a decade or so later, the Watchtower began minimizing the amount of time it would have taken for a perfect man to name all the animals if Jehovah brought them to him in a steady stream. The flaw in this reasoning was that angels would surely know that amount of time that Jehovah had kept a secret, so they would be aware of the day and the hour "when 6,000 years of Jehovah's present rest day come to an end."

There is also evidence that Fred W. Franz, who wrote the article above, in 1955, began recalculating in the early 1970's and wanted to begin publishing October 1974 as the date for the end of the 6,000 years of human history. F.W.Franz, I am told, thought this would have strengthened the 1975 argument. But this was supposedly one of the few times when N.Knorr put his foot down and told him he had caused enough trouble with 1975, and that Knorr thought that this vacillation would actually weaken the faith that people put in the Watchtower.

You probably already know this, but to your point, many Witnesses had to be counseled not to listen to Armstrong's radio program, especially in the late 1960's and early 1970's when many Witnesses claimed that he sounded exactly like the Watchtower.

44 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible.

This brings up a topic that often comes up worldwide on the topic of having married or remarried incorrectly based on previous incorrect understanding of divorce and remarriage when the erroneous advice came from a previous religion or culture. The basic idea is to require no changes if the current legal state of a (non-polygamous) marriage is difficult to change. But difficulties in making legal changes after one become a Witness (after an improper divorce and remarriage) will not make the person guilty (or at least reprehensible) of on-going adultery as it would if the person made an improper choice as a Witness, but there are still levels of privilege in their congregational assignments to be considered and various requirements that are suggested for elders to look into. Also:

*** w83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***

• Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

This cannot begin to cover, however, several cases of those (sisters, usually)  who wanted to divorce a husband whom they discovered to have been homosexual. In the 1950's through part of the 1980's and beyond, marrying a sister was considered to be the best solution for Witnesses who are homosexual but are sure they will never act upon their sexual desires. Elders even recommended it. But then, even after infidelity on the part of the husband, and after the husband was usually disfellowshipped, the innocent sister could still never marry a Christian husband for the rest of her life, potentially. This is the primary type of case I referred to when I mentioned to tromboneck that there are still persons living for whom this injustice, even if later corrected, had affected their lives and is still affecting their lives. The problem actually lasted for decades, not months.

11 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Is that where we are on this now?

Pretty much. Excellent summary.

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I suspect that while Fred Franz was almost surely both the writer and the "approval checker" of the 1956 article, that he kept his distance from the Aid Book project. This does not mean that the information in the Aid Book , "Divorce" article (written likely at least one year before section A-E was released at an assembly in 1969) came directly from R.Franz. It was obviously copied very closely from the 1956 article. It was also true that R.Franz says that, when working on the Aid Book, he did not think he had the leeway to make changes to the current doctrines, but he also admits to not even having any thought or inclination to discuss changes to doctrines until after such questions were brought to the Governing Body around 1972 and after.

And even though he was not a member of the Governing Body, but just a new guy in the Writing Department, I still kind of "blame" him for being given an opportunity to research through these topics again, and not to question them immediately and strongly. All of us are supposed to question everything, and he appears to have been given a wonderful opportunity from at least 1968 to 1971, and yet spent more of his "political capital" on the new elder arrangement. Returning to an elder arrangement like the one that Rutherford had opposed was a good thing, of course. But I think he was in a good position to push for many more changes and he evidently never considered these things closely. Of course, I have the same issue with the other brothers who just let things go along as tradition had said, but most of the others were not given an assignment with the leeway to just let the facts fall where the Scriptures lead. He says that this is what Fred Franz told him he should do, and there are a couple of blatant areas where he fell short in this assignment.

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I have never discussed with anyone how far back these errors actually went, but my father tells me that he knew of the problem when he was first a Congregation Servant in the 1960's and an elder since 1971. I have an uncle who would know, but I'm not comfortable asking about the topic with him, even though, as a former circuit overseer, he could speak to things that came up in entire circuits. My father just mentioned an article they used from the 1950's just months before I was born. I found it:

*** w56 10/1 p. 588 par. 12, 20 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***

• 12 By the laws of states and nations today divorce is granted on a number of grounds. Persons who have lost or killed their love for their marriage mate try to grab hold of whatever legal grounds they can to break the marriage tie, such as mental cruelty, laziness, refusal of conjugal rights, drunkenness, insanity, incurable disease, desertion or abandonment, barrenness, sodomy, bestiality, criminality, incompatibility, change of one’s religion, and so on, besides adultery. But are all these legal grounds Scripturally right, valid for the Christian? Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s Counselor for us. The Jewish Pharisees once tested him with this question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every kind of grounds?” Jesus did not answer those questioners by referring to the Roman Caesar’s laws concerning divorce. He referred to the superior law of the Most High God and showed there is but one ground for divorce—adultery or moral unfaithfulness.
• Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce. They are filthy, they are unclean, and God’s law to Israel condemned to death those committing such misdeeds, thus drastically putting these out of God’s congregation. But such acts are not adultery with the opposite sex, making the unclean person one flesh with another of the opposite sex.

One would think that the term "adultery or moral unfaithfulness" would have covered the "AOS" ground, but notice that the paragraph explicitly mentioned that bestiality and sodomy were legal grounds but not Scriptural grounds. My father says that questions about this went to the Service Department and in the mid-1960's, at least, Harley Miller (Service Department Overseer) would actually get on the phone with the Congregation Servant and give the instructions that sodomy and bestiality were not the same as "adultery." I can't say how consistent this was over the years, but my father says it was already in effect in the mid-1960's. And here we also have one of the Watchtowers used in defense of it going back to the mid-1950's.

As an aside, the same article from 1956 allowed for scriptural divorce for a wife's artificial insemination where she does not get permission from the impotent husband. This makes some sense, but the idea of "a virtual committing of adultery" should have provided the slippery slope to resolve these other issues. But even where they both agree, they would both be disfellowshipped. Note that there was a stronger tendency to rely on the Mosaic Law to develop some of these rules:

*** w56 10/1 pp. 590-591 par. 18 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***

• Where a man is impotent today the married couple in their desire for children might agree for the wife to receive the seed of another man by artificial insemination. Some law courts have already held that artificial insemination is adultery and that children produced by such means are illegitimate. The recent British Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended as a ground for divorce the wife’s acceptance of artificial insemination by a donor of seed without her husband’s consent. Such a divorce would be Scriptural. But where the husband consented it would be grounds for the disfellowshiping of both man and wife. Why? Because it is a virtual committing of adultery, and both man and wife consented to the immoral act. The husband in effect gave her to another man to receive the seed of copulation, and the wife gave herself to a man not her husband to become the mother of a child by that other man with whom she was not one flesh. It is an adulterous course, and the fact that the husband adopts the child does not do away with the fact that he consented to the adulterous use of his wife.—Lev. 15:16-18, 32, 33; 19:20; Num. 5:12, 13, NW.

Also, it's odd that even where the congregation would normally disfellowship, he or she can avoid the disfellowshipping if the innocent spouse has forgiven the other spouse:

• 33 When a congregation withholds an excommunication action because of the innocent mate’s prior forgiveness, this does not mean that the guilty mate may not and should not be deprived of any special responsibilities or service privileges in the congregation. Here, not excommunication, but the qualifications for special service positions in the congregation are involved.

4 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I think this statement needs clarification. Perhaps it's a good idea, after all, to look into some background of this doctrine issue. We could go back much further, but since you brought up the Aid Book --a portion on divorce that was published in 1969-- I think we should go back further into the 1960's to start. The following would have most likely come from Fred Rusk or Fred Franz, approved at the time, I think, by Adams.

*** w63 2/1 p. 78 par. 22 Conduct “Worthy of the Good News” ***

• 22 But what can be done where the marriage is not a happy one, where there are disagreements over religion or over other matters? Are there any grounds upon which such a marriage might be ended by divorce, allowing the man or woman to marry another partner with whom they feel they could get along better? The Bible does not permit divorce just for any reason. While the law of the land may permit a divorce just because a husband and wife do not get along together and want to be free to marry somebody else, the Bible states only one reason allowing for a divorce that really brings the marriage to an end, namely, adultery. Jesus made this clear when he said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [that is, adultery], and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) By the act of adultery the unfaithful mate really becomes one flesh with someone other than his lawful marriage partner. Of course, the faithful partner may choose to forgive this act and continue to live with his mate, but if he chooses to divorce because of the adultery of his mate, then he will be free to marry some other person, since the marriage contract is thus Scripturally as well as legally broken. In view of the need for understanding and love to make a marriage last, the dedicated Christian heeds the wise counsel of the Scriptures to marry “only in the Lord,” that is, to marry one who is, like him, a dedicated Christian.—1 Cor. 7:39.

A couple things to notice here. One point is nuanced but made clearer in other publications: that only the innocent party could choose to get the divorce, otherwise the divorce would not free the innocent mate to remarry. That's another story. Another point is that the "only one reason" allowing for divorce was tied in 1963 to 'becoming one flesh' with the other person -- not just any kind of "porneia" but only "straight" adultery.

But notice that it is the type of thing that became bound up in the types of rulings that the Governing Body began to spend more and more of their time on. Per comments referring to the period 1971-1972 here is what R.Franz says, about the early meetings of the GB:

• At times the entire meeting lasted but a few minutes; one that I recall lasted only seven minutes (including the opening prayer). Then from time to time President Knorr would bring some “problem correspondence” involving questions as to certain conduct by individual Witnesses, and the Body was to decide what policy should be adopted regarding these, whether the particular conduct called for disfellowshiping, some lesser discipline, or no action at all.

Those early meetings, he says, sometimes consisted only of reading a list of names of branch appointments from places like Suriname, Sri Lanka, or Zambia that no one usually recognized, and then the GB would vote on the appointments. But now, at least by 1972, the topics were beginning to include the following issues, R.Franz says:

• As weeks went along discussions were held on such subjects as whether a father qualifies as an elder if he allows a son or daughter to marry when only eighteen years of age; whether one qualifies as an elder if he approves of his son or daughter taking higher education; [Higher education was, and to some extent still is, generally frowned upon as conducive to loss of faith and as providing an atmosphere likely to contribute to immorality.] whether one qualifies as an elder if he does shift work and sometimes (while on night shift) misses congregational meetings; whether elders can accept circumstantial evidence of adultery, or the testimony of a wife that her husband confessed adultery to her, and whether this is sufficient to allow for Scriptural divorce and remarriage; whether a divorce is Scripturally acceptable if, even where adultery has been committed, the one obtaining the divorce is the guilty mate rather than the innocent mate; [At that time the ruling was that only if the innocent mate got the divorce was it Scripturally valid.]  what validity a divorce has when obtained on grounds other than adultery if, after the divorce is granted, evidence of pre-divorce adultery comes to light; what the situation is if such a divorce is obtained and there is post-divorce adultery; whether an innocent mate’s having sex relations with an adulterous mate (subsequent to learning of the adultery) cancels out the right to divorce that mate and be free to remarry; whether it is proper for a Witness to pay a fine if that fine is imposed because of an infraction of law resulting from his witnessing activity or because of some stand he had taken in order to adhere to Witness beliefs; whether it is proper to send food or other assistance to persons by means of the Red Cross (the main issue here being that the cross is a religious symbol, and so the Red Cross organization might be quasi-religious . . . ). . . .
• The effect of our decisions was considerable in its impact on the lives of others. In matters of divorce, for example, the congregation elders serve as a sort of religious court and if they are not satisfied as to the validity of a divorce action, the individual who goes through with such a divorce and then later remarries becomes subject to disfellowshiping.

I will break this up into smaller pieces so as to not create multi-page posts.

Because this post was moved away from its original context, a response to a post about Armstrong's promotion of 1975, I will edit the post below to contain all of @AllenSmith's original material, here. I'm moving his images outside the quote, so that they can be more easiliy seen as relevant to the discussion of H.W.Armstrong, as Allen intended.

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I believe many JW’s seem to forget the crossover ideologies that were in competition at that, time. Those of us that were there understood what was being said by others, not just by the Watchtower. So, there were many ideas where people could reflect from, especially with conspiracy theories.

One work in progress at that time was Herbert W Armstrong. One of his works from 1956 accumulated to his booklet of 1975 prophecy. His magazine, “good news” spoke about Armageddon in our lifetime. That magazine was published in July 1975.

So, this idea that 1975 only came from the Watchtower, lacks facts and visionÂ….

 

 

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

One of his works from 1956 accumulated to his booklet of 1975 prophecy.

And, don't forget that, in 1956, Herbert W Armstrong supposedly stole the idea from the February 1, 1955 Watchtower, which put the end of 6,000 years within one year of 1976:

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***

• In 1953 in preparing the chart that appears in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” a one-year error was brought to light. By the aid of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the difference between the two numbers appearing at Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 7:11 became apparent, especially since there are two different Hebrew words here maintaining a distinct difference. At Genesis 7:6 the number 600 referring to NoahÂ’s age means 600 full years, being what is generally termed a cardinal number. Whereas at Genesis 7:11 the number “600th,” an ordinal number, means 599 full years plus a portion of another year. . . .  Inasmuch as previously our chronology considered Noah as 600 full years old when he entered the ark, instead of the actual 599 years and some months, as we now see, this has meant that the preflood dates must be shrunk by one year, this bringing AdamÂ’s creation for the fall of 4025 B.C. Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October.—1 Cor. 15:45, NW.
• It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in manÂ’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.
• According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began JehovahÂ’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from AdamÂ’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of GodÂ’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of manÂ’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of JehovahÂ’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of JehovahÂ’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, JehovahÂ’s sabbath, began. . . .
• The very fact that, as part of JehovahÂ’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of JehovahÂ’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of AdamÂ’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.

Of course, just a decade or so later, the Watchtower began minimizing the amount of time it would have taken for a perfect man to name all the animals if Jehovah brought them to him in a steady stream. The flaw in this reasoning was that angels would surely know that amount of time that Jehovah had kept a secret, so they would be aware of the day and the hour "when 6,000 years of Jehovah's present rest day come to an end."

There is also evidence that Fred W. Franz, who wrote the article above, in 1955, began recalculating in the early 1970's and wanted to begin publishing October 1974 as the date for the end of the 6,000 years of human history. F.W.Franz, I am told, thought this would have strengthened the 1975 argument. But this was supposedly one of the few times when N.Knorr put his foot down and told him he had caused enough trouble with 1975, and that Knorr thought that this vacillation would actually weaken the faith that people put in the Watchtower.

You probably already know this, but to your point, many Witnesses had to be counseled not to listen to Armstrong's radio program, especially in the late 1960's and early 1970's when many Witnesses claimed that he sounded exactly like the Watchtower.

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So, we came to question did Centralized company inc. body is/was Jesus intention in gathering the sheep for His flock?

That's a good topic. It's been discussed here before. Perhaps someone can point to the place.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not a happy topic.

True. I remember that this topic came up once before a couple of years ago and I stayed out of it. But that woman, Anna, she kept dragging my name into it, and so I bit into the subject this time.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not sure what is meant here. The topic is about homesexual behaviour providing grounds for divorce. Is that not about the breaking up a marriage?

I am not exactly staying on topic as narrowly as it seems defined here. I speculated about marriages broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. The term "homosexual behavior," you will remember, was being used (during that time period) as a stand-in phrase for aberrant sexual practices between heterosexual married partners that could include anal or oral sex (AOS). Perhaps, I will use this made-up term "AOS" rather than spell it out. So, on the topic of breaking up marriages, consider, for example, that a sister might wish to obtain a divorce against a husband (believing or unbelieving) who insisted on AOS, during a time when the Service Department (and Branch) was inconsistent. If the sister obtained a divorce and remarried, she could be subject to disfellowshipping, even if the congregation had approved of her divorce. (In some countries, especially in unstable or "failed" states, the congregation was a better record-keeper of marriage/divorce than the state itself.)

This topic evidently came up much more often within heterosexual marriages, especially marriages between a believer and non-believer, when either the husband or wife wished to engage in AOS, and their partner did not wish to engage. Or both wished to engage and one or both ended up disfellowshipped. I handled more than one of these cases myself, and at the time, my wife knew of even more cases than those which came to the elders. These situations were evidently common, and the stress of perceived intrusion by the congregation and/or unscriptural legalism resulted in broken marriages, divorce, and questions about freedom to remarry, injustice, anger, and even disfellowshipping for unscriptural remarriage.

While I was at Bethel, a brother in Writing -- I won't name him because he's still alive -- complained to me that more unmarried, young people than ever were taking some recent counsel as permission to engage in oral sex.** He was somewhere between "livid" and "flabbergasted." I remember he said: "How can even a married couple think of doing this?!?! They know the angels are watching!" The idea of angels in a couple's bedroom was an odd image that stuck with me. At any rate, I know that this brother was involved in the actual writing of one of the corrections or clarifications of a previous view.

• **Although this might seem impossible, I heard it stated to me directly by one of these persons in 1977, who had once believed it, but had come to his senses. He said that since 1974 with Armageddon around the corner, no one really knew for sure what lay ahead, and even if the Society was promising eternal marriages in perfect paradise, that, for all they knew, this might be the last chance to know what sex is like. And that this was a way to experience it without sinning to the extent of becoming "one flesh" with the other person.

I'm not sure it will mean much to go through the history of these issues. But I'm willing to see if I can add anything to the conversation if anyone thinks it could be useful.

12 hours ago, Anna said:

With that I assume you mean the 1971 Aid book part?

Yes and no. (Mostly no.) It was not so simple. There were multiple issues that arose and two separate corrections.

I don't think R.Franz has ever claimed to have written more than a few specific articles in the Aid Book, only mentioning a couple of them where he discusses the questions and research that was necessary for them. He had responsibility for starting and completing the Aid Book, but much of this was done by assigning hundreds of small articles to various Branch personnel worldwide who had some writing experience writing talks, yearbook experiences, Awake correspondent articles, translating publications, and handling branch correspondence. Major Bible-based articles in the Aid Book were mostly handled by a team of only about 5 brothers in Brooklyn - in Writing plus one Gilead Instructor. R.Franz became more of a collator, editor and "project manager" for the Aid Book.

15 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If it is approved it was done by whole GB body, no matter of number of votes that was pro et contra :))))

It's true that there was a procedure to get all Writing approved, but remember that there was no Governing Body while this book was written and approved. Only one person among the corporate directors (a kind of proto-GB) would have had the say to approve or not. This was Fred Franz, and his eyesight was already poor and he was dictating many of his own articles and having a lot read to him (instead of reading it himself). I don't know if Lyman Swingle was supposed to read it before publication, I have heard it implied that he did. When I was in research, a GB member named Schroeder had not read it, and even asked me if I would read through it, looking for certain points he had in mind. About a dozen sisters read through assigned portions of it both for proofreading and so that the 1966-1970 Index (out in 1971) could include all the topics and scripture references for the full 1971 Aid Book (A through Z). We did not have electronic storage of it at that time. So, up to a greater point than some realize, R.Franz really was responsible for errors he made, too.

30 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

What century are you living in?

The Aid Book was the primary Bible study reference for all JWs until 1988, 29 years ago, but I'm guessing that 90% of the original articles stayed the same even in the Insight Book that replaced it in 1988. I'm sure there are people still alive whose marriages were broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. And perhaps there are some who are still alive who were disfellowshipped and should not have been, and some that should have been disciplined and were not, resulting in injustice. The basic issues and definitions that were once wrong on this topic were fixed relatively quickly, but this alone does not resolve the stress and loss and injustice that some suffered due to the short-lived "gaffe" in the Watchtower. The Bible acknowledges that injustice can have a bad effect not only on the person but even on their children and grandchildren.

I can't speak for J.R.Ewing JR, but I'd say you might have misunderstood the reason he presented the material he presented. I think he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he was trying to defend the morality of JWs, both historically and currently. He was not, imo, trying to promote a non-Witness idea.

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

(Who wrote that?)

Most of what I'm sharing here is taken from one of the books by R.Franz. I can only corroborate a small part of it. At any rate, it looks like R.Franz admits that he was asked to write both the first defense of the bad policy and the later correction.