JW Insider

I do not. I merely mention that Jehovah's Witnesses have been very alert over the years to try to understand the meaning of this prophecy (Mt 24) and have suggested a variety of explanations that are always intended to highlight the urgency of the times, and the need to be always prepared, as Jesus said. I honestly tell them that this does not mean we should focus on any one specific fulfillment but realize that the first fulfillment was evidently intended to remind us that in these last days we should always be focusing on what sort of persons we ought to be, because we do not know when the end will come. Then we read portions of 1 & 2 Thess and 1 & 2 Peter, 1 Cor, etc. There is plenty of positive correct information in the same publications that contain the "generation" interpretation.

Well thank you for finally admitting that I "proved" it. That was the original point.

You are fortunate to have an easy solution. (I wouldn't take this matter to a local elder. The backlash might be harsh and unexpected.) There was a "Bethel Elder" in my NYC congregation who got wind of my "non-conformity" on the 1914 issue and made sure I got every assignment on the subject over a several year period. He was clearly looking for slip-up. (He was dismissed from BetheI before this became a huge issue.) I was happy to take the parts because at the very least I could put more emphasis on the scriptural points made, and not say anything that was strictly incorrect from a Biblical perspective. As you probably know, I have no problem saying that Jesus is invisibly present because he obviously is . . . "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” I have no problem with admitting that Jesus was king in 1914 because he was clearly already king of kings 1,881 years prior to that, in 33 C.E. according to the Bible. I have no trouble with the fact that we are living in the last days, nor that the final day of judgment is imminent. It is nearer now than when we first became believers. No one seems to notice or care about conformity to every detail, as long as they think you are using the right words. In the meantime, I think we need to focus on all the good things that have been published, and this is the large majority of most Watchtower publications. We can also focus on the improvements we see doctrinally. But mostly, exactly as Praeceptor said: Of course, it's always going to be considered a sign of haughtiness and egotism and independent thinking to state your own opinion on such matters. Unless you know someone who has faced the exact same issue(s), it will not be understood that it's exactly the opposite. It's a matter of trying to be led by humility and truth, even if you can never speak openly of these ideas with people in your congregation, and even if your faith and conscience could result in negative consequences to our own reputation and position. But I don't think this means that we should purposely express our opinions or even questions in such a way that they create discord among our brothers and sisters, face-to-face. That may sound like a compromise, but I think we already have a scriptural way to "take matters to the congregation" without involving local elders. I think that if it was a matter of a problem of conscience arising in a local matter in our local congregation, then we must go to that person using the principle at Matthew 18. (Matt 18 speaks of a "sin," but in this case it's applied not to a "sin," but to a "principle of conscience") (Matthew 18:15-17) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. But in this case, what concerns you is not something that started in the local congregation, it's a potential issue with the overall, worldwide congregation. Therefore we should take these questions to brothers who handle such issues for the worldwide congregation using the phone lines to Brooklyn or Patterson, for example. There will be a question about whether you have spoken to your local elders and a request to do so, but you can state your concern that you can't in good conscience involve them in questions that did not originate with them. Giving them your name might result in problems, but it's been my own experience that if you are truly concerned conscientiously and you do not wish to raise local doubts or concerns unnecessarily, you will be able to speak anonymously without repercussions in your local congregation. Forums such as this one might allow you to get things out in the open and might even help one to unburden their conscience by discharging the responsibility to be: (1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . .

The WTS has only been wrong on 100% of their time-related prophecies, but as Eoin has pointed out, a prophet is much more than just someone who makes time-based predictions. A prophet is also a spokesperson for revealing the will of God, past, present or future. When the WTS was claiming that the "anointed" were a prophet, and that "Jehovah's witnesses" as an organization was a prophet, they understood that carrying a warning message or proclaiming the divine will was also the task of a prophet. The WTS publications have also declared Rutherford to be a prophet personally, but not because of predictions but because he was giving a general warning message to world leaders. In fact, he was once called a prophet in the same way that some other politician who wasn't related to the WTS could also be called a prophet. So the wider sense of the word was clearly understood. Early publications of the WTS also said it was appropriate to speak of the anointed members of the 144,000 (and/or remnant) as making up the composite "prophet greater than Moses." And we are all aware, I think, of the many times that specific prophets pictured, through a system of types and antitypes, the work of Russell (Elijah) and later the work of Rutherford (Elisha) which was later transferred to the time periods that more closely matched Rutherford (Elijah) and then Knorr (Elisha). Russell was, for many years, "the man with the writer's inkhorn" (Ezekiel). I believe that the time-related predictions might have all failed (so far) although one might give some credit to Brother Knorr for predicting that the League of Nations would rise again during or after the WWII period. But as far as revealing the divine will of God, I believe that many other Biblical truths have been promoted by the WTS (BS/JW), many of which should have the effect of "waking up" Christendom and other religions that have been lulled into inactivity and apathy toward the key message of Christianity. I think that Jehovah has no reason, therefore, to reject the "general" prophetic work.

Allen, You just did it again! You made a statement that I was wrong, and then provided evidence that I was right. The entire quote is much better at proving my point than the shorter version of the quote that I gave, but where I didn't include ellipses where words were left out. I suppose you believe that without the words "by others" that he was merely asking himself and responding to himself? And, of course, my original point was You highlighted the word "often" that I also left off the front of that quote. So instead of my point that Society was "sometimes" described as the "faithful and discreet slave" I could have said that it was "often" described that way. Thanks for adding evidence that the point was even more true than I initially claimed.

Allen, I don't know if you can accept the Watchtower's answer: *** Watchtower, March 1, 1923 p.68 *** " "When asked who the faithful and wise servant was, Russell would reply, 'Some say I am while others say the Society is'; both are true, since Russell was in fact the Society." *** Watchtower, April 1, 1919 [Reprints, p. 6414] *** "…Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period?" *** Watchtower, September 15, 1910, p. 298 *** " . . . people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself . . . if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures,"

Allen, Just point out what was said that you believed was wrong. No one is going to understand what your point is if you keep telling people they don't have their facts straight, and then, when you can provide any evidence at all, the source of that evidence invariably shows that what people have concluded was correct, and that you were making a false argument. It's as if you are saying: "Hey! You are all insidious and embarrassing fools if you don't accept that 2+2=5. I even have proof from an expert who knows it's true. I'll quote him here: "2+2=4" [Mathematical Society Quarterly, p.267]. See there! 2+2=5!!!" If your words that I quoted from you at the top of this post were directed at me, please stop making general accusations that I am wrong, and then copying and pasting evidence* that indicates that I am right. I can't see any reason that anyone would do that! *When I say "evidence" I mean the many sources you have quoted which are generally correct. I am not referring to any of the comments that you have often interspersed between them, because more often than not, most sentences of yours contains factual errors. Even your quote above mentions that Barbour was still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date while Russell was teaching that Christ's spiritual presence would last from 1874 to 1914. This is, of course, untrue. It was Barbour who came up with 1874 as the start of an invisible, spiritual presence (via B W Keith after failed expectations of a rapture in 1874) and Russell later agreed with this. Barbour was not still teaching 1874 as the rapture date, but by the summer of 1875 had already moved on to 1878 as the date for the rapture. 1878 was also the end of the Gentile Times for a while in Barbour's view.

I figured that by the time I tried to respond to this Ann would have already responded, and I hope I am not jumping in where I'm not supposed to. To save time, I'll re-quote something I said earlier in the thread, although I'll put "[...]" in a few places to cut it down a bit: When I had referred to 1922, I was thinking of the Cedar Point convention, too. But not because there were any changes to the 1874 chronology at that time. The "hint" was that one of the events, Jesus' kingship, was evidently being considered as starting in 1914 instead of 1878 even though nothing at all changed about his "presence" starting in 1874. (There is a possible mixed message here, since he also calls Jesus the "king of glory" present since 1874. The sense in which Jesus "becomes king" again in 1914 was likely a matter of "taking up his great power" in a new way at that time.) If anything, this is an indication that Rutherford had just pro-actively dismissed an opportunity to discern the events of 1914 as a sign of his presence. Then again, he still might not have ever considered it yet, even as late as 1922. Nothing in the Cedar Point report says that he had even considered it yet, but even if he had then it means that he had obviously discerned 1914 NOT to be the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence. If there had been any "discernment" about Christ's presence in 1914 by then, then why not move Jesus' presence to 1914 if you thought enough about it to start to move the kingship from 1878 to 1914? Instead, as Ann points out, Rutherford explicitly keeps 1874 as the start of that presence. Your argument seems to be that because he was still discerned to be present in 1922, that this could very well take us all the way back to 1914 at this rate. Well, this argument actually does take you back to 1914, because that's exactly what they believed in 1914 -- that Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874. In fact, it obviously also takes you back to, say, 1899. But if it takes you back to 1899 in the same way it takes you back to 1914, and 1922, then it means that nothing special was discerned in 1914.

Eoin, I'd like to answer this point you made to Ann, but I first wanted to weigh in on the specific question about whether the caption of the picture is a "lie." I started addressing my response to Holly, but will address it to you because I agree with most of what you say about it. My first reaction was that this caption wording was actually quite an improvement over many previously published versions of this same idea. It's because I agree with your reasoning, however, that I can't agree completely with your conclusion. I wouldn't call it a "lie" even though it might be misleading. I agree with you that you cannot know exactly what Bible Students were discerning with respect to 1914 and the sign of Christ's presence. But for that same reason, since we cannot know what they began to discern in 1914, we also should not claim that the caption is necessarily true. But the overall picture of what the book is trying to convey is very important, which is something you have also said. To get a better idea, we should really read the caption of that picture along with the paragraph it was meant to support. Putting them together we have this: *** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** [In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence.] Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be. As John’s vision revealed, Satan would then begin to have an even greater impact on human society: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.” (Rev. 12:12) In 1914, the first world war broke out and the sign of Christ’s presence in kingly power began to see global fulfillment. The “last days” of this system of things had begun.—2 Tim. 3:1. [In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence.] So the basic foundation of the idea is that they had supposedly said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. (kr) This part is definitely not true, since the beginning of the time of trouble was supposed to begin up to a few years before 1914 and end in 1914. At some point earlier in the 1900's Russell began publishing that "the year 1914" would start in October of 1914 and end in October 1915. Building on this same false foundation is the idea that this supposed prediction was somehow proved to be even more accurate than they had imagined. (kr) This added idea is definitely not true, since what was to be expected in 1914 was predicted to be thousands of times worse than what happened in 1914. In fact, 100% of all the expectations were complete failures. After August 1914, the World War was considered to be a possible start of this day of wrath, but they didn't understand why it could start so late in the timeline. By November 11, 1918, they would be forced to discern that this World War could never turn into what they had been expecting, but for as long as it raged, it kept them distracted from updating their expectations because it appeared for many months that it still could be the close of the day of wrath that was supposed to have ended in 1914, but could be also defined to be as late as the close of 1915. The War actually lulled Russell into thinking that all of what they had expected in terms of the timeline would still come true according to the original 1874 timeline, but that they had to admit only that they had not discerned the reason that the 1914 expectations had failed so far, and assumed only a short delay for reasons they couldn't yet explain. But they also indicated that the War was just enough of an event so that there was no reason to re-assess the timeline. All of what I just said in that last paragraph is not speculation, it is based on what was said and believed by Bible Students between 1914 and 1916, referring to what Russell said in his sermons, what he consistently published in the Watch Tower, and what was being disseminated to other Bible Students in conventions talks. You might think that under normal circumstances the Bible Students might have look at the failure of all 7 enumerated expectations for 1914 and quickly re-evaluate. We might have expected them to think: 'Well these all expectations for 1914 failed, so it's time we revisited the timeline.' We might have expected them to think: 'This delay of the beginning of the day of wrath that should have started a few years ago, will now have to be compressed into a far shorter period of time, so maybe this is a sign of something we hadn't considered yet.' But instead of discerning that they might have had the sign of the Christ's presence wrong for 1874, they already had a method that would allow for them to not think about it until October 1915 approached. If the dining room event of October 1st, 2nd or 4th actually happened pretty much as described, then it would most likely have been Russell's reassurance that there was no need to get upset about the timeline. That's what the Watch Towers of this time period indicate, too. While Russell never thought to mention the 'dining room' event in the Watch Tower after it happened, he did use subsequent Watch Towers to say that there was no need to re-evaluate the 1874 chronology. Even after he died and Rutherford had taken over, the Watch Tower under Rutherford's direction made the same points about not dropping the 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914 dates. And he added new expectations for 1918, 1919 and 1925. This is a two-edged argument however. If Russell and Rutherford thought it prudent to tell the Bible Students that there was nothing more to discern from the events that marked the current failure of the 1914 expectations, but that the Lord must have delayed them for reasons that should become clearer in the near future, then this also means that they were, in fact, discerning something about the 1914 date. Putting ourselves in their place, it would be difficult to imagine how anyone could start believing something in his early twenties, publish thousands of pages about those expectations, continue expecting them for the next 12 months after October 1914, watch them all fail, and not begin rethinking that some other possible meaning was behind these events. At least by October 1915 I think it would be impossible not to "go back to the drawing board." The only problem is that we have no indication that they ever did this with respect to Christ's invisible presence either in 1914 or 1915 or 1916. But there is some evidence that if they had discerned anything, they specifically "discerned" that it was not necessary to rethink that World War One was a sign of Christ's invisible presence. But how long could that lack of discernment last? The only way, then, that this claim could make any sense is through that sentence in the paragraph that says: *** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** In 1914, the first world war broke out and the sign of Christ’s presence in kingly power began to see global fulfillment. As you mentioned earlier, this is what everyone saw, a world war break out. But this didn't take any discernment. It would have probably been more accurate for the caption to have read: "In 1914, although the Bible Students could not discern that this was a sign of Christ’s invisible presence, they nevertheless began to see indications that were later discerned to be a beginning of that sign."

Exactly true! I used Jonah as an example of a prophet who got off-track for a while, and Micaiah was even a better example in some ways. He was off track here, and yet he was still a prophet of Jehovah, and was even given a revelation.

Allen, As I've said before, and I really mean it, I really enjoy discussing bits of history about the Bible Students and early history of Jehovah's Witnesses. And I appreciate it when you have added interesting and useful information. I am happy to learn from your posts, too. Several times when this has happened I have so stated, and even clicked on the green up arrow on some of your posts to indicate that I liked it. But I must admit that I cannot understand why you insist on the points you have made in these posts. I find your points to be specious, especially when you consider that the Watchtower writers disagree with you. For example: *** w09 3/15 p. 16 par. 4 “Be Vigilant” *** Since 1925, Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that World War I and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that Christ’s presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914. Don't worry about why I use this king of terminology, unless you can first tell me why it was either right or wrong for the Watchtower to use the same meaning in their own terminology. If you remember from the other post, this was only one of many such examples. By the way, it would be easy to show that the Watch Tower Society was much more than just a publishing house in their eyes. The WTS was also identified as God's sole channel of communication and the Society was even someimes described as the "faithful and discreet slave" ("faithful and wise servant"). In your prior post, you said: To be honest, I might have missed what you thought was clear. To me, it looked like you you disagreed with what I said, but then you quoted some sources that indicated that what I said had been correct all along. Again, I would LOVE to be corrected on these matters, because I am a stickler for accuracy. When I put something on a forum like this, it is a great opportunity to attract other such "sticklers" who might be very happy to correct me when I say something that isn't accurate. This is very valuable to me. If the entire point was to show that we can't use the same terminology as the Watchtower, then I understand, but respectfully disagree.

Me, too. I wasn't suggesting that it was haughtiness or self-serving just to use the slogan. (Although that could be true, too.) I was thinking that it could be an indication of haughtiness in several ways: It's fine to try to fill in the blanks, but why is it necessary to call your current solution and claim that it is the one that is proven to be correct by all the facts and evidence. In the case of the MILLIONS campaign, we made "sure" predictions for 1925 with "incontrovertible proofs." They were claimed to be even more sure than 1914. Now, it's fine and appropriate to share this knowledge and explain why we believe it is Biblically supported. But it seems quite different (and haughty) to claim that our explanation is the explanation, and that others need to believe it, too. This seems especially odd if we had just failed at 100% of the verifiable predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, and 1918. If the "need to finally get one right" influenced the predictions for 1925 then that is also a form of haughtiness. There is a humble way to explain prophecy and interpretation and a haughty way. There seems to be only one reason that someone says something will happen instead of being discreet and saying that if our understanding is correct, such-and-such may happen. (You might remember that this change from "may" to "will" was exactly what happened with the Millions campaign slogan.) But there is another way that haughtiness can enter the picture. What if we, personally, kept telling people about our résumé but always hid or shifted away from anything embarrassing. That's wrong, but probably normal, and there is no reason to shame ourselves. But what if we also made incorrect claims about our history, admitting some things as they happened but making other things sound better than they really were? No matter what the purpose, this is dishonest, but if we keep repeating the history over and over, and focusing on the exaggerated or untrue portions, then it is likely because we want to boost our own ego. (There are about a dozen times, for example, when we have published a "false" claim about what we had predicted for the year 1914, and at least another dozen times, when we published a misleading claim.)

I agree. Although there were a couple articles around 1993 and after that came pretty close. I'll have to look them up later. Of course. I thought we already established agreement on that. Using the agreed-upon definition you provided earlier, I think we can easily establish that Jehovah's Witnesses, or at very least the associated "slave" responsible for interpreting doctrine, easily fits the definition of "one through whom divine will and purpose are made known" which, on its own, is an entirely valid definition of a prophet. Even the second, more traditional definition, fits because of our claim that we are no ordinary announcers, that we have carry a specially revealed message ("good news") for these last days since 1914, and that in this sense we are spokesmen for God, 'men of God,' carrying his inspired message to others. Therefore the activities befitting the carrying of such warnings, revelations, divine messages, assurances, teachings and pronouncements should be treated as "prophecies." Perhaps you didn't actually agree with that definition. Or perhaps you only believe that "false prophets" can exist from any source, composite or not, where the teachings and pronouncements serve a false purpose. I assumed that if we can have false prophets, we can have false prophecies, and I also assumed that there was an unavoidable implication through the definition, that true prophets could therefore still exist. I believe that in many ways, the Witnesses have served as true prophets to the world. Our stance on involvement in nationalistic wars, for example. Our stance on trusting in the League of Nations or the United Nations as the only way to peace, for example. Although the interpretation is not so rigid, the idea seems not to have been completely abandoned. I'll check some recent assembly notes and a couple of articles that are from 10 to 20 years back. Yes. It seems like a harsh connotation. But I don't know how fair it is to put that label on others if we are not willing to take similar responsibility for our own words and proclamations. I know I don't need to quote the scriptures about justice and judgment that form the foundation for this idea. New study book notwithstanding, behind this entire discussion was the motivation that we do all we can to avoid creating another situation that could result in stumbling blocks that have been presented in the past. Fortunately, the problem could be far enough off into the future not to matter, we hope, but the issues surrounding the re-definition of "this generation," for example, are already building towards a similar time limitation. Brother Splane even came up with a new "Chart of the Ages" to explain it.

I believe that these were the very reasons that Jehovah's witnesses have identified themselves as a "prophet." Either separately or combined, both the statements are considered valid reasons to identify the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a "prophet." It's not just the predictions, therefore, but even our work in making known the divine will and purpose that is therefore involved, and should be scrutinized carefully when we say that we are no ordinary announcers, but are spokesmen for God, speaking in Jehovah's name, with his inspired message. That was the same point made in the 1972 Watchtower, combined with the related "Ezekiel" book about how the nations would know that a prophet called Jehovah's Witnesses was among them. (This is the favorite article quoted to us, because the wording is very direct, but there are plenty of others.) *** w72 4/1 p. 197 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ *** ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ . . . A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives. In ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers. While these men foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities. . . . 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?. . . He had a “prophet” to warn them. 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 Jehovah’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? I think you are right that we wish to avoid the problem of a true prophet being accused of making false prophecies. It's also quite possible that the 1972 quote above was worded so clearly because we wanted to focus on the designation of "prophet" especially during the peak era of the predictions about what the 1970's would bring, and warnings about the remaining months of this system. But even if that was not the reason, we wanted the designation of prophet. I'm not sure if that means you think that we are no longer to see ourselves as prophets. I don't ever recall the above teachings being changed, which typically means that we are to accept it as the truth, until it's changed. Perhaps you are saying that even if we do consider ourselves to be prophets, we can never be held to be accountable as "false" prophets because we do not claim to be divinely inspired. Of course, I am not promoting the idea that we are, or have ever been, "false prophets." I'm more concerned with whether we should be more honest about admitting that we have delivered "false prophecies." One or more false prophecies should not turn us into a false prophet. These false predictions are only a small part of the overall purpose of our work as a prophet. Jonah, for example, got off-track as a prophet, but after being humbled, he was right back on track. I should probably note that this particular quote from 1972 was undoubtedly from an anointed member of the Watchtower Society. The same brother who wrote the Ezekiel book. I think we both know who this was. One giveaway is that this brother often kept hints in his writing that he had not accepted that the "other sheep" were "Jehovah's witnesses." That was still a special designation for the anointed, especially in the context of types and antitypes where prophetic work was involved. I only say that because I believe he considered only the spirit-anointed Jehovah's witnesses to be prophets and the "other sheep" to be those who have joined and assisted them: "Today they are known as Jehovah’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." There are additional Watchtower quotes that indicate that the "anointed" were considered to be prophets. I mention this because I kept using the term "us" and "we" and I do not consider profess to be "anointed." But it also might speak to the idea of the spirit-anointed to deliver the spirit-inspired Biblical message and warning through a spirit-directed organization. The technicality that they are not themselves "divinely inspired" might therefore be a distinction without a distinction. Again, this post will go on too long if I attempt to comment on all the related Watchtower statements. So back to the point. After doing a lot of research, I'm concerned that we could be much more honest about our history, or else we could just ignore it altogether. I like that we bring up our WTS history a lot in the publications, because I've been a history nerd since 1977. But we shouldn't bring it up just to spin it a certain way, or make claims that aren't true. This exposes us to unnecessary ridicule because the truth about history is so much easier to check these days. I am concerned that such re-writing of history is a sign of ego, haughtiness, presumptuousness, when humility and discretion have a much higher value in Jehovah's eyes.

That's a common answer because we can attach a scripture to it. But we have called others false prophets without any concern over whether or not something was said in Jehovah's name. The context of that same quote from 1981 also discusses religious false prophets and makes the point that all religions are "false prophets" except one. *** g81 12/8 p. 14 Do You Recognize the Meaning of What You See? *** . . . all of today’s religious groups outside this one true faith must, according to this standard, be counterfeits, composite “false prophets.” I think there was also a hint as to the official response an article from 1968. *** g68 10/8 p. 23 A Time to Lift Up Your Head in Confident Hope *** True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end to the world," even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The "end" did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. That idea has the effect, perhaps, of exonerating us from any charge of false prophesying no matter what was ever said because Jehovah's Witnesses always have "God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them." So that would be true even if the Watch Tower Society had predicted an "end to the world" and were "even announcing a specific date." And of course, this is exactly what we were doing in those years. Guilty on both counts. Both in 1914 and 1925, at least. One could argue that we should put quotation marks around end of the world, but the article did that, too. One could argue that we didn't include the month and day, but a year is pretty specific in the overall scheme of things. We don't have a problem with the fact that Daniel's "70 weeks" prophecy pointed to a specific year. I was about to respond to Janice with another point that I will place here. I don't have a problem with the fact that we, as an organization were "guilty" of false prophesying. Jehovah's prophets in the past have been guilty of false prophecy and an explanation was given (the prophets of Jehovah around Ahab, except for Micaiah). Perhaps even that explanation in 1 Kings 22 about God sending a lying spirit was really a roundabout way of explaining that these prophets succumbed to wishful thinking (desire to please the king) and therefore the angel was able to "fool" them. That would be more consistent with James' explanation: (James 1:13, 14) . . .For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Janice also mentioned the expectations concerning the author of the book we traditionally refer to as the book of John. Might have been their misunderstanding of expressions like: (John 11:26) . . and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all.. . . (John 8:51) Most truly I say to you, if anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all. (Judge* 19 18-25) Millions now living will never die. *I half-expected that someone might bring up those verses in defense of the "Millions" campaign, even if they were not related to the original content of the campaign. But my point again was that we have nothing to fear from honesty about our past teachings. Just being humble and admitting what happened would take some of the "sting" and defensiveness out the equation whenever someone made the accusation. We often seem to treat our history as so sacrosanct, that we think we can't be completely honest and open about it. I find this to be quite different from the way, for example, that the Bible treats the history of the first Kings, Saul, David, Solomon, the crisis resulting in the split between Israel and Judah, the ups and downs along the way. We don't say that Saul or David or Solomon were not "anointed" because of the errors and even atrocities they committed. Some of their errors were due to the times they lived in and the influences around them, and some were completely inexcusable from any perspective. But the Bible is honest about it, and we appreciate the humility. And it doesn't change a thing about God's love for them, and his ability to get his work accomplished.

LOL! Best answer I've ever seen to this question. My father, originally from Chicago, has a photograph of the sign mentioned in the following experience. They didn't want it for the Proclaimer's book but it had been mentioned in the 1975 Yearbook. *** yb75 p. 127 Part 2—United States of America *** Recalling the effect of the “Millions Campaign,” Rufus Chappell writes: “We had offered the publication Millions Now Living Will Never Die in and around Zion [Illinois] and the results were of interest. I remember a large, flashing electric sign over the Waukegan Dry Cleaners building on North Sheridan Road about five miles from Zion, which said, ‘We Dye for the Millions Now Living Who Will Never Die.’ This was a very popular subject at that time, and many people had questioned the phrase and learned the truth from this publication.” We are all loathe to call the slogan a false prophecy. But that is my point. If someone else had said it, I think it would definitely be one. And, of course, we're only focusing on the slogan itself here. If we were to look at the set of teachings that made up the talks and the publications behind the slogan, we would find dozens of "false teachings" and "false prophecies." It's just that we can't use the term "false prophecy" or even "false teaching" when referring to our past teachings and predictions that turned out not to be true. Still, we have no problem finding quotes from the older publications that spoke of Russell and even Rutherford as "prophets" in this era. But is it the course of humility or a course of pride to speak of the false teachings of others, but never admit that we could have been guilty of a "false" teaching or a "false" prophecy? I know it's OK to say that a teaching or prediction was "mistaken," or that it was a "old light," or a previous teaching before the "light got brighter," or that it was "the right thing expected at the wrong time" or the "wrong thing expected at the right time." We might even say that it was "untrue." But, for many decades now, we can never bring ourselves to admit that we were teaching a "false" teaching. We are still quick to pin that label on others though: *** g81 12/8 p. 14 Do You Recognize the Meaning of What You See? *** Political leaders often end up being “false prophets” unable to fulfill their promises. Of course, not every ruler turns out to be a “Hitler,” whose promised “thousand-year reich” proved to be a disastrous 12 years of misrule. The danger that one will be a “false prophet” increases, however, in direct proportion to their number. And that number is increasing—rapidly. A very prominent political “prophet” of our present century was the League of Nations, formed in 1919. It foretold a world of lasting peace. But World War II unceremoniously dumped it into a pit of inactivity. It was replaced in 1945 by the United Nations organization, which doubtless is trying to prevent the outbreak of an atomic World War III. But has it truly ‘maintained international peace and security,’ as its charter prophesied? It's curious too that it was in 1919 that the Watchtower was one of first organizations to speak about the League of Nations as if it was a political expression of the kingdom of God on earth. When we changed our view on that, just a few months later, we spoke of other religions as being guilty as false prophets for having held that same view.

There have been several statements in the publications for those concerned about children, mentally incapacitated, and those alive at Armageddon who have never had an opportunity to learn of Jehovah's goodness. We once taught that all honest-hearted persons have an opportunity because the angels could create the opportunity for them, even in countries like China, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Yet, the gains that Witnesses have made in various countries around the world are almost always in proportion to the number of missionaries from Christendom who were allowed to work in these areas in the 17th through the 19th centuries. If Christendom paved the way, then we will do relatively well. If Christendom had been allowed very few concessions or none, then this is also the predictor of how well we have done (so far). I thought that the related statement below (from 2002) not only says it clearly, but also reminds us to think about our own attitudes. Armageddon, Jehovah's impending judgment, should be a "motivation" for us to show whether we look at our fellow inhabitants with love. Do we see "each" and every individual [in the entire world] as having the potential to become a servant of Jehovah? Love makes us want to share the good things we have. If we love our neighbor, we want to share our experiences with them. If they are uncomfortable, or suffering, we want to share what we can with them to make them more comfortable, and ease their suffering. Religion is generally designed to bring comfort, but often leaves people less comfortable. Religion seems not to address the terrible prospects for the planet brought about by the greed of man. Yet, our message is a very comforting one for those sighing and crying, desperate, and broken-hearted -- including especially, those who have a love for life on this planet. The 0.1% number that you mentioned has been repeated in the same context with the message that literally billions will die. (99.9%) But, the publications no longer try to put a number or a percent on the deaths at Armageddon. I like the way it was worded here: *** w02 8/15 pp. 18-19 par. 13 “Follow Me Continually” *** How may we imitate him in this regard? Never should we develop a callous attitude toward the people around us. Granted, “the war of the great day of God the Almighty” is looming ever nearer, and many among mankind’s billions will be destroyed. (Revelation 16:14; Jeremiah 25:33) Yet, we do not know who will live and who will die. That judgment lies in the future and belongs to the one Jehovah has appointed, Jesus Christ. Until the judgment is passed, we view each individual as having the potential to become a servant of Jehovah.—Matthew 19:24-26; 25:31-33; Acts 17:31. To me, this is one of the most significant improvements to our teachings because it does not open us up to the charge of being haughty and presumptuous about who will survive and who won't. For me, this is one of many improvements the current Governing Body have promoted. When I was first going out in service, and even well after I was baptized, the attitude was quite different, and I remembered being bothered by it, especially when I had to defend that attitude to householders. *** w55 11/1 p. 648 Using Wisely the Reduced Time Left *** Time spent in trying to accumulate wealth, fame or power or in trying to perpetuate this old system of things is wasted, and that is what more than 99.9 per cent of this earth’s population are doing. *** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? *** On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That includes all the governments of the world together with their supporters, the commercial, religious and social institutions. Even the professedly Christian organizations? Yes, because all such that are friends of the world are making themselves enemies of God. . . . God’s Word likens Armageddon to the Flood, to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and to the battle at Gibeon, where God rained down great blocks of ice upon his enemies. Armageddon will be the worst thing ever to hit this earth in the history of man. It will be marked by . . . tremendous upheavals of earth, . . . rain of corrosive liquid fire and terror in the air, on land and in the sea. No wonder that “the slain of Jehovah shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the face of the ground.”—Jer. 25:33, AS. There was also an idea that children should be baptized as fast as possible, or the children might not survive even if the parents did. The expression "get into the Ark before the door closes" was even a part of the baptism talk at the assembly in 1967. *** w58 6/1 p. 330 Why Dedicate Ourselves to God? *** And yet that is the very course that more than 99.9 percent of earth’s population take and it accounts for the fact that the earth is filled with confusion, misery and wickedness. . . . Dedication is therefore the course of wisdom, for “the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life.” . . . Nor may we vacillate or delay. We are living in the days comparable to those in which Noah lived and time is running out! If we procrastinate we may not survive the foretold cataclysmic end of this old world at Armageddon. *** w51 11/15 p. 682 par. 23 Baptism for Salvation and Fire Baptism *** So the Scriptural conclusion is that what brought salvation from the deluge was for the survivors to be baptized or immersed into Noah the ark-builder. . . . The seven who went into the ark with Noah had to have confidence in him as Jehovah’s prophet. They had to be unbreakably attached to him . . . . They had to be incorporated into a system of things not of that world, a theocratic arrangement in which Noah was the chief builder, the chief consultant and shipmaster or pilot. So they had to submit to him as the head who took the lead and directed the body of fellow workers. Doing all this, they were in effect baptized into Noah. This being baptized into a chosen servant of Jehovah was duplicated in the case of Moses. As he was the mediator between God and the Israelites, they had no approach into relationship with God except through him. They had to accept Jehovah’s laws through him. Outside of the theocratic organization under Moses’ visible headship and outside of this “state of Israel” there was no hope and a person was “without God in the world”. Since 99.9% of the world population was going to die at Armageddon, some began saying that they could die but would surely be resurrected. My mother asked about this when hosting the circuit overseer for the week, and the circuit overseer's wife mentioned that her husband had given a talk where he said that they might die during the great tribulation when it was not "Jehovah's final judgment" at Armageddon. My mother was happy. (Her mother, my grandmother, worked almost all her life with mentally handicapped, "idiot savants," etc. Persons full of a lot of love but supposedly without prospects to survive Armageddon.) Don't know whether the circuit overseer was told to say this or just speculating personally, but this was quite different from previous teachings. For example, both issues: the issue of "children" and the issue of the "uninformed" were dealt with in this question: *** w51 5/1 pp. 287-288 Questions From Readers *** Some maintain that at Armageddon there will be three classes: sheep that survive, goats that are eternally destroyed, and uninformed or unresponsible ones who will die but will be resurrected, and that in this latter class will be young children. Is this correct?-L. P., Montana. We know of no Scriptural backing for such a view. The parable of the sheep and goats shows the nations being separated into two classes, not three. The goats headed for everlasting cutting-off are not just those who persecuted Christ’s brothers. The parable upbraids the goats, not for what they did, but for what they failed to do, for their indifference toward and lack of interest in his brothers.—Matt. 25:45. Many who never come in touch with the anointed remnant nevertheless subscribe to what others do in persecuting or fail to do in the way of giving help. The Bible shows a communal responsibility, where a community upholds rulers who persecute Jehovah’s people. Did not the Egyptians suffer the plagues because of Pharaoh’s hardheartedness? Did not the Amalekites suffer for generations afterward because of Amalek’s opposition to Israel in the wilderness? Were not the entire households, including little children, of Korah and Dathan and Abiram swallowed up in destruction because of the rebellion of the household heads? Did not Achan by his greed bring death not only to himself but to his sons and daughters as well? Even King David brought death upon his people by his own transgressions. (Ex. 5:1, 2; 9:13-16; 17:8, 14, 16; 20:5, 6; Num. 16:23-33; Josh. 7:24, 25; 2 Sam. 24:10-17) Now, who will be rash and commit the folly of posing as more just than God by saying He was wrong in such procedures?—Deut. 32:4. In harmony with the parable of the sheep and goats, Ezekiel chapter 9 shows but two classes, those marked for preservation and the unmarked ones appointed to destruction. And in this latter class note that little children were included, to be slain without pity. This is a prophetic picture of the destruction at Armageddon. At a time of judgment Jesus said: “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” That means not only clergy and laity but also parent and child. If a parent chooses to sin against the holy spirit despite the eternal interests of his offspring, that then becomes the responsibility of the parent. In that same time of judgment Paul and Barnabas said to the Jews: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are thrusting it away from you and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations.” (Acts 13:46, NW) Those Jews became responsible for the fate of their offspring, not Paul and Barnabas. Parents devoted to their children will in the interests of their offspring shun wrong ways, taking instead right paths so as to put their children in the way of preservation. “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and that also means little children at Armageddon whose parents belong to Jehovah and who try to rear them according to God’s Word. (Deut. 6:6, 7; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:19, NW) To Christian parents of young children the promise is: “Otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy.”—1 Cor. 7:14, NW. About 10 years after I was baptized, at the same time I started pioneering full-time, a more comforting answer became available (and has been repeated since): *** w76 6/1 p. 347 pars. 16-17 Look Forward with Confidence in God’s Righteousness and Justice *** 16 Observe, however, that Jesus did not leave it up to humans to determine who are the “sheep” and who are the “goats.” How fine that is! For, if we humans were responsible to judge, how could we properly evaluate factors such as: How much of an opportunity did a person have to hear and accept the good news? Did his genetic, family or religious background affect his response? What is his heart condition—does he love righteousness? If he is a child or was born mentally retarded, how much bearing should family or community responsibility have on the matter?—1 Cor. 7:14; Deut. 30:19. 17 Unquestionably, not one of us is qualified to weigh these, and perhaps many other, vital factors and principles. We could not reach judgments that are ‘perfect, righteous and upright.’ (Deut. 32:4) Hence, why should any of us become needlessly involved with trying to decide who will survive and who will not?

Shiwii, So you believe that mercy and compassion is in your bowels? As you can see from the quick Bible word-study below the word "bowels" (the same bowels that spilled out from Judas) also refers to the place where our mercy and compassion comes from. Perhaps you think it was just incorrectly worded by John when he said "whosoever . . . shutteth up his bowels, how can the love of God dwell in him?" (1 John 3:17) [The words "of compassion" are not even in the original Greek.] I hope no one ever gets constipated (or requires a heart transplant, or artificial heart, for that matter). ---------quotes are from King James Version----------- Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels G4698 gushed out. 2Co 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. G4698 2Co 7:15 And his inward affection G4698 is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him. Phl 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels G4698 of Jesus Christ. Phl 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels G4698 and mercies, Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels G4698 of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Phm 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels G4698 of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother. Phm 1:12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: G4698 Phm 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels G4698 in the Lord. 1Jo 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels G4698of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

There are complex ways of showing this, but the simplest is found on page 5 of this publication: https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf You can multiply by a factor of about 22 to 24 to extrapolate US data for the entire world. But you don't really need to do that. You can also work from estimates such as this one (and then allow for the possibility of error and level of uncertainty): Under the topic of "Centenarian," Wikipedia quotes sources to show that ". . . thus, in 2012, the UN estimated there to be only 316,600 centenarians worldwide." Because the campaign started in 1918, you actually have to account for 98 and 99 year-olds, in addition to everyone 100 and over. The link above shows a chart on page 5, and the numbers behind it can be downloaded from the Census Bureau's site. If you look carefully at it, you can see that there are about as many people in the 98 and 99 years-old combined group as there are in the 100+ group. That means that you could double the number of centenarians in the world to get a fairly accurate number of those who are 98 and above. To be safe you should use 2.5 as a factor instead of 2 even though this will give you a much higher number than reality. You can check how data from other countries compares to the U.S. in several places online. (References available upon request.) What this means is that you could take the 316,600 number from 2012, and adjust it upward towards 400,000 to over-compensate for the higher number of people who are expected to survive into that group as people continue to live longer. The same chart shows the expectation for the year 2030 and we are already nearly 5 out of the 18 years "into" that increase that the chart shows as the expectation. 400,000 times 2.5 is 1.2 million. 1.2 million is less than the 2 million minimum that would be needed for the Milions prediction to come true, even if all of those 1.2 million were to survive Armageddon.

I was trying to come up with the most controversial question that Witnesses might ever have to face. This one might appear silly at first, but it also might draw out some of the same controversies that we most often attempt to avoid. The "Millions" Campaign ran from about 1918 to 1925. It was the primary focus of the Watch Tower sponsored public talks,billboards, assemblies, books and booklets publications from during those years. The primary slogan and talk title was called "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." Because it started in 1918, and it made a very specific prediction, it seems that as of some time earlier this year, this prediction can no longer come true under any possible circumstances or calculations. This brings up multiple questions: Is there any way to interpret the title (slogan) in any way so that it could still turn out to be true? Is the Watchtower, or Watch Tower Society or "Governing Body" or "Faithful and Discreet Slave" always immune from the charge of "false prophecy" no matter what is published and promoted? Is there anything that could ever be said or published that could actually fall into the category of false prophecy? Might it reflect poorly on the heart condition (motivation) of any persons who were drawn to learn more and who then converted to the Bible Students during the period from 1919 to 1925? Is it possible that the Governing Body's claim that the Governing Body was appointed as the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919 is presumptuous? Indiscreet? Haughty? Self-serving? Or is it possible that the date is just a bit too early? Perhaps 1919 was not an appropriate time? Even if 1914 was the start of the Kingdom, does it have to be 5 years later (1919) that the "slave" was appointed? Why not 6 years, or 16 years? Does it matter? Isn't it just as possible that, even if this was a false prophecy, that the Watch Tower's Governing Body was still appointed as the "faithful and discreet slave" either with the idea that this was not a serious prediction, or it wasn't really a prophecy, or perhaps that Jehovah and Christ Jesus could still see the heart (desire, goal, motivation) of these brothers, and knew that a cleansing operation would produce the correct outcome in time? Is it possible that Jehovah and Jesus approved of this type of promotion of the good news because it was a way to promote the other core doctrines of truth which have not changed much at all through the years? Is it possible that this method of drawing in converts to the faith was just a temporary way to cut through the noise of so many competing voices crying out for attention?

Also, within months after suggesting that the League of Nations was like a political expression of the kingdom of God on earth, this was corrected and a stricter and more consistent separation from all organizations with political goals was maintained.

Another subcategory of this item should have been included: Rejection of Zionism and focus on spiritual instead of fleshly Israel

I would agree. And I think this is more important than might think. Russell may have envisioned his associates to be from a very gentlemanly class, and appeared most comfortable around well-spoken, soft-spoken, deeply religious persons. In some ways he thought of the Bride class as very elite. Note what he anticipated in his first major publication, a 64 page booklet, "Object and Manner" (p.42): "No; the "little flock," -- the bride -- is a very select company. There will be so few taken from the present generation that they will not be much missed." The great crowd were a second-class group, and for a while were treated as second-class citizens, often criticized and sometimes insulted and always considered less spiritually-minded. But these were obviously humble persons who were sure of the primary truths and the rationality of the Watchtower's message. But they felt less worthy. (Even the context of the quote above reminded them that the 144,000 were granted their white robes but that the great crowd had to wash them.) Of course, at the time -- and for the next 58 years -- they were still considered anointed, and were still going to heaven, just not as part of Christ's Bride. But their sense of humility and unworthiness helped them to understand and accept that earthly Paradise was held out for them as the most appropriate hope. For so many years, the teaching was that all Christians would be in heaven, and non-Christians would be resurrected to the earth. The quickness with which the change came was amazing, and is one of the reasons this doctrine is so often associated with "lightning" and "flashes of light." *** w85 3/1 p. 14 par. 12 Shedding Forth Light Amidst Earth’s Gloom *** These flashes of prophetic light prepared the ground for the historic discourse on “The Great Multitude,” given May 31, 1935, by the president of the Watch Tower Society, J. F. Rutherford, at the Washington, D.C., convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses. What a revelation of divine truth that was! *** w92 3/1 pp. 20-21 par. 17 The Day to Remember *** The brilliant flashes of spiritual light that came through The Watchtower in the 1920’s and 1930’s indicate that the gathering of the remnant of anointed ones was practically completed during that period. Those ‘washing their robes and making them white in the blood of the Lamb’ since then have a different joyful hope. *** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 18 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small *** In 1935 a bright flash of light revealed that the great crowd mentioned at Revelation 7:9-17 was not a secondary heavenly class. It had been thought that the ones mentioned in those verses were some of the anointed who had not been fully faithful *** re chap. 20 p. 125 par. 17 A Multitudinous Great Crowd *** They were quick to appreciate the dazzling flash of divine light that emblazoned the theocratic firmament in 1935, at Jehovah’s due time. And many more!

While at Bethel my table head shared a lot of really negative stories about Brother Rutherford. I had no idea if they were correct at the time, but I listened carefully to a lot of other brothers who knew Rutherford, and I even recorded several hours of interviews with older Bethelites and some of them volunteered information about him. These tapes were for use when I traveled to other congregations to give public talks, because they made giving a public talk very easy. I had a lot of material that I could not use without editing because two of them gave a much more negative view than the publications give. The brothers and sister interviewed were F.W.Franz, Grace DeCecca, Maxwell Friend, Sam Friend, and Bert Schroeder. But another side of Rutherford also shows up, not just in the interviews, but also in his own speeches and writing. Most of the brothers credit Rutherford as the one who promoted the changes made to doctrines single-handedly. He was fearless when he thought he was right. There were dozens of doctrinal changes made between 1927 and 1931, and a large number of those who were active in the organization decided to leave during that time period. But I believe that while he lost a majority for a while, he had an attitude that one brother likened to Judge Gideon, his all-time favorite Bible character. It didn't matter how many persons left the organization, if the change was the right thing to do. (Gideon went from 32,000 to 10,000 and after a final test ended up with only 300 faithful with whom he would fight the battle against Midian.) With that in mind he wanted to root out "creature worship" from the organization. This was his word for the "cult of Pastor Russell" wherein people wanted to dress like him, look like him, talk like him, carry his picture, name their kids after him, etc. Rutherford did not want such a thing for himself, and knew he was the person with the "faith" to get rid of it, even if it meant the majority of Bible Students would leave. It was in effect, the "sword of Jehovah and Rutherford." Also, there were very few progressive changes under Russell. Very early on they had already set a solid doctrinal course when it came to Trinity, Hell-fire, Immortal Soul, Ransom, Restitution, Salvation, Morality, Christian Character, but only a very few changes, except where these were forced upon them in the area of chronology. Rutherford, from the start, turned the Bible Students into a progressive organization that came to expect change, and that very soon would constantly looked forward positively to more changes. Naturally, he got a few things wrong, but I believe a majority of the changes reflected the Bible more accurately. For example, if we were to solely give Rutherford the credit for being the author of these changes, we'd have to admit that he got the following right: Getting rid of Pyramidology. Getting rid of Creature Worship Getting rid of almost all the complexities and methodologies of the old Barbour/Second Adventist chronology Ultimately turning a system that included 539 C.E. (not BCE) 1799, 1844, 1859, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, and 1915 into a simpler system that still included most of those dates but focused almost exclusively on just 3 or 4 dates. He put the organization on a road to a more consistent political neutrality including the view that flag salute was a form of idolatry helped true Christians see the folly of involvement in divisive wars and social movements helped Christians recognize political and religious hypocrisy He pushed for legal freedom of speech, and freedom of religion before the world was even ready for it, and these battles were hard-won. He also prompted true Christians seriously consider the relationship between national and religious holidays and their unchristian origins. He promoted the wider use of Jehovah's name Didn't hold back from using the "Old Testament" for life lessons Set an example as a strong personality, full of strong commitment, without mincing words, or pulling punches Prepared the congregations for persecution so that they were not surprised and not weakened Look at how well JWs handled persecution in many countries, not just Germany under Hitler Organized a very efficient organization in terms of ability to publicize and mobilize with the message Made use of all available technologies and venues to spread the word to large assemblies and audiences Organized for growth, envisioned and prepared for expansion Promoted practical, active Christian conduct and morality, but not the mere, quiet internalized form of worship Promoted a purpose and identity that helps Witnesses produce an international brotherhood that transcend class, nationality, and race. Lots of doctrinal specifics are left out to avoid too many off-topic doctrinal discussions, but even where disagreement exists, the bulk of most publications drove more attention to the Bible, Jesus, Jehovah, and Bible characters that we could learn from as examples in our daily lives And from the perspective of "executive leadership" he was both serious and successful with these changes. The numbers he lost from Russell's time were gained back again and multiplied a couple of times over before Rutherford died. Outsiders have been impressed with the levels of activity, and participation, and therefore the levels of growth and conversion over the years. Ultimately, a very strong and powerful organization has been built that rivals the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists in terms of its current size, rate of growth and stability. And those religions, for the most part, had a bit of a head start in the 19th century. It outpaces most other religions in terms of publications distributed internally, and definitely outpaces every religion when it comes to publications distributed externally. Most of the foundation for the current organization was made workable under Rutherford's watch. This has created an excellent foundation for an international brotherhood where people show love and generosity and good works toward one another and which continues to bring teachings into closer harmony with the Bible.

There are a variety of views about Joseph Rutherford even among the older Witnesses who knew him. All ideas are welcome. I wrote a posting below initially in response to a non-Witness looking to start a dialog.