Anna

Their mistake was to publish their speculation in their quest for understanding, if that is what you think it was. You do not publish something like that to an audience who has been eagerly waiting, for the end, tongues hanging out, since 1914. You only publish it if you are convinced of it yourself. Otherwise you would be a foolish, not discreet slave.

It appears that with the internet it's too late and the "cat is out of the bag" never to be captured again!

Was this perhaps the reason for the convention video?

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

I think it's quite obvious that those of the FDS who speculated on this, and originated the idea of 1975, believed their speculation was an honest assessment.

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps? Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”. I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”. He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

How do you think they understand the story? (Sorry for breaking up my responses like this. I'm in the middle of something, and just keep coming back to read and answer periodically)

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce, with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ" That seems to cover everything quite well. Even sex with Aliens. However, true to the fact, as J.R posted, apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery. http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html

By that I assume you mean the 12/15/72 WT ?

Precisely! Not even a framed story.

Both. Yes, WOL "changes in doctrine" and also Watchtower library CD, by typing in 1975, or other key words. I think you are misunderstanding. Part of the misunderstanding is because opposers paint it that way.

That is precisely why I do not think they would have published the video for the reasons you brought out, as some kind of damage control. Especially since it was supposed to be a convention "combating disillusionment" as you say. That would have been rather counterproductive as per your example of your family, don't you think?

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

Because of the nature of scandals, they don't have to!

Well spotted on both counts!

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?) The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72 (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense." Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery. This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. " (Who wrote that?) @JW Insider is the one to ask I think

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want. In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

It's simple. I am not making a comparison. It's irrelevant when WT started, it doesn't change anything about the fact that the reason why we have such horrible things as child sexual abuse going on in the first place is because Satan was the originator of those things. People who want to please God will avoid those kinds of things. Not just child sexual abuse but ANY kind of sexual acts condemned by God, including sex between people who are not married to each other. You are mistaken, we have ALWAYS had the higher moral ground, right since our start. Have you not noticed the world’s permissive attitude towards sex? In fact I read an article recently about how pedophilia might be recognized as a “sexual orientation” one day. So perhaps adding another letter to the LGBTIQ (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender, intersex, and queer) it seems the list is getting longer each day. With God, there is only one sexual orientation, it’s called heterosexual, and that’s the only one Jehovah’s Witnesses go with. Not only that, but also only when they are legally married to each another (otherwise they are heterosexual celibates). With Satan, there are many options, and the world is embracing them all. If you have read any of the secular articles about child sexual molestation, you will have seen that the biggest problem has been that victims never spoke up. And on the rare occasions that they did, they were rarely believed, or it was already too late to change anything, and there wasn't any means by which to change anything (there were no provisions made for a perpetrator to be tried in a court of law) I am talking about the world, the governments. That is why Prof. B. J Cling says that; "The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma...depends on the support of a political movement.' Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses were not impacted also by the lack of civil support? Can you really see some little girl who was molested by her father causing a ruckus about it in those days? And if she did, would her father have gone to prison? You know the answer.

It would seem that way, because as you say, they sued one.This was because its publisher was posting things he had no copyrights to. Plus, it's easy to be aware of what critics are saying about you through notification settings for key words. I am sure some of us use, or have used, that application too.

We are not talking about letters of dissociation. You were wondering how GB members get to know about what apostates say, regarding child abuse for example.They get to know because apostates send letters to them.

I meant gaffe from a logical point of view, obviously, not how it affected people's lives. I made it clear how I felt about that in my reply to Gone Fishing. Gaffe also means "an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder" So the reasoning in the 1972 WT was a blunder, a mistake, and obviously, later on, a cause for embarrassment to those who made it, and those who read it.

Apostates send letters to Bethel, regularly.

Actually, just a little reminder, problems with any sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, in the whole wide world started with Satan. People just didn’t take any real records of child rape before 50 years ago. The same with adult rape. It was never addressed until quite recently with the 1988 movie the Accused. That movie brought the issue into the public limelight. As for third world countries, and Islamic states, rape victims, whether adult or children, are still battling to get justice and recognition. Wikipedia: “In the 1980s, date or acquaintance rape first gained acknowledgment. Rape crisis centers were created to serve survivors of all forms of sexual violence during any phase of their healing process. Rape crisis centers and other community-based service providers continue to grow and serve their communities by providing direct services and prevention programming.” and “In 1986, Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, giving children a civil claim in sexual abuse cases. The number of laws created in the 1980s and 1990s began to create greater prosecution and detection of child sexual abusers”. Anne Hastings described these changes in attitudes towards child sexual abuse as "the beginning of one of history's largest social revolutions. According to John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor B.J. Cling, "By the early 21st century, the issue of child sexual abuse has become a legitimate focus of professional attention, while increasingly separated from second wave feminism...As child sexual abuse becomes absorbed into the larger field of interpersonal trauma studies, child sexual abuse studies and intervention strategies have become degendered and largely unaware of their political origins in modern feminism and other vibrant political movements of the 1970s. One may hope that unlike in the past, this rediscovery of child sexual abuse that began in the 70s will not again be followed by collective amnesia. The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma...depends on the support of a political movement". Not only Wikipedia articles but all others on this subject recognize that historically, sex crimes have not been addressed in any significant detail by secular authorities or courts of law until the recent decades, and are still not at their optimum effectiveness to this date, that’s why the recent government research into Child sexual abuse in various countries. One of the main reason for those investigations is to determine gaps in the government’s own policies and procedures, not just the policies and procedures in individual institutions. Perhaps it would be a good idea for those who criticize the WT for the way they handled Child abuse in the past, to educate themselves on how the rest of the world handled child abuse in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

I would think that those who are not clueless do not need this awareness teaching tool. He said us protecting pedophiles are apostate lies. Not that child abuse in JW organization does not exist. He never claimed child abuse is not real. Why would he? Better still, how could he?

I agree, the adage "truth is truth no matter who says it" works with the opposite too, rubbish is rubbish no matter who says it. Except what constitutes rubbish is sometimes subjective. As for it mattering...well it doesn't matter to me, but it may have made a difference to someone who was in that situation. I am not surprised to hear apostates make fun of us and say something along the lines of "well, as long as he had sex with a sheep his ex won't be scripturally free to re-marry". Thankfully we no longer make these kind of complicated speculisations ( a new word) on scriptures, as was illustrated by JTR with his cat parody, except for a few minor things (at least minor to me) which I won't mention right now, as it's just my opinion anyway.... maybe one can understand a little the trust issues some friends are battling with..... Yes, exactly, that was the point I was trying to make in the other thread, when I mentioned the video about 1975.