Anna

Yes, Allan

Yes, Allan

Millions still dyeing are Grateful Dead fans!

There is a little bit more than that, that they wrote. You're not being entirely honest nor fair.

We (they) are batting ZERO, after a hundred and more years of trying.
I suppose some delusions are helpful, short term. 
It keeps some parents from drowning their ugly babies.
 

But you can't see inside peoples hearts.

Yes, I agree. It's just that if someone already has a negative perspective on the whole situation they can't but help interpret  wrongly. And I think this could be because it was all termed so ambiguously, that there was room for interpretation. We have to remember that we are an organization that has a head, Jesus. But apparently Jesus uses the Slave as a channel of communication, so short of blaming Jesus, who else can we blame, logically? It can't be the ordinary publisher can it? And not even those in the writing department since everything has to be approved by the Slave first. I feel there would have been no room for misunderstanding had the WT clearly said that the Slave, aka those in charge of dispensing spiritual food were to blame. But this has never been the custom, to be straight up about things like this. I have never heard, and I am sure you haven't either, a straightforward apology from the GB/Slave/those dispensing spiritual food. It's as if they are afraid they may lose the trust and respect of the congregation if they were to be candid about their failings. Because it is the Slave who interpret scripture for us, nothing that we know of the Truth comes from our own interpretation of the scriptures. So if the scriptures are interpreted wrongly, whose fault is it? We know whose fault it is. But it would be nice to have it spelled out black on white at times, and not insinuated in an evasive manner. The Bible writers were so upfront about their failings, "miserable man that I am!". One of the characteristics of the Bible is its candor. If only WT leadership could emulate this in their publications....
As a side issue, but still relevant to the discussion, does anyone know how the "millions now living will never die" has been explained away?
 
Yes! I wonder, was it perhaps the same person!
Same here!

Of course it should include them. But it would give opposers ammunition if the writers of Watchtower articles ever took personal responsibility for things they said. So far, I have only seen one Watchtower writer take personal responsibility in a public way, and apologize for mistakes he made while in the Writing Department. And he didn't do this until after he was disfellowshipped.
Whether it was the intention to have the public and other Witnesses conclude that the writers of Watch Tower publications were including themselves might become clearer if we look at a few more examples. I will just pick up a few more WT quotes that jwfacts.com had selected:
These first two are with respect to the failed predictions about 1914:
“There is no doubt that many throughout this period were overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended.” Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.52 “There were also other expectations concerning 1914. Alexander H. Macmillan, who had been baptized in September 1900, later recalled: "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?” Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.61 The idea is clear that "some" were reading into Watch Tower statements things which the Watch Tower publications never intended. There will always be "some" truth to such a statement. Yet the Watch Tower statements, especially those from Circuit and District Assemblies of the time, had derided people as lacking faith, lacking trust in the Lord, if they did not read those intentions into their statements. The very motives of Watch Tower followers were questioned because they believed what the Watch Tower said.
About "1975" it was already pointed out that the 1976 and 1977 responses never made any effort to clarify that WTS writers and leaders were to be included in the explanation of the mistake:
If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” Watchtower 1976 Jul 15 p.441 Knowing that this was a missed opportunity, the Watch Tower Yearbook in 1980 finally added this about statements made during the 1979 summer conventions. (The brother who included this in the original talk outline was not disfellowshipped but was dismissed from Bethel later in 1980 possibly for admitting his beliefs about 1914 under interrogation):
"The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975." Yearbook 1980 pp.30-31 Then the Watchtower itself, just a few months later, said in the March 15, 1980 issue:
There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility . It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date. The first quote about probabilities vs possibilities was an echo of talk surrounding the 1925 predictions, too. But it also reminds me of what Ray Franz says about recordings of the talks that Fred Franz had been giving, found here on page 13 of 17 in the pdf,  http://web.archive.org/web/20031209184316/http://users.volja.net/izobcenec4/coc/9.pdf :
In his talk, the vice president spoke of 1975 as a “year of great possibilities, tremendous probabilities.” He told his audience that, according to the Hebrew calendar, they were “already in the fifth lunar month of 1975,” with less than seven lunar months remaining. He emphasized several times that the Hebrew year would close with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, on September 5, 1975.

Betty Crocker reached for the parsley 
“You can’t touch that, it’s cake” restaurant manager Rook shouted.
”It’s not a cake until you mix the ingredients,” she replied.

This makes perfect sense to me. And it should not cause us to disrespect the Governing Body. Jesus said that the stumbling blocks would surely come. Anyone at some time, could be a stumbling block, and they can also be forgiven.
(Matthew 16:23) 23 But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Matthew 18:7) . . .Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Luke 17:1-4) 17 Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be more advantageous for him if a millstone were hung from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones. 3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. But teachers will receive heavier judgment because it is their job to keep the little ones from stumbling, like a good shepherd keeps the sheep on the right path to green pastures. Still, if our brother commits a sin that stumbles others --even a sin of pride, haughtiness and presumptuousness, or beating fellow slave -- we are still to rebuke that brother. If that brother is an elder or governing body member, this should make no difference, as we are not to show favoritism. However, we should still hold back and perhaps wait until the second offense before seeing to it that an accusation is lodged.
(1 Timothy 5:1) 5 Do not severely criticize an older man. . . . (1 Timothy 5:17-19) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. . . . 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
 
This does not mean we should avoid our responsibility to rebuke a person who sins publicly, even if they be on the Governing Body. But we should present our evidence to the brother(s) first, before presenting it to the congregation. After all, we might easily be wrong, and they should have an opportunity to present counter-evidence or an explanation.

Some of the conclusions drawn by  jw facts  on the basis of "supporting" quotes you provide here appear to be preformed before proven.
For example I can't quite see that an accusation that the Watchtower "blames it's members" for believing erroneous claims regarding 1914 or 1925 has any sinister element. After all, the Watchtower has no mind of it's own. It is only an instrument of communication. As an organisation of believers use the Watchtower medium as a channel, then it could be said to reflect the collective views of it's members. So in voicing blame for it's members having erroneous ideas, surely it is blaming itself? And in doing so, it differentiates between some members who did have wrong expectations and some who did not as you rightly point out. In fact, the cited example of Alexander H. Macmillan in saying "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October" (1914) is a pretty frank admission of error by one who was very prominent as a Bible Student, and would likely have included others of similar prominence in the collective "us".
I  can't  comb through decades of publications in the way that someone like Paul Grundy, a self-confessed and dedicated JW opposer does. Actually I do not think it is worth the effort to dissect claims of this nature because they appear to be driven by a personal agenda borne out of many years of distorted influence and repression. Objectivity seems impossible.
Just one statement (first random one I found believe it or not) was revealing:
WT 15/4/1916.
"The Lord did not say that the church would all be glorified by 1914. We merely inferred it and, evidently, erred."
Who said that? Charles T Russell.
With regard to your citing examples of those who hype up the message of doom aspects of things well, Yes, I agree that this certainly happens, and not just at assemblies. There are a range of different personalities serving Jehovah at this time. Publicity regarding the imminent action of Jehovah's kingdom is the priority at this time and many are the ones driving it. But can't we think for ourselves here?
I have been on field service with one of the anointed who shouted through the letter box that an uninterested  householder would be destroyed at Armageddon. Haven't you?
"Read the Bible Daily" was the best bit of advice I was ever given. I have come across some odd ideas (and people) over the years, but nothing where I couldn't sort out the sense from the nonsense, with the help of the one who flicked the wheels off Egyptian chariots (Ex.14:25).
The bigger the organisation's footprint and digital breadcrumb trail becomes, the bigger a target it is for weirdos, critics, dissenters, opposers and aahh......the $ound of Money!!! It's enough to drive you Mad!
 
 

At times not, but hey ho...good job the Head knows what he is doing. John 21:15-17.

Privately, that old mariner knew he had to wear an albatross-like "A" around his neck. But he did not wear the "A" in public as a scarlet letter.  Instead, just as with other times, the Watch Tower publications blamed the 'rank-and-file' for believing as they did. The next three of the following examples were picked by jwfacts.com at https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/blame-members.php :

What did Christ do?
Didn't Rutherford hang the donkey round his own neck at some point?
I agree, as long as it is a repentant kind, not a self-pitying, malicious, vindictive kind. As you say "combined with compassion". Rather like the compassion of Jesus, who cured "every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity among the people" including those which may have been self-inflicted. Spiritual healing, more prevalent today of course, would have the same characteristics I am sure, and would include the correction of OCDD (Obsessive Compulsive Date Disorder).
Amen to that, although any first-hand experience and insight regarding  the behaviour of brothers at these times is both interesting and valuable. I remember the 1968 WT which, along with the Oct 8, 1968 Awake (Is It Later Than You Think?) were probably "toolbox" of the day items for many brothers at the time, and, along with their over-emphatic enthusiasm, influenced my early impressions of the imminence of Armageddon. These views were, thankfully in my case, adjusted before too much damage was done.
This is a very relevant caution. But of course needs, like everything else, a balanced and sober approach. It seems to me that we need to find the "sweet spot" between these two extremes:
"we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here"  2Thess.2:1-2.
as opposed to:
"know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”" 2Pet. 3:3-4.
 Dates come and go, and probably always will (Gen.8:22), but "the one who does the will of God remains forever" 1John 2:17.
Jonah was disappointed when things didn't turn out the way he wanted, (Jonah 4:1), so this is nothing new for God's people. I got over it, presumably you did, so there is no reason why we should not expect others to. We can all be thankful that the possibility remains for all who wish to stay alive far longer than '75, whatever the means. Rev 22:17. ?
 

I think it might be a good thing, up to a point, to have a sensitivity approaching bitterness. This would be especially true if we realize the depth of the loss of so many who went out from us. These "little ones" were truly stumbled, at least partly because many of us went along with a message that basically said the very thing that Christ warned us against. In this small way, we were being "anti-Christ." 
Christ had said, "If anyone says to you, 'The appointed time has approached' . . ., do not follow them." So, in 1973 we studied a book called "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached." In Russell's day, they often used a translation that said: "If anyone says to you, 'The time is at hand' . . . do not follow them." So Russell's second most famous book was called "The Time Is At Hand." Rutherford had done the same to an even greater degree with 1925. In effect, we as an organization had denied Christ 3 times. And what did Peter do when he realized the significance of his own three-time denial of Christ?
(Matthew 26:75) 75 And Peter called to mind what Jesus had said, namely: “Before a rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly. (Matthew 18: 6-14) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of the stumbling blocks! Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes! . . . 10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven. . . . 14 Likewise, it is not a desirable thing to my Father who is in heaven for even one of these little ones to perish.
Bitterness of soul is also the appropriate response to loss of faithful ones, and the reproach of that same loss.
(Micah 2:4-7) 4 In that day people will recite a proverb concerning you, And they will bitterly lament over you. They will say: “We are completely devastated! He caused the portion of my people to change hands—how he removes it from me! . . .  6 “Stop preaching!” they preach, “They should not preach these things; Humiliation will not overtake us!”  7 Is it being said, O house of Jacob: “Has the spirit of Jehovah become impatient? Are these his deeds?” Do not my own words bring good to those walking uprightly? (Ezekiel 21:6, 7) 6 “And you, son of man, sigh while you tremble, yes, sigh bitterly before them. 7 And if they say to you, ‘Why are you sighing?’ you will say, ‘Because of a report.’ For it will certainly come,. . .
(Isaiah 22:4) That is why I said: “Turn your eyes away from me,
And I will weep bitterly.
Do not insist on comforting me
Over the destruction of the daughter of my people.
There are times when such bitterness of soul, if combined with compassion, is clearly better than those remarks that indicate that we are uncaring about such ones who went out from us because it was their own fault, or even showing that we despise these little ones by calling them anti-Christ.
When Frederick Franz was pushing this 1975 agenda, he obviously knew that the biggest push-back to overcome would be that some of the brothers could use Jesus' own words against the idea, by saying that 'no one knows the day or the hour.' He had to "get out in front" of that objection, and he did it by trying to minimize Jesus' words in Matt 24:34. He may have been arguing that these words of Jesus no longer applied to us now that we had reached this new time period when, in his opinion, we so clearly do know concerning that day and hour:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND! . . . The Watch Tower Society over the years has endeavored to keep its associates abreast with the latest scholarship that proves consistent with historic and prophetic events recorded in the Scriptures. Major problems in sacred chronology have been straightened out . . . . One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! My own father was counseled and disciplined by the District Overseer for adding that same verse to a Circuit Assembly talk in St Louis, Missouri in 1970 (plus or minus six months). It tended to tamp down the excitement over 1975.
I also had heard my own father give counsel to another elder (a returned Gilead missionary) about not getting overly excited over 1975, and this was on about January 2, 1975. The other elder actually thought my father was in the wrong and argued with him about it. (My father had hired the other elder who thought my father was somehow "ashamed of the good news" by not wanting people to know that "this was the year" in his own workplace.)
Of course, all of this stuff specifically about 1975 and 1925 is nearly ancient history. Our real concern should be whether we are willing to be honest about it now, and just how alert we are now to follow the spirit of Jesus' words about not following those who claim they have some unique knowledge about the times and seasons. (And who therefore believe they have the special knowledge to say "the time is at hand" or "the due time has approached.") We are still in danger, of course, because there are many who would give the words of men a higher priority than Jesus' own words. And many of the brothers, even today, will look at the disastrously false and unscriptural "Millions" campaign and shrug it off with words about how at least it pushed them zealously to greater activity. In some ways, many of the brothers are just as anxious to push the same messages:
*** w97 1/1 p. 11 par. 18 Let All Glorify Jehovah! ***
In the early 1920’s, a featured public talk presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses was entitled “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” This may have reflected overoptimism at that time. But today that statement can be made with full confidence. Even the "overlapping generation" doctrine is being tied to a time schedule as Brother Splane and others have pointed out that even the second group of overlappers are already getting very old and many are already dying out. As more of the older anointed brothers continue to die out, we are creating the same kind of time limit all over again to the date for Armageddon. At least internally, we should all be bitterly weeping at such things.
 

And one of the most commonly ignored.

Call me Ishmael. For many years I sailed onboard the Pequod with the crazed Captain Rook in his maniacal search for Moby Geddon.
"Captain, whale sighting dead ahead!" seawoman Anna shouted out. "Maybe you're wrong!" Rook muttered and shoved her so violently that she toppled overboard, petticoats all aflutter.
"Captain Rook," seaman JWI stated. "My calculations indicate a 78% probability of the while whale's proximity within 23 cubits. Of course, accuracy is necessary, but if you triumverate the trifecta intersect, the conclusion is justified. Look, if you will, at page 673 of 'Nautical Nocturnal Habits of Northern Hemisphere Mammals' that I brought from my private library, which along with others, explains why the entire ship lists six degrees. It clearly indicates (see chart) that...."
"Gag this fellow, and get him out of my sight!" roared Rook.
Moby Geddon breached and the consequent splash soaked every square inch of the vessel. "Captain!" seaman Goneaway shouted, "I sense the whale is near!" "Liar!" Rook shouted. "Throw him in irons below!"
"I'll handle that gladly sir, hehehehe ))))))" seaman Srecko responded.
Moby Geddon breached again and this time its tail caught the stern of the Pequod and spun it like a pinwheel. "Captain!" seaman Truetom cried, "Surely the whale is near!"
"Throw him to the sharks for calling me Shirly!" Rook bellowed. "I'll have respect here, do you hear?!"
"Now hear this, you scurvy dogs! I have a great job offer in Port Zaire, the best I've ever had, and I mean to get there straightaway. Don't cross me, or I'll have you walk the plank like I did seaman Franz and Shroeder long ago!"
 

If that was the case, how come Adam and Eve and some a few generations after them lived for hundreds of years? And now, despite incredible advances in medicine, people still find it difficult to cross the 100 year threshold. Although the imperfection the quote was talking about was mainly of a characteristic nature, surely everything works together, our physical deterioration includes our mental deterioration.

Interesting observation.
It appears that the English word "reproach" has often been used to translate the Hebrew noun cher·pah? and the Greek word o·nei·di·smos?. (Psalm 69:9 is quoted at Rom.15:3)
Looking at some Hebrew scripture texts where the word is used is interesting. (In the NWT Reference Bible, "reproach" is used in each verse.)
2Chr 32:17. Here it is used of the demoralising content of letters written to Hezekiah by Sennacherib the Assyrian. NWT 2013 renders this as "insult".
Ps 74:18, 22. Here it refers to the disrespect of foolish ones for God's name shown in their attitude and behaviour. NWT 2013 renders this word here as "taunt(s)".
Ps 79:12. Again with "taunts" as the current rendering, it refers to the behaviour of the nations in their triumph over the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Israel,
Hosea 12:14. The behaviour of the Northern kingdom of Israel brings "reproach" on Jehovah, rendering them objects of Jehovah's unfavourable judgement. The rendering is retained here.
So it would seem that Jehovah was affected, in the past,  by the delusional reproach resulting from unfaithful and contemptous conduct on the part of those who claim to be His worshippers, and additionally, by the actions of those who are not His worshippers exemplified in their treatment of those who are. (Ps.69:9, Rom.15:3). The graphic image recorded at Zephaniah 2:8 shows that Jehovah is indeed affected by the actions of those who would heap reproach on His people. He takes it personally.
There is no reason to think that this is not still the case (Mal.3:6). After all, the cry  "If there was a loving God, he wouldn't allow all this wickedness" is commonly heard everywhere today, and His impending action through the Messianic kingdom will be addressing this matter. (Ps.37:34)
Of course , quite rightly, there is nothing that Satan, or those he influences, can do to even "tarnish one iota the reputation of the Sovereign of the UNIVERSE" in reality, just as there is nothing that any of Jehovah's worshippers can do to add to His holiness or any other of His matchless qualities, or His position as Sovereign. However as the continual accuser (reproacher) of Christ's brothers, (Rev 12:17), Satan certainly works day and night to create an illusion of reproach in the minds of those whom he blinds (2Cor.4:4). Jesus' concern over an even wrongful impression of reproach on Jehovah over the course he had to take agonised him in the last moments before his arrest (Luke 22:44). The common use of the cited expression amongst Jehovah's true witnesses today is a reflection of the same concern.
Just a thought on the phrase being exclusive to "the JW world". The absoluteness of this statement may be open to dispute. However, it is very likely that concern for honouring Jehovah's name rather than reproaching it may well be higher amongst Jehovah's true witnesses than any other group.
However, the word and related expressions like "reproachful" appears some 118 times in the KJV and was a word quite commonly used in times past by many others than Jehovah's witnesses. However the useful google word usage graph indicates a definite tailing off in it's use generally in more modern times.

The NWT 1986 has "reproach" based words about 100 times and NWT 2013 about 50, confirming that even amongst witnesses, more modern synonyms are replacing this rather archaic expression.

I was looking for the scripture

OK, I'll give you that one! But it's usually 'What can we glean from this scripture?"

This is weird. And it helps me to understand the sensitivity (approaching bitterness) some obviously have on this matter.
For me, the idea that fireworks would start in 1975 was great news, for about 18 months, between 1972 and early 1974.
I came into the truth literally from the street. All I had,  I carried. Everything in life was a bonus from that day on, so as I didn't have anything to give up or cut back on at the time,  it was all good to me.
I can remember the sarcastic comment one of my worldly friends made in 1973 when I mentioned the closelness of the end. He said "When I see you on the street in 1976, I will be laughing like a drain!" My response at the time was a lame  "Well, at least we'll both still be here!"
I must admit I felt awkward when I did see him from a bus window after 1975. He fulfilled his promise as he caught sight of me. By then I had improved my understanding of matters as previously discussed. So I didn't get "off the bus" figuratively speaking, like the many Koreans cited in the '88 yearbook account. I was just glad that abandoning date-oriented thinking occurred early on in my development as a Christian, particularly prior to '75, as the non-event served as a vindication rather than an embarrassment or disappointment. Actually, I wonder how many of those who did get off the bus at the wrong stop managed to get on again as the years passed? It would be interesting to see a contribution here from someone who did that.
But "Society" bashing over dates seems Quixotic to me. The "Society" is just an instrument people use to get a job done in today's world.
The people are the problem, with their quaint mix of attitudes. Who cares really if the people behind the "Society" got something wrong about dates, 43 years ago? "They" certainly don't really, do they? "They" have moved on, and so have many others. And who really cares if some of the written accounts have been subjected to some selective editing? I have my personal experience to balance the exaggeration on both sides. Quite frankly, if you weren't there, why care? There is no doubt that Jehovah will bring an end to this system, and every day that passes in the current one is a day nearer it's (or my) end. As Paul said:
"Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another;...................do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers." Rom. 13.8;11.

I agree this should be a prime concern, "we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things" Heb 13:11
Of course hindsight is a great instructor, and a good principle is that found in 1Corinthians 13:7 "love believes all things"
So, as long as we keep in mind Jehovah's role in all these matters: "all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account." Heb.4:13.
This will save us becoming "overly righteous" regarding the mistakes of others.

To most it just means that we have faith in the Slave that they will not ask us to do anything unreasonable, even though they have asked us to obey in the future even if it does seem unreasonable. I don't think they will ask us to do anything more unreasonable than some of the unreasonable requests on blood doctrine inconsistencies, organ transplants, divorce for "spiritual" adultery (but not for areas of immorality they have not yet defined under the scope of porneia), etc.
They will, evidently, ask us to believe things that are unreasonable or even patently untrue. Men in leadership positions can't usually go more than a few weeks without needing someone to believe something that isn't reasonable or true. That's also the nature of human leadership. That seems to get worse with committees as often as it gets better.

Of course there was an attempt to say when, quite clearly .  It must be rather a predicament for those who make claims, or "attempts", that are forever immortalized in print! I believe Russell was being honest at the time of his attempts, and truly believed what he was saying, otherwise he would have not published it. The fact that he tried to get around it the way he did after his words failed highlights typical human weakness. True, one should expect better from someone who claims to be a messenger, and faithful and wise servant of God, but it wouldn't be the first time human failings manifested themselves in those of whom we would least expect it. That is exactly why, and I know you are on the same page with me on this, we should be cautious about claims and "attempts" made by anyone, even, (or should  I say especially?) those at the top.  I know, many would disagree and pretty much believe what the Slave says, to the letter. There is another website, run by Witnesses, that is strongly monitored for any negativity against the slave.  The other day in FS a sister who I admire and who has her head screwed on right, made a surprising comment. She said that if the Slave told her to do anything she would do it. I am assuming she didn't mean jump off a bridge, because she is not that kind of a person, and has her own views on a few things. So I am assuming she meant "within reason" . But anyone hearing her, who doesn't really know her, could have got the wrong impression.
It is a big dilemma to say the least when we know the Slave has erred in the past and can err in the future (by their own admission) and yet we are still supposed to be obedient to it (now, and in the future when we receive "lifesaving instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point"). I was discussing this with my step dad (elder) and he admitted it was a difficult situation. He said we just have to trust Jehovah. Also, and I've mentioned this on another occasion, we will obey God as ruler rather than man, which means when obedience to man would result in disobedience to God, then we don't go there. This applies to any man. Br. Jackson insinuated this also in his ARC hearing.