Anna

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.
 

2025, but a Great Jubilee away from 1975, is only 7 years in the future. Moreover, seven is significant in its own right.
And don't forget, for those of you who like science, Isaac Newton the Granddaddy of Science, said 2060 gets the job done.
Truetom calls It: 2025.

I would, but Jubilee math gets so complicated, as the Insight book shows:
*** it-1 p. 1200 Inheritance ***
The sale of land was, in effect, only the leasing of it for the value of crops it would produce, the purchase price being on a graduated scale according to the number of years until the next Jubilee, at which time all land possession would revert to the original owner if it had not been repurchased or redeemed prior to the Jubilee. I heard that @James Thomas Rook Jr. has a graduated scale that he might loan me, but I think he said it's for measuring urine samples.
 
 

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.
 

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency? 

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency? 

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency? 

Don't mind the upvote.
I was very keen for the end to come in 1975 after learning the truth in 1971. My first shepherding call was from a brother who explained at length why he had cancelled all his insurances.
But this view only lasted for a few months because, (as I've previously stated), I was put wise by a very influential and respected brother who said he was not part of the 1975 club, as no man could possibly know the day or hour. Because this individual had made quite an impression on me in many other spiritual matters, I felt his reasoning to be pretty sound at the time, because I could never get my head around the date oriented mentality. It always made me feel uneasy, like something that you thought you ought to believe because of the sparkly eyed assertions,  but that just didn't have any substance. Now of course, I know better.
But there was no shortage of those who wanted to believe it although the platform promotion was consderably less intense where I was than in the USA. I can understand the "once bitten, twice shy" view of some skeptical ones today. And it's the same with the nodding, knowing heads today. They still make me feel uneasy. I just find the whole topic embarrassing. The best advice I ever got on this whole area was something an old missionary brother used he say to me in his heavy Scottish  accent "Your Armageddon came the day you dedicated your life to Jehovah, laddie. You can't take it back you know." or something like that.
Scripturally, 2Tim.4:2 seems most relevant here regardless of which area of the ministry it applies to: "preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season" and also Gal.6:10: "Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all,"

In my own experience, I was born in '57, baptized 10 years later, and had to read the "Life Everlasting" book as one of the two books assigned for baptismal candidates, along with the "Lamp" book questions. I auxiliary pioneered for several months in 1972, and quit school to regular pioneer for 3.5 years from 1973 until leaving for Brooklyn Bethel, where I worked full-time for 4 years, and then part-time, on projects, for another two while going to college in NYC.
I give this portion of my "resume" only because I can speak to the experience of being baptized prior to 1975, and was part of the Bethel build-up from the influx of workers and financial contributions that Bethel received around 1975. I pioneered for several years both before and after 1975.
Your experience may vary, but I can still tell you pretty much what I was thinking just prior to 1975, because I had to clear my plans with my parents, my school, and two circuit overseers, since I quit school while I was still 15 to begin regular pioneering in 1973.

I'm sorry, it's my fault, I worded it wrong. I should have said close relatives, or members of a family not living together. The only time when "shunning" is is not applied, under our current interpretation,  is with a husband and wife, or children still living at home.
I know you and I have talked about this before on here. I know the org. cannot make rules on every situation and instance, but the general principle applies, that disfellowshipped relatives are to be shunned. The convention video last year made that quite clear. I think it's the video I have a problem with more than anything. Elders are usually quite understanding when it comes to relatives. My son visits his disfellowshipped father when he is in Europe, the elders know about it, but haven't said anything. A sister on here commented a few months back that elders in her congregation were counseling her on her association with her disfellowshipped daughter, and she told them that her daughter is going to be taking care of her when she is old. They left it alone after that. From a purely practical perspective I cannot see how shunning children or parents is possible. The Bible tells the children to honor their mother and father, and it has no time limit, as in whether they are still living at home or not.
I really believe 1 Cor. 5:11 does not apply to relatives, especially parents/adult children. But of course that's just my personal opinion!
 

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined.
All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't. 
 

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined.
All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't. 
 

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined.
All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't. 
 

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

@Space Merchant, @Anna @James Thomas Rook Jr., et al.
With near unanimous approval (thanks, Anna!) I have moved some of the portions of this topic that dealt with 1975 to another topic, here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/69838-1975-was-in-the-past-are-we-honest-about-it-today/?tab=comments#comment-106775
I think there was another post in another recent topic that I might move over there, too, because it also seemed out of place in its current location. A few of the responses here might not make perfect sense any more now that a few posts have been moved.

I believe you. I personally know a few who did similar things. There is no doubt about it that 1975 got blown up out of all proportions. That is why those who knew their Bible, and put that as precedent over what anybody else said (including the president of the society at the time) call it trusting your own instincts if you like, didn't get burned. But I understand that it must have been very difficult if the majority saw it differently than you. Moral of the story? Trust the Bible and no man. Lesson learned. We've got to move on.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I'm sorry, it's my fault, I worded it wrong. I should have said close relatives, or members of a family not living together. The only time when "shunning" is is not applied, under our current interpretation,  is with a husband and wife, or children still living at home.
I know you and I have talked about this before on here. I know the org. cannot make rules on every situation and instance, but the general principle applies, that disfellowshipped relatives are to be shunned. The convention video last year made that quite clear. I think it's the video I have a problem with more than anything. Elders are usually quite understanding when it comes to relatives. My son visits his disfellowshipped father when he is in Europe, the elders know about it, but haven't said anything. A sister on here commented a few months back that elders in her congregation were counseling her on her association with her disfellowshipped daughter, and she told them that her daughter is going to be taking care of her when she is old. They left it alone after that. From a purely practical perspective I cannot see how shunning children or parents is possible. The Bible tells the children to honor their mother and father, and it has no time limit, as in whether they are still living at home or not.
I really believe 1 Cor. 5:11 does not apply to relatives, especially parents/adult children. But of course that's just my personal opinion!
 

I don't believe you! Or was it someone who had been a Witness a very loooong time ago?

I'm sorry, it's my fault, I worded it wrong. I should have said close relatives, or members of a family not living together. The only time when "shunning" is is not applied, under our current interpretation,  is with a husband and wife, or children still living at home.
I know you and I have talked about this before on here. I know the org. cannot make rules on every situation and instance, but the general principle applies, that disfellowshipped relatives are to be shunned. The convention video last year made that quite clear. I think it's the video I have a problem with more than anything. Elders are usually quite understanding when it comes to relatives. My son visits his disfellowshipped father when he is in Europe, the elders know about it, but haven't said anything. A sister on here commented a few months back that elders in her congregation were counseling her on her association with her disfellowshipped daughter, and she told them that her daughter is going to be taking care of her when she is old. They left it alone after that. From a purely practical perspective I cannot see how shunning children or parents is possible. The Bible tells the children to honor their mother and father, and it has no time limit, as in whether they are still living at home or not.
I really believe 1 Cor. 5:11 does not apply to relatives, especially parents/adult children. But of course that's just my personal opinion!
 

Dateline: Saturday,  September 1, 2018

WARWICK NY — Special Assembly Representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses at their new World Headquarters, known as “Bethel”,  reported being surprised at Saturday afternoon’s session when they were directed to the  newly constructed balcony entrance for seating.
“We normally get there early so we can sit as close to the Governing Body as possible,” Assembly Delegate  Stephen Lett, Jr.  told reporters. “We were all like, ‘What’s going on?'”
They did not have to wonder for long.
Governing Body’s Helper Alan Cage, dressed in costume as a  regular person  took the stage under a single spotlight, and after some coy banter, he reportedly announced that it was “Baptism Saturday,” but that this was “not your Mama’s Saturday afternoon  Assembly baptism!”
 At this cue, a giant  four story high spiral water slide, stretching from the balcony down to the on-stage baptismal pool, was unveiled from behind a large curtain, to thunderous applause from assembled delegates.
Children as young as four years old, who had been ushered single file to the new entrance were directed one-by-one into the orange spiral sliding board and, with a push, sent hurtling toward baptismal pool, answering the two baptismal questions as they increased spiral velocity “Yes!” and “Yes!” . Jehovah’s Witnesses Elders  in wet swimsuits and white t-shirts asked the questions as they whizzed by to the pool below.
Anthony Morris III, one of eight Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body members wearing a leopard skin spandex leotard emblazoned with large white  initials TPT,  architect of what has been dubbed by Bethel insiders as “Splashdown  Saturday.”  told reporters “The water slide is fun for the little kiddies, but the whole reason we did this is to get the most number of people baptized in the least amount of time possible.” 
“ … we can’t count some of these baptisms because someone didn’t  say “yes” to the baptismal questions, or because someone’s head wasn’t completely submerged, then what’s the point?”
In the dry-off area next to the baptismal pool, a group of dripping four to seven year old children were being dried off behind a screened area with sacramental pillow cases  from the Bethel Laundry
At publishing time, the  JW.ORG  website reports that the church has broken its own record for the most baptisms in a single Saturday afternoon.
 
 
 
… my apologies to  “The Onion”
 

Of course I agree with you there. But really, if we are going to be honest, there are various interpretations on what is "good for God", and I think that's where the problem lies. Terrorists believe what they are doing is "good for God".

Some here probably already know my feelings about shunning family members living outside the home. I completely get shunning those who are not family. And I completely get, and agree with keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. But for the life of me I just cannot feel comfortable with the video that shows the mother completely ignoring her daughter's telephone call. Is that the kind of shunning Jesus, or the apostle Paul had in mind?
Yes, I understand Jesus said that there will be times when we will have to choose between him and family. And that if we lose family members for his sake, then we will get many more back. But I have often wondered if that  means that relatives will be against us, and will threaten US with shunning unless we forsake Jesus. And then it is up to us who we will put first, Jesus or a family member. The official WT understanding seems to be the other way around, that WE are the ones who have to shun family members if they turn away from Jesus. In context, when Jesus says he came to bring not peace but a sword, seems to support more that family members will be in opposition to Jesus and will make us want to follow them.
My husband's son and his wife have made a number of bad life choices and have been in and out of the truth twice, and once disfellowshipped. The second time they made sure they avoided disfellowshipping by staying clear of the elders, not opening their door to them or answering their calls. They became totally inactive 5 years ago. In the meantime, although not fraternizing with them socially, we have helped them with the kids when they needed a sitter, and took them (the grandkids) on trips and to meetings. In other words we kept ourselves in their lives, and kept the lines of communication open with the parents. My husband would even slip them a WT article every now and then he thought they might find helpful. We also made sure we spoke about Jehovah with the grandkids. I don't know whether it is too soon to speak, but the other day my husband's son texted him to say he prayed with his wife, and that they both want to put things right, and come to the meeting on Sunday. They came, and everyone welcomed them with open arms. I don't know if this will lead anywhere, as far as I know they were still smoking last week. Both have done stupid things for which they may have been disfellowshipped for.  But because they avoided the elders, they avoided disfellowshipping. Like I said, we were not associating with them to any great extent, but we also didn't shun them. Now had they been disfellowshipped, would we be under obligation to shun them? (yes). And just because they avoided disfellowshipping, members of the congregation were able to welcomed them. It makes no logical sense to me, because their situation was exactly the same as if they had been disfellowshipped.
My question is, if a family member leaves Jehovah, does Jehovah expect us to show loyalty to him by shunning that member? Or does he expect loyalty that we stick with him (Jehovah) despite the situation of our family member and despite family members trying to take us with them, or giving us such ultimatums as it's Jehovah or me. Isn't that more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke about bringing not peace but a sword?
 
 

When the job has been fully accomplished I will tell them to cut it out.

You must be American.

I guess I would be happier with all these shunning threads if they started with:
"Well, we know how vital it is for worshippers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world, but ..."
Or:
"Well, we know how Christians must 'touch nothing unclean,' but...."
Or:
"Well, we know how God is a jealous God who hasn't exactly been cool in the past when his ancient people got too cozy with the nations, but....
However, they are framed that way. Always it is framed as a matter of individual rights, as though toeing the line in that regard cannot help but make God happy.
I don't think it works that way.
As much as you want to avoid causing upset to people, surely God fits in there somewhere. It is not a 'What is good for General Motors is good for God.' It ought always to be a "Let us make sure it is good for God, and then we'll see what we can do about not ruffling the feathers of General Motors.'