Anna

We are way off topic here (not your fault) but it's impossible to discuss a controversial topic without such subjects coming up. I think that what happened was fairly obvious only to those who watched the tension build up from about 1975 until 1979. The big blow-up actually happened internally in the late spring of 1979 but the repercussions didn't start happening until the spring of 1980, when heads first started to roll. (My work at Bethel started in 1976 and lasted until 1982.)  What really happened is much more complex, and I don't think it had much of anything to do with the popularity of group Bible reading. I think the crackdown on group Bible reading was just a knee-jerk response. If I had to simplify it, I'd say . . . . . we need another topic to discuss this, because it's just not that simple.

The first Governing Body did a fantastic job - but when we start looking at the incompetencies in the congregations etc.  (the issue with the bias regarding the feeding of the widows; the issues which arose regarding the circumcision, eating food previously offered to idols etc..)..another picture emerges.  These were all issues that were not immediately addressed and could have caused some distress in the congregations for a period of time.... until the matter was taken up with the GB or other solutions were found.    It was necessary for Paul to write letters and keep a watchful eye on new undesirable things in the congregations such as false teachings.  etc..
Today we have the same issues - nothing has changed concerning the desires of mankind and its endeavors.  To me the test is this:  when other churches come and challenge us with their scholarship - I look at what they are DOING on the ground.  Are THEY fulfilling the prophecy of Matt 24:14 - or are we?   Do they have a slave who is feeding the entire world free of charge - or are we?
So imperfect as we are - we are being obedient to Jehovah and doing the work he gave us to do - miraculously not by our own power.... even if everything is not perfect and needs constant work.

In field service we are in the business of changing peoples way of thinking and learning to think for themselves.  However, freedom of thought comes with responsibility and self-control.  Satan did not use this correctly and neither did Adam.  He did not control his freedom of thinking and his subsequent desires and broke his relationship with Jehovah.  So NO - in field service we teach people to think for themselves but explore a thinking in line with Jehovah's thinking - not away from Jehovah's thinking.   One can use freedom of expression/thinking in a bad way - just like every other good thing.
I belonged to one of the protestant churches with a 400 year history of dogmatic adherence to teachings that were laid down as law by the church father.  No change to teachings in 400 years.  Thank goodness I now belong to a religion which is prepared to cautiously adapt to new thinking and re-investigate its older core teachings.   Sometimes in the past they have not been as cautious as they should have been and maybe in future too - but at least they are prepared to be open to change and to grow! not stagnate in ancient hoo-ha.

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

LOL. And there was me thinking at one point, I think it was beginning of July, we had all reached an amicable conclusion, something to the effect of we will agree to disagree and still be friends, but then the thread got re-visited with added fury a month later, and more than doubled from a previous 6 pages to 13. It looks like it just can't be given a rest, but those little humorous interludes do brighten things up a bit, and give everyone a breather, to gather strength for the next "scholastic" onslaught

Not to worry. This isn't a real thread. Not exactly anyway.
I was asked to try my hand at splitting off some of the diversionary topics from the thread called:
Perhaps you heard of it. Well, as you can tell from the image attached to the link, above, it quickly turned into thread about buzzards and elephants and even took a detour down Broadway. So I did a quick review of the thread and decided that it might be good to just see if I can split off only several of the side topics, so that this new thread becomes a place for the obvious side topics that always come up in a 1914 discussion, such as:
You have no right to discuss this because it's apostasy even to bring it up! You must be a follower of Carl Olof Jonsson You must be a follower of Raymond Franz You are not being loyal and faithful to the Governing Body You must have bad motives, ego issues, etc. etc. In addition since that other thread is at least 15 pages too long, this new one will likely have a lot of free space, comparatively. So we might also just move over a few of the posts that weren't directly responding to the subject, although they might make interesting side topics, which could even be broken off of this thread someday. Feel free to make suggestions. 
I wouldn't worry about this too much. In a few days, probably both of these threads could move to the back of the line. For anyone who worries about such things I won't move posts if I find out that it loses any reactions it had. Wouldn't want to change that. But I'm also worried about the chronological order of the posts and continuity of comments. So if it's not working out, then most things will just stay where they were.

You think I can control this thing? I'm at least half the problem!
[edited to add:]
Notice: Since this thread is so long. I might be splitting off some of the unrelated topics to other threads. I just learned that I can do this, so I will only move my own at first to get used to this awesome power. Also, I have no interest in moving around every little comment that people make just because it's off topic. There would be no point to breaking off to a musical-themed thread, for example, because I don't think anyone expected to start a full-blown discussion on that topic. But there have been a few topics that might be interesting as stand-alone topics.

Spiritism and astrology have had in influence on a lot of our words. Speaking of "influence," consider how the word "influenza" was also a reference to how a certain illness was due to the "influence" of bad stars. And speaking of "consider," the word comes from Latin for concerning oneself "with the stars" con=with + siderial=star, although that one could have been made up by some "lunatic" (influenced by the moon). And even "chronology" is from the god Saturn who was "Chronos" in Greek, the god of time.  Ultimately we even get words like martial from Mars, and more obvious ones like mercurial, saturnine, capricious (Capricorn), jovial (Jove/Jupiter), venerial (Venus)
Love your library.

@Melinda Mills understands this playground 
I always appreciate your straightforward answers Melinda.  

Now you've got it!
That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

Like when they go off topic a bit. The ladies seem to stick to the hard work as in their daily lives, while the gentlemen, sometimes like rambunctious kids in older bodies, veer off to speak of other interesting things like musicals, poems, etc., to rest their brains from the hard grind of the topic.  They know how to relax, even if it means shooting at another, using strange language (TTH, JTR) but JWI always uses good language and puts in a few puns for fun in between.  Men always know how to have some fun.

Not entirely. The battle occurred in the same year as Cyrus conquering Babylon. @Arauna commented that the year 539 BCE is "the only secular date which is truly verified," and that "you" (whomever she was directing this to) cannot accept that it's "the only secular date which is truly verified" because "you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable" and that Persian and Greek sources are more truthful [Arauna's full quote in context]. It was at this point she mentions the battle of Opis - apparently unaware that the record of this battle is found on a Babylonian source.
Indeed. However, seeing as Arauna took it on trust that the correct year for both the battle of Opis and Babylon's fall was 539 BCE, even though none of the ancient sources give modern-day BCE dates but have their own methods of keeping track of time (e.g. regnal years and Olympiads), I was wondering if she knew how the BCE dates were arrived at; how we know it was 539 BCE as opposed to, say, 541 BCE or 535 BCE or any other year. I'm still interested in what Arauna has to say about this.
Regarding your piece about Cyrus and his wife dying and his decree and the Jews' preparation to leave, yadda, yadda - we discussed all that already in another thread which can be summarized in this post.
The Cyrus Cylinder isn't really one of the chronicles - it's classed as a royal inscription. But that nitpicky detail aside, you are quite right! We have to take on board all the evidence and not just the parts we like.
 

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .
I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man
Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.
 

There you have it!

Yes What is LOYALTY? Loyalty is not being married to your wife {Jehovah's Witness} and looking at the prettier smarter girl and having a "passion for her" {obsession with the teachings of Christendom being promoted here}. I think Jehovah wants EXCLUSIVE devotion and that includes the TRUE faith. Matt. 5:28 {Already committed disloyalty in your HEART}. 

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.
I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?
You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"
I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.
By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

Hahaha, I was thinking that too!

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.
So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.
*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.
The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:
*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.
You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.
And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."
 

It was with sadness that I read a certain comment above. In the end - if Jehovah is truly a reality - then he is the one who will dispense  justice and will judge those who use their positions of trust for in-fighting etc.  Has there been injustices perpetrated ? I do not doubt it at all! -  but some things we cannot resolve now.  Let it go,    
Jehovah will compensate all people for whatever they lost.  Will some of the anointed beat up their brothers? - Yes!  Jesus predicted the possibility.  Can worldly courts sort this out?  NO.
Some CEOs (even of Fortune500 companies) mess up a company and then quickly leave with a golden handshake and then move on to the next company to go and mess it up too!  I have seen this in the world and yes - I knew a soft-spoken elder who did this.....and got away with it -  it happens- rarely - but it does happen.
I am fortunately a sister so I do not have to deal with male egos but I am savvy enough to know that a definite sign of the spirit of the world or Satan is a love to control others - not necessarily openly.... but subtly.  I am very aware that not all have left their egos behind (as instructed by scripture) and hence to not handle all matters in kindness and love.......
Jehovah will take all mitigating factors into account. Jehovah deeply cares for victims of injustice.....  I personally think injustice does hurt any victim very deeply.  
 

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

What is this nonsense about male egos?
"One man in a million may shout a bit. Now and then there's one with slight defects. 
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit. But, by and large, we are a marvelous sex."
It is discouraging to me that you would so quickly write off an entire gender with – HEY!! BIG BOY, @James Thomas Rook Jr.!!. THAT’S ANOTHER SLAM AT THE GB YOU JUST MADE!!     
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Field service, punk! Let's settle this in field service!! Working together - YOU and ME!! High Noon! Or are you too CHICKEN?!!

though not especially relevant, I came across this witticism:
Give a man a poem and he will starve for a day. Teach him to be a poet, and he will starve for a lifetime.

Thanks Anna for reaching out to me.  I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. My character is also known for being a free spirit...but not too free!  I am extremely friendly, always smiling and always caring and helpful - at least that is what I strive to be.  There is always something that is crazy happening around me... I like to stimulate people and get feedback (in field service - we usually have a blast!)  I like organized chaos - the artistic side of me. 
I did not grow up as a Witness but in a home with two smart parents (I was exposed to extreme freedom of thought) but life was also extremely organized.  Everything took place by the clock ...like a smooth running business. 
I was not a difficult child but inside I rebelled against any form of rigidity.  So I understand the idea of breaking out and being free and looking at new ideas or new ways of doing things.   I am always ready to read about new things going on in the world and undercurrents most people are not aware of - but I am careful to stick to limits. There are barriers I do not pass. I studied Islam - the dark sinister part of it - but realized that I must not delve too deep into satanic things.... 
Usually, when people (even brothers) do or say stupid things I do not take it seriously - people are just people and they can come up with some wild ideas or be too rigid.  I will even give it a thought........ BUT I do not dwell on bad things ...and try to stay away from things that I perceive to be disruptive, counter productive, unkind or misleading.  I usually speak my mind.... no hypocrisy! 
I also believe there are lines one does not cross - self-control very important to serve Jehovah successfully!  
When I worked for the newspaper - the best thing I learnt was to edit my own writings and cut out the ideas I liked the most....I often had to re-write....  I also wrote poetry and songs.... and this teaches one to cut unnecessary flowery ideas/words - 'self-control' in art. 
What this taught me is:  many people self-indulge in a passion with no self-control and then cannot understand why it is not presentable to others. Self-indulgence in anything is usually not good. One can go on and on.....with it - it will bring personal satisfaction - but in the end it is not perfect because it does not "share" well with others.  This is why I now prefer to study some thoughts I can share with others or say something to stimulate others - especially in the Truth. 
I often teach Muslims that the law of Jesus is more powerful than the 'Sharia' - (law of Moses or the law in islam). How?  Self-control.   Jews and Muslims just have to obey the law and there is not much thinking involved.   Jesus made us personally responsible to think about everything -before we do it.  We have to think how to apply the principles.  We have to think things through, before we do.  Looking at a women too much is adultery in the heart....self-control.
I usually feel sorry for people who seriously overstep any boundaries.... they have not learnt the lessons which I call Social Studies 101.    Jehovah created us to live together as social animals.... there are boundaries one does not cross if you want to live and work together in peace and harmony..... because one infringes on the happiness and freedoms of others.  
This why I must mention here that I have respect for some of the people on this blog - who really kept their cool when I was criticizing them.  Thanks for that!   I do sometimes test boundaries.   I go on field service and say something to test my Muslim friends to see what their boundaries are.  When I see that their minds are very closed - I work with what I have available to me....
So - I never talk about others - only if it is positive!  Yes, some kinds of people are sometimes uncomfortable around me when I push the boundaries...... but I am watchful for body language and immediately have self-control when I see it makes another uncomfortable.
I err as well and I do sometimes come across as rigid in my writing.  I do. But I think that Adam was thinking too much about a 'new idea' and should have curbed it - before it got out of hand.
I believe in personal freedom curbed by personal self-control and social responsibility.
However, the level of personal censorship now being promoted in the world is closer to fascist ideas (in some places one can now be jailed for saying of even 'thinking' something) which is going to lead to totalitarian states.
In future, to curb the extreme ideologies floating around (which is threatening the "security" of the people and the state) - they will come down hard freedom of thought. Especially on JWs because we have learnt to think differently to the rest of mankind.  We obey the governments but stay neutral to politics and refuse all interfaith.  We are also loyal to Jehovah's government and will not refrain from preaching.