ComfortMyPeople

My wife has a cousin who is SDA and she still drops by fairly often, because she travels a long way from her home to a church in the town neighboring ours. She enjoys the religious discussions, although I find her to be a bit sanctimonious about health issues, especially. (She's mostly a vegetarian.) And she seems like she gets it when we speak of their unfavorable E.G.White-related history, and several untenable doctrines (Sabbath, "Trinity," alcohol, etc.). But then she gets re-energized by her church to ignore it all, and she goes right back to how well they are doing in their charities, and growth.
Her SDA church seems to have taken a strong interest in Hebrew/Messianic Jewish outreach, and has several Hebrew-speaking converts. 
But she also point out that they started at a time (and place) very similar to the Watchtower and yet they have grown to twice as many active members. 20 million vs our 8+ million, she claims. I don't know exactly how they measure activity, but they do have a lot of people who are active in outreach to poor people, "missions," etc. Most of her church attend more than one meeting a week.

I love this too! Where are the seventh day adventists today? Has there been any spiritual growth?  Have you spoken to one lately? 
They are still clinging to the mosaic law - but only parts of it....... the parts which are possible to keep such as  sabbath. The other  parts of the law are ignored.   
We are no longer under law. Paul gave a wonderful illustration of this in Galatians 4 :  21  Tell me, you who want to be under law, Do you not hear the Law? 22  For example, it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant girl+ and one by the free woman;+23  but the one by the servant girl was actually born through natural descent*+ and the other by the free woman through a promise.+ 24  These things may be taken as a symbolic drama; for these women mean two covenants, the one from Mount Siʹnai,+ which bears children for slavery and which is Haʹgar.25  Now Haʹgar means Siʹnai,+ a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26  But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Officially, the Watchtower's answer to @Bubba Johnson Jr is NO! Newly anointed persons would NOT necessarily be included in "this generation." If there was a person who was anointed prior to 1914, and who is still alive today, then it's possible that newly anointed persons today are still therefore overlapping with that first group of anointed.
(Technically there are not overlapping "generations" in the same sense as "this generation that will not pass away," there are only overlapping "groups" within that generation. In the natural sense of the word "generation" there are, of course, as many as 6 or 7 overlapping generations already since the generations alive in 1914, but those are NOT the type of generation the Watchtower is attempting to define here.)
It seems rather unlikely that there are still anointed persons alive now who were around to "discern" the events of 1914, and who were anointed at the time. Even if one could be said to be anointed at say, 8 years old, that would mean the person was born in 1906, and is already 113 years old. The most likely "known" example of a "group one" person was F W Franz who died a few days shy of 1993. Brother Splane made clear (in his chart) that Franz was only an example of "group one," and that there may be more examples. If we assume a person could be anointed only as young as 18 instead of 8, then the oldest possible person in "group one" would be 123 years old, and this seems like too much of a stretch.
The definition as explained by Brother Splane, makes clear therefore that newly anointed persons are NOT necessarily a part of "this generation" because their anointed life does not necessarily overlap with persons from group one. (Assuming all the "candidates" in group one have already died, and that these conjectured 113 to 123 year old candidates are not around today.)

@JW Insider After quite some time reading this person's post, I cannot but feel that the proverb applies perfectly to this situation
 
(Proverbs 9:8) . . .Do not reprove a ridiculer, or he will hate you. Reprove a wise person, and he will love you. . . 
 This person (I think it is obvious to everyone who is) insults and disparages those who disagree with his thinking. Sadly, he thinks he defends Jehovah's Witnesses, but his unbalanced way of thinking is most confusing and pathetic. 
JWI, many appreciate your comments, but I would dare to advise you that, following the Proverb mentioned above, respond to this person in the most effective way: silence 

@BillyTheKid46, I thought you mostly just employed @Foreigner for vote spamming. I see you are doing some of the dirty work under your own name. And I also see you are nowhere near done yet, because you have added several more just since I copied the two images below.
What's odd, however is that "both" of you have now voted down posts that contained nothing more than scriptures quoted from the NWT, and just above in this same topic, only 4 posts back, you (and Foreigner, of course) downvoted a post that does no more than introduce 3 Watchtower quotes about how long it took Adam to name the animals with surrounding context. Are you really that embarrassed by quotes from the Watchtower that you found it necessary to give two down votes to these Watchtower quotes????

Well, regarding the "hen" expression,  be sure, it's not spanish. And I have no idea about the use billythekid is trying

There are good reasons for the government laws to give certain privileges to lawyers and religious overseers -  ever thought of that?  The state is not supposed to be all powerful otherwise one would see justice eroded.
God hates paedophilia- and witnesses are taught that all porneia is serious sin - yet there are those few individuals who go back to eat vomit like a dog.  The law itself does not cover every situation of paedophilia but yet they expect JWs to cover every situation (retroactively) -  which is truly different in every case. We could cover all bases.
We also allow people off the street at out meetings ......and individuals may have a history.  God is not unmerciful......if someone wants to change their life.  So what rules do you think would improve this situation - and should we ban all previous child molestors from our meetings?    The law should have balance and so should we not err on side of injustice  to not give people a chance to change.  I think the rules JWs have in place is sufficient and balanced. Parents still have the prime responsibility to protect their children. Accompany them to the bathroom at a meeting and other practical advice often given off the platform. 
What I find ironic is that the government allows an organization like ours to be attacked.... when our cases are much less than in other churches and sports organizations etc.....Cases are rare - not a regular occurence.  On the other hand the government does not have good laws in place and to add to the injury - the government now allows children to be sexualised from age 5 in the school curriculum. Children are now being sexually groomed in the school curriculim.
The UNESCO school curriculum is in all schools and parents of young children are no longer allowed to opt out.  Go on line and see the complaints of teachers who have to teach young children: Children are taught on computer about oral and anal sex, LGBTQ, parents who have 2 mommies or daddies, transvestites, young children are taught to allow others to touch them and not to disclose if they have AIDS.  Shocking stuff!    The entire system of government is hypocritical and morally rotten to the core! 
Why is there not  coverage in the press regarding this in schools?   It is the universal promotion of new moral values which rejects Christian values. UNESCO threatens African countries to cut financial aid if the refuse to teach the curriculum. First they taught evolution in schools and took the bible out... now they teach moral corruption and Islam under the guise of social studies.
They hold Christian organizations to higher moral standards ....while teaching moral corruption to children...... it is the sign of the times.....  
The biggest threat to Christian children is that parents should be counterbalancing the teachings received  at school with regular talks to their children at home. Soon children will think that paedophilia is normal..... because they are being groomed for porneia in school.
 
 

It seems that the elders did not believe the woman when she said she was "abused". We don't know the whole story, we don't know the woman. I can think of a number of situations which may have incurred the decision to disfellowship. No one gets disfellowshipped for being sexually abused. (Especially not nowadays). 
I wonder if she went to the police to report the abuse. The article does not mention if she did.
 

[I'm separating this post from the one it was combined with above:]
Back in 1956, when Armstrong's "1975 in Prophecy!" magazine was written, the Watchtower was still teaching that 1976 was the end of the 6,000 years. Note the words highlighted in blue and red in the following three Watchtower articles, especially the part about how long it took Adam to name the animals.
The first link is to the Feb 1, 1955 Watchtower "Questions From Readers" on jw.org.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955089
According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.
Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. . . .
The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.
When the 1955 article was updated in 1968, 13 years later, note how the line about the accuracy of the chronology remains the same (almost verbatim in blue) but the line about the animals (in red) has changed: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602#h=59
Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? . . .
This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time.
By October 1, 1975, the Watchtower changed back to the 1956 style statements about Adam and how long it might have taken to name the animals: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975720
During that time, God had Adam name the animals. Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years, we do not know. So we do not know exactly when Jehovah’s great “rest day” began, nor do we know exactly when it will end. The same applies to the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign. The Bible provides us no way to fix the date, and so it does us no good to speculate when that date may be.—Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 24:42, 44.
However, the Bible’s time clock does indicate to us that 6,000 years of human history end in this year 1975. Early in God’s “rest day” Adam became a rebel against God-rule. Thus, for the most part, the first 6,000 years of man’s history have been marked by man-rule.

I think you must go and study the new woman's rights movement that is now  at all western universities. It has  been politicized by communism.  It I s not just about feminism any longer  - the movement that started with the suffrogets and then got momentum in the 1960s when women were empowered because of the contraception pill.
Famius feminists and scholars are now speaking out against it.   It has led to all men being rejected as oppressors - especially. if you are a white man.  I will not go into all the details for which you can be taken to court.  A lot of young men are now too frightened to date (or ask for a date) for fear they can be taken to court for something that was done  or said innocently  without consent - anything that could  make her feel like a victim.  All legislators must now be women because the are the " mothers" of the nation. Men do not have compassion because they are natural oppressors! 
 

Here is just one example of a government agency's (department of social services) failings:
https://www.coloradocpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-3050-CPO-Compliance-Letter-Final-Redacted-Aig-9-2019.pdf
 
 

I agree, and that is a problem many conveniently forget about. Just recently the Child Victims Act has extended the statute of limitations. And legislation is working on making priests mandated reporters in all the states of the US. These things should have been in operation for a long time already. So really, many of the problems of so called "cover ups" are a result of the inefficiencies and shortcomings of legislative bodies.

Boys scouts may close..... and many other sports institutions may close. .....etcetc but I have a nasty suspicion that only religion will be held accountable.
Why?  I see that Jeffrey Epstein and all his high society friends (millionaires /billionaires and princes) got away with child trafficking for many years (covered up by the FBI) and top echelons of society  in EU and USA  which are rotten to the core regarding child trafficking and abuse. Epstein  conveniently was murdered - but the victims can hopefully do claims...... if they are not intimidated by MI5 and FBI -as they were before.
I think it is fulfillment of prophecy - to get rid of religion...... the reason being that the last statute to protect children was only tabled in 2003..... but I will write more about this later.....
Congress did not do their job properly....... regarding the legislation.  For many years it was taboo to speak about sex abuse and the legislation passed was so weak it actually passed the buck to organizations.  Hence the perceived neglect at organizations .... because the law was not thought through properly.
How can an organization be retroactively be held accountable by legislation when there was no proper legislation in place for a very long time.... and there were no proper and free child services available from government to determine if the abuse  really  happened or  not. 
One is innocent until proven guilty..... but this crime happens in secret and qualified people need to work with it. 
Congress should be taken to court for payments because they were too slow to cover the loopholes in legislation.
 
 
 
 

Well, regarding the "hen" expression,  be sure, it's not spanish. And I have no idea about the use billythekid is trying

I don't know what a "hen" is, in this context, but as far as I can tell @ComfortMyPeople is from Spain, while I am in New York. I have never seen him or any of his research.
You show the idea that many Adventists gave up on dates after their expectations failed. What would you expect?
There are not many other options, when you are at the end of the possibilities that your particular date system allows.
A die-hard Second Adventist might just try to make some new adjustments to the "system" to figure out why the expectations might have been off by just a few months, or a few years, or even a matter of decades. They keep looking for a way to get the system to work because they can't give up after they invested so much in the beliefs. After Miller's failures, he himself decided against setting more dates, but thousands of people were ready to listen to the next predictions for the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, etc. This makes the continuing date-setters even MORE of a die-hard Adventist. And these are the types of persons who influenced Russell to continue date-setting. Russell continued date-setting, and adjusting his date predictions from 1879 to 1915.  
Of course, there is one other solution, and that is to say that your date really was right all along -- that Jesus really did come to be present in 1874, but that it has been an invisible presence. This was the very solution that fit Russell's ideas, and it kept Barbour's adjusted dating system unchanged, except for that one detail. Russell expected the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom to begin around 1914, and ultimately this was also changed to an invisible "manifestation," so that all those other dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, etc., could remain unchanged. Of course, over time, 1881 was dropped, then 1874, then finally 1878 had no more prophetic significance (around 1961) and it was completely dropped, too. So that we only have 1914 remaining. (And I think this date, too, will be dropped in about 15 years barring any earthshattering changes.) But we still believe in the imminent manifestation of Jesus advent based on our interpretation of various prophetic time periods that we have tied to the present time period. Therefore we are still under some of the influence of adventists, in that general sense.
 

LOL. I saw that coming as soon as I asked the question:
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?
Nearly the same thing happened when I asked Allen that question.
You haven't shown where. A proposition given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I know you made that claim. But without evidence. The problem with your theory is that when Russell and Barbour continued the Herald, it was still very much an Adventist publication. That didn't change. The book "Three Worlds" that they published in 1877 was steeped in Millerite Adventism, so much so that you see the way they concluded it with a defense of Miller in the section on "William Miller's Dream" above. It even copied the "seventh month" movement. But it was a date-adjusted Adventism with very similar interpretations of the same time periods. With Barbour's MINOR adjustments to make Miller's end dates move 30 to 45 years further into the future, Russell kept these very similar time period interpretations throughout the entire series of Studies in the Scriptures, and these doctrines were generally kept until 1927, with a few of them remaining until 1943. Even before Russell influenced him, Barbour, still a full-fledged Second Adventist, had already moved Miller's start date for the 2,520 years from 677 BC to 606 BC (based on Bowen/Elliott/etc). This made the period nearly the same as John Aquila Brown's use of the 2,520 years.
Your theory that Barbour was done with Second Adventism apparently has no evidence, unless you know of some that you are not sharing. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates your theory is not true. I actually agree with you that Russell's ongoing work in the Watch Tower was based on "new light" that progressed further and further toward clearer truth, and further away from Barbour's influence and the influence that other Second Adventists had on Russell. But this couldn't happen completely until 1927 (to about 1933) when the WTS was finally finished selling off the remaining stocks of Studies in the Scriptures.
It seems likely that you are able to keep your claim alive only by changing the definition of Adventism to a special definition that works for you. If this is the case, then you are only arguing semantics. It's probably another one of those cases where anyone else is a liar "with Satan in their head" if they use a word the way a dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, uses it, instead of a way that you need them to use it to fit your own ideology.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Adventism
I don't point to that article to say they are right about "Jehovah's Witnesses" but to give you an idea of the "definition" of "Adventism" and "Second Adventism."

LOL! I saw that coming as soon as I asked you that question:
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?
And not just Barbour and Paton, as we have seen. It was MOST of the persons Russell spoke about and mentioned in the Watchtower publications during those early years.  Also, Russell was definitely NOT clear on how far he wanted to distance himself from the entire Second Adventist movement until a few years later. When Russell first chose to financially support and contribute to Barbour's Adventist "Herald" journal and "Three Worlds" publication, he gave every evidence of being fully in support of Barbour's Second Adventist teachings, and not just on chronology. Russell, of course, tended toward the "Age to Come" beliefs which differed from many (but not all) Second Adventists. (Joseph Marsh, mentioned above, is now considered the first major promoter of the Age to Come movement, but he was closely associated with Adventists in the Second Adventist tradition.) Many Adventists, including Barbour, had waited for the "Bonfire" instead of a true "Age to Come" where the earth is restored to Edenic paradise by the end of the "Thousand Years." (Age to Come believers also did not generally accept the Trinity, Immortal Soul or Hellfire doctrines. The "Advent Christian Church" diverged from "Age to Come" by reverting to the  Trinity doctrine.)
Russell accepted only the "major" Age to Come beliefs, but Russell also accepted non-A2C teachings, since he taught that Jesus had a prehuman existence, the Devil was a real person, and the higher-called Christians will rule directly from heaven rather than just from the earth.
In 1881, just 19 months after starting Zion's Watch Tower, Russell looks back on where his associates were in 1871, and recognizes that so many of the Watchtower associates were then Second Adventists. (ZWT Feb 1881) This makes sense, since Russell built his subscription lists primarily from Barbour's Herald, and Rice's recently defunct paper. In 1879, Russell accepted the Second Adventist contributors to Barbour's Herald as Watchtower contributors, including B W Keith, Paton, and Rice among the new set of Watchtower contributors. All of them had been associated with the Millerite movement, and all of them were evidently accepting of "Age to Come" beliefs, except that Paton leaned toward Trinity, and Barbour was a late-comer to Age to Come ideas about a "broad" salvation. And of course, Barbour, Storrs, Stetson and Wendell had also been connected with the Millerite movement.
You say that these facts don't mean anything, but it seems possible that Russell's own actions and admissions in 1876 might mean just as much, or more, than some of his statements in hindsight from years later. Recall that, 1876, Russell claims his special interest was chronology, saying: " It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time. . . " His first published article by July 1876 was an "Adventist" piece on chronology in Storrs' Adventist journal. And also in 1876, Russell becomes an Assistant Editor of Barbour's "Herald." Russell's speaks of getting "Three Worlds" published as his major accomplishment with Barbour. It was being made ready in 1876 to be published in 1877. Early Watch Tower publications gave Russell credit for this book, although it's clear now that he didn't write it, but had reviewed all its contents.
The book (Three Worlds) concludes with "WIlliam Miller's Dream." I quote:
We publish the following because it has been so perfectly fulfilled. Every position
on the prophecies held by Bro. Miller has been attacked during the "tarrying of
the Bridegroom," and while the "virgins all slumbered and slept." And yet every
one of those applications have of necessity again been incorporated in these
present arguments, and the casket, enlarged and rearranged, does indeed "shine
brighter than before":
WM. MILLER'S DREAM
"I dreamed that God, by an unseen hand, sent me a curiously wrought casket,
about ten inches long by six square, made of ebony and pearls curiously inlaid. To
the casket there was a key attached. I immediately took the key and opened the
casket, when, to my wonder and surprise, I found it filled with all sorts and sizes
of jewels, diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension
and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket; and thus
arranged, they reflected a light and glory equaled only by the sun." (These jewels
are the beautiful truths the open casket unfolded to his sight.)
While Russell was never a Second Adventist, he was still an adventist who leaned much closer to Age to Come teachings. But like Storrs, a kind of Adventist mentor, he didn't want to focus on denominations, and he especially didn't want to be directly associated with previous failures of the Millerites and other Second Adventists. In this way he was like many other Adventists of his time, who often claimed that they never really had that much interest in previous date setting, and that they came to their current date-setting chronology through a purer path, and never got their hands dirty with previous failed prophecies or disappointments.
And of course, you already know the "Proclaimers" book admits Russell's "indebtedness" to Adventists under the heading "Influence of Others" https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274967/0/2:
Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. Russell said of these two men: "The study of the Word of God with these dear brethren led, step by step, into greener pastures." One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. The other, George Storrs, was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York.
And, naturally, you have already added many other evidences of this same point in your post above, even if you often tend to disagree with your own posts. But you do admit, as I have said, his interest in Second Adventism was primarily chronology-driven.
Because it absolutely was a fallout due to Bible understanding. I think you already agree with me on this point, too, despite your ambiguous 'double-negative.'
Nothing to insinuate. Russell was actually pretty clear over time where his views differed from Barbour's. Some of those differences, such as the nature of the ransom, were spelled out very early in their relationship. Some were more clearly spelled out very soon afterward, i.e., the Age to Come / Abrahamic Faith related views (regarding the "Bonfire" of the earth, broad salvation, etc.), and it didn't take long before Russell spelled out the differences on Trinity between himself and Paton. I don't think there is much question, at least over time, where Russell differed from Barbour. Barbour even continued to criticize some of Russell's views, now and then, in the decades after they split.
I don't recall that quote. Do you have the source? I'm guessing that you are referring to this from the 7/15/1906 ZWT, but if you have a quote of what Barbour actually said, that would be interesting:
I inquired of Mr. Barbour as to what was being done by him and by the Herald. He replied that nothing was being done; that the readers of the Herald, being disappointed Adventists, had nearly all lost interest and stopped their subscriptions;--and that thus, with money exhausted, the Herald might be said to be practically suspended. I told him that instead of feeling discouraged and giving up the work since his newly found light on restitution (for when we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time), he should rather feel that now he had some good tidings to preach, such as he never had before, and that his zeal should be correspondingly increased.

This might be a good time to explain again that this original topic was not about whether the Watchtower writers were being honest back in 1966 through 1975 about the expectations for the weeks, and months surrounding 1975. It was supposed to be about whether we are honest NOW in the way we defend those past expectations for the mid-1970's.
When this topic started it was back around a year ago when we were still discussing a video produced for the "Don't Give Up" 2017 Regional Convention.
That was part of the point. With all that was said and known and documented by those who lived through it, why did the WTS decide there was more to say about it in 2017? And, of course, was it honest?
I find it curious that, for some persons, if "person A" doesn't use a word in the same way "person B" needs it to be used in support of Person B's ideology, then Person B might become very sensitive to supposed "distortions." One of these same persons, like "Person B" can be so sensitive to the supposed distortions of others, but are still able to ignore the fact that the WTS was ACTUALLY distorting something. Here's what I mean:
Discussing the 1975 period, the video says:
“Back then, some were looking to a certain date as signifying the end of this old system of things.”
Notice that the expression is merely "some were looking to a certain date." It doesn't mention that the "some" were being directed to this particular time period surrounding 1975 by writers of the Watchtower publications, and by special talks given by District Overseers, and by parts given at circuit assemblies counting down the actual number of months to 1975. It doesn't mention that Witnesses were counseled if they did NOT think 1975 was significant. Among about 100 references to evidences in Watchtower publications from 1966 to at least 1974 regarding the importance of this period, we find counsel like this:
*** w75 5/1 p. 285 ***
Does this mean that we know exactly when God will destroy this old system and establish a new one? Franz showed that we do not, for we do not know how short was the time interval between Adam’s creation and the creation of Eve, at which point God’s rest day of seven thousand years began. (Heb. 4:3, 4) But, he pointed out, “we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,” . . .
So was it honest or was it misleading to merely say "some" were looking to a certain date? The video implies that we are expected to believe that groups of Witnesses in all parts of the earth would come up with such speculation on their own and then spread it among the brothers, and expect them to accept it on their word.
Then the video says:
"A few went so far as selling their homes and quitting their jobs."
This implies again that these "some" Witnesses were even crazy enough to go so far as to sell their homes or quit their jobs. But again, who were the "some" involved in this craziness? Were they counseled that it would be a good thing to do, or were they ever counseled against it? We already know the answer:
*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
The Watchtower publications also counseled that young ones would never complete a career in this system of things, they were even counseled not to start schooling for a professional career because it was so unlikely that this system would even be around any more in just a six or eight years. Remember that this was stated only 6 years before 1975:
*** Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15 ***
If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."-Matt. 24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!
Then the video says:
"I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too, but something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings, and in my personal study, I was reminded of what Jesus said: 'No man knows the day or hour.' "
Again, what was the counsel at the time? It's true the scripture was sometimes brought up. But the counsel was to NOT use that scripture to downplay the reason we were supposed to be looking forward to 1975:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-501 pars. 30-35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
. . .
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
. . .
35 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.
I think we've seen this played out before. When 1925 came and went just 50 years earlier, Rutherford said he made an "ass" of himself. Brother Franz often quoted that as if it were some kind of humble apology. But did Rutherford ever admit this to the brothers and sisters in the congregation? Some accounts show that it was only to a small audience, not even all of Bethel at the time:
*** w84 10/1 p. 24 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, “I made an ass of myself.”
To the Watchtower readers, no one took any blame. There was disappointment, evidently because some had read too much into the "conclusive proofs" they had been given:
"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date" (Vindication, Vol. 1, pp. 338-39).
In other words, the "apology" actually just claims that the dates were correct all along (definitely fixed in Scriptures) but that there was a measure of disappointment because things didn't work out as they had been "predicted," although they soon got over it, and learned to quit fixing dates.
This is a lot like the way that segment of the 2017 video ends regarding 1975:
"After that year came and went, most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments."
In fact, note the identical idea in the "Proclaimers" book, about 1925:
*** jv chap. 7 p. 78 Advertise the King and the Kingdom! (1919-1941) ***
The year 1925 came and went. Some abandoned their hope. But the vast majority of the Bible Students remained faithful.
It might also be noted that this "vast majority" who remained faithful is not reflected in the fact that the numbers increased greatly up to 1925 so that there were more than 90,000 memorial partakers recorded in 1925, which then dropped in 1926 and 1927 and was down to under 17,500 in 1928. That was clearly not just 1925, but it was certainly related to the fantastic growth seen in the years just prior to 1925, which was halted immediately by the end of that same year. (If we count the total effect of all doctrines and changes within those 24 to 36 months following 1925: 17,500 is not a vast majority of 90,000.)

Where? Nowhere. Because I never made any insinuations about you misspeaking about Russell's real ideology for 1914.
And I'm sure you already know that I have never held a conclusion that his view was about the literal "end of the world." Russell had always clearly explained that his view of 1914 was never about the literal end of the world, or even Armageddon specifically. He often chided those Adventists who believed it was a literal "burning of the world." Russell never believed that the "burning" was literal, or that it would even be half-baked, for that matter.
I don't see why you would want to take snippets and mislead the public. If you are going to use "snippets" just make sure they are either explained, if necessary, or that they are a good representation of Russell's general view.
I don't see a problem with it either. Just hadn't seen it from anyone else but Allen before (in the plural) as a kind of abbreviation for Adventists or Adventist ideology.
And, by the way, do you think you will ever be able to answer that question about how the two different periods of 1260 tie to the 2520?
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

Strange. This sounds like another echo of Hermanesque projection. I hope that's an indication that you understand this same point after several years of repetition.
George Storrs says he was influenced by Henry Grew's pamphlet against the doctrines of immortality of the soul and against hellfire. He resigned from his church in 1840 and as of 1843, per Wikipedia (and his own statements, of course):
Storrs became one of the leaders of the Second Advent movement and affiliated with William Miller and Joshua V. Himes. He began publication of his magazine Bible Examiner in 1843 and continued it until 1879 with a few breaks. After a considerable amount of study, Storrs preached to some Adventists on the condition and prospects for the dead. His book Six Sermons explained his conditionalist beliefs.
But why are you so concerned about whether Russell admitted to relying on Second Adventists for the chronology? Why not just take Russell's word for it? Russell said:
It was about January 1876 that my attention was specially drawn to the subject of prophetic time, as it relates to these doctrines and hopes. It came about in this way: I received a paper called The Herald of The Morning, sent by its editor, Mr. N. H. Barbour. When I opened it I at once identified it with Adventism from the picture . . . . I rejoiced to find others coming to the same advanced position, but was astonished to find a further statement very cautiously made, that the editor believed the prophecies to indicate that the Lord was already present in the world (unseen and invisible) and that the harvest work of gathering the wheat was already due.
Here was a new thought: Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant for us—to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom—a thing which we clearly saw could be known in no other way? . . .
I recalled certain arguments used by the Adventists to prove that 1873 would witness the burning of the world, etc.—the chronology of the world showing that the six thousand years from Adam ended with the beginning of 1873, and other arguments drawn from the Scriptures and supposed to coincide. Could it be that these, which we had passed by as unworthy of attention, really contained an important truth which they had misapplied?
Anxious to learn, from any quarter, whatever God had to teach, I at once wrote to Mr. Barbour, informing him of our harmony on other points and desiring to know particularly why, and upon what Scriptural evidences, he held that Christ's presence and the harvesting of the Gospel age dated from the Autumn of 1874.
The answer showed that my surmise had been correct, viz.: that the time arguments, chronology, etc., were the same as used by Second Adventists in 1873, and explained how Mr. Barbour and Mr. J. A. Paton of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been regular Second Adventists up to that time, and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumb-founded. . . .  Not long after their 1874 disappointment, a reader of the Herald, who had a copy of the Diaglott, noticed something in it which he thought peculiar,—that in Matt. 24:27,37,39, the word which in our common version is rendered coming, is translated presence.
This was the clue, and following it, they had been led through prophetic time toward proper views regarding the object and manner of the Lord's return. We of Allegheny on the contrary were led first to proper views of the object and manner of our Lord's return and then to the examination of the time for these things, indicated in God's word. Thus God leads his children often from different starting points of truth; but where the heart is earnest and trustful, the result must be to draw all such together.
But there were no books or other publications setting forth the time-prophecies as then understood, so I paid Mr. Barbour's expenses to come to see me at Philadelphia (where I had business engagements during the summer of 1876), to show me fully and Scripturally, if he could, that the prophecies indicated 1874 as the date at which the Lord's presence and the harvest began. He came, and the evidences satisfied me.
I hadn't mentioned this before, but Russell admits that the scriptural support that Russell utilizes for the "presence/parousia" doctrine, was contributed by B.W.Keith, a Second Adventist supporter (contributor to Barbour's magazine, and speaker already associated with both Paton and Barbour). Keith, shortly after 1874, found the scriptural support through a copy of the Diaglott (produced by a Second Adventist associate, Benjamin Wilson). Wilson, a former Campbellite, founded what was (and is) known as the "Christadelphians" and "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith." It is Wilson's close association with anti-Trinitarian Adventist, Joseph Marsh, that is emphasized as the reason for the actual founding of the latter church today. See the articles on both Wilson and Marsh to see the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wilson_(biblical_scholar)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marsh_(Adventist )
(In case TTH wants to make that all that money you spoke about,   note that most of these men, including Barbour, Marsh, Wilson, Campbell and Keith all spent a lot of time around Rochester.)
Back when Russell was involved with publishing "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return" while still associated with Barbour, Russell writes:
But it is not my object in this pamphlet to call your attention more fully to the TIME of the second advent than I have above, in answering some of the chief objections to the investigation of it. (Those interested in knowing the evidences as to the time, I would refer to Dr. N. H. Barbour, editor of the "Herald of the Morning." Rochester, N. Y.) I simply add that I am deeply impressed and think not without good scriptural evidence . . .

I remember when Allen Smith said the same thing, and although his posts are gone, the same thought is still found under one of Allen's alternate accounts on this forum:
By coincidence, he (Allen) often used the same odd spelling "Advents" that you often use.
There is one other thing that Allen Smith said a few times, and I often asked him what he meant, but he never responded. Since you are apparently saying the same thing, and claim to be continuing the work of Allen Smith, perhaps you can at least tell me what you mean by it. It was Allen's idea that we need to believe that the 2,520 years is actually two back-to-back uses of the 1,260 period. Allen said we needed to understand that there were TWO different periods of 1,260.
What's confusing about this is that the Watchtower uses 2,520 to refer to a period OF YEARS that started in 607 BCE but it uses the 1,260 as a period of DAYS that started just a few days prior to January 1915 and ended in 1918. Yet, like Allen, you say:
You are aware, of course, that John Aquila Brown, among others, believed a version of this. Even William Miller believed a version of this as he explained in the same 1836 speech I quoted above. Miller said:
. . . for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, one half of which time they would be among be under literal Babylon, which means the ruling kings of the earth, viz. 1260 years; and the other half under mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, the abomination of the whole earth, 1260 years; making in all 2520 years.
In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

What you have done here is so absolutely amazing that I took a picture of that portion of your above post, and copied it here. You have quoted a portion of what I said in purplish-colored text where I say that he ONLY relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he relied on them. A tautology. But then you offer the PERFECT quote in support of that statement. I would have used this exact quote myself, but you not only used it, you CORRECTLY HIGHLIGHTED exactly the portions that highlight the support for what I said. Almost as if this was some kind of Watchtower Study and you were asked to underline (highlight) the portions of Russell's quote that prove the statement in purple is correct. Thank you for doing this for me!

Russell is saying that a lot of people will contemptuously indicate that there is nothing good that comes out of Adventism. But he adds that if we are humble, and wise in God's sight, we will admit that Millerite Second Adventism was what started the CORRECT understanding of Daniel's visions. Not only that, but even the right time in which to start the prophecy, specifically of the 1260 days. Russell says that we even admit that Miller's correct view on this was the "KEY" that initiated the preaching of TRUTH on this matter.
Russell himself! In Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 86, 87.
Then, you go on further in your post to makes some statements and ask some questions that indicate that you did not really understand what you just quoted, even though you highlighted all the correct portions. But you also leave out a very important point. It's that we do not even need to go back to Miller to show that Russell saw Second Adventism as the KEY to the truth about Daniel. If you have read the work of another Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour, you will see that Nelson Barbour was the person who had pointed this out, before Russell, exactly this same point about what Miller had done wrong, by starting the key dates of Daniel at different points to make them end on the same date, when Barbour showed that they should have started on the same date so that they ended on different dates. So it was the work of a Second Adventist that Russell admits to relying upon for the chronology correction.
In any case, Miller, Barbour and Russell all started these dates in the period of the decline of the "Holy Roman Empire" (Catholic secular rule) and all of them ended these dates in the period surrounding the 1800's (1799-1874, in Barbour/Russell). Russell, based on accepting Barbour's dates, ends the 1260 days in 1799, and the 1290 days in 1829. Russell goes on further in the same Volume III to say, beginning on page 305:
We have marked, too, the fixed dates to which the Prophet Daniel calls attention. The 2,300 days point to 1846 as the time when God's sanctuary would be cleansed of the defiling errors and principles of Papacy; and we have noted the cleansing there accomplished. We have noted the fulfilment of the 1,260 days, or the time, times and half a time, of Papacy's power to persecute, and the beginning there, in 1799, of the Time of the End. We have seen how the 1,290 days marked the beginning of an understanding of the mysteries of prophecy in the year 1829, culminating in the great movement of 1844 known as the Second Advent movement, when, according to the Lord's prediction, the wise virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, thirty years prior to his actual coming. We have seen the fulfilment of the predicted tarrying; and for fifteen years the midnight cry, "Behold the Bridegroom!" has gone forth. We have marked with special delight the 1,335 days, pointing, as they do, to 1874 as the exact date of our Lord's return; and we have since that time experienced the very blessedness promised—through the clearer unfoldings of the wonderful mysteries of the divine plan.
Guess who Russell is talking about here as the person behind the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 1,290 days. The 1290 is MILLER time. Daniel pointed to MILLER's understanding. Granted that Miller was following in the steps of many before him. But who was promoting that understanding in the year predicted by God in Daniel 12:11. It was Russell's understanding that God specifically predicted 1829, through Daniel. Russell's writings as indexed in the EBC for Daniel 12:11 condenses it to one sentence:
[Daniel 12:11] Shall be 1290 days —1290 years, ending 1829 AD, at which time William Miller began to call attention to the time prophecies. C84, C87;R5565:5
Not at all. Barbour had been the most recent Second Adventist whom Russell had relied on for the 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300.
Probably this is even true of the 2,520 from Leviticus 26 and the Daniel 4 Tree Dream prophecy, too. Although that could have been both indirectly from Miller, Bishop Elliott, etc. (And Miller, Barbour, and even Elliott, could have been influenced from J.A.Brown, and others.)
However, when Russell had his very first article published, in 1876, it was in the publication of a leader of the Second Adventists, named George Storrs. Notice how closely, Russell's follows the order of Miller's thoughts. I assume you know Russell's version, and there are differences, so I'll just quote excerpts from Miller, 40 years prior to Russell ( http://the2520.com/william_miller_lec.htm )
On the Punishment of the People of God Seven Times for their Sins (1836)
LEVITICUS 26:23,24
And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. . . . We are very fond of throwing back upon the Jews what, upon the principle of equity and justice, would equally belong to us Gentiles. . . . Ezek. 12:27, "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." . . .
3. I shall now show what is meant by "seven times," in the text.

1st. "Seven times," in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was fulfilled in seven years. Nebuchadnezzar,for his pride and arrogancy against God, was driven among the beasts of the field, and was made to eat grass as oxen, until seven times passed over him, and until he learned that the Most High ruled in the kingdoms of men, and gave it to whomsoever he would. This being a matter of history, and as an allegory or sample to the people of God for their pride and arrogancy, in refusing to be reformed by God, and claiming the power and will to do these things themselves, --they, too, like Nebuchadnezzar, must be driven among the beasts of the field, (meaning the kingdoms of the world,) until they learn the sovereignty of God, and that he dispenses his favors to whomsoever he will. That, being a matter of history, and a sample only, was fulfilled in seven years; but this, being a prophecy, will only be fulfilled in seven prophetic times, which will be 7 times 360 years, which will make 2520 years; for one half of 7 times, that is, 3 times and a half, is called, in Rev. 12:6, 1260 days, (fulfilled in so many years.) See also Rev. 12:14; 13:5. Forty-two months is the one half of 2520, for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, . . . And Ezekiel alludes to the same "seven times," Eze. 39:9,10, . . .
The proper question would now be, "When did those years begin?" I answer, They must have begun with the first captivity of the tribe of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in Babylon; for all the prophets agree in this thing, that Babylon would be the kingdom which would carry the Jews into captivity. . . .
Then, if Babylon was the nation which was to scatter the people of God, and this, too, in the days of Manasseh, I ask, When was this captivity? I answer, In the year 677 before Christ; see 2 Chron. 33:9-13; see also the Bible chronology of that event; this being the first captivity of Judah in Babylon. Then take 677 years, which were before Christ, from 2520 years, which includes the whole "seven times," or "seven years," prophetic, and the remainder will be 1843 after Christ; showing that the people of God will be gathered from among all nations, and the kingdom and greatness of the kingdom will be given to the saints of the Most High; . . .
 
 

Again, you take something I said about Russell's support for Second Adventism, claim it shows a lack of understanding, and then go on to only give evidence that what I said was correct. At least that's what it looks like on my first read of itI'm sure I could learn more about this topic, and if we discussed it, I'm sure you might even present some interesting details I could learn from. I appreciate this. But when you tell someone that "this just shows more of [my] lack of understanding" you shouldn't just provide material that shows I was right. If I'm going to learn anything from this, you have to provide something that makes a point that differs from what I said.
I was just about to return to the actual topic of how we currently defend 1975, but I do appreciate that you focused on one particular point where you say I was wrong. Since this is a point you seem sure about, I will go ahead and look at this point more closely and see if there might be something you have said that shows where I went wrong.

Yes. I remember when someone, I think it was Anne O'maly, once called your gibberish a "word salad." Evidently because you misunderstood the meaning of the term, I have seen you try to pin that label on the words of others several times since then. This is a small example of what I meant at one time when I spoke of the evidence for your "grudge echolalia." (Not a real psychological term, as far as I know.)
Just another empty claim. You never showed that anything I wrote was wrong. I already summarized what you did in the previous posts. In fact you provided some evidence that completely agreed with what I said. Also, I do not claim to be a Watchtower expert; I have an strong interest in our history, just as you evidently do. Our history contains many things to be proud of, and we can also learn how to avoid repeating some of the mistakes, so it seems a worthwhile pursuit.
In the next post, I'd like to get back to the topic.

This is true, and this is why I took it into account by explaining that this was the "general view" of those who closely followed Russell's own writings.
You have cherry-picked several of Russell's statements by the way, and then made false claims about what else he must have believed or not believed. Instead, you should be aware of everthing that he wrote about a subject before making such sweeping (false) claims. (example: " Therefore, the ONLY expectation Charles Taze Russell had for the year AD1914 was the conclusion of the “gentile times” that’s it.") I'm sure you are aware that anyone could open almost any of Watchtower volume from 1879 to 1914 and see 100 examples proving this statement false.
You have also taken some statements about Russellism and in defense of Russellism, and falsely claimed that these are my views.
He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.