ComfortMyPeople

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

Actually it's not a fantasy. It's the "now" that's the problem. No one can say "when" millions living will never die, but it's not a fantasy, as one day it will be a reality.

Heard anything from ANY platform?
Seen any evidence in ANY publication?
Know about any internal "reform" movement?
Heard about any Governing Body Member quitting in disgust?
I have not, to ANY of the above.
THAT'S how I know.
Hard evidence.

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

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

Often expressions such as “enduring these difficult times”  “enduring disappointment”  “ a sad year”  “hopes were dashed”  “time of test” and others  are used in conjunction with the disappointments of certain anticipated dates in WT history. As Proverbs 13:12 says: “Expectation postponed makes the heart sick”. These tests or disappointments were never caused by Jehovah of course, but man, specifically those who were in charge of giving food at the proper time. This brings me to a sobering thought; could this be tantamount to “beating their fellow slave” ?? (Matt. 24:29) Certainly not all of the time, but specifically at those times under discussion, and especially when this caused some to be stumbled.

You must be thinking of someone else. I think I know the incident you are thinking about but it's unrelated to Metzger. The WTS has come to appreciate Metzger now that they realize he is one of the most respected scholars who agrees with our take on the translation of all the questionable passages in the NT that are supposedly Trinitarian (except one). He is more recently referenced as a "Bible scholar" in the majority of cases, because he agrees with us in those cases. However, in those few cases where he disagrees, he is referenced in our publications as just a religious leader, trinitarian theologian, a seminary professor, and for some reason, even an "apostate" in one instance.
The closest thing to the example you speak of is the fact that Metzger took exception to the supposed criteria by which the NWT committee added the name "Jehovah" in several places in the NT where the Biblical manuscript evidence only uses kyrios (Lord). He pointed out at least one inconsistency, which indicated to him, that we were not really serious about our claimed criteria. So in 1960, someone representing his position asked a question about that point for the "Questions From Readers" article in the Watchtower:
*** w60 5/15 p. 318 Questions From Readers ***
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, a member of the faculty of Princeton, New Jersey, Theological Seminary, writes: “In the New World Translation it is stated (page 9 of New Testament volume), ‘To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.’ My question arises from the failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians 2:11, where the word kyrios, elsewhere rendered ‘Jehovah’ 237 times, is not rendered ‘Jehovah’ despite the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where the word Jehovah appears. Could it be that the Arian theology of the translators overrode their expressed rule of translating?” Do you deem this inquirer’s question deserving of a sound and thorough reply?—U.S.A. The reply was actually in some ways embarrassing in that it mostly avoided the question and seemed to pretend that the actual question was something else. The response even included the claim that it was Dr. Metzger who had selectively quoted the criteria from the foreword of the NWT. The response is mostly a complete repetition of the criteria that Metzger had already questioned thoroughly, but the WT implies that he hadn't even read the criteria:
If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the above volume through, then he should have learned on what basis the New World translators restored the divine name, Jehovah, to the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Beginning on page 19, he should have read the following: . . . . . . This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or of parts of them, have been made from the Greek into the ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew translators, including Professor Franz Delitzsch and also Dr. Isaac Salkinson and Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, used the name Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton (with vowel symbols) in translating the writings of Christ’s apostles and disciples, generally known as the New Testament.
What Metzger undoubtedly knew and what the WT QFT response avoids admitting is that these very nineteen translations sometimes provided "damning" evidence that proved Metzger's point. Some even put their representation of the "Tetragrammaton" at that very spot in Philippians, because (for the most part) these 19 translations were not some evidence of Hebrew-Greek scholarship.  Often they were just translations from Greek into Hebrew from Hebrew-speaking Trinitarian Christians who clearly wanted to make sure that Jesus was identified as the "replacement" of YHWH as Lord. At least one of those 19 translations was published by a "Trinitarian Bible Society."
----
Just an aside, but I just remembered. At Bethel, Brother Schroeder once saw me reading Bruce Metzger's "Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek." (I still have it, and still think it is the absolute best way to quickly gain NT Greek vocabulary.) He gave me some books to replace it with because he specifically said that "Metzger had attacked us."
 
 

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

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

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

NO  ONE !

Amen to that.
... but NO ONE at Warwick is !
NO ONE!

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

Yes, JW's most commonly mentioned such a reason (time distance) for evolution in human imperfection and increase in imperfection, with result in big wars, big evil and similar things as sign of last days.
I think that "increase in imperfection" not exist.  We can talking about "increase" of violence, of burglary in summer time, of hunger, of high pressure in people who living in towns ..... etc.
If Bible text said that in one particular day God throw out Adam and Eve from Eden with words of "curse" and how that make them "imperfect human" that can mean how in 1 second all have changed. To this moment you are perfect and from now on you are imperfect. Nothing about slow decrease in one characteristic and then slow increase in other characteristic. Killing is killing. No matter do you did this as perfect or imperfect human. Only increase, evolution, progress can be in methods and a means (knife or with Sonic weapon) of killing. With increase of population on Earth also goes increase of death.  Story abut Adam long life (and some other people in Genesis) that last for few centuries and how that means his/human slow decrease of perfection is something else. It is interesting that, as far as i know, Bible has no reports about how his long life looks in details and to tell us something about his decrease of mental, intellectual, spiritual and other features.

I think, if we talk about the amount, quantity of imperfection in a human, then it has nothing to do with some length in years (6000). The distance from Adam's point of perfection to today's man and our imperfection does not mean how with the years that pass from time point A to B (in our example 6,000 years) also increases human imperfections.
You are imperfect or not. You can not be more imperfect then you are. And also on other hand, if you or Adam  are perfect, you can not be more perfect then you are.
I am not talking about some skill that we improves with time. And in this case of issue about skill, we can ask; if you are perfect, does this means that all your skills are perfect? Does that means that your perfect skill will be more perfect after 10000 years? On other side if you are imperfect and if you have enough practice and talent your skill will be better, will be "perfect" in some point of time but only to some "highest" point that your imperfect perfection can reach. So, logic how with with the passing of time imperfect human/people become even more imperfect not sound reasonable to me.
People proved how they made some progress in all segments of life. Question that rises is, in what direction we going and using what we know and have. Perfect devil and perfect Adam and Eve proved that "perfection" are not guarantee for perfect life and all what that suppose to be. Knowledge that was "unknown" to first human, and ability to "differentiate" what is "good and bad" was became possible to them and people after them, only latter, after  they took the  fruit. So, we now  have that sort of knowledge too, what is good and what is bad. With or without Bible. Because Genesis said ,And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." 
Well, as far as i can see now, our increasing or decreasing in something have some connection with time but not in the religious sense that JWorg explains why mankind  imperfection are bigger today then before and why we are in situation that we have now.   

 

The daily text example was not as much of an echo of the "6,000 year" doctrine as other examples have been. But it's still not hard to see how so many of the references to and emphasis on 6,000 years still reverberates from the old 1975 issue.
For one thing, we could compare it with another time expression: such as "2,000 years" ago. We know that this expression must be used a lot because there there are dozens of reasons to use this particular time expression, not just two or three with reference to "6,000 years" ago. It might be used when referring to the birth, life, ministry, words, death and resurrection of Jesus, or the time of the apostles and other Bible writers, or the completion of the Bible itself, or the age of the oldest known extant texts of the Bible, such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls."
If we look at the Watchtower Library "DVD," which is now a free 2GB download from jw.org, we can see something interesting. Just look up the quoted phrases "6,000 years" and "six thousand years" and then compare this to "2,000 years" and "two thousand years." A quick click-through survey of a hundred or more examples of each tells a very interesting story. Over a long period, we get almost the same number of results for 6,000 years as we do for 2,000 years, but with much more consistent content in the 6,000 years examples. (Most of the 2,000 year examples are not specifically about Jesus, but about age of dead sea scrolls, when Paul wrote a specific verse, or the completion of the Bible canon.)
But we can probably boil it down to the essence by looking at the numbers of references to each expression from the years 1968 to 1976, when it was NOT equal and we can pretty much know the reason for this without even looking.
  6,000 yr 2,000 yr 1968 21 4 1969 16 5 1970 12 5 1971 6 1 1972 10 2 1973 7 3 1974 13 1 1975 22 7 1976 13 2
Now for just a few more recent examples:
*** w18 January p. 26 par. 19 What Kind of Love Brings True Happiness? ***
19 After some 6,000 years of human misery, Satan’s world is coming to its end. *** w12 9/15 Peace for a Thousand Years—And Beyond! ***
[Study Questions]
1. What exciting prospect awaits the “great crowd”?
2. What have humans experienced during the past 6,000 years?
3. What will the Thousand Year Reign bring about?
*** ws12 10/15 pp. 15-16 par. 2 Obey God and Benefit From His Sworn Promises ***
The Bible does not tell us exactly when it started. But we know that it started sometime after Adam’s wife, Eve, was created about 6,000 years ago. The thousand years of Christ’s reign will soon begin, and during this time God will fulfill his purpose for the earth. God wants the earth to be a paradise where perfect humans can live forever. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Revelation 20:6) You can be sure that you can have that happy future! “God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred.” This was a promise that no matter what happened, God would make sure that his purpose would come true by the end of his rest day. *** w10 1/15 p. 32 par. 18 Jehovah’s Way of Ruling Vindicated! ***
And consider, Satan has been causing harm for some 6,000 years, but God, through Christ, will undo all that harm within 1,000 years! Many of the other dozens of references also mention that we've had six thousand years of human rule and therefore it's time for Christ's rule. True statement, but the connection of six thousand and one thousand recurs more often than not.
What we do less of now is taking our supposed knowledge to the level of just showing off. We have no idea if our promoted chronology is exactly correct, and we know for a fact that most of the years through the Neo-Babylonian period do not match any of the evidence. Yet we would say things like this:
*** w89 8/1 p. 10 par. 2 God Purposes That Man Enjoy Life in Paradise ***
This occurred some 6,000 years ago, in the year 4,026 before our Common Era, according to the count of time given in the Holy Bible. It occurred in the land area of what is today known as Turkey, or in the southwestern part of what is now called Asia, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Euphrates River and the Tigris River, and thus in the northern half of our earthly globe. The time would be about October 1, since mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time near that date. Really? October 1st? This is what I meant by "gnosis" or "falsely called knowledge." We don't really know if 4026 BCE is right, much less October 1.
This itself echoes the presumptuous way that the earlier Watch Tower publications speak of chronology, such as in the May 1881 issue referred to recently:
The favor of the present (and which we believe will end in October, 1881) is not to the nominal church but to individuals in her, that they may come out and receive the present Lord. . . . Now, it was on the strength of this prophetic "shadow"which shows that the "door" would not close until this fall, that we said, the living would not be changed before that time. As to when our change is due we can only say: To our understanding it will be due at any time after October 2nd, 1881 . . .  Really? Not a minute before October 2nd? 
*** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended. Jehovah God did not then set up at earthly Jerusalem “Jehovah’s throne” for an earthly heir of King David to occupy it, thus reviving the typical earthly kingdom of God. *** w75 11/1 p. 661 par. 15 The Time for Choosing God as Sovereign ***
since the year 1914 C.E. In that year “the times of the Gentiles,” or, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended about October 4/5, when counted from the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah by the Babylonians in the year 607 B.C.E. Really? October 4/5, 1914 was 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem? We can't even find evidence for the year 607 B.C.E. and yet we want to put a specific day which happens not to even coincide with Jerusalem's destruction, where all the known evidence, Biblical and secular, points to the summer of about 587 B.C.E.
 

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

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

I guess it depends on how seriously we consider "honesty" and "truth" to be in our teaching:
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. (Philippians 4:-8) .5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. . . . 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, . . . continue considering these things. (Proverbs 14:25) . . .A true witness saves lives,. . .
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, . . .  and they are subverting the faith of some.
(James 3:1-5) 3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. . . . . 5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze!
(John 4:22-24) . . .. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
(John 14:15-17) . . .. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(Psalm 40:10, 11) . . .I do not hide your loyal love and your truth in the great congregation.” 11 O Jehovah, do not withhold your mercy from me. May your loyal love and your truth constantly safeguard me.
(Psalm 51:6)  6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person; Teach my innermost self true wisdom.
If a person is stating something that's untrue, then, yes, it's true that they might just be stating a falsehood that they believe to be true. But in that case what is the reason for the lack of care, the lack of attempted verification, the reason for the willingness to believe something false when it often would have been no trouble at all to make a true statement in its place. Is there a motive that tends to make someone blame others when they themselves are to blame? Is there a motive for a string of repeated falsehoods, even when the person believed each falsehood to be true at the time. Should we learn from our mistakes? Is it worse if the promoter of their own private interpretations of scripture is forced to defend against clear scriptural counsel in order to continue promoting a private interpretation of scripture.
If this type of dishonesty keeps happening, even though it requires kicking against the goads, then there is likely a problem worth looking into.
 

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

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

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.
Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:
Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:
This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh. We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change. [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]
There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.
Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:
The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.
Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!
The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?
 

Fred Franz was called the "Oracle" even while I was there at Bethel, although it was with the utmost respect until about 1978 when I first heard it used sarcastically. His very odd demeanor, and his own sarcastic and pontificating haughty manner, made him considered to be the channel of all "new truths" at the time. Knorr deferred to him to write his speeches. No "deep" book on prophecy could be written by anyone else even long after the failure of 1975 was obvious. No one would write on any prophetic subject (OT prophecy or Revelation) of any length without using Franz' previous writing as a basis. No one has really tried to replace "Revelation  - Its Grand Climax at Hand" yet, and it's going on 30 years since he died.
I worked directly with (for) Brother Schroeder when he as good as admitted that he wanted to be the next Fred Franz, assuming Fred Franz did not outlive him. Of course, that meant removing Raymond Franz who was the obvious but unassuming heir apparent. He privately expressed jealousy that Raymond Franz had worked on the Aid book. Schroeder tried his hand at coming up with "new truths" when he went abroad, especially his yearly trips to Europe. He came up with several ideas that would have been considered apostasy if promoted by anyone else, and nearly got in big trouble himself. He looked for areas where he could make his mark that he was "like" Fred Franz.
I don't know him, but I think there is talk that Brother Splane should now be seen as the primary one who needs to approve prophetic explanations. But fortunately it does not seem like he is involved exclusively as Fred Franz was. The committee is much safer.

True, but they were not even candid about this until 1988. The "candid" letter of 1977 never even mentioned "some Bible teachers."
It was quite similar to the counsel the previous year:
*** w76 7/15 p. 440 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
BE CAREFUL TO KEEP A BALANCED VIEW 10 Jehovah’s word or message is true when it speaks about our entering into God’s rest now and remaining in it through the “great tribulation,” after which Christ’s thousand-year reign will transform the earth into a paradise garden. God’s word is indeed ‘sharp like a two-edged sword.’ It will show what we really are, revealing what our thoughts and the intentions of our heart are. Are we serving Jehovah God because we love him, trust him and have full confidence in what he says? Or are we ‘becoming weary in well-doing,’ looking for a certain date primarily as bringing a relief to ourselves, with little concern for the lives of other people? (Gal. 6:9) Are we appreciative of all the good things we have had from Jehovah and from association with his people? Have not the things we have learned helped us in our family lives? Do we not love the many genuine friends we have now gained as a result of knowing the truth?—Mark 10:29, 30. 11 It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to a mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible’s warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date. 12 What do Jesus’ own words show concerning the proper attitude as to the end—to look for a date, or what? He said: “Pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you as a snare. For it will come in upon all those dwelling upon the face of all the earth. Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that are destined to occur, and in standing before the Son of man.”—Luke 21:34-36. 13 Did Jesus mean that we should adjust our financial and secular affairs so that our resources would just carry us to a certain date that we might think marks the end? If our house is suffering serious deterioration, should we let it go, on the assumption that we would need it only a few months longer? Or, if someone in the family possibly needs special medical care, should we say, ‘Well, we’ll put it off because the time is so near for this system of things to go’? This is not the kind of thinking that Jesus advised. It was blamed on the selfishness of brothers looking for their own relief, some who had a mistaken view, but these "some" people obviously missed the point of the Bible's warnings due to their own "thinking" that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.
This is why I brought up the question of "honesty" in the title of another 1975 topic. Because the Society was willing to conceal their own responsibility for several years, evidently to avoid embarrassment, many brothers were very quick to follow their lead and also avoid embarrassment, claiming that they were never fooled into such wrong thinking. I noticed that by 1977, even brothers who cashed in insurance policies, put off dental work, went into debt, and even some who sold their houses in 1973 through 1975 quickly claimed that they never bought into all that talk about 1975. Within a few short years after 1980, I heard brothers begin claiming that there never was a 1975 problem except for just a few disgruntled brothers and ex-brothers who had been serving Jehovah with a date in mind. Even now, I have very close Witness relatives in responsible positions who lived through it but now believe that the Society "never really said anything about 1975," and that it was started by some of the brothers on their own.