Foreigner

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.
Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:
I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

It is impossible to even fathom how God operates. One thing is sure; He has the power and the desire to fulfill his purpose.  He can do it anyway he wants, and in his superlative wisdom he knows the best way. I cannot deny that He probably works some type of miracles today, but I cannot see how he would single out certain individuals because he thinks their life has more value than another person’s life. The only factor that may play a part is if that certain person has a role in fulfilling his purpose. The person himself will not even be aware of that. But whether Jehovah protects someone because of a role they play in fulfilling his purpose, or does not protect someone because they have a less important role, eventually both persons will gain everlasting life.  So the reward  will be the same for both. And another factor to think about (and I think it has already been mentioned)  is if Jehovah would protect individuals serving him, then Satan’s challenge he raised with Job would have no meaning.  So I am usually pretty sceptical when it comes to claims that Jehovah stepped in and saved someone.  Anyone can claim that, but that doesn’t make it true. I have already shared this story on here somewhere, but it’s relevant so I will mention it again: A while ago a sister, a Bethelite, was walking back to the Bethel from having been out in service all day when someone grabbed her from behind, stabbed her in the neck and ran off with her handbag.  The surgeons were amazed and said that the chance of the blade missing her jugular was almost zero. They told her she was lucky to be alive. This sister (and others) believes Jehovah saved her, by making the blade miss the jugular. Personally, I believe it was chance. But I cannot deny that if Jehovah had wanted to, he could have of course. This sister works in the translating department, so she plays quite an important role. So did Jehovah “save” her because of her role? And had she worked as a housekeeper, would he have allowed her to get killed? Housekeepers are a dime a dozen, good translators are not.  But then Jehovah could bring in a replacement couldn’t he? So where would the line be drawn with regard to “interfering” in man’s affairs, and putting a "protective fence around his people"?
All good things come from God. But they may not always be directly caused by God.  People can do good deeds by themselves, because that is an innate trait created in them by Jehovah when he created man in his image.  We should give thanks to God for every good thing, so there is nothing wrong with this sister thanking Jehovah, even if Jehovah may have had nothing to do with it.
Also, as JW Insider pointed out, many people who believe in God also attribute apparent miracles to Him. If the sister had been a Catholic lady walking to her church, no doubt she would have also attributed this “miracle” to God.
But as @Srecko Sostar mentioned "time and chance happens to them all". Some for better and some for worse.

I believe the substantiated evidence comes from your personal thoughts and rhetoric. Unless you are blind to your own words, there’s no further need to share the evidence that is before you. If you want to justify the means, that’s not a defense from your conduct unbecoming a Christian. Philippians 1:27
Referring to the same obsession you have about Fred. How does the same type of obsession work? Fred’s obsession as you call it was for the 6000 years. What is your obsession against Fred? Romans 8:6-16
How do you see the many thousands that continued to college after high school at that time? Witnesses were encouraged to seek first the kingdom of God. This has always been a calling from the Watchtower. Should we think any less of those that went to college? Should we be thinking any less of those that decided not to be part of Bethel? It seems you harbor some kind of resentment for not having pursued a different course in your life you clearly hoped you had, instead of having spent time pioneering and spending time at Bethel. That shows more about your character, with personal ambition.
If you think you lost out on something, it was never too late to attend college or some type of vocational to earn a better skill, and better pay if you’re into materialism.  I entered college in my 30’s. So, don’t blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions you have made throughout your life.
Hebrews 13:5 New International Version (NIV)
5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,
“Never will I leave you;
    never will I forsake you.
I have a college degree, but I guarantee you, I live a poorer life than you. Therefore, a piece of paper shouldn't make or break a person.
How different was that with Raymond that thought the same way? Fred believed he could handle the responsibility given him. I wouldn’t characterize him as negative as you make him out to be, and evil self-righteous individual, but some of us knew Fred in a personal level. I will be the first to dispute your character assassination attempt. Proverbs 26:24-25, Ephesians 4:29-32
Once again, this says more about you than those you have disdain for since the subject about administrative responsibilities were for maintaining spiritual food. The process is the same even though it has changed from a presidency to the governing body. As president Fred still delegated certain responsibilities to others. No different from today.
Wasn’t he referring to the first century governing bodies that didn’t think about sending out people to teach Christ gospel?  What part of that is false? Remember don’t confuse the objective.
It appears you are reading too much into the article. There is nothing between the lines. You misread your own tea leaves. That doesn’t help your cause just like it doesn’t help the cause, coming from apostates.
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
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 that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years 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.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!
Wasn’t that the same assumption apostate’s use for Pastor Russell? That he, in a subtle way was saying the end of the world would come in 1914 when he never directly or indirectly made that claim. It was a wait and see. That’s always been a Christian view for staying alert to the signs. 1975 just happen to be just another sign of how humanity would become worse if God was resting. What part of humanity increasing lawlessness, corruption, frequent natural disaster, economy, etc. isn't a sign? Matthew 24:42-43
 
I suppose you believe the accounts of Genesis is unscriptural. I guess the words of the psalmist, and Peter is unscriptural and false as well. When did God give you this new light that we should add to scripture with your understanding? Or is it just a problem you have with a fellow Christian that makes it unchristian to harbor such ideology among Christians.
Perhaps you had more loyalty to Raymond, but once again you are simply using conjecture to justify your behavior. This obsession with Fred’s obsession about 1975 was to confirm the theory of the 6000 years, not the end of the world, as you speculate indirectly. Whatever, was going on in the minds of your parents and your own, should have been on how to best serve Jehovah, since, if the 6000 years was a true indicator of worse thing to come, it would be better to serve as righteous people than to allow the deteriorating conditions soon to follow, distract us from our mission. If millions understood, why, should the actions of a few be exalted?
Titus 3:3-7 New International Version (NIV)
3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
Therefore, there is still no justification you can offer for your attitude and responsibility. This bears witness on how careless your words have been.
However, it is pointless to argue an account with a closed mind. A person that has already become a judge. Romans 14:10

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you.
I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

word. This is not a classroom and you are not a teacher to correct. If anything, correct your own mistakes first, just like it states in scripture.

Matthew 7:5

5You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Your behavior is a subtle way of poking fun at people you want to quietly want to degrade. My evidence was to prove your own fallacy. We should always keep an eye on the prize no matter what. Philippians 3. If God doesn’t reveal something to us, it’s because we have become unworthy. Then it becomes as Jesus stated in Matthew 22.

How do we know they were? You have a point, since an anointing is usually a private thing between God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the person.
 Truthfully, I can't say, although I believe many/most were not anointed.  That day a big deal was made about who were anointed.  Just think of how many followers Christ had in the days that he chose the small group that he did.  They were baptized, but not anointed.
But, here is more about the event surrounding the Pentacost:
 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.  Acts 2:12-16
Many believers of Christ did the same thing, but again, they were not chosen to receive an anointing – just the apostles at that time.
If the Father is the God of the living, (Luke 20:38) which includes all of Abraham’s seed, how do we learn to be among the living if we don’t follow Christ’s teachings, including the teachings about the anointed who will serve the needs of God’s children in the Kingdom? 
If we were to learn about the general curriculum necessary for someone to become a specialized doctor, would it help us if we have to visit one of them?  I think so.  Learning about them is a curriculum in itself, that can be advantageous when we need their help, and it may give us insight on their credibility. 
Understanding the anointed, and the help they are to give those not anointed is really what it’s all about – how they will become approved to serve as “New Jerusalem” bringing living sustenance from God, to all who are among the living.    It is also to our advantage if we want to be among the living, to use Jesus’ teaching points, as well as those of the apostles, to help us spot the false teachers; the ones that go astray and deviate from Jesus Christ. 
So, the Bible is written for everyone who desires to gain eternal life.  We all must turn to Christ to receive it.     Here are a few more scriptures that include those believers not anointed:  Heb 6:10; 1 Cor 1:2; Matt 25:37-40
 
 

Each one will carry his own load. I don't feel any remorse or bad feeling toward the Watchtower for recommending that I quit school to pioneer. I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of full-time service and am very thankful for the experiences it afforded, too. My parents even sold their house just before 1975 so that my father could spend more time closer to a newly formed congregation and my mother could pioneer, too. By then I was living 100 miles away because I had just turned 18, so having two out of three kids out of the house might have influenced the decision as much or more than 1975, but it was on their mind. 
I do think that persons like R.Franz should have done more to curb the influence of F.Franz in what I think was his obsession with 1975. The way R.Franz tells it, it was several people who knew better, but didn't do much about it.

As a christened "oracle" (by Karl Klein), his words were not those of God, although leading millions as though they were; like you said, as “truth”. 
Someone who had an extraordinarily dark relationship with Franz as a girl, and who's story would most likely never be accepted as reality by JWs, said that he kept a deck of tarot cards in his desk.  It is speculation on my part, but perhaps Mr. Klein also saw the cards, which contributed to calling Franz the “oracle”.   
Nourishing spiritual food?  Not at all.  Isa 8:19-22

It's not a lesson to me, because I have always known this. I have never claimed to write any better than anyone else. I only asked about the meaning of a word that I assumed might have been used correctly, but which didn't make much sense in context. Anytime someone asks what someone meant, it's the same as asking about the meaning of word(s) used. No reason to get angry just because someone asks what you mean. I welcome it when someone asks me what I mean, and I welcome it when someone points out my mistakes.
Also quite different from you, I don't consider bad spelling and grammar to be any kind of "fail" on your part, my part, or for anyone else. That's why you don't see me degrading others, or making fun of grammar or bad spelling. In this case I really wondered what actual meaning was intended in the several recent instances of that particular word I asked about. I also knew why you might seem sensitive about it, but I also really wanted to know what you meant.
I know how important it might be to impute wrong motives to me. But if you think you know something different, why not share evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations?
It's another example of Fred Franz' obsession with 1975 and something akin to numerology.
You're right. I did learn something from that. Curious too that, before I knew about that Canadian incident, I had already expressed concern that the recent videos being shown with the guns and hiding in rooms could have an unpredictable effect on some Witnesses.
Interesting. Do you have evidence?
I never saw "hysteria" anywhere. Just a lot of serious people who seriously believed that the period around 1975 was destined to be a very important date related to the time of the end. By serious, I mean they truly believed, but they were also happy about it. I was also both happy and serious about it too. My parents were different as to how they took the predictions about the 1970s, but circuit overseers were encouraging quitting school to pioneer, and I quit school at 15 (1973) to do just that. Naturally, I discussed that plan with my parents in 1972, but was asked to finish out my high school "sophomore" year. My mother liked the idea that it could be as early as 1974, because that would allow for a lot of growth from the increased activity, but it would still come at an hour we were not expecting it. My father was more like: 'It could come anytime between now (1972) and the end of the 80s, picking the 80s because he didn't see world conditions lasting much beyond that. (As the 80s approached he was quick to pick up on some of that "end of the century" talk, always tending to push the end out about 15 years.)
My mother surprised me yesterday because she said I might want to wait until I'm 67 to collect Social Security instead of collecting when I turn 62. I didn't say anything, but thought: "Wow!! What a difference half-a-century makes!!"
I have Penton's book, but must admit that I haven't read even a quarter of it yet. Is that where your evidence of Canadian hysteria comes from?
I think you are referring to F.Franz Gilead talk. If you listened to it you would see that he said it was Knorr himself who came up with the idea of the School of Gilead to send out evangelizers, and it was Knorr himself who sent out these first missionaries under the direction of the Watchtower Society. He didn't need a committee to approve. He was, as F.Franz said in the talk, NOT just a figurehead, he was NOT a "do-nothing President." F.Franz considered a president getting direction from a committee, to be the equivalent of the "tail wagging the dog." (He didn't use that expression in the same Gilead talk, but it was implied.)
I think you might be saying that just like Jesus sent out the 70 instead of the unapproved leaders, that the WTBTS or GB or FDS can just as easily represent the approved leaders who send out true missionaries as opposed to the unapproved leaders of Christendom. That might be a true statement, but it was not what F.Franz had in mind when he made it clear that no "ecclesiastical body" should have that responsibility. He made it clear that he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. I don't think it was lost on some in the audience that F.Franz knew his time in that office of president would be just a few months away. 
Yes, you're right; he was correct in saying that. It was his rant against governing bodies (and committees) that seemed out of place, even though he used plenty of scriptures to back it up. He showed how even the apostolic body in Jerusalem was not a centralized body acting in the capacity to send out missionaries.
No. It doesn't. In fact that was one of the most ambiguous passages in that May 1, 1968 Watchtower about 1975, when it said "1975! And Beyond."  It stated that perhaps some can't see beyond 1975, but Witnesses should see ourselves continuing right on into a new system. These were very carefully crafted words.
I recalled the date problem in the Russell story of his announcement of the "end of the Gentile Times" and it reminded me that F.Franz used this opportunity to also announce the "end of the 6th 1,000 year day in the 7th 7,000 year creative day. His, as I recall, also produces a date problem. But it was to show that he was still obsessed with the unscriptural doctrine of the 6,000 years being significant. It is against scripture in that it's based on the idea that either Jesus and the angels either can't count, or this scripture is false:
Matthew 24:36  “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

That’s good you see your grammar mistakes in order to stop your attempts of degrading others as well as their word usage even if it’s a common word. You don’t have control over certain words to make nonsensical corrections. Let that be a listen to you, that we are all imperfect and your writings skill “fail” just like the rest of us.
 


Then I would have to say not only are you lying to others, your lying to yourself. This is a good example of not trusting you as a man.
Especially when you forced yourself to come to the wrong conclusion by your expressed statement about quietly criticizing Fred Franz a man you obviously never really knew, but through some interviews and Watchtower publications you clearly distort.

What does the *** w75 11/1 p. 671 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work ***

Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work

What does the 59th Gilead class have to do with some witnesses failing to understand what was really happening in 1975? I hope you have personal experience with living that year as many of us did. It was even brought up in the congregation just last week, and it’s on video on how some mistakenly took the value and significance of 1975.

Perhaps you could have learned something when the same kind of hysteria was shown by some delusional witnesses in Canada last year. That type of hysteria also started in Canada for 1975 end of the world nonsense.

What people should really look at is the motive of certain people like this apostate M. James Penton that could have curved the misinformation but instead kept quiet to make it a talking point in his book, apocalypse delayed. The same kind of distorted rhetoric offered by Raymond Franz.


 
A personal friend turned missionary in central America was encouraged to maintain their due course to continue their fine works given them through the Holy Spirit instead of thinking it was a directive coming from the Watchtower headquarters.
There’s nothing wrong to give the same illustration given by Jesus action to send people out to evangelize through him and not the high priest that new the laws but didn’t practice what they preached.

Luke 10:1-23 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.


 
That is an inconclusive argument in your part to show bias, not actual wisdom since the Watchtower does adhere to the inspired word.

Therefore, Fred Franz was correct is saying Jesus had their back and support. Its written in scripture for those who dedicate their lives to God through the true gospel of Christ.

Romans 12 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

Dedicate Your Lives to God

12 Brothers and sisters, in view of all we have just shared about God’s compassion, I encourage you to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, dedicated to God and pleasing to him. This kind of worship is appropriate for you. 2 Don’t become like the people of this world. Instead, change the way you think. Then you will always be able to determine what God really wants—what is good, pleasing, and perfect.

With your illustration, it is more evident, the Watchtower expectation went beyond 1975. Therefore, the evidence itself contradicts your claim and argument.

Now with your rambling on with CTR, I fail to see what the “end of the gentile times” in 1914 have to do with obscuring the year 1975 by some that didn’t understand the 6000 years.

Once again, by your insinuation, you hold the Watchtower personally responsible for the lack of understanding some had, apparently along with your view.

CTR had a presence of mind to understand what 1914 held with the enthronement of Christ as king in the heavens. He had no other expectation by his writings. So their early expectation about the 6000 years was 1873, not 1975. However, there are still some competing thoughts by the Bible Students as to the 6000 years. Redeker still holds the position of 1873 while other Bible Students have changed their chronology to 2043AD. None of which belong to the Jehovah’s witnesses understanding of 1975.

Well, now, the Lord may have something of that character for us, and for all I know the Church may be here during that time of trouble or during a portion of that time of trouble. There is nothing in the Bible that says just as soon as the Gentile times are ended all the Church will be glorified. The Church may be here after the trouble is begun, perhaps. Perhaps. It is possible. We'll see. And we'll be content whatever we see, won't we! That is the situation, dear friends! "Content, whatever lot I see, since 'tis my God that leadeth me." Could we be otherwise than content with God's leading? We may be sure that all the leadings of our Heavenly Father and of our Heavenly Lord will all be for good, that we will have every reason to enjoy His leadings.

This shows you are combining to separate understandings to fabricate an unconscionable situation. I believe, Raymond called it a crisis even though he created that crisis by his erred understanding. He shoulda stuck with the truth instead of listening to a failed man’s treatise, only to ruin his heavenly hope.


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17703483 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/24/teenagers-generation-in-crisis

It would stand to reason that after 1975 6000 years if humanity would be entering into the 7th day when God rested, there would be evidence of, more chaos. I believe humanity has proven that point and has not disappointed a true chronologist.

LOL. Thanks.  It wasn't by choice, and it's not the first time I have typed "every" for "ever." Among a lot of other mistakes I make is a common one for me where I type "Babylong" for "Babylon" and "imaging" for "imagine." Unfortunately the built in spell-check here will only flag the "Babylong" error.
And for some reason I almost always type "it's" even when it's "its." Another one that rarely gets flagged, so I often neglect to change it.

Perhaps it's misguided, but it's a view from "Witness" that I agree with 100 percent.
Fred Franz was very intelligent, of course. But when I recorded two interviews with him for over an hour each, I was forced to come to my own conclusions about him based on the content of things he said, and certain expressions he used.
I think most of what you need to know about him comes from his September 1975 Gilead Talk which I have already linked to in the past. I'm not talking about his argument against an active Governing Body that would form a committee, or ecclesiastical body of some kind, although even that says something that he would use that opportunity for a political speech directed at the other members of the Governing Body disguised only slightly by working in some awkward references to the Gilead students. (Like, 'And don't you get the idea that you need to form committees in the countries to which you have been assigned!')
The Watchtower summarized his talk with only vague references to what it was really about:
*** w75 11/1 p. 672 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work ***
Addressing the graduates, F. W. Franz showed why they were not being sent by any ecclesiastical body such as exists in the churches of Christendom. According to the Scriptures, neither Philip nor the apostle Paul, two outstanding evangelizers or missionaries in the first century C.E., received missionary assignments from the apostolic body at Jerusalem. Both men did their work under the direction of the real head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. Paul had, in fact, been directly chosen by Jesus as an apostle to the nations. Later, at the direction of God’s spirit, Paul and his companion Barnabas were sent out from the Antioch congregation. Both men recognized their assignment as having come, not from men, but from Jesus Christ.
I'm referring more to his comments about 1975 in that same talk. The typical anti-JW sites, usually cut off the talk before he gets to these comments because those sites are more concerned with his views against the Governing Body. But I'm sure you can find the whole talk somewhere. It's what he says after he pulls out his Jewish calendar to show how it was now the 2nd day of Tishri 1976, and therefore now, "the 2nd day of the 7th millennium of man's existence here on earth." That statement got what sounded like the biggest cheer of the talk.
I don't know if he intended it, but it recalled the day that C.T.Russell came down to the dining room on October 1st, 1914 per the Watchtower of that time period (and later changed to October 4th, and currently stated as October 2nd) to announce that the 'Gentile Times have ended!'  F.Franz then rambled on about some wonderful, "startling, surprising, happifying things" of numerical significance, since this was the 59th Class, meaning that the 60th was about to start later that year, and "60" should remind us that 6,000 years is 60 centuries. Isn't that amazing!?!?! That this class 59 was only one number away from 60, which somehow gave new significance to 1975.
If you pay close attention to his books on Daniel's prophecy (and others) you will see some of the same types of unspiritual thinking.  For me, F.Franz proved to be a prime example of why we should not put our trust in a man:
(Psalm 146:3) . . . Do not put your trust in . . . a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
 

Perhaps someday you should pay “close” attention to your own words to find the same deception you think Fred Franz was offering without clinging to the word “assumption” to make your case about 1975, "while not quite saying it."
Upvoting what is clearly a misguided view by “witness” understanding just made my case stand on solid ground. If no one has ever asked you to resign, let me be the first to offer it.
It is better to have never known righteousness. 2 Peter 2:22
You already have everything in common with Srecko, Bulter, witness and all that oppose the Org. Being lukewarm for the sake of fear is no defense.
 
by the way "fact that he never every claimed" your choice of grammar here makes no sense.
 

Reading that W/t,  Paragraph 10  contradiction by GB against God's word.
As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie. Just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.”  1 John 2 v 27
But GB says in Watchtower  "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." 
Look at the scripture they are using,  and you do not need anyone to be teaching you;
Complete contradiction of God's word. 

On this particular matter anyway. The next line after Prov 3:5,6 is verse 7: "Do not become wise in your own eyes." I think that the majority of witnesses back in the 1970's were already aware that any discussion of prophetic books or chronology was always written by him or was a repetition of ideas he had already written. This goes all the way back to discussions of every Bible book or passage that touched on prophecy since 1942. In the 1968 Watchtower he was actually arguing against points he himself had made in 1955. But books and articles on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelation, Daniel, Haggai, etc., along with obscure meanings of Jesus' parables were all from him, and except for his own changes, no one else dared "mess" with those explanations until he died.
These interpretations of prophecy, also, were not written in such a way that they were open to questioning. There was one explanation and it was "the truth" until he changed it.

Isa 55:8,9; Num 23:19
Fred Franz had more faith in himself, than in God.  Prov 3:5,6

John 10:16 
  New International Version
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.   NWT “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;n those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.   This does show a distinction. It shows that Jesus was only talking to the Anointed.    @Anna Quote " I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. "   You make this statement with nothing to back it up. I've asked you for scriptural backing and you refuse to give any. You do not even quote which W/T it came from. Maybe it just came from 'your own mind' ?    I at least have given a scripture which proves that Jesus was talking to the Anointed only. He said 'other sheep' and said 'those too', meaning a different type of sheep / people. 

It's not about partiality, it's about position and responsibility.  
A manager would use a foreman / chargehand to give instruction to the workers, but the manager may like the workers as much as the manager likes the foreman / chargehand.. However the foreman / chargehand would have a higher position within the company than the workers would... 
 

I'm saying that all the argumentation was put to use in order to counter the cautionary statements, even cautionary statements of Jesus himself. And look at the expressions and how carefully they were crafted to come as close as possible to saying what people were admittedly thinking. And they were encouraged to think that these conclusions were the ones that God would consider the most appropriate and most fitting and the one that would best fit his loving purpose. Note the question at the bottom of the page for this paragraph in "Life Everlasting:"
30  LIFE EVERLASTING-IN FREEDOM OF THE SONS OF GOD
43 HOW appropriate it would be for Jehovah God
to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand
years a sabbath period of rest and release,
a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of
liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!
This would be most timely for mankind. It would
also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember,
mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book
of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus
Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial
reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ,
when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning
himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is
what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:s) It
would not be by mere chance or accident but
would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah
God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the
"Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man's existence.
--------
43. What act on God's part would be most timely for mankind
and most fitting in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose?

The answer obviously is that it would be most fitting for God to make this upcoming 7th period of 1,000 years to be the start of the millennial reign of Christ.
Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?
It's also pretty clear from this "hubris" why Frederick Franz was sometimes called "the Oracle." This is an expression I heard myself more than once.

You are asking how I could say that F.Franz was using deception to get people to think he was saying something he wasn't really saying. And you want to know how, if that was true, I could also say that:
Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting -- In Freedom of the Sons of God.")
Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it."
This is exactly why I said what I did. He knew the assumption that was being made by his listeners. He was creating that assumption by coming as close to saying it without quite saying it. But he would never endorse that assumption. He was not dumb. Far from it. He heard how the audience was laughing and applauding, just as he had heard how the Service Department was responding with statements in the KM about how we might have only have a few short months left, and that it is heart-warming to hear of people selling their homes to spend the rest of this system in the pioneer work. He knew what District and Circuit Overseers were saying about how, if you read the Watchtower carefully, you know what they are really trying to say. "Stay Alive Until '75!" In fact, he knew that this was exactly what people were saying in the 1920s: "Stay Alive Until 1925!"
He knew what people were thinking because he admitted he knew --in the same talk. So he gets the big laugh by talking about all the things that MIGHT happen in 1975, and then adding "but we're not saying." When he says 'and don't any of you go saying' he can tell by the laughter and applause that they are taking it as if they have some secret information that they know because they are entitled to know, but not the rest of the world.
It actually would have been very easy to clarify, but he never did. And I realized that everything he was saying in that talk could be understood ambiguously, and I think this is the same "game" he was playing way back in 1968. For example, he knew that people would be saying: "But what about the scripture where Jesus said, no one knows the day or the hour." Circuit overseers would take this verse and comment, "Yes he said no one would know the day or the hour - but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" How had F.Franz handled it? He addressed that verse by saying that "now is not the time to be toying with that verse." What does that mean? Again, ambiguity:
*** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .
That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now. . .  it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes.
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
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”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?
When you make one or two ambiguous expression in the midst of 10 clear ones, it's understandable and you still have clarity. But when 8 out of 10 are ambiguous and only 2 shows clarity (by mentioning speculation, or possibilities). It's easy to reinterpret the clearer expressions about possibility into the ambiguous ones that can be interpreted as expressing a higher level of certainty and confidence.

There I gave you a smile. I thought you were funny. So don't cry Kid. 
The old saying, 'If you don't like the heat then stay out of the kitchen', comes to mind.
I give as good as I take from others, you included. I have no idea why you should let it bother you how I vote.  But if it gives you a reason to say something negative about me then I'm sure that makes you happy. 
I love you Kid. Because God's word tells us to love our enemies.  Matthew 5 v 44
Berean Study Bible
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. 

Let me take a stab at this. Your claim is you don't have any reservation on the validity of Fred Franz talk. You mention your proof is not the manipulated version that can be found in any apostate site, most common AD1914. It seems to be the favorite with a greater amount of lies and nonsense.
My question JWinsider, What did you mean by this statement, then?
"I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause."
 
What kind of a double standard are you claiming to have if the same result you think Fred was doing, you are doing also, meaning, being deceptive? Does this make sense with your updated explanation?
 
Where's this Allen Smith comments to get a fair perspective.

Not only did I emphatically state just the opposite about Fred Franz, I happened to be one here who exposed the apostate recording as a manipulated "fake" recording. But the recording I linked to is not manipulated. The recording does not show Fred Franz endorsing the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. It shows how he speaks in such a way that he repeatedly elicits the most vocal response from those who see that he is endorsing the closeness of the end to the year 1975, and even a remaining possibility for the year 1975, but never endorsing the assumption. It does create a deception. But there really is a difference.
Over time, I expect that all the emphasis on 1975 really did shift the focus away from that Adam-to-Even time gap, by minimizing it to a period of only weeks or months and not years. It must have been minimized almost into oblivion because before the year 1975 was even finished, there was suddenly a lot less talk about great urgency and heightened watchfulness. The convention talk titles show this. I just checked the Kingdom Ministry for the use of the word "urgency" for the decade of the 1970's. It was used ZERO times in 1976.
 
You would think, that if anyone still "believed" in the 6,000 year rhetoric after 1975 commenced without evidence, that the word urgency would have doubled and tripled right up through 1978 or even a bit further. But it drops to nearly nothing, in fact completely disappearing between August 1975 and December 1977. Disappearing for 28 months, and just as sparse until the decade of the 1970s runs out. 

Exact same thing that Allen Smith accused me of stating, too. It's still just as untrue. Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.") The Watchtower that same year said:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes.
But it was always more about the closeness to 1975, since 1975 marked the 6,000th year of that 7,000 year period. You might be aware that I've been consistent about that point all along on this forum. 1975 got emphasized because of that available point of measurement, yet it was NEVER stated that the world would end in 1975, nor that Armageddon or the end of this system would occur in that year. The point was that it MIGHT, which was a very true statement; we had no reason to believe it couldn't. And we had every reason to be extra alert because we were given many reasons to believe that the end of the system must have been about to occur, not necessarily in 1975, but at least in the decade of the 1970's. From just before the 1970's started, right up until early in the year 1975, the year was emphasized because it was "Biblical" date in a sense, but no one ever said that the end could not come before 1975, or even a few years after 1975.
Combined with our view of world events at the time, this made sense and many statements were made that would convince a normal person that Armageddon could come in 1975 or within a matter of months, not years, beyond 1975.
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
To a careful reader, this statement says that at the most we had about until October 1977 until we entered the last thousand years of that "rest period" which would (appropriately and lovingly and purposefully) run parallel with the thousand year reign of Christ. (Because after 1977 it would now no longer just be a measure of months, but years, in the plural, and we had just been told that it may be weeks or months, but NOT YEARS.) Then a small note in the same Watchtower reminded us that another factor might add or subtract 6 months to that limit. This could potentially have pushed that maximum limit out until April 1978. 
This explains why the talks, the Awake! and Watchtower magazine covers, Circuit Assembly lapel badge messages, and even Watchtower subscription campaigns (in the late 60s and early 70s) made several references to the "mid-70s," "the decade of the 1970's," "What will the 1970's bring?" "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" etc.
*** w71 9/15 p. 561 pars. 10-12 Set Apart from the World ***
With populations exploding all over the earth, many nations now stand at the brink of starvation, and disaster is predicted by experts for the mid-1970’s. Rather than fit in with political promises of a bright, materialistic tomorrow, this devastation on earth fits Jehovah’s prophecies on mankind’s waywardness in the “last days.” . . .  And now, as we enter the 1970’s, an astonishing picture presents itself.
*** w69 11/1 p. 668 How to Avoid Regrets ***
Just as we looked back over the past five years, let us look five years into the future. That will be the year 1974. What will we be regretting then? What are we doing right now, or failing to do now, that years from now we will wish we had done or had done differently? Jehovah has provided sufficient information so that we can definitely know the trend of future events. His Word reveals that we are without question fast approaching the end of this entire wicked system of things. (Matt. 24:3-14; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:17) . . .
So when the end of this system of things soon comes, what will be our greatest need?
But it was not even a new point about the end of the 6,000 years ending in the 1970's:
*** w74 8/15 p. 507 No Spiritual “Energy Crisis” for Discreet Ones ***
In 1943 the Watch Tower Society’s book “The Truth Shall Make You Free” did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence in the 1970’s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ’s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E.
Back then (in 1943), the end of 6,000 years was not 1975, but 1976. And it was also not a new point to discuss the gap between Adam's creation and Eve's creation that could effect the expectation of the 1,000 year reign starting immediately that year. The only difference was that all the arguments were for a longer time gap between Adam and Even, and by 1968, all the arguments were for a shorter time gap between Adam and Eve.
*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
. . . 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. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name. (Gen. 2:19 footnote d, NW) It was not until after Adam completed this assignment of work that his helpmate Eve was created. Since God created nothing new whatever on the seventh day, Eve must have been created on the sixth day; and this the divine record confirms in its account of the sixth day: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Gen. 1:27, NW.
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.
This was the big difference in emphasis about 1975. Note, how every point of "delay" above is refuted just 13 years later:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
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? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” 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.
31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or “histories” that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . ” The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated “was forming” is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a “helper” for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as “had been forming.”—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le).
32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins.
33 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. The pronouncement at the end of the sixth day, “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good,” proves that the beginning of the great seventh day of the creative week did not wait until after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

@JW Insider  Quote "(Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.)"
Are but problem there was, Romans 13 was being misused at the time, to mean God and Jesus Christ.