Foreigner

That's true. I have no proof that Fred Franz didn't. But if Fred Franz really had challenged the book in any way, that surely would have been huge news. Some Witness somewhere would surely have made a note of it. Interesting, however, that some Witnesses have said that they first heard about certain controversial issues (re: WTS history) in this book by R.Franz, and believed that some of these things could not really be true. But then Frederick Franz gave a talk in 1985, about two years after the book CoC came out, and confirmed many of the same controversial issues out of his own mouth. You can hear it here:
https://archive.org/details/DecisionMyLifeStoryByFredFranz
It's a 1 hour and 33 minute talk, but you can find about 10 minutes of excerpts from it in shorter versions on YouTube. Obviously, Fred Franz didn't mention the book, but he surely had a chance to challenge something in it, and instead he either purposely or inadvertently expresses agreement with many details that some Witnesses had first seen in R.Franz book, and had found difficult to believe.
But the main point, of course, is that your "redirection" above sounds like evidence that you didn't have any specific examples after all. Until you offer any, I'll assume that you found no evidence of inaccurate details in the book.
I'm not trying to promote the book. I don't know his motives for writing it. I only know what he claimed, and those claims might be true, and they might be untrue. If his claimed reasons are true, then it is very understandable why he felt it necessary to write the book. If they are false, then we can probably impute all kinds of wrong reasons for him to write such a book.
Maybe he was. I don't know of anyone who had evidence that he was being overlooked or if even if he was actually being considered the prime choice after Fred Franz. I was handling assignments for Brother Albert Schroeder at the time Schroeder was involved in a kind of campaign against R.Franz, and I did get a very strong sense that Brother Schroeder did not want to be overlooked for the office of President. So it is possible that R.Franz was like him, too. I only knew R.Franz through reputation and his 15 minute comments when it was his weekly rotation at "morning worship."
I can tell you that among many serious Bethelites, including many Bethel Elders in the late 1970's and up until 1980, there was a lot of talk that R.Franz would be the most likely candidate for next president after his uncle died. This was one of the reasons that news of his resignation from the Governing Body, and news of his leaving Bethel shocked so many brothers and sisters. There was even a lot of crying, and a line of people waiting at his door to say good-bye to him and his wife the day they left Bethel. But just because a person has a humble and loving reputation, you still don't know what is going on in their heart.

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could.
 If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all.  Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t.  It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body.  But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better  the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook  RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it,  even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.)
All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life.  In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture.
The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ.
P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.
 

So, the thoughts of men. Or it seems the thoughts of one man. 
To be sure God had no part in such reasoning. 
It seems homosexuality and probably sex with animals was enough for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but not enough for divorce it seems  

Everything on a forum is partially opinion. But this is based primarily on the opinion of a person who spent 10 years in the Service Dept and nearly 30 years in the Writing Department. It was also the opinion of one of my roommates even after he became an elder and left Bethel. And it is my opinion, of course. I'm sure that many others who were at Bethel during these same years would agree.

This actually this isn't as crazy as it sounds. The reasoning was based on (if I remember correctly) that in order for fornication (which was the only grounds for divorce, according to what Jesus said) to occur, the partner had to "become one" with another person, and that could only happen if the other person was of the opposite sex. That is Biblical.  In Jehovah's eyes you cannot become one with anyone but the opposite sex, and you cannot become one with another creature either for that matter.  The problem was, that the word 'fornication' was understood to be the same as 'adultery'. However, fornication (porneia) is different. It covers any kind of sexual relations whether with a human or animal. It should have been clear from the start because the scripture in Matthew doesn't say "whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of 'adultery', and marries another commits adultery." It says on the ground of 'fornication'.
But we were not the only ones who understood it this way:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/divorce-adultery-law-rules-gay-lesbian-same-sex-affairs-why-dont-they-count-a7533766.html
 

You seem to correctly anticipate that I have still not read his book. Though I read all the time, I have read very little of this sort of material, which might seem surprising since I have written four books in support of Witnesses and their organization  I could spin this as being  'obedient,' I guess, and it is that in part. But in greater part it is that I look at such material almost as red herrings that distract. Everyone has a history. Everyone has had experiences. Everyone has acted or not acted upon them. It's not people that count, ultimately, but God, and having been around long enough, you can pick up on and originate words that adhere to the 'pattern of healthful teachings' that Paul spoke about. The doings of others just distract, as they pursue their own service and relationship to God. As long as you do not become obstinate with regard to the earthly organization, you do fine (usually). If you do not, you take your licks, dust yourself off, pay whatever price you must, and get back into the mix. Maybe that will be your fate someday. Maybe (gasp!) it will be mine. But I think not in either case. If it should prove to be, the 'damage' is repairable.
Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. That way, if you don't like something, you simply 'interpret it away' and there is no one to call you on it. No harm done.
For once I will do a Butler and say that I am looking at things that are too great for me. What is the interplay of the divine/human interface? It's not anything that I am willing to say "this is" and "this isn't." Become minute enough and one might say that there is no interplay at all - that it is all but human politics, but then how does one account for the truly monumental building work that JWs have accomplished in worldwide support of the good news, a coordinated 'shout of praise' that nobody else manages to get off the launching pad? No, I think "too great for me" is where I will hold.
'Acquiescing' appears to be where it is at. For many decades now the emphasis has been on elder bodies reaching unanimous agreement, an almost impossible feat for humans to manage, and then, the 'losing' side to refrain from criticizing the 'winners,' with unity being the important consideration. It wasn't something that I was much good at, and if some 'blockheaded' brother won the day, I was hard-pressed to not carry on about it afterwards. Still,  I managed to do it to a reasonable degree. 
Furious. The little creep.
I don't have it in for him for writing his book, nor even his title. After a lifetime at Bethel, leaving with but a suitcase, what else is he going to do? I am even reasonably charitable towards a former Witness turned movie-maker that I write about in my book. He must be given credit, if only begrudgingly, for redefining the game. It is still winnable--how can it not be with Jehovah?--but it may call for a new approach in dealing with the malcontents.
 

Well, then it appears that you hold the same misguided understanding on what the definition of apostate means.

Studying the same material with a blind eye doesn’t constitute good results. That just means there are witnesses willing and able to accept obscured thoughts by questionable people that were not qualified to make certain determinations with their own personal opinion.

The devil here indeed works in mysteries ways. It’s good you follow the same thought as True Tom.

To make false claims is to make an argument meaningless. especially when it comes to 1914, etc. Therefore, thanks for crediting misguided people for an opinionated argument. Have you ever thought of writing your own book about accepting apostasy?

Jealous ? Is his book getting more attention than yours ?  

This would be a good view if it was given as a good cause. Unfortunately, Raymond actions became centered in not being genuine but self-serving.

People at Bethel can say whatever they wish as an opinion, but Raymond’s actions spoke for themselves. Sincerity was not an option for him. Blind rage was.

That type of action affected others to promote apostate understandings, not biblical ones. Those that accepted his kind of methodology did so with a willful mind to accept what men claimed as fact, rather than be reliant on the fact that we are guided by God’s Holy Spirit. That makes a world of difference in Bible understanding.

I am not sure what your argument is here. I believe the scriptures are clear on proselytizing. Wasn't Raymond questioning the motivation/desire, or rather the lack of  motivation/desire on the part of the Witness community? I guess I will have to read the whole chapter to get the context...

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information. 
 

Well you would probably call me an apostate, but I'm only apostate to the JW Org. And yes I still believe in God and Jesus Christ. 
But you seem to want to jump on the JW bandwagon about apostates, so be it. 

Apparently, you must not have known the Franz’s as well as you claim including other governing body members. However, having read Raymond books, I can unequivocally state I reject the claims about the organization. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. Here is a man that found confusion with cynicism. Who put him up to it?
One area which is true would be how the POPE saw itself. In the beginning, they saw themselves as equal to Christ, thus being incapable of doing wrong. This, of course, is ludicrous since no one made the pope perfect. It doesn’t take Raymond’s books to bring to light something that should be already known to Christians. Therefore, a poor example.

I should mention that these comments I had made were never made to defend R.Franz. In fact, as I recall, these comments were made under a different topic, and someone apparently moved them here because I happened to mention R.Franz in my response.
But back to your question that starts out with the words, "So if Raymond was a proven liar." I'm not sure what you are referring to. I've never heard anyone claim that R.Franz was a proven liar. If anyone ever said that, I'd be very interested in what they were referring to. It might be very useful to point to something inaccurate* in his book. I'm sure the average Witness who never knew him could easily get the idea he was "liar," but I have never heard anyone who knew him at Bethel ever say that anything in his book was inaccurate. Quite the opposite in fact.
[I found a couple inaccuracies, by the way, such as when in CoC, he mentioned that the Pope and bishops can speak as if they are "infallible" in the minds of Catholics. He should not have said "and bishops" unless he was referring only to previous "bishops of Rome," which are the popes.]
And by the way, R.Franz was an apostate. So if there was even one inaccuracy in any of his books, don't you think the Watchtower Society, or someone at least, should have pointed it out? What he exposed caused a lot of controversy. Pointing out even one inaccuracy would have helped quell the controversy and defend the Society.
But the problem, as best as I can see it, was not that he said anything untrue, but that his motive was to expose the human side of the organization and its decisions. It was to show how the Governing Body worked together at that time, and examples of how decisions and changes were made. And it showed its very human side, with its faults, mistakes, and interactions of personality. If you worked inside Bethel at that time and worked closely with several of the people he speaks about, you'd already know that his descriptions made perfect sense as they matched everything you could know about these persons. What none of us could know about, however, was what it was like inside any of those meetings of the Governing Body. And it turns out that it, if he is correct in his descriptions, then this is exactly what we would have expected anyway, knowing the personalities of these brothers as we saw and heard them acting and speaking on a daily basis. He speaks very kindly and respectfully of many of them. You can tell they were friends, just as you already knew if you were at Bethel at this time. But it becomes easy to understand how key decisions could be delayed or swayed by more outspoken and stronger personalities on the GB.
I don't know what you might mean here. No accounts were ever challenged, as far as I know. At least not by anyone who knew him. Especially not by Fred Franz, who knew him very well. If you have evidence to the contrary you should share it, especially because, as Witnesses, we don't want to be known for making false accusations.
Not at all. I just share what I know and what I think. And you can share what you know and what you think. That's how we learn. That's how forums such as this work. I would never want someone to trust my words and my words only.

It is fact that God allowed Adam and Eve to become imperfect, and to continue living long enough to produce offspring which were also imperfect etc.. We know of course that God was facing the challenge from spirit beings, so it was not truly about us humans, but about God's right to rule.. 
As for blaming an Organisation for it's faults, of course we should. Hence I left JW Org. 
Sorry but i relate this once again to Germany and Hitler. Hitler could not have done it all on his own, hence i blame the German people. 
If members of an Organisation turn a blind eye to immoral things happening within, and if those members are too frightened to act against the 'bosses' or internal police, then yes I blame that whole Organisation. 
I blame the bosses and internal police for not running the Organisation properly and not policing it properly. And I blame the members for not speaking up, and / or leaving that organisation. 
You added the word society. Did you mean 'a society' as in a group that a person joins, or did you mean society that one is born into, a country of birth etc? 
An organisation is something you actually join deliberately. Hence many JW children, when they become of 'age', will leave the JW Org, which in fact they were never a part of, they were just children of parents that deliberately joined that organisation. The expression the Org uses is 'making the truth your own', before a youngster gets baptised. But many youngsters see the hypocrisy and lies in the JW Org and decide to be no part of it. 
It is fact that many youngsters state that being made to be 'part of the JW Org' actually ruined their young lives. They were not given choices, just ordered to do things by their parents. The GB made the rules, the Elders distributed these rules and policed the congregation, the parents followed the rules without question, and the children suffered for it all. 
So yes, blame the whole Organisation for its sins, if the sins are made known to everyone within.. Because an adult does not have to be a part of that Organisation and a child is not actually part of that Organisation. 
But I don't really know what your point was in relation to this topic. 

This proves the reach Satan has and the bad influence that affects the world. It would be like telling God it was his fault Adam and Eve became imperfect after being created perfect (sinless). So I don’t see where blaming an organization, a group, or society makes any sense. Where would free be, if implied after a single person’s decision was made that had a costly effect in our lives?
This would mean, an argument like this would be impossible to achieve if humanity thought the same. Can we then infer that generation X is to blame for our troubles today? Can we say, we share equal responsibility for every murder, assault, rape, etc. that is committed every second throughout the world? Why should those that abide by Gods and man’s laws need to accept the blame?
With that consent of thought, it would be the responsibility of each parent toward their OWN children. Understand what a child is into, whom they speak with, who they hang around with, at home and at church. So if we are to blame an organization for something, then make it equal across the board to blame everyone including members of that organization regardless if they themselves are critical of such organization enough to think their instructions don’t go far enough to please a few within the masses. Those critics would also bear the blame if we are to think without forethought.

So if Raymond was a proven liar, and his accounts were challenged within the organization members along with Fred Franz himself, we are to believe that the CoC book was never challenged because you say so? We are to trust your words and your words only?

This is a whole new thread that spun out of the Raymond Franz article.... not BY JOHN BUTLER... but a group of members.... just for clarity
 

I have no problem at all with it.  I do not lay down new decrees for men to obey as the GB is known for, and admits to doing.  (Check with Anthony Morris about this)  This is "distorting the truth" - Christ's truth.
Felix the Cat carried around a Magic Bag of Tricks.  I'll just say this; no further comment, Allen Smith. 
 

So far scripture stipulates those that can take the lead. You seem to fail in wanting to acknowledge their needs to be a party responsible in any given organization as instructed by Jesus. A faithful servant, reputable men, shepherd of a flock. All these are found in scripture you seem to dismiss. The ancients had prophets as guides. Christianity was guided by Christ and instructed to do the same throughout the world. With responsible people in the lead. Why defy Jesus instructions and God’s laws. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
What part of Christ words in Acts 20:28-30 fails you. These are the inspired words of God through John 1:1
Then it is yourself that are altering Jesus teachings. Then you should consider placing yourself in the same category as the GB. It’s dishonest to claim scripture as a convenience. 1 John 4:1-6
Therefore, can you give me verification the Watchtower GB is NOT God’s coordinated helpers on earth as God's will is in heaven?
On the rest, it appears the interpretation you give on scripture is misguided. Can anyone listen to a corrupter of God's word? Once again, wouldn’t that put you in the same category as these “Pharisaical leaders” you hate? Matthew 16:11-12
It appears the same problem Raymond Franz had after confusing scripture with his own personal desire.
All that the GB is about is written in scripture. In effect, the Watchtower constitution. What, is your constitution and doctrine when having people understand scripture the incorrect way for personal gain. Therefore, no one is adding to Christ instructions aside from those that hate a fellow Christian Colossians 2:4

Your wrong, you are doing the same thing. Therefore, don't lie to yourself, no one else is listening.

Are you suggesting, Jesus didn’t alter the Jewish teaching? At what point does denigrating the GB by you and Butler amount to ethical thinking. A person that opposes God’s coordinated earthly rule and one that renounces their own faith have zero credibility to any conversation.
So far, I see conflict as Raymond Franz had about CHANGE. Although the change he had in mind was becoming the next President of the Watchtower, and when that didn’t happen, apostasy grew within.
As a living sacrifice, shouldn’t we make a change? Romans 12:1-2
Shouldn’t we be renewed day by day? 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
Whereas those that oppose authority defy God.
Romans 13:2
2Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
There seems to be some confusion about the great commission. Matthew 28:19-20 and the rule we each have with our personal abilities. Mark 16:15 what it means to preach thought-out the world. Acts 1:8 and who has what capabilities and responsibilities. 
 
Ephesians 4:11-16 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
 
Those that refuse to obey the instructions left by Christ cannot be called a Christian. Jesus appointed the apostles but God gave them the Holy Spirit just as it was given to Christ. Jesus appointed the laborers for the harvest Luke 10, but God gave them the Holy Spirit.
Did Jesus defy the prevailing authority? Matthew 23:2-4
Therefore, let’s put that authority nonsense to rest once and for all. What is a flock without a shepherd? Acts 20:28 who are the overseers, the sheep? I can think of several things not to listen to such lofty arguments. 2 Corinthians 10:5

Ahh...brothers, isn’t it nice and peaceful now that the loudmouth @JOHN BUTLER is not around.  Boy, he sure could...YIKES!! I’ve posted in the wrong club! Abort, Librarian (you old hen) abort! Take this down!

That about Russia can not be true neither with arguments presented in the WT literature. Because in Daniel 11 there is a chronological order of events. The WT rightly puts Daniel 11:31 in to the future. So the following scriptures should also be in the future. Look at this statement for example: 
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999323#h=22:0-28:761
"16 Since the start of the great tribulation is yet future, is the “standing in a holy place” still ahead of us? Evidently so. While “the disgusting thing” made its appearance early in this century and has, thus, existed for decades, it will take a position in a unique way “in a holy place” in the near future."
We see that the WT teaches that "the disgusting thing" will be standing in a holy place in the future. But in the same time they want to say that the "disgusting thing" has already been standing on the holy place. Can they not decide how they want to have it? Apparently not, because they feel they have to in some way tie all prophecies as close down to 1914 as possible. 
And the same time they understand that "the disgusting thing standing on the holy place" should follow the pattern of the events in the first century, as stated here:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001193#h=11:0-12:484
 "Additional prophecies of a disgusting thing. It should be noted, however, that Daniel 11:31-35 and 12:9, 11 connect a ‘disgusting thing causing desolation’ with “the time of the end.” It is reasonable that the development of this latter expression of ‘the disgusting thing causing desolation’ in the time of the end should follow the general pattern of that in the first century C.E., though not being restricted to the land of Israel."
And then WT literature explains :
18 Immediately after coming to power, Hitler launched a vicious attack against “the holy covenant,” represented by the anointed brothers of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 25:40) In this he acted “effectively” against these loyal Christians, cruelly persecuting many of them. Hitler enjoyed economic and diplomatic successes, acting “effectively” in those fields also. In a few years, he made Germany a power to be reckoned with on the world scene.
"20 Hitler soon went to war, as the angel had correctly foretold: “There will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant feature.” (Daniel 11:31a) The “arms” were the military forces that the king of the north used in order to fight the king of the south in World War II. On September 1, 1939, Nazi “arms” invaded Poland. Two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany in order to help Poland. Thus began World War II. Poland collapsed quickly, and soon thereafter, German forces occupied Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. “At the end of 1941,” says The World Book Encyclopedia, “Nazi Germany dominated the continent.”" 
22 “They [Nazi arms] will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant feature,” said the angel. In ancient Judah the sanctuary was part of the temple in Jerusalem. However, when the Jews rejected Jesus, Jehovah rejected them and their temple. (Matthew 23:37–24:2) Since the first century C.E., Jehovah’s temple has actually been a spiritual one, with its holy of holies in the heavens and with a spiritual courtyard on earth, in which the anointed brothers of Jesus, the High Priest, serve. From the 1930’s onward, the “great crowd” have worshiped in association with the anointed remnant and are therefore said to serve ‘in God’s temple.’ (Revelation 7:9, 15; 11:1, 2; Hebrews 9:11, 12,24) In lands under his control, the king of the north profaned the earthly courtyard of the temple by relentlessly persecuting the anointed remnant and their companions. So severe was the persecution that “the constant feature”—the public sacrifice of praise to Jehovah’s name—was removed. (Hebrews 13:15) Despite horrible suffering, however, faithful anointed Christians together with the “other sheep” kept on preaching during World War II.—John 10:16.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101999035#h=15 (The obove quote)
But this is so wrong, Germany did not cause the profanation of the "sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant feature" in  USA. And the scripture is talking about arms not against nations like Poland but arms against the sanctuary, the fortress associated with the sanctuary and the constant feature or sacrifice.
Shortly, the WT should rewrite all the explanations to prophecies they have applied to the last 100+ years. And come up with the true explanations. 
Even most churches are wise enough to understand that the 1260 etc days belong to the final years before Christ Jesus' return. How stupid can the WT leadership really be?

Hi dear sister Arauna, 
I understand that the information I provided overwhelmed you. At the meetings during 2 decades there would not be as much new light as I just posted.
And I see that you as all other witnesses feel very unsure about how to understand, let alone explain all the scriptures about 1260, 1290, 1335 days and 42 months and time, times and half a time.
I think you would appreciate what I wrote today if you first really tried to fully comprehend the WT literatures explanations. I know you will come into a dead end because those explanations do nor add up. But give it a serious try and pray Jeahovah to make you understand. And see if you will be able to understand. 
But a simple alternative  I will present here:
Daniel 12:6 “How long will it be to the end of these marvelous things?”.........“It will be for an appointed time, appointed times, and half a time.* As soon as the dashing to pieces of the power of the holy people comes to an end,+ all these things will come to their finish.”
11  “And from the time that the constant feature*+has been removed and the disgusting thing that causes desolation has been put in place,+ there will be 1,290 days.12  “Happy is the one who keeps in expectation*and who arrives at the 1,335 days!
Daniel 11:31  And arms* will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will profane the sanctuary,+ the fortress, and remove the constant feature.*+“And they will put in place the disgusting thing that causes desolation.+
Daniel 7:25  He will speak words against the Most High,+ and he will continually harass the holy ones of the Supreme One. He will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.*+ 26  But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely.+27  “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One.+ Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,+ and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’28  “This is the end of the matter. 
So Aruna where do you see the 1260, 1290, 1335 days/time, times and half a time are placed in these scriptures? Is it not right before Christ's millenial rule?