BillyTheKid46

Will pictures do?
 

No problem. Your secret is safe with me.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)
Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?
Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.
But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.
I've kept an interest in this topic for years.
In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.
It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.
But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

Things like this are a good test of peoples' integrity.  
ESPECIALLY when the test has a simple YES or NO answer, and they are aware that they will answer to Almighty God, for lying.  Honest questions deserve honest answers, and unless life or liberty are at stake, are appropriate.
Especially in a discussion room where credibility is so very important ... as we are casually discussing life and death matters.
 


so here goes.....
1.) BillyTheKid46, ... are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses ? ... and,
2.) are you now, or have ever been a Watchtower Lawyer, or anything similar?
3.) Space Merchant:  Are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Working on the exchange of information theory of Steven Covey, in "The Seven Habits of Successful People", about emotional "bank accounts" ... that it is immoral to try and make a withdrawal without having enough "deposits" to cover it ... please consider all the personal information about myself I have freely given here, to try and contribute to general understanding ... including my real name, and real picture, ad nauseaum, as enough "deposit" to cover the request for a withdrawal from YOUR emotional bank accounts, for information not already volunteered.
Of course this only works between men of integrity, and will be ridiculed and/or ignored by weasels.
 

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 
I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.
In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Quote @JW Insider Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking 
Instead of just quoting the bit you want why not quote the whole phrase. 
What I actually wrote. Despite what SM and others may say.  SM wasn't and isn't a JW. He just uses info he finds. 
I wasn't asking SM if he was a JW, I was stating that he wasn't / isn't a JW, and therefore only uses info he finds, and he has no personal experience on the matters. 
Then he questions the FACT that i have 'hands on' experience of JW Org / Society from the 1970's onward. Yes here in the UK only but at least it is direct first hand knowledge, not just 'something i read online'. 

Until now, as SM and i had conversations, he never said his clear position to this question. I don't know what stops him to tell us to Whom He Belong? :)) He is man of integrity and don't want to lie, but in the same time not want to tell the truth... perhaps he is silent on this because of that reason. 

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question:
@Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Does this statement is applicable to JW's too... because they claim how they are only true religion, and how God and Jesus supporting, guiding, empowering, leading, teaching (only) them, and how WT Society with all other Legal Entities that this Society established is His Earthly Organization and His Possession among all other Nations and Religions??
Don't need to answer !! :))  Because you defending every religion doctrine you find fit to your understanding of Bible and your models of acceptable (i don't think that you are wrong in some of your understanding). And by that you support "interfaith" (something that is blasphemy to WTJWORG), because many religions have some "Common, General, Universal Truths". Otherwise, you would join WTJWORG and become a member of Only One True Religion. :)))

In this description we see how this movement (at least in the beginning) is not cult - like in comparison to some WTJWORG quotes and in comparison to list on page 1 made by @Outta Here . 

They spread rumors in print :)))

Tell us the names of those JW's who misunderstood, and we shall try to check  that   :))))

To quote SM Which goes back to what I had said here and months ago. Some JWs misunderstood and did as they did while others did not, 
Which kinda supports what i said.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses did believe that Armageddon was happening in 1975. 
 

Many Jehovah's Witnesses did believe that Armageddon was happening in 1975 
Despite what SM and others may say.  SM wasn't and isn't a JW. He just uses info he finds. 
My own brother is an Elder and was a JW from the 1960's onward. He personally knows, or knew at that time, people that sold their houses, gave up businesses, and did full time ministry. He has related to me, of cases whereby people were almost suicidal with worry, because they had given up everything in a material sense, so when it didn't happen they were penniless and some were homeless. 
The Org may not have put it into print, but they deliberately spread the rumours about it happening. 
 

I think how @Foreigner is robot... most of the time. He/she is in down vote crusade, again :)))) 

.... or can it be other people read those works and combined it with the Watchtower to have asked a witness about it, ....
Do you suggest by this how non-JW people are so interested to know what JW's have to say about some subject on world events - in particular, about 1975 - ? I think that you can count on fingers of one hand, it is so small number of non-JW who would, who was talking about 1975 in religious manner, in that period of time when WT Society publication put effort to emphasized 1975 as very important year to humankind in connection to Bible prophesies about Last days, Armageddon, Salvation, Kingdom. 
I think that 1975 has been of Important interest, in JW Unique Way of Bible Doctrines, only to JW members inside JW Organization. Because they have read about 1975 in own publications, of course, and not in Washington Post or in National Geographic, for example.
 But, because we been presented here how also other non-JW people were speaking about 1975, from their standpoints, it is possible to conclude how JW's has been trustful only to WT Society Spiritual Leaders and not to some other religious or secular sources. By that what we know how JW members are warned to be very careful about any other sources of information, it can be say how JW's in period before 1975 have been very obedient and listen only that what WT Society said about 1975. 

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

Here, after this two quotes you bring, i have to ask: Did rank and file JW members of those period have read also Non-WT publications about 1975? When you say: "I had several friends ask me...", well, you mean on your JW friends or Non-JW friends?  Also, Betel Bible scholars have custom to read "worldly" publications on various topics, and it would be no surprise how some of influence and ideas were copied or/and modified  and presented as "Bible Light" to JW's.
Apostates and ex-witnesses (generally is the same group to WT Society), according to your presentation, are in fact JW members from 1975 period who became "apostates and ex-witnesses" because they are reading works of Non-JW authors of books???? :))))  
 
Yes, WT dfd many who was confused and questioned religious doctrines and ideas about 1975. THAT IS considerably different from others. :))

Fortunately, Dilbert anticipates your every word BTK46 .....

Original version of 1975 in Prophecy!  (link to PDF)
Some good points there @BillyTheKid46, about Armstrong and Taylor. (I hadn't heard of Taylor back then.)
I remember hearing Witnesses talk about how closely Herbert W Armstrong sounded like the message of the Witnesses, and how elders from the platform had to mention that we don't listen to such programs even though there might be a lot of good information that draws us in.
Just like "The Plain Truth," this brochure "1975 In Prophecy!" from which I copied pieces above, speaks with similar language. The message had many differences, but it was styled much as our own teachings:
the 144,000 as spirit begotten ones. The 6,000 years of trying man's rule as a test of whether man can rule himself. It mentions the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and the New World (called The World Tomorrow). It speaks of those who know the "Truth" surviving During the millennium, those with the Truth will teach those others who come through the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24 was often used to point out the greater number of earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and wars. The fulfillment on Jerusalem in 70 was only the "typical" fulfillment. Authors and experts were quoted about 1975, just as the 1968 version of the "Truth" book had done. The repetition of phrases like "IT'S LATER THAN YOU THINK" and "Time is running out for this world," etc., were nearly identical to covers of the Awake! that put them in the form of a question: IS IT LATER THAN YOU THINK? Is Time Running Out For This World?" The pictures of destruction at Armageddon with buildings toppling and dead bodies are shown before pictures of a new world society of survivors building things new, and then a paradise completed by the end of the thousand years. Back in 1956, when the above magazine was written, the Watchtower was still teaching that the end of the 6,000 years of man's existence would be in 1976, not 1975.

I think it was one of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books that had the phrase:
If at first you don't fricassee, fry fry a hen.
Or was it:
Whistling girls and crowing hens, always come to some bad ends.
Maybe, it was both. I've never read them myself. Our teacher read them all to us when I was in a 2-room schoolhouse in Missouri -- when I was in the 5th and 6th grades. It was really a one room schoolhouse with a divider down the middle, and one teacher handled grades 1 - 4 on one side, and another teacher handled grades 5 - 8 on the other. When I got to grade 5, we were supposed to be doing our schoolwork while the teacher teacher taught the other grades. Very distracting, but you get used to it. At any rate, all 4 grades at once had to listen to L.I.Wilder's "Little House" series for an hour a day.

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

At least you understand the point that, as you say, "omitting a strong fact is another way of lying by them." I agree 100 percent, and it's really the ongoing theme here. The article you mention is exactly what I had in mind when I said:
Yes. We've also discussed this exact idea before. We've also discussed the typical life cycle of these predictions.
For example, Russell made a lot of predictions about October 1914, then the November 1913 Watch Tower began hedging because it just didn't look like everything that was supposed to happen still had time to happen. So Russell began writing and saying that it looks like he had been wrong -- that it might be another year or so, or that people might look back on this prediction 100 years from now and wonder what it was all about. Another article came out in early 1914 that also expressed Russell's strong doubts about 1914. It's almost as if he was prepared to think that people might look back and laugh about this 100 years later.
Similarly, there were a lot of expectations that F.W.Franz had regarding 1975, and he began to give talks in late 1974 that still created excitement, but also asked the question about whether all the things that might be expected to happen first could still happen in time. In one of Franz' talks you can tell he is trying to do the right thing, but he is being a bit ambiguous and the audience doesn't really get it. It's as if it's a little too late to dampen the excitement, and the audience responds as if they think he is being "slick" -- saying one thing but meaning another. I heard one of these 1975 talks in LA. The audience starts to laugh and snicker when he says: "And don't any of you go around saying . . . " He was beginning to hedge in 1974, and the summer assembly talk was a reflection of that. It was an October 15, 1974 Watchtower that reflected the talk from the 1974 convention. It was timely, and it finally admitted that it was IMPORTANT to start strongly considering why "no man knows the day or hour."
This is why I said that the scripture was sometimes brought up, but it was almost too little, too late. The genie couldn't be put back in the bottle until the expectations apparently fell through. After 1976, there was hardly another mention even of the "mid-70s" anymore. And this shows you how the Witnesses are not the type of persons to create speculation on their own -- because as the mid-70s started to close out, you would expect even more and more speculation that the time was now approaching so much closer. After all, it was about what the mid-70s would bring, not specifically 1975. Yet, when the Watchtower and representatives from Brooklyn stopped mentioning it, it died out at a time when you would expect it to gain even more momentum, if it had been a "grass roots" speculation. You can therefore tell it was a top-down speculation.

This came to my stupid head while reading again about terminology: "6000 years of human creation".
This is very close to wording - Birthday. Birth of Adam and Eve. In that "day" 4026 BCE Adam was "Born".
Timeline
“In the beginning . . .”
4026 B.C.E. Adam’s creation - source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102009479
Well, it seems to me how WT Society was "involved" in sort of "celebration for Adam Birthday". Why to bring so much attention on Adam Birthday. This is pagan custom. Even to mention when your birthday is/was (only for administrative reasons) may be to understand as promoting idolatry :))))))) 

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