Evacuated

Quite true.
And more than ever I'm convinced this is apparently a US thing. I just can't recall hearing anything particularly emphatic on this matter, other than magazine statements here and there with qualifiers as quoted above, and US CO talks on cassette tapes with starry-eyed brothers saying "You've got to listen to this!".  And of course the odd brother who were (at our level) viewed endearingly as "eccentrics".
I remember meeting an old friend on the street in early '72 who told me, cynically, that I was expecting the world to end in 1975. I didn't know much about that idea then, but I just said to him well, if it doesn't, we will both be here, but if it does, who will be laughing then? I didn't even bother to follow it up after at all. In reality, it just didn't figure in my day to day thinking. But it certainly effected some it appears.
It was most definitely NOT a big subject in my experience on a KHall level, neither in the book studies (apart from a brief flurry in the Nations Shall Know study). It didn't figure at at all in my Bible Study coming into the truth. (I was asked to study the Life Everlasting book, but I rejected it over some sort of "great tribulation" confusion.) I remember a  group of witnesses from my area moved to California in '72. They were very "end soon" oriented I remember, but we just thought they were "over the top"!
It must be a "British" thing. As far as my limited experience goes, we were just not swayed by American hysteria on this matter. We took no notice of end date statements. Maybe we were ALL APOSTATE!!! 

Let's baptize pregnant mothers.........

Quite true.
And more than ever I'm convinced this is apparently a US thing. I just can't recall hearing anything particularly emphatic on this matter, other than magazine statements here and there with qualifiers as quoted above, and US CO talks on cassette tapes with starry-eyed brothers saying "You've got to listen to this!".  And of course the odd brother who were (at our level) viewed endearingly as "eccentrics".
I remember meeting an old friend on the street in early '72 who told me, cynically, that I was expecting the world to end in 1975. I didn't know much about that idea then, but I just said to him well, if it doesn't, we will both be here, but if it does, who will be laughing then? I didn't even bother to follow it up after at all. In reality, it just didn't figure in my day to day thinking. But it certainly effected some it appears.
It was most definitely NOT a big subject in my experience on a KHall level, neither in the book studies (apart from a brief flurry in the Nations Shall Know study). It didn't figure at at all in my Bible Study coming into the truth. (I was asked to study the Life Everlasting book, but I rejected it over some sort of "great tribulation" confusion.) I remember a  group of witnesses from my area moved to California in '72. They were very "end soon" oriented I remember, but we just thought they were "over the top"!
It must be a "British" thing. As far as my limited experience goes, we were just not swayed by American hysteria on this matter. We took no notice of end date statements. Maybe we were ALL APOSTATE!!! 

Quite true.
And more than ever I'm convinced this is apparently a US thing. I just can't recall hearing anything particularly emphatic on this matter, other than magazine statements here and there with qualifiers as quoted above, and US CO talks on cassette tapes with starry-eyed brothers saying "You've got to listen to this!".  And of course the odd brother who were (at our level) viewed endearingly as "eccentrics".
I remember meeting an old friend on the street in early '72 who told me, cynically, that I was expecting the world to end in 1975. I didn't know much about that idea then, but I just said to him well, if it doesn't, we will both be here, but if it does, who will be laughing then? I didn't even bother to follow it up after at all. In reality, it just didn't figure in my day to day thinking. But it certainly effected some it appears.
It was most definitely NOT a big subject in my experience on a KHall level, neither in the book studies (apart from a brief flurry in the Nations Shall Know study). It didn't figure at at all in my Bible Study coming into the truth. (I was asked to study the Life Everlasting book, but I rejected it over some sort of "great tribulation" confusion.) I remember a  group of witnesses from my area moved to California in '72. They were very "end soon" oriented I remember, but we just thought they were "over the top"!
It must be a "British" thing. As far as my limited experience goes, we were just not swayed by American hysteria on this matter. We took no notice of end date statements. Maybe we were ALL APOSTATE!!! 

Let's baptize pregnant mothers.........

I agree with @Anna on this, here but slightly reworded. The Bible is indeed "clear cut" and "no progression" is needed:
Psalm 12:6: "The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times."
Man's understanding of the Bible, however, is not clear cut and does need progression.
Men need the right attitude: 
Ps 25:4 "Make me know your ways, O Jehovah; teach me your paths." Men need permission:
Matt 13:11 “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted." Men need God's holy spirit:
John 16:13 "However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth" Men need to learn progressively:
John 16:12 "“I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now." Men need help from other faithful servants:
Acts 18:24-26 "A·polʹlos...was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures..... had been instructed....... was speaking and teaching accurately.... but ...Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la....explained the way of God more accurately to him." Even with this, 
Men still fall short:
Heb. 5:11-12 "..you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God.." Men still go too far:
1Cor 4:6 "learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other." So, men need to maintain the right attitude: 
Heb 12:5 "“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him"

This just about caps it for me.
I came into the "truth" by a similar route although a little later than JWI, Truth Book, Things in Which It Is Impossible, Life Everlasting, Lamp book. In that whole time, nothing significant was stated to me about 1975 at all, other than (what I felt at the time was) incomprehensible mutterings about the end of 6000 years since Adam's creation. The few 1975 encounters I did have came a bit later, more 1973-4.  I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.
The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings. I need to be persuaded now that 1975ism wasn't predominantly an "American" thing as my experience of the matter, apart from one already mentioned brother, as a topic of talk or conversational  significance, was minimal.

This just about caps it for me.
I came into the "truth" by a similar route although a little later than JWI, Truth Book, Things in Which It Is Impossible, Life Everlasting, Lamp book. In that whole time, nothing significant was stated to me about 1975 at all, other than (what I felt at the time was) incomprehensible mutterings about the end of 6000 years since Adam's creation. The few 1975 encounters I did have came a bit later, more 1973-4.  I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.
The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings. I need to be persuaded now that 1975ism wasn't predominantly an "American" thing as my experience of the matter, apart from one already mentioned brother, as a topic of talk or conversational  significance, was minimal.

Watchtower March 2016 p26-28
"New World Translation in its “Glossary of Bible Terms” gives this definition of a prophet: “One through whom divine purposes are made known. Prophets acted as spokesmen for God, conveying not only predictions but also Jehovah’s teachings, commands, and judgments.” Though you are not uttering predictions, you speak for God, proclaiming what is found in the Word of God.—Matt. 24:14.......................
Although we are not prophets in the absolute sense, by imitating the self-sacrificing spirit of such prophets as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Hosea, we too can successfully accomplish Jehovah’s will for us today! "
 

This just about caps it for me.
I came into the "truth" by a similar route although a little later than JWI, Truth Book, Things in Which It Is Impossible, Life Everlasting, Lamp book. In that whole time, nothing significant was stated to me about 1975 at all, other than (what I felt at the time was) incomprehensible mutterings about the end of 6000 years since Adam's creation. The few 1975 encounters I did have came a bit later, more 1973-4.  I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.
The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings. I need to be persuaded now that 1975ism wasn't predominantly an "American" thing as my experience of the matter, apart from one already mentioned brother, as a topic of talk or conversational  significance, was minimal.

This just about caps it for me.
I came into the "truth" by a similar route although a little later than JWI, Truth Book, Things in Which It Is Impossible, Life Everlasting, Lamp book. In that whole time, nothing significant was stated to me about 1975 at all, other than (what I felt at the time was) incomprehensible mutterings about the end of 6000 years since Adam's creation. The few 1975 encounters I did have came a bit later, more 1973-4.  I remember the "Later than You Think" headline from a 1968 Awake that some used to still carry around on the ministry in later years.
The cultural angle seems even more significant after reading these recent postings. I need to be persuaded now that 1975ism wasn't predominantly an "American" thing as my experience of the matter, apart from one already mentioned brother, as a topic of talk or conversational  significance, was minimal.

Valid observation for me. When first encountering the idea about 1972, I thought it was everyone's understanding as I knew very few Witnesses. But as time went on,  I found it to be a patchy eccentricity rather than hysteria. 
However the fact remains that some of Jehovah's Witnesses DID get seduced by the song of '75 and some of Jehovah's Witnesses DID NOT get seduced by the song of '75.
And yet, we're all still here!  GET OVER IT!

Valid observation for me. When first encountering the idea about 1972, I thought it was everyone's understanding as I knew very few Witnesses. But as time went on,  I found it to be a patchy eccentricity rather than hysteria. 
However the fact remains that some of Jehovah's Witnesses DID get seduced by the song of '75 and some of Jehovah's Witnesses DID NOT get seduced by the song of '75.
And yet, we're all still here!  GET OVER IT!

On 6/19/2017 at 10:16 PM, @Anna said: "First of all the "overlapping generation" is not a doctrine. As I already stated, it is an opinion"
There are a number of terms which although fairly neutral in themselves, have come to have quite emotive, and often negative,  association, particularly in the field of religious discussion.
These include dogma; doctorine; teaching; tradition; belief; interpretation; opinion. You might think of others, such as decree.
For example, the word "dogma" is quite innocently defined as above by @Srecko Sostar, but when one brings in a definition such as below, one can see the controversial possibilities and the potential for the clouding of rational discussion.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In Catholicism a dogma, unlike a simple belief, is said to be a truth solemnly formulated either by an ecumenical council or by the pope’s “infallible magisterium.” 
"When, therefore, the Church explains the meaning of a dogma this interpretation is to be maintained in all future time, and it can never be deviated from under pretence of a more profound investigation.” 
It often appears that when discussion on whether an understanding of an aspect of the Bible fits a particular category of the list given takes place, it is carried out from the standpoint of seeking to avoid the negative connotations of those formerly, purely descriptive terms.
Also, one cannot leave out of the scenario those "lurking bogeymen": heresy and apostasy.
 

Perhaps the sound of their own voices is driving them craaaazeee................

Don't really know first hand what F Franz believed, but I remember the talk he gave about it post '75 because I was sitting in the front row. (No notes I remember...long talk). I am sure he, like a lot of others, certainly hoped for a 1975 event.
The funny thing is there are those who were swayed about 1975 and there are those who were not. Yet both camps seem to have a problem accepting the other now. Those who were swayed seem to be a bit "once bitten, twice shy" and accuse the others of "cognitive dissonance". Those who were not swayed get a bit self-righteous and say "well I didn't fall for it, can't see how anyone else did! But then, you know what these Americans can be like....". And then there's those that weren't even there......................You know what?  "there's now't so queer as folk".
I had a shepherding call in 1973 from a couple of elders, one of whom proudly told me he had cancelled his insurances (life or endowment or something) because he was so sure the imminent end made them not worth paying for. I actually could just about afford my fare to work at the time, so his "exhortation" to simplicity rather fell on deaf ears as I actually had nothing at all left at the end of my working week as my wage at the time only covered my living expenses.
Soon after, a prominent elder from Bethel (who took my book study group) said that he was not a member of the "1975 Armageddon school of thought" because it was actually not a scriptural teaching. I had great respect for that brother at the time and was very glad to hear him say this as I was not comfortable with the view that some, (and it was only some), had over this matter. They were usually a particular type of brother (in my opinion), greeting each other at the kingdom hall, always slightly over-excitedly saying embarrassing things like "it won't be long now" as they shook my hand vigorously, often holding it with two of theirs. 
Another characteristic of some of these ones I remember was their obsessive recording of assembly talks on those little cassette recorders that many had in those days. They were always out of their seats at assemblies, fiddling with safety pins,  as they spiked the speaker wires, fighting for the plum, accessible spots on the stadium ledges, so they could get in and out in time to change tapes that often did not last long enough to get a whole talk on one side. (60 minute tapes used to get wound round the mechanism some how). Then there was the batteries running out, mid-talk! One brother, in haste, actually dropped his recorder down the side of the stadium into a narrow void where the seating structure was. He was so upset over this that it was like his Armageddon had come there and then! These brothers also indulged in swapping these recordings, often getting prized tapes of American COs giving talks at assemblies, and really stirring up the pot in a much more direct and vigorous manner than we were used to. (I think those Americans probably were responsible for the hysteria you know, apart from "Armageddon Ernie" of course).
Ah well, those were the days..."Things ain't what they used to be, and never were". (Will Rogers?)
 

Trying to squash a rumor is like trying to unring a bell.

Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back in, no matter how hard you try.

I think you might be right! Enjoyed your post by the way
P.S. I think everyone heard about Armageddon Ernie in the UK, I did too!!

Don't really know first hand what F Franz believed, but I remember the talk he gave about it post '75 because I was sitting in the front row. (No notes I remember...long talk). I am sure he, like a lot of others, certainly hoped for a 1975 event.
The funny thing is there are those who were swayed about 1975 and there are those who were not. Yet both camps seem to have a problem accepting the other now. Those who were swayed seem to be a bit "once bitten, twice shy" and accuse the others of "cognitive dissonance". Those who were not swayed get a bit self-righteous and say "well I didn't fall for it, can't see how anyone else did! But then, you know what these Americans can be like....". And then there's those that weren't even there......................You know what?  "there's now't so queer as folk".
I had a shepherding call in 1973 from a couple of elders, one of whom proudly told me he had cancelled his insurances (life or endowment or something) because he was so sure the imminent end made them not worth paying for. I actually could just about afford my fare to work at the time, so his "exhortation" to simplicity rather fell on deaf ears as I actually had nothing at all left at the end of my working week as my wage at the time only covered my living expenses.
Soon after, a prominent elder from Bethel (who took my book study group) said that he was not a member of the "1975 Armageddon school of thought" because it was actually not a scriptural teaching. I had great respect for that brother at the time and was very glad to hear him say this as I was not comfortable with the view that some, (and it was only some), had over this matter. They were usually a particular type of brother (in my opinion), greeting each other at the kingdom hall, always slightly over-excitedly saying embarrassing things like "it won't be long now" as they shook my hand vigorously, often holding it with two of theirs. 
Another characteristic of some of these ones I remember was their obsessive recording of assembly talks on those little cassette recorders that many had in those days. They were always out of their seats at assemblies, fiddling with safety pins,  as they spiked the speaker wires, fighting for the plum, accessible spots on the stadium ledges, so they could get in and out in time to change tapes that often did not last long enough to get a whole talk on one side. (60 minute tapes used to get wound round the mechanism some how). Then there was the batteries running out, mid-talk! One brother, in haste, actually dropped his recorder down the side of the stadium into a narrow void where the seating structure was. He was so upset over this that it was like his Armageddon had come there and then! These brothers also indulged in swapping these recordings, often getting prized tapes of American COs giving talks at assemblies, and really stirring up the pot in a much more direct and vigorous manner than we were used to. (I think those Americans probably were responsible for the hysteria you know, apart from "Armageddon Ernie" of course).
Ah well, those were the days..."Things ain't what they used to be, and never were". (Will Rogers?)
 

@JW Insider. Thanks for all the background on this.
So, as far as I can make out with this stuff, the 1969 published section in the Aid to Bible Understanding singled out, more or less, a generally held view (although not unanimous) that porneia as a ground for divorce referred to adulterous, heterosexual intercourse only. 
Dec 15 1972 Question from Readers (QfR). Porneia was expanded to include homosexual, extra-marital intercourse as divorce grounds for the innocent.
QfR 1973 introduces the idea that a third party is not necessary, and that forced unnatural intercourse on an innocent party would be classed as porneia and a grounds for divorce. (Presumably a disfellowshipping matter as well, but the subject of the 2 witness rule or proof is not discussed).
QfR 15 Feb 1978 directs elders not to get involved in trying to identify what does or does not constitute porneia between married couples within the marriage, due to a lack of Scriptural definition. Also that using such as a grounds for divorce by an innocent party should be left to that innocent party to decide and proceed with. (Maybe the 2 witness issue was a factor in this?)
WT 15 March 1983 turns it all on it's head! Porneia can only take place with a partner, (any oriented human or otherwise), external to the marriage relationship. Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible. Other words (akartharsia; alselgeia) are applied to perverted sexual intercourse within a marriage, but not porneia, which dictionary authorities and scholarly commentors define as only occurring with a party outside the marriage arrangement. (Judicial issues not discussed at any length).
Interestingly 15/12/12 QfR indicates that "when fertilization involving eggs or sperm (or both) from someone not within the marital union occurs, this amounts to what the Bible terms por·neiʹa, sexual immorality. Those procedures are a gross misuse of the sexual organs."
This last reference actually divorces the whole matter away from what is usually associated with illicit sexual behaviour, namely indulgence in illicit sexual gratification. It appears to focus more on a misuse of the life transmission processes. This would seem to be a vital core element of the reasons for Jehovah legislating around the whole matter..
Is that where we are on this now?
 

@JW Insider. Thanks for all the background on this.
So, as far as I can make out with this stuff, the 1969 published section in the Aid to Bible Understanding singled out, more or less, a generally held view (although not unanimous) that porneia as a ground for divorce referred to adulterous, heterosexual intercourse only. 
Dec 15 1972 Question from Readers (QfR). Porneia was expanded to include homosexual, extra-marital intercourse as divorce grounds for the innocent.
QfR 1973 introduces the idea that a third party is not necessary, and that forced unnatural intercourse on an innocent party would be classed as porneia and a grounds for divorce. (Presumably a disfellowshipping matter as well, but the subject of the 2 witness rule or proof is not discussed).
QfR 15 Feb 1978 directs elders not to get involved in trying to identify what does or does not constitute porneia between married couples within the marriage, due to a lack of Scriptural definition. Also that using such as a grounds for divorce by an innocent party should be left to that innocent party to decide and proceed with. (Maybe the 2 witness issue was a factor in this?)
WT 15 March 1983 turns it all on it's head! Porneia can only take place with a partner, (any oriented human or otherwise), external to the marriage relationship. Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible. Other words (akartharsia; alselgeia) are applied to perverted sexual intercourse within a marriage, but not porneia, which dictionary authorities and scholarly commentors define as only occurring with a party outside the marriage arrangement. (Judicial issues not discussed at any length).
Interestingly 15/12/12 QfR indicates that "when fertilization involving eggs or sperm (or both) from someone not within the marital union occurs, this amounts to what the Bible terms por·neiʹa, sexual immorality. Those procedures are a gross misuse of the sexual organs."
This last reference actually divorces the whole matter away from what is usually associated with illicit sexual behaviour, namely indulgence in illicit sexual gratification. It appears to focus more on a misuse of the life transmission processes. This would seem to be a vital core element of the reasons for Jehovah legislating around the whole matter..
Is that where we are on this now?
 

Not sure what is meant here. The topic is about homesexual behaviour providing grounds for divorce. Is that not about the breaking up a marriage?
This shortlived error of interpretation did nothing to impede an innocent party's separation if desired, but it did extend unecessarily the period of non-freedom to remarry. I am sure it generated considerable discussion at the time, given the attraction of such topics, and the eagle-eyed awareness of many to adjustments and change in such matters.
True, some innocent parties may have engaged in "normal" fornication themselves, maybe due to fleshly weakness, maybe even as scheme to secure a divorce by any means, and maybe the twerpish interpretation in the Aid book article contributed. The fringe frontier of sexual morality is a dangerous place to dwell.
However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.
Jesus sadly warned at Matt.18:7: "Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!". And James at 3:1-2 warned: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. For we all stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able to bridle also his whole body."
Looks as if at least some of those named above experienced the outcome in these warnings.
Quite true. But it also indicates that Jehovah and Jesus take a special interest in those who suffer it, and who look to them:
"For he will rescue the poor who cry for help, Also the lowly one and whoever has no helper. ?He will have pity on the lowly and the poor, And the lives of the poor he will save. From oppression and from violence he will rescue them, And their blood will be precious in his eyes"
 Ps.72:12-14.
Not a happy topic.

Yes. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of fish got washed up on that beach.
I was there, but some sound thinking advice earlier meant that I didn't connive with 'seventy -five. However, there were some who actually borrowed money on the strength of it!! They were a bit miffed as well.

Yes. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of fish got washed up on that beach.
I was there, but some sound thinking advice earlier meant that I didn't connive with 'seventy -five. However, there were some who actually borrowed money on the strength of it!! They were a bit miffed as well.