James Thomas Rook Jr.

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?

Currently, at Warwick World HQ, it takes translators to decipher an apology before it is printed in the publications.

Speaking of CANDOR ... the following cartoon is how "candor" works at Warwick World Headquarters, as well as at other businesses ... EVERYWHERE. 
We are NOT immune to this!
It's a cartoon ... but what makes it funny ( and grabs your chest in a queasy sort of way generating sadness ...) is because there is SO MUCH TRUTH, in this satire of what is REAL.
 

Here is a joke for you:
QUESTION: What do you call "candor" ... bundled with insincere kindness?
ANSWER::  No one knows, as truth is being deliberately obscured.
 
 

Your homework (should you decide to accept) is to print out the above CANVAS on an 8-1/2x11" piece of paper and find the six things that are deliberate lies, and write it  on the margins of your paper.
 

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.
THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.
After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.
So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.
======reference=======
FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.
FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.
FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

Agendas can be proven wrong with FACTS.
Facts cannot be proven wrong with Agendas.
No matter how noble the motive ....
Wrong is Wrong.
 

Agendas can be proven wrong with FACTS.
Facts cannot be proven wrong with Agendas.
No matter how noble the motive ....
Wrong is Wrong.
 

Grey Reformer:
Please go back and re-read what you have written in the last several weeks. It is all extremely consistent.
You care NOTHING about actual facts ... if it disagrees with your agenda.
In the very first issue of the Watchtower, Bro. C. T. Russel stated that ( heavily paraphrased) "The truth is the truth, no matter what the source ... if Satan tells you something that is true... it's still true".
That is still true today.
 

 
 

 
You may want to download BOTH  JPGs,  but especially the quote from Bro. Charles Taze Russel, which started the whole shebang of modern day Jehovah''s Witnesses ... based ON THIS PRINCIPLE. ... " What is Truth ?" It is high resolution, and easier to read when downloaded and enlarged.
 
 

Agendas can be proven wrong with FACTS.
Facts cannot be proven wrong with Agendas.
No matter how noble the motive ....
Wrong is Wrong.
 

" STAY ALIVE 'TILL '75"
The climatic conclusion met with thunderous applause of the 1967 Charles Sinutko Assembly talk "Serving With Everlasting Life In View" !
After his opening weasel wording  he forgot his plausible deniability statement in the beginning, and ramped it up to a crescendo conclusion  that had the crowd roaring!
"STAY ALIVE 'TILL '75"
 

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

I can see where it would become a problem for people that admit one thing, turn around and stab people in the back. Actual facts are in black and white. Many here are merely instigators to purge on the intelligence of others, with actual known facts that JWinsider has already admitted to. I don’t need to resort to ad-hominem attacks or hurl insults. But I guess that’s a handicap for those that you disagree with. Sorry for not being part of your distorted team. I have a conscience and I’m faith when obeying God. Thus far, the only point made here, former witnesses are wrong about 1975, and some of you are wrong to think they’re way by giving the same company line. Which truth should we follow, God and Jesus, or Satan? God and Christ never hide or distorted the truth to get their way, while Satan did.

Sounds like an excuse for murder to me.

I believe you fall short on this one since it can be applied to you and others here.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

All that you are pointing out were quotes from the organization.  But you know that, right?  Matthew's words are:
IT'S AMAZING HOW YOU CAN TAKE THE WORDS "6,000 YEARS OF MANS EXISTENCE WILL END" AND MAKING IT END IN 1975 AND CONCLUDE THAT IT REALLY DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.
 
 

“Nourishing Spiritual Food”? 
I cannot advocate the website listed at the end of this short video, as I haven’t gone there.  Also I do not see verification that the money from the sale of houses, properties and goods was given to the Watchtower at that time period.  But I will not dismiss the large possibility.  What is important about this video, is hearing how 1975 was truly proclaimed from the source; quite contrary to how the 2017 convention presented it: 
“…you see, back then, some were looking to a certain date as signifying the end of this old system of things. A few, even went so far as selling their homes and quitting their jobs. (km 5/1974)"
“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” 
 You may say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?”  When a prophet speaks in Yahweh’s name, if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.              Deut 18:20-22
“This is what the LORD of Hosts says: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They are making you worthless. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the LORD's mouth.”  Jer 23:16
“Behold, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who use their tongues, and say, He says. 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, says Yahweh, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their vain boasting: yet I didn’t send them, nor commanded them; neither do they profit this people at all, says Yahweh.”  Jer 23:31-32
If we claim to read God's Word and live by it, then God's Word should help us distinguish truth from lies.  Matt 3:10
 

...is that a puzzle, Grey Reformer?
If you cannot put something in your own words, perhaps if you actually said it out loud, you would realize how goofy the premise is.
Go on .... give it a try!
I will take a long nap while you work on it.

...is that a puzzle, Grey Reformer?
If you cannot put something in your own words, perhaps if you actually said it out loud, you would realize how goofy the premise is.
Go on .... give it a try!
I will take a long nap while you work on it.

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

This is perfectly reasonable, but still a bit whitey-washy. I would be more inclined to something like: 
"Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. And indeed, there were some influential ones who made firm assertions based on pure conjecture. This even led some to take rather rash life course decisions that they later regretted. But there were cautionary statements too. Many Witnesses, who understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction, were able to take a more rational and measured approach to life in the face of the frothy enthusiasm generated by end-time speculators"

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

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

Yes, Allan

Grey Reformer is no reformer at all .... he is completely "Doubleplusgood" agenda driven.

Millions still dyeing are Grateful Dead fans!