JW Insider

No. [on the topic of never wanting to admit fault] That comes from R.Franz in CoC. But nothing in CoC has ever been rebutted, and I have spoken to one member of the Governing Body who said that just because everything he said in the book was true, it's still poison, because the intent is to expose weakness, while love covers a multitude of sins. Two members of the Writing Department, not Governing Body, have said approximately the same thing. One said he never should have written the book, even though everything in it was true. Based on these words of people who worked with him, I find the book to be very credible from a factual standpoint. Also a "Public Relations" office person at Bethel, and personal friend of mine, has talked to me about things he said to outsiders (related to slight admissions of guilt on the part of the WTS in the past) that resulted in problems for himself among "higher-ups" at Bethel. Also, the person supposedly behind this idea in R.Franz' book is the same person behind the exact same sentiment on never admitting a mistake in the area of child abuse, and I do know for a fact that he, this same GB member (Jaracz), pulled an article from a magazine on the subject after it had gone to the presses, resulting in a delay for the final publication of that same issue with the article replaced. Also, I was a "special request" tour guide for Bethel tours requested by outsiders who were not JWs, and who therefore might have included reporters unbeknownst to us. Therefore, I was personally given instructions by D.Sydlik and D.Songer and G.Couch about how to respond to questions that might seem like they are coming from someone who has no right to the answer. These included questions about an expensive press that had lost us millions of dollars and which we had finally decided to scrap, a similar situation with the early computer expenditures, and some bad press that the local Brooklyn Heights civic associations were evidently spreading about pollution fines we had to pay. When such questions came up, I was to say I didn't really know anything about these, even if I did, and if they came up more than once, I was to ask the appropriate persons mentioned above if there was a better answer. On the topic of paying fines for pollution from factory smokestacks, I was to say according to one of the brothers mentioned, that all factories, no matter how careful, will go over the limits now and then, but that the Watch Tower Society was scrutinized much more closely because there are those who are looking for bad press to pin on us. (I had no personal knowledge of any pollution, but I had heard the rumors, and the question was actually being asked.) But another person who was on the GB (Sydlik), when he heard about the suggested answer, was livid that it admitted error of any kind. And, of course, I have previously mentioned an experience, in a rehearsal for Bethel's "Family Night," while sitting approximately between Bert Schroeder and Merton Campbell, when they decided to make an old brother change the quote in his experience from many years earlier when he said that Bethel factories were once given an award for having the second cleanest factories in Brooklyn, with only Squibb Pharmaceuticals coming in first place. For the actual Family Night production, Schroeder had it changed to: "Both factories received a rating of 100%." The last two or three paragraphs just go to the credibility, in my opinion, of the tendency not to want to admit even the slightest error. This also fits the sometimes comical ways in which we "adjust" and "clarify" past doctrines so that they are more correct, even if they were ridiculously false in prior explanations. In an article about why we were completely dropping over one-hundred former doctrines, the Watchtower described it in typical fashion: *** w15 3/15 pp. 8-10 pars. 6-10 “This Is the Way You Approved” *** Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,”. . . . As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.

I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. The apology that appeared in the 1980 Watchtower over 1975 was actually as good as written back in 1976, and should have been the idea included in that same 1976 issue. But some brothers on the Governing Body were very vocal that you never admit a mistake because it will be used against you. (R.Franz wrote the 1980 apology but admits that he had to keep it weak because it had to be approved by those same brothers who would not agree to a stronger, clearer apology.) Even the following portion of the "Choosing" book caused no little skirmish, because it claims that "many stumbled" and blames it on looking to a particular period or year, but didn't clearly blame it on the individuals themselves, which could have implied guilt on the part of the WTS. I'm including the surrounding context only because I like it for the fact that it finds a way to discuss the "presence" and still ignores 1914. (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.) *** bw chap. 10 pp. 169-170 pars. 41-43 Safeguard Your Christian Hope *** Like Peter, the other faithful apostles taught their fellow believers to keep ever before them the certainty of Christ’s coming to execute judgment and to reward his loyal disciples. A prime objective of such teaching was to aid Christians to be found approved on the Son’s arrival “with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) As Jesus had done, the apostles continued to emphasize the importance of proving faithful to the end. That end could come either at their death or at “the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Peter 3:12) Since even the resurrection of Christ’s joint heirs is linked in the Scriptures with his return, the hopes of all true disciples are bound up with the arrival of the Son of God in the capacity of a glorious heavenly King. (Matthew 10:28; 24:13, 36-44; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:14-17) Thus, during the entire history of the Christian congregation, unshakable faith in the Master’s coming “with power and great glory” has been an aid in a person’s proving loyal to him. 42 Partly because of eagerness to be alive when Jesus Christ reveals himself in glory, there have been believers throughout the centuries who began looking to a particular period or a year for the windup of the ungodly system of things. This has happened right down to these “last days.” Since certain expectations were not realized, many stumbled and returned to the ways of the world. In fulfillment of Peter’s words, even today we hear the voice of ridiculers. (2 Peter 3:3, 4) In effect, they say: ‘What reason is there to believe that the Son of God is going to execute the ungodly and to reward his disciples? Why, nothing has changed since the time of creation. The original processes of life are continuing and give no indication of coming to a disastrous end in the near future. Men are marrying, and women are being given in marriage, babies are being born, and men continue to grow old and die.’ Thus they imply that the Lord Jesus Christ never will come to execute judgment or that this event is so far off in the future that it is of no immediate concern. Such ridiculers have totally lost sight of the fact that either death or “the day of Jehovah” will inescapably overtake them. In either event, they will have no further opportunity to lay up treasure in heaven in the form of fine works. (Luke 12:15-21, 31, 33-40) Hence, for disciples of Jesus Christ there has never been a period of history when they could afford to be neglectful of their responsibilities. Certainly, the risk in doing so is even greater in our time.

We can't know exactly what the writer was thinking, but we can all see ways in which the scenario ties back to the theme "Don't give up!" One of the worst things you can do to a child waiting for a reward is to make promises about the time and place and then when you get there, reset the goal line, as they say. Going back to the illustration of running toward a final goal in Sinutko's talk, imagine if you were promising your child that if he could run a mile, you would buy him an ice cream cone. He had never run a mile before, and he struggled especially in the second and third quarter-mile lap. But seeing the goal ahead, he puts on that final burst of speed, amazingly, through pain and sweat, in the final lap -- and succeeds in running a mile for the first time! Then you tell him he needs to run another mile. (Proverbs 13:12) . . .Expectation postponed makes the heart sick, But a desire realized is a tree of life. The idea or lesson is that this "expectation postponed" became a trial, a sickness. It could even be traumatic in the illustration of the running child.

I think this series of stages, while not definitive of course, helps put a framework on statements made during this time period and others too. For example, before 1925 the statements were very definitive about the "end" in 1925, and all caution was thrown to the wind in 1924. The statements became more cautious in 1925. There was another stage somewhere between 4 and 5 in those days where the Watchtower just denied that they ever said the things they said. Naturally, those who wish to defend the Watchtower Society against having made a false prophecy about 1925 will quote the stage#4 and stage#4.5 statements, and those who wish to embarrass the WTS will quote the stage#2 and stage#3 comments. As to the "finger-pointing" stage#5 note the similarity between the following two statements, especially the portion highlighted in red: *** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America *** God's people had to adjust their thinking about 1925. . . . . A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection. *** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 15 A Solid Basis for Confidence *** If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises. *** w80 3/15 p. 17 par. 5 Choosing the Best Way of Life *** . With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.

Just so you know @DespicableME, I removed my own comment regarding a link about a porn star who left the JWs. With that comment gone, your comment in response to it (referencing Ruud) seemed even more out of place, so I deleted it along with mine. I didn't do this as a censorship, just didn't want to make your comment seem more awkward than it was. Just so you know @Srecko Sostar someone (not me) moved your comments about copyright to a new topic, linked below, so I moved the other followup comments from this topic over there too, which included a couple of my responses. I ended up dragging over about 10 comments that had veered off onto that topic, also affecting comments by @DespicableME and @Noble Berean

Seemingly meaningless. Why would a Jubilee start in 1967? Also, how could a week equal a year so that 70 weeks is 70 years?

I read this book several years ago. An excellent explanation of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis. At least it showed why a lot of people believe the theory.

The legal rights to one's own published material include the right to say HOW it is distributed. This means that even if what they published is free, they have a right to the context in which it is distributed. They can keep someone else from slapping on a different cover to each book and magazine to claim that the material came from someone other than the WTS. They can keep someone from copying their material and then claiming that the copiers had it first and the WTS copied from them. They can keep someone from distributing it from a website where each item is presented as if from some devil-worshipping cult, to try to cast the WTS in a bad light. They can keep someone from slicing and dicing their material to make it look like it says something it doesn't. And of course there are hundreds of other situations and rights that a publisher gets in order to protect their own work and protect the context of distribution. Some real-world examples have happened that match many of the cases I listed. For example, a spin-off "Watchtower Society of ????" somewhere in Africa or a one-time Soviet nation might decide that they agree with 50% of the material that comes from the WTS of PA or NY. So they discard or edit half of the material and distribute the "good stuff" under their own spin-off. This could cause confusion for the average reader in those areas when some of the same material is distributed by bona fide JWs with original WTS publications. To tie this loosely to the discussion, you might have noticed that it was not until the 1970's that the WTS went after a few organizations of this type, and had to change the name from "Jehovah's witnesses" to "Jehovah's Witnesses" (with a capital "W"). The intentionally "generic" look of the name made it easy for another group to steal. Something similar had happened with "Bible students" and "Bible Students" many years earlier. There was even talk at the time of changing the name alternatively to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." Don't know if all other countries practiced this so carefully, but it remained the practice in the USA that the word was never capitalized except in titles, of course -- sometimes not even in titles. Even the Supreme Court learned to not capitalize the "w" in titles of cases. Here are two examples from 1976, just before and just after the change. *** w76 3/15 p. 169 A Happy Family Life—How We Achieved It *** After living in Vancouver for three years, and after our fourth son was born, one of Jehovah’s witnesses called at our door. It was the first time that this occurred in our lives. This eventually led my wife and me to become Jehovah’s witnesses. Let me tell you how this came about. *** w76 4/1 p. 204 Let Everyone Take Life’s Water Free *** He observed the honesty and steadfastness of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the civil war, at which time many of them were hated and mistreated. The first week after the war he began attending their Bible-study meetings, and he is now a baptized member of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Aba. *** g76 3/8 p. 22 A Conspiracy Thwarted in “the Land Down Under” *** In his reply, the archbishop tried to circumvent the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion by claiming that Jehovah’s witnesses were not spreading Christian teachings. Neither he nor his Protestant colleagues, however, were able to produce positive proof of seditious behavior by Jehovah’s witnesses. *** g76 3/22 p. 7 When Will These Cruelties Stop? *** Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi are not some unusual “splinter group” with a separate set of standards or views, different from those held by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses world wide. Like Jehovah’s Witnesses everywhere they seek to be exemplary in payment of taxes and obedience to laws. So the change happened between 3/15/76 and 3/22/76. The March 1976 Kingdom Ministry used the name "Jehovah's witnesses" and the April 1976 Kingdom Ministry used "Jehovah's Witnesses." No public explanation was given.

A lot of people think it's part of Christianity to think of God and Satan in similar ways, as if they are working together, and Satan is doing God's work for him by punishing bad as God rewards the good. After 60 years, the new NWT Bible removed the references satyrs in 2013 by changing the "goat shaped demon" references to just "wild goats." Here's an example: (Isaiah 34:14) 14 And haunters of waterless regions must meet up with howling animals, and even the goat-shaped demon will call to its companion. . . . This was changed to: (Isaiah 34:14) . . .Desert creatures will meet up with howling animals, And the wild goat will call to its companion.. . . Even the Greek word satyr appears to come from Hebrew. The following is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 34:14 and Isaiah 13:21 also. שָׂעִיר sa`iyr (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/13/21/t_conc_692021 ) (Isaiah 13:21, 22) 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight.. . .(NWT pre-2013) KJV: (Isaiah 13:21,22, KJV) But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces:

Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

I don't think we can criticize the WTS itself for revealing hypocrisy, and in this way being critical and judgmental about religion and other parts of society. It is part of our belief system that wheat would grow alongside hypocritically similar-looking weeds for example. The WTS has not been guilty of going beyond fair use in the content of most of their work. There have only been minor exceptions that I know of. It's also possible they did not get the rights to Seola, but I'm not sure. When they wanted the rights to the Diaglott, they bought them. They licensed the rights to print the American Standard and Byington. I know that when someone found a story told from the perspective of an unborn child in a Reader's Digest, for example, an Awake! article was produced over the exact same idea and a lot of phrases remained intact. But a lot of work was put into making it different, so I don't think it was plagiarized on purpose. Similar complaints about Awake! articles have less basis. Sometimes an author writes a non-fiction book on a particular subject and another author says he or she can do a much better job, and comes out with a book with nearly the same title. I have done work for commercial publishing houses, and I know that when a specific genre of writing makes a publishing house some money, another publishing house often puts out a call for anyone who has worked on a similar book. More often than not, the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material. There have been cases when internal material, never intended for public publication has been "leaked." Leaked material can seem damning, but unless everything is leaked it will always tell a partial picture. And the leaker is often interested in making it seem as if the partial picture is the while picture. However, if material that was already intended for the public, or put out on a public website (jw.org) is leaked, this is where the WTS might find a PR problem trying to suppress it. But even here, they would have no legal problem trying to suppress it if they wanted on many sites that are primarily known for quoting large chunks of material or giving out access to publications on their own non-JW sites.

Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing." Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important. So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

You'd be surprised -- maybe not. New and old religious books and booklets and calendars from Christendom especially were common sources from which to "draw" inspiration. But for typography and graphical layout ideas, current magazine advertising was a common source. I know of a couple of blatant plagiarisms that the Watchtower never got in trouble for. Armageddon was going to wipe out a multitude of such sins before anyone could catch on. There is a good chance they will show up over time, however, as more printed material makes it to the Internet for comparison. There was nothing wrong, however, with the 1968 Awake! cover.

i will look for If you are going on publicly published material, it's based on two or three principles put together. You can start with this one. *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint. In it's entirety, this was a very good and balanced article I thought. Edite to add, whoops, @Noble Berean and @Srecko Sostar, the above was not the paragraph I meant to include: *** w74 8/1 pp. 469-470 par. 15 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?

The new JW Broadcasting with Sam Herd includes his talk to the Gilead Graduation class. https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb_201712_1_VIDEO There were several items of note, but this one seems important. In the introduction he mentions evidence that Jesus has been around Jehovah for at least 4 and a half billion years, based on that morning's text plus a rock found in Australia. And yet, the Father knows so much more than Jesus. Therefore we have only begun to touch on a few things. It's like we are new-born with our eyes barely open. He makes fun of things we thought only twenty years ago. At the 6 minute, 45 second mark he starts to say the following: When measured by Jesus, we're newborn infants. We barely have our eyes open. Barely. What we see is not what we're going to see -- in years to come. We're just looking; we're just learning. We're touching things -- and for the first time. Just think in the past 10 years how many things we've touched for the first time -- even though we've read the Bible over and over again and we've listened to it being read to us over and over again. But, we've just touched a few things: like the generation. Ahhh! [purposely making a sound as if something was bad-tasting in his throat and he needed to spit it out] Twenty years ago we -- "Ahhh" -- the generation. [with a dismissive hand movement] And now we know all about that generation, right? And so many other things. Then Brother Losch starts singing a gospel song "Oh Happy Day! . . . when Jesus washed my sins away." He also touches on the NA'OS issue with respect to the Great Crowd serving not just near the temple or before the temple, but IN THE TEMPLE. I liked his statement: Have a positive outlook: Don't be sad that some rosebushes have thorns, but be glad that some thornbushes have roses on it. Then Brother Breaux tries to prove that Jehovah forgets using a verse in Hebrews that says he doesn't. His theme was work is more important than titles. Gary Breaux has told people privately that he was surprised that his talk on the two-witness rule was added to the monthly broadcast last month. I thought that Brother Breaux also related a story about District Overseers that could give some insight into the experience with those special talks on 1975 that were being given by District Overseers in the late 1960's and 1970's. Here are his exact words, taken out of context, of course: I'd like to tell you another little story about a brother that had somewhat of a difficulty with this [showing love]. When I was a young circuit overseer, uh, the District Overseer I had was, uh, I was afraid of him. Everybody else was afraid of him, too.

True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914. So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation. So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120) People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today. How far off is that reasoning?

AL, Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however: The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/ I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out. I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc). ---------- quote from The Atlantic -------------- Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech' Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia. Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard. The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom. When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, it’s a non sequitur.

True. I should have used a few of the other sources that pointed to 1999/2000. Remember that the 1970's were pointed to since 1956 or even before. Then more strongly in 1966 building up to a maximum around 1968 to 1971. The particular quote I used may have been using the term "shortly, within our twentieth century . . . [Armageddon will take place]" to loosen the prediction away from the 1970's and allow an extra 20 years at the most. Or it could have just been intended to be a book that strengthened the parallel discussion of the 1970's without ever mentioning the 1970's . The main point of the book was that the nations would know that a prophet had been among them since the 1919 period, so there may have been some hesitance to point out in the very same book that this prophet had been pointing to the 1970's as the appropriate time for God to act on their behalf. After the 1970's were over, then we could say that any references to 1999/2000 from that point on would be using the end of the twentieth century as a true terminus ad quem (the latest possible date of an event). So when 1980 rolled around this was published: *** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. This does not count as breaking the Biblical rules of date-setting, because the assumptions are built in. It only shows that the writer was thinking about the end of the 20th century as a possible "terminus ad quem." At that moment, the implied age of understanding the events in 1914 was being reduced to 10 rather than 15 as stated before, (and it would soon have to be reduced again to include 1-day-old babies). The word "if" saves this quote even if the spirit of the quote was to break the rule. This next one comes a little closer to breaking the letter of the rule, not just the spirit: *** w84 3/1 pp. 18-19 par. 12 Kingdom Unity a Reality Today *** And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—“will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) 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! In a court of law, juxtaposing the 1980 quote and the 1984 quote, it is easy to see that the second one is trying to close the gap allowed by the first one. The first one allows that the generation could technically go on past 2000, defined by the number of 96 years olds and older who might still be alive that year. The second reminds us that "the end" need not wait until the end of the century, and there is much evidence that it's not just a little closer than the end of the century, but "much closer." Still, a good lawyer might convince a judge or jury that no "terminus ad quem" was defined here, technically. In the next quote, however, the "letter of the rule" was broken here, not just the "spirit of the rule:" *** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” *** The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century. There we have the undeniable "terminus ad quem" which someone questioned later that same year so that a correction was made through a QFR and finally an adjustment was made to the bound volume and subsequent electronic copies. *** w89 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** We have ample reasons to expect that this preaching will be completed in our time. Does that mean before the turn of a new month, a new year, a new decade, a new century? No human knows, for Jesus said that ‘even the angels of the heavens’ did not know that. (Matthew 24:36) There was no time to fix the error in the original issue, of course, but it was changed to this very idea in the bound volume. It's more informative to plot breaks in the "spirit" of Jesus; words at Matthew 24:36 and combined with Luke 21:8: (Luke 21:8) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. Obviously we can still be encouraged that this system will not go on forever, and that man has already proven that he cannot even attempt to take the place of God's kingdom. Therefore we can be encouraged that the end is ever closer, and pray that Jehovah's will be done with reference to the time when that Kingdom comes and God's will is done in heaven and on earth. But we are always breaking the spirit of Jesus words if we point to a specific time period, or specific signs seen during this time period, and say this is evidence that the DUE TIME for the end has now approached. On that count, I would have to admit, as we all would, that these words of Jesus are ignored several times a year. So the "plot" only thickens, every time we think we have figured a way to define "that generation."

Yes. You've said this before, but of course the Watch Tower has now broken the Biblical rules about date-setting regarding several different time periods: 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1970's, 1999/2000. The last one, listed as 1999/2000, might sound confusing. Here's how it was worded in the Ezekiel book, back in 1971: *** kj chap. 12 p. 216 par. 9 “Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right” *** Shortly, within our twentieth century, the “battle in the day of Jehovah” will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom.

That's a good question. I suspect that Anna is right with the general idea that it is those who feel they suffered an injustice. This seems to be true of all persons who are vindictive. They are looking for a kind of "justice" usually believing they are acting against injustice. Of course the word "vindictive" itself is related to the word "vindicate" which can happen through winning a vanquishing vengeful victory -- or in some cases it can be accomplished with a kind word. When we pray for Jehovah's name to be vindicated, we are in effect asking for his name to be avenged in that it is either set free from false claims (or impending punishment) or set free by punishing those who spoke against it or made claims against it. I'll try to brainstorm a few scenarios: In some cases, of course, it's an ego so big that it can't let go of being told they were wrong. In some cases, the persons thought they were fooled and lost a part of their life when they would have otherwise tried their hand at a business, a career, a philanthropic charity, or whatever. In some cases, I suppose, that as Witnesses they learned that the right and moral thing to do when one learns the truth is to go out and convince others in spite of persecution or being made fun of or argued against. Thinking they now have the truth and it's the Witnesses who need to hear it, they focus on the very ones who taught them to preach about such things. In some cases, the person has become unconvinced of so many of the doctrines that they believe it is not worth joining or rejoining after earlier association with their believing family members. When those family members shun them, they believe that they have lost their family to a cult, because they think those with the crazy beliefs are shunning those with reasonable beliefs. And they will probably also think that the rule against association is just because their "cult leaders" don't want them to spending enough time with non-believers to see that the non-believers' beliefs are reasonable In some cases, persons begin to focus on (obsess over?) issues with things like child abuse, deaths from not accepting blood transfusion, control over a person's educational opportunities, control over their associations, etc., and they feel like some kind of justice warrior who must make the world right -- but decide that this must start with Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe it's just the loud 10% who are the only ones we hear about. Based on the Pew numbers, I have a feeling that most of us probably never hear much again from 90% of former JWs, and they just go quietly about their business and almost forget they were ever JWs. (Actually, that seems impossible, so I'm going to revisit that one.) I've met a few in service like this. So the ones we hear from must feel they have a good reason to speak up. If they seem vindictive, they probably want vindication. If they are nasty, then we can just be glad they are no longer with us. It occurred to me that there is probably something about becoming a JW that is polarizing. I don't think anyone can easily forget their dedication vow. If they leave they probably think it's important to justify it to those who they once loved. I also think there is emotional trauma and even a level of PTSD in thinking someone loves you and then having your world turned upside-down on seeing their hatred (through shunning). This must be jarring. Of course, it's true that shunning is not a good way of showing that we love our enemies, but I see it as more of an immaturity on our part than a hatred.

Very good points. Just like the early Trinitarians made additions and adjustments to the meaning of 1 John 5:7-9, because their own ideal meaning of Trinity wasn't there in any parts of the REAL Bible. Similarly, ex-JWs have actually gone to the trouble of splicing and editing a talk by Fred Franz, in which they remove his cautionary statements and make it look like he was promoting 1975 as the time for Armageddon, not just the end of 6,000 years on man's existence. I think many ex-JWs like to pride themselves on being able to take exact words and exact photocopies of older doctrinal material and using our own words against us. In this case, partly because I think the full 1975 issue is not even understood, some have resorted to dishonesty because the actual point made in those days is not so damning as they wish it was. They wish it had been something very bad, so some (at least one case I saw) dishonestly changed the words of the original. I was concerned when the GB brought up the topic of 1975 again earlier this year, and think that it was a great error to try to dismiss it by implying that it came from the unauthorized speculation of individuals in the "rank and file" as the GB sometimes have called us. A good part of this really was from speculation, of course Although I think this was the very goal of the person behind it. He was hoping for speculation. None of this foundational material about 1975 could have come from anyone but Fred Franz, because at the time he was the only one allowed to speculate about prophetic matters. He was called the Oracle at Bethel sincerely by peers who loved him, and sarcastically by those who were jealous (like Bert Schroeder). But Fred Franz was now giving us permission to speculate. It was even more than that. He put information out there and pretty much told us that it was time we should start speculating on what it means. He gave us a few guidelines about what we say to the public regarding this speculation, but he simultaneously guided the parameters of the speculation. He reminded us of all the things that we might see happening around this time period. If we listen to his ideas combined from several of his talks on the topic we can see why so many understood that he was hoping and implying that we get the following meaning (in loose paraphrase): Are we saying that the fall of Babylon, the attack on God's people, the Great Tribulation and Armageddon would start by 1975? No ..... but it could! (wink, wink, nod, nod) Just don't be telling the public that it will. [This is our own little secret bit of knowledge, because we know that God doesn't do a single thing unless he first tells his servants, the prophets.] So, if you know who it is the constitutes Jehovah's prophet today, it should be clear to you privileged few: what you can expect -- not necessarily in 1975 specifically, but definitely in the months to shortly follow. Let him who has ears listen! I think there is plenty of evidence that we were being ASKED to speculate, at least up until 1974. By 1974 we were being told to stop speculating. Don't know if it's true but R.Franz says that F.Franz had lost some credibility at this point from N.Knorr, because F.Franz had told Knorr that he needed to adjust the end of 6,000 years of human existence to 1974 instead of 1975. Knorr thought this finally asking too much, and asked Fred Franz to just leave it alone. In fact, it was speculation that caused some to understand the partly ambiguous material as NOT applying specifically to 1975, or even necessarily to the short months following 1975. Some were speculating that it might still take years before the generation died out. They were speculating about how to combine the material about 1975 with the fact that the generation that saw and understood 1914 would have to have been born around 1900 and would begin dying out after 70 or 80 years. That could reach until 1980. Others were already talking about the end of the twentieth century. And rarely, someone would mention that someone in Siberia was known to live to be 120. That could take us all the way to the year 2020. So how should we speculate that this new information about 1975 meshes with the generation that could take us all the way until the year 2020, if necessary. Fred Franz also promoted and wrote most of the Ezekiel book material to go along with this 1975 idea. The idea of promoting Ezekiel in was so that we could be reminded that "The nations will know that there had been a prophet among them." (Ezekiel 2:3-5) 3 He went on to say to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to rebellious nations that have rebelled against me.. . . and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says.Â’ 5 As for them, whether they listen or refuse to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will certainly know that a prophet was among them. (Ezekiel 33:32, 33) . . .They will hear your words, but no one will act on them. 33 And when it comes true—and it will come true—they will have to know that a prophet has been among them.” Ezekiel had been mentioned 5 to 15 times a year in most Watchtower, but suddenly it about 50 times in 1969, 306 times in 1972, 116 times in 1973, dropping back to only 6 times in 1975. Some have speculated that all this talk about Jehovah's Witnesses acting as God's prophet was only because of the teaching of God's word. But notice the time period and the references to the time period when the point was made. Note the years on the following articles, which of course coincided with the Ezekiel book which we were studying in 1972 and 1973: *** w73 3/1 p. 150 Heeding Divine Warning Is Wisdom *** Better it is to know now, rather than too late, that there is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us, and to accept and act upon the Bible message, “not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) Those who wait undecided until what JehovahÂ’s Christian witnesses have been proclaiming ‘comes trueÂ’ “will also have to know that a prophet himself had proved to be in the midst of them.” (Ezek. 33:33) But such belated knowledge will not mean salvation for them, for it will find their hearts and their ways to be unchanged. What is to be gained by hesitating and doubting to the end that Jehovah can raise up and has raised up a genuine “prophet” within our generation? Certainly it will gain for no one the divine favor and protection needed during the speedily approaching “great tribulation.” If our course is to be that of wisdom and of faith, then, with Bible in hand, we will heed the warning of JehovahÂ’s true watchman and will take refuge where Jehovah indicates in his Word. Then, when JehovahÂ’s prophetic watchman gets the report that Christendom has been struck down, we, together with the faithful watchman, will continue to live. *** w72 4/1 pp. 197-200 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among ThemÂ’ *** So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE “PROPHET” These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?. . . This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as JehovahÂ’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning, and have been joined and assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons who have listened to their message with belief. Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? . . . EzekielÂ’s name meant “God Strengthens,” and . . . At the time, they might not view or appreciate him as a prophet of Jehovah. Nevertheless, whether they paid attention to him or refrained, the occasion was to come when these rebellious people would “know also that a prophet himself happened to be in the midst of them.” Jehovah would confirm him as a prophet then by causing what Ezekiel prophesied to come true. (Ezek. 2:3-5) Ezekiel was further told: . . .Since the year 1919 C.E. JehovahÂ’s witnesses have found circumstances to be just like that . . . . To Ezekiel, in his vision, and, symbolically to the modern-day “prophet,” the spirit-begotten, anointed ones who are the nucleus of JehovahÂ’s witnesses today, . . . The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision. This would indicate that JehovahÂ’s witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as directed from heaven. Yes, the time must come shortly that the nations will have to know that really a “prophet” of Jehovah was among them. Actually now more than a million and a half persons are helping that collective or composite “prophet” in his preaching work and well over that number of others are studying the Bible with the “prophet” group and its companions. It was no coincidence, and definitely intended to help fuel speculation during this time period of 1975-era predictions, when these predictions were then accompanied by a claim that there was a prophet among Jehovah's Witnesses, directed from heaven to deliver a message that would be fulfilled. "Yes. the time must come shortly." Â

Yes, but surely you have heard of the "MAN in the MOON." Or we could compromise with "MON" Anyway, these are very nice pictures of the moon. Also I saw it for that last couple of evenings, and it's very beautiful.

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear. Â Â Â Â Â

Yikes! I just recalled that same phenomenon myself. I also knew a pioneer and a special pioneer who carried around that same Awake! magazine for years -- as late as 1973 and 1974 while I was pioneering with them. While in the Art Department at Brooklyn Bethel, I learned that the artist who drew this cover had died a few years before but that he was remembered for his ability to create these special headline fonts with no help from stat cameras or photographic effects. He also had done the famous piece of graphic art for the Truth book completely by hand. I saw the drawer over at the Photoplate building in the 8th floor of Factory 1 where this brother ended up doing the same chart in 30 languages, also by hand. No one else could execute the fonts as he could. An early copy of his Awake! cover was there, too. The Awake! cover "Is It Later Than You Think?" had been called the Hitchcock cover. I remember this because it was a Sister Hickock, I think, (the married couple Randy and Maureen both worked in Photoplate) who mentioned it. The hypnotic, hallucinogenic style was probably supposed to conjure up the idea of a spiritist trying to look into the future. The Hitchcock reference must have come from the color scheme and ideas from posters like: Â Â Â