5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So what do you mean 'one-year period'?

I'm guessing that the reference is to the relatively shorter period that the Watchtower has applied to the fulfillment.

15 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

As you know, as my English is far from accurate, what I read in our old Watch Tower is a supplication for United States win the war, am I right?

You understood it perfectly. Most of the time, we don't catch such things because we rarely read the original source material. We don't usually give these items a second thought, or if we do, we at least give the benefit of the doubt to the writer.

This reminds me of several times when I witnessed the "editing" process at Bethel. Artists are sometimes given articles to read that have not gone completely through the editing and proofreading process, but I'm not talking about any of those times -- although they were often interesting, too. So often the focus was on things like: "Don't say it that way, it makes us look [some negative attribute]." For now I'll use an older example that fits the subject of the topic.

*** w68 5/15 p. 314 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
For years Anton had been in the insurance business. While such issues as buying war bonds caused strained relations with his business associates, it was the slogan “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” which the Bible Students were then preaching, that caused him to sever his connections with the insurance business and enter the real estate field. There his natural abilities enabled him to become highly successful, buying, selling, building, financing and managing houses, hotels, apartment and office buildings.

On reading the highlighted line, you might never think that Anton [Koerber's] so-called "business associates" were fellow Bible Students. While it's true that "life insurance" became a surreal topic of discussion among many of the Bible Students, I'm told that the real argument was whether or not Rutherford had compromised the Watch Tower's neutrality by effectively encouraging the brothers to  purchase War Bonds (Liberty Bonds/Loans; Victory Bonds) during WWI.

The same issue of buying "US War Bonds" was the primary specific issue in Brother Klein's experience here:

*** w84 10/1 p. 22 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible Students was put to the test. World War I was raging, and even though the most prominent brothers had been unjustly imprisoned over the war issue, the need for Christian neutrality was not fully appreciated by those then taking the lead. A few who saw the issue clearly took offense and separated themselves from the Bible Students, calling themselves Standfasters. They warned me that if I stayed with the Bible Students I would lose out on being of the “little flock” of Jesus’ anointed followers. (Luke 12:32) Mother, though not yet dedicated, helped me to make the right decision. I could not see myself leaving those from whom I had learned so much, and I therefore decided to take my chances with my Bible Student brothers. It really was a test of loyalty.

The wording above definitely implies that Rutherford was out of the picture at the time, and not involved in the wording of the decision, but notes and documentation discovered at Bethel around the time of the article show that Rutherford was in on it.

I once told my experience of sitting next to Bert Schroeder as he started to rewrite an experience that an older brother was telling about life at Bethel in past decades on "Family Night" (mostly a Bethel talent show). It's not so relevant to the topic here.

From what I was told, that article about Anton Koerber, already mentioned above, was very controversial in several places, and I think, in re-reading it, that you can just about start to pick up on some of the "behind-the-scenes" issues, even if no one had mentioned it.  

*** w68 5/15 p. 315 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
He worked out contracts with radio stations and radio networks for broadcasting the Kingdom good news. He also proved of assistance in acquiring property in Brooklyn, New York, in South Lansing, New York, for the Kingdom Farm and Gilead School there, and in Toronto, Canada, for the Bethel home and factory there. . . . He had a share, back in 1925, in fighting for licenses for radio stations owned by the Watch Tower Society. For some twenty-five years and more he appeared before presidents, cabinet members and members of Congress to serve them with the many resolutions adopted by Jehovah’s witnesses at their various assemblies, always keeping in mind the fact that he was Jehovah’s representative on behalf of his brothers. . . . In 1935, he was sent to Germany to try to get the printing presses at the Watch Tower Society’s Magdeburg branch, which had been seized by Hitler, transferred to Russia, with the hope of opening a branch in Russia. . . . Shortly thereafter Anton returned to his real estate activity, after which he again became active as a full-time pioneer minister. Then in 1952 he was able to arrange his affairs so as to be able to travel as a circuit minister for the Watch Tower Society. . . . That Anton had the right view of secular work was apparent in a number of ways. One of these was the generosity he showed toward those who had served God’s kingdom full time over many years at such places as the Brooklyn Bethel. . . . His very positive personality at times caused misunderstandings with his brothers, resulting in his being on the sidelines, as it were, for a time. . . .

It might be hard to imagine how a "very positive personality" was responsible for misunderstandings that resulted in him being 'sidelined' as it were. My source, a respected brother in Writing, says that one of the reasons for the "controversy" behind this article was that Anton Koerber was actually a multi-millionaire whose generosity was very selective to specific brothers of his choosing. And he supposedly "bought" his assignments as a regional overseer and circuit overseer. When he didn't get his choices he threatened to take his "skills" to one of the other Bible Student sects. This could be false, of course. But the respected brother who told me was only someone who "seconded" the story as I had already been told from a less respected source.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, like I Said before, a good researcher finds "facts". I just happen to think the worst researchers come from Bethel

I just listened to it. It's all about hearsay evidence. Hardly any verifiable facts at all.

Sounds like the person showing her the house had just made use of some unsubstantiated rumors just to make the property more "interesting" for some kind of "shock value" effect. I think it's very odd that the Staten Island property doesn't have any grave markers, but it really was used as a cemetery according to a notice in the Watchtower. And it doesn't mean anything that Rutherford's grave is unmarked if there really are other persons in unmarked graves there, too.

The quote from Franz is the first I heard of it, so I'm guessing it must have been mostly shared in apostate or exJW circles. (You probably know that Franz was the kind of person to sometimes blurt out little-known historical facts, but surely this one would have gotten a lot more quick traction because it's the kind of sensational gossip that spreads.) Yet, I knew two old-timers at Bethel who admitted a real hate for Rutherford, and who told some of the stories that they thought were true, but may or may not have been. I saw one of these persons every day a breakfast and the subject came up only about once a month, but he was the kind who would have shared something negative like this, if he thought there was any chance it was true. 

I just did some more reading about it, and realize it's a strange circumstance, but that's not evidence. Strange circumstances give rise to false rumors, but they don't make the rumors any more likely to be true.

34 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, I not going to argue what a reference number should be to the listing and where it should be applied for easy reference. That still doesn't alleviate the fact that "false" data is being applied to any book that references Maesen Reseach, or how this person in the" Africana" wrongfully applies the WTS teachings. That is the "main" point.

OK. I understand that point, and as I said in several of my last posts, there is plenty of wrong info in Measen's work, and it is not corrected by other authors that make use of him.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

That doesn't mean this Editor didn't error with the assumption of what the Bible students were actually teaching versus what is fictionally produced by either this person or Maesen. That's my point that you continue to insist on "FALSE" data. And you continue to push that false data on others.

Yes. I would agree that Maesen (and other authors) included some bad assumptions about what the Bible Students were actually teaching. Maesen even admitted some of the weaknesses of the argument as I pointed out earlier. But these authors we have seen so far get a lot of things wrong, either due to how anxious these authors are to prove their assumptions, or from a serious lack of understanding of Bible Student teachings (or both). 

I mentioned earlier that I already understand your position on this a bit better. You agree that there is commonality, but you have noted some cases where these similarities are much more divergent than the author claims. So I completely understand, with that explanation, why you say it's wrong to call this "influence."

Personally, I would still use the word "influence" only because so many of the remaining points of similarity are not so easy to dismiss or counter, and even though some of these assumptions made by these authors still contain mistakes, they are much less serious than the errors you (and I) have already pointed out. Also, I have already agreed in the very first post that the points of commonality were a misuse of the Watchtower's intent for these same doctrines. It's just that I believe someone can also be "influenced" by some teaching,  and then distort it so greatly, so that you might not even recognize where the "influence" came from. I can think of other cases where you might call this same type of process "influence" but I don't want to get too far off topic.

This is a little off topic, but you asked a few questions earlier in this "thread" that I skipped. I can at least try to answer direct questions.

On 1/20/2017 at 4:53 AM, AllenSmith said:

You claim to have copied a book while at the Bethel House by a Book author that accepted this Gossip, for what purpose did you copy that book, for what purpose did you read the COJ book, for what purpose do you defend people like “Barbara Anderson” that claimed “Rutherford” is buried in the garage floor at Beth Sarim in San Diego. If she was willing to accept that as a researcher for the WTS, as you claim to be?

I didn't copy that (Horowitz) book while at Bethel. That was from a university library where I maintain alumni access. Also, Horowitz doesn't accept "this gossip" in that book, which is about Russell's particular form of Zionism, based on Russell's speeches and writings. I copied the book because I didn't have time to read it, and because I didn't want to check it out to take home (because I don't live that close to Massachusetts). Also, I get a very cheap rate on photocopies there.

You also asked why I read the COJ book. Initially, I read the manuscript with the idea that I would find the time to do some research and counter the very weak or specious arguments I expected to find. The person who first allowed me to see a small copied portion of it thought the person should be disfellowshipped just for writing it. The person (in Writing) who gave my wedding talk and let me see the whole thing believed that someday someone should be able to respond to it, but by then I already knew I wasn't at all equipped to help, and he didn't show it to me with the idea that I would ever get such an assignment, anyway. It was way out of my league at the time, but I have since obtained and read many if not most of the reference sources to check whether it was accurate, and I also obtained and ran several different software programs to double-check the dates for calculations of eclipses and planetary positions from astronomical diaries quoted.

You also asked for what purpose I defend people like "Barbara Anderson." I don't defend people (unless I know enough about them). I defend ideas that appear to be based on evidence. But I'm very skeptical of anything anyone says unless it matches evidence, and even then I know that new and additional evidence can always come along someday and change what I think to be true. I know of a few things that Anderson has said that I don't believe at all based on contrary evidence. I also know of a few things she has said that I thought wouldn't be true, but turned out to have more evidence than what I previously believed. So far I've been impressed with her ability to do research and I therefore understand why the Watch Tower Society trusted her with so much research. But this doesn't mean I automatically trust anything she says in the future. I automatically assume bias, as I do with anyone, and I recognize biases in my own thinking, too.

I really don't care where Rutherford is buried. That's probably why I don't remember reading anything on Anderson's site about that particular fact. I think I recall a request to the city of San Diego to bury him at Beth Sarim, but I thought the request was denied. I assume that the Watch Tower Society has the correct information on that subject. I wouldn't expect them to be that concerned about it anyway. Even if the WTS or someone else has said something incorrect about it, it's not a Biblical or doctrinal issue, anyway. It has nothing to do with the effects of our publications or preaching work. It's just more trivia.

15 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

The listing, however, is "NOT" mentioned by any means to search the index for the listing. To me, that's a scheme since it's not forthcoming. Isn't that an argument you usually criticize? or is it only when its convenient to you.

No. The listing IS INDEED mentioned with a means to search the index for the listing. It's on page 256 of Africana Studies. If you are using a Google Books source, then you probably won't see page 256. Instead it will say: "Some pages are omitted from this book preview." But if you scroll up to page 251, you will see that this entire "Chapter 14" is just a copy of the same Maesen source I quoted earlier. The full copy of the book has the entire "Reference" section.

Also, there is a trick to seeing the text of some pages in the Google Books preview, even if the visual, formatted image of the page is omitted. You may already know this trick, but if you know that certain exact text exists on a page, or if you search for the exact text that ends the previous page, you can often get a few words of the context that are actually on the omitted page. If you take the time, you can sometimes re-create an entire omitted page if you tediously repeat searches on any additional exact text that you discover on the omitted page.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And yet, this author “James L. Conyers Jr.” conspires with many past authors to link the WTS teachings to be the same as the NOI.

Just to be accurate here, James L Conyers, Jr. was not the author of this. He was the editor of a collection of essays on a more general subject of various faiths in Africa. He happened to include the author, Maesen, in his collection. That's why the page numbering is different from its original "Journal" publication.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Here, the author cites “Rutherford’s” Books, not by name but by year only so the reader would have to accept his word at face value. (Scheme)

@AllenSmith   This was not a "scheme," as you called it. It's actually a PROPER way to document research. What you might not have known is that when you write a thesis or similar academic paper, you usually create a "Reference" section for all the sources that were quoted or utilized for their ideas.

This way you can simply reference them with just the author's name, year and page as a kind of shorthand in the text of your work. (So you don't have to use up so much space repeating the titles each time you refer to the same work.) In this case, Maesen, on page 324-325 (of the "Journal" edition quoted earlier), included just such a section, where those books were identified correctly:

Rutherford, Joseph F.

1921 The harp of God. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

1926 Deliverance. Ibid.

1927 Creation. Ibid.

1928a Reconciliation. Ibid.

1928b Government. Ibid.

1929 Life. Ibid.

1930 Light II. Ibid.

1932 Preservation. Ibid.

1933 Preparation. Ibid.

1934 Jehovah. Ibid.

1936 Riches. Ibid.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

A question though. Why then does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is inspired?

Paul was talking about the "Old Testament" Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, etc. These would be the books that the Scribes and Pharisees considered inspired. As far as the "New Testament" is concerned, there may not have even been any writings that were considered inspired -- yet. There may have been no canonical gospels for several more years, and Paul's letters were being collected, but may not have been considered inspired yet, either. 2 Peter is the one place where Paul's letters are then considered to be Scripture.

(2 Peter 3:15, 16) . . .just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. . .

Curiously, 2 Peter was not considered inspired in most of the early collections of "NT" letters. Doubts were expressed about whether 2 Peter should be canonical through the 4th century, but I believe that the information presented here http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2peter.pdf gives us excellent reasons to accept that the book dates to the apostolic age. Also Origen who was an amazingly good reseaecher and scholar for his time, looked into the question and gave us trustworthy reasoning as to why it should be canonical.

We look at accepted Scripture today, and just accept it matter-of-factly, but there was a time when various books were argued over for decades before being considered acceptable (including Revelation and 2 Peter). There are some Christian-based churches that still accept additional books in their New Testament churches, as they have done for nearly 1,800 years in some cases. But it is sobering to remember that "Christian forgery" was extremely common, just as "Jewish forgery" was common especially after the canon was considered closed. Sometimes the only way you could get your "wisdom" or your "prophecies" to be looked at was to write it as if it had come from a well-known apostle or well-known associate of an apostle.

For anyone else still interested at all in this question, or this subject, I should mention that there are easily about 100 pages of resources and material on the subject that has not been touched upon yet. I doubt that we will get through very much of it, but I thought that the explanation in The Centennial Review appeared quite accurate and speaks of similarities without attempting to prove causation. Naturally, it's long and I can't quote all much of it. These will be excerpts from 21 pages, with some portions highlighted. There are certain problems with his overview of WT and JW teachings, but at least shows a good awareness of most of the historical changes. The things he gets wrong includes the exact relationship he implies between Russell and Second Adventism, and I think this is worthy of more discussion under a separate topic. (I didn't mention it before, but I think that AllenSmith was right in a prior post where he credits B W Schulz with the most accurate history on that topic, although I wouldn't mind hearing where Allen differs from Schulz' view.)

THE BLACK MUSLIMS: AN AMERICAN MILLENNIALISTIC RESPONSE TO RACISM AND CULTURAL DERACINATION Author(s): Perry E. Gianakos Source: The Centennial Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (FALL 1979), pp. 430-451

Black Muslims have ties to two earlier American black nationalist groups and share some of the ideas of each: the Marcus Garvey movement of the late 1920's and the Moorish-American Science Temple movement of Noble Drew Ali (the former Timothy Drew of North Carolina).⁵ The Islamic elements in the Black Muslim belief system probably derive originally from the Drew movement, but they were reenforced by W. D. Fard, the "Arab peddler" whom some Muslims believe to have been Allah. Appearing mysteriously in Detroit in 1930, Fard assumed leadership of the Moorish movement upon the death of its founder the year before, claiming at the time to be the "reincarnation of Noble Drew Ali." The movement soon split into factions, one of which led by Elijah Muhammad (the former Elijah Poole of Georgia) remained faithful to Prophet Fard (Master Wallace Fard Muhammad). It is this faction — "The Nation of Islam" — to which C. Eric Lincoln gave the name "The Black Muslims." According to E. U. Essien-Udom, how ever, in the early sixties Malcolm X and other Black Muslims denied any connection with the Moorish movement and asserted Fard's uniqueness (pp. 35-36). Fard's origin, though, remains a mystery, as does his disappearance in June, 1933.⁶

The influence of at least two other American religious movements — both millennial in character — can be detected in the Black Muslim eschatology: the Jehovah's Witnesses and, to a lesser extent, in their economic activities, the Mormons. The millennial element, of course, also links the movement to traditional Christian groups and ultimately to Judaism. Similar ities to the Ras Tafarian movement of Jamaica, now established in northeastern United States, derive solely from common links to the Garvey movement.⁷

...

Answers to the question of specifically when the millennium will begin have been offered by various groups over the years. Most of these predicted dates have been derived from abstruse and highly individualistic juggling of Biblical numbers — a latter day adaptation of the Hebrew Kabbala. As one would conclude, as long as the beliefs remained vital, these dates were subject to constant revision. In the United States, probably the most famous of these predictions, because so many people acted on it, even going so far as to purchase "ascension robes," was that of William Miller in 1832, who predicted that the Advent would take place in 1843. During the Civil War period, other millennialists believed that the Advent would take place in 1866, and that the war then raging was but the prelude. E. L. Tuveson, for example, has discovered this note of expectancy in Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic," composed during the period.¹⁴ More recently, the Jehovah's Witnesses — founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh around a nucleus of former Millerites — have offered a series of date, all of which, of course, have had to be revised. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the group, made his first prediction in 1878. which he later pushed forward to 1914. His successor in the movement, Judge J. R. Rutherford, first set the date at 1925, and subsequent calculations of the Watchtower Society moved the date up to 1975.¹⁵ The Reverend Billy Graham has wisely refrained from announcing a date, but, in citing the chaos of the present era as an unmistakable sign, for the past five or six years he has been preaching an imminent second coming. The Black Muslims, themselves, originally took the Jehovah's Witnesses' date — 1914 — but explained that a "grace" period had been granted to allow American Blacks to heed the message of Muhammad. The "final" date was to be 1970. It is presently expected that the event will take place some time before the year 2000, though whether this, too, is to be modified or abandoned under the new leadership is not clear.¹⁶

^...

One must preface an examination of millennialism in the Black Muslim "social myth" by looking first at the celebrated break between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, supposedly over Malcolm's remarks on the assassination of President Kennedy. Though unstated at the time, the break resulted from a conflict over different millennialistic assumptions, assumptions which mirror perfectly the disparities that exist between those followers of the Edwardsean, activist or northern, millennialistic version and the southern, or passive, version currently publicized by the Reverend Billy Graham: in short, between post-millennialism and premillennialism. Such a change or shift (from pre- to post-millennialism), which was implicit in Malcolm's evolving position, as we shall see, would have required an abandonment of much of the Black Muslim "social myth," a step which Elijah Muhammad was not disposed to take. The Kennedy remark became a convenient excuse for Muhammad to rid himself of a charismatic personality who threatened to destroy the "social myth" which had been so successful.²¹ The most obvious indication that the Black Muslim movement is premillennialist is its original belief in separatism and its long-standing injunction against political activity on the part of its members, including voting. Since the government is corrupt, it would be sinful for any righteous Muslim to participate.²²

... man is by nature evil and his civilization doomed to destruction, there is, of course, no reason to integrate with it nor attempt to "reform" what is obviously "unreformable": hence separation with expectancy. Until that "final" day, however, Black Muslims expect the system to treat them justly, and Muslim leaders enjoin their members to obey all just authority. Since they must, they submit, although, as in the celebrated draft refusal case of Muhammad Ali and others, they do not submit in all things. In their attitude toward government the Black Muslims resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who regard all government — not just the American or Caucasian ones — as imperfect. All governments, in fact, are "obstacles" standing in the way of the establishment of Jehovah's Kingdom, the only perfect government. (Both Elijah Muhammad and Judge Rutherford, leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, were sent to jail for obstructing American war efforts. Rutherford in 1914 and Muhammad in 1942).²⁵ ...

Because the Fard movement in Detroit in 1930 appears to have modeled itself in many respects on the example set by the Jehovah's Witnesses, one may be easily tempted to conclude that it was responding to a set of conditions similar to those which precipitated the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Black Muslim resemblances to the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are traceable to a congruence of aims rather than to a similarity of originating conditions. Because in the beginning days of the movement Fard had no copies of the Koran to give to his followers — most of whom were illiterate — he had urged them to listen to the radio sermons of Judge Rutherford of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These sermons were consistently and sufficiently anti-religious establishment to serve Fard's aim, namely to alienate his followers from their traditional "white" Christian beliefs. Fard was shrewd enough, however, to warn his followers not to take the white man's worlds literally. They were, he warned, "symbolic," requiring "translation" by him in the Temple service. But one suspects that there was little in Rutherford's broadcasts requiring "translation," for his diatribes against established Christian religions were so extreme that he was banned from a number of radio stations. Rutherford's performance thus emboldened Fard to do the same: Christianity was the Negro's "graveyard," he declared, "the slave holder's religion."³³ Fard recognized that in order for his followers to accept a new identity the old one had to be destroyed: they were to become, in the parlance of the present day, "born-again Muslims." But Detroit in 1930 was not the same as Pittsburgh in 1872, though both situations gave rise to despair, the originating emotion of millennial movements; nor were the Southern rural blacks who made up the bulk of Fard's followers in Detroit the same as those white, laboring-class Second Adventists in Pittsburg some sixty years earlier. Fard's followers faced a different and an even more despairing situation, compounded now as it was by the additional cruel factor of racism.

For while many southern rural blacks had migrated to the Detroit area during the period of the first World War, so had many southern whites, most of whom brought their racism with them. The Ku Klux Klan had become very strong in Michigan during the post-war period, and fully half of the state's membership of 70,000 resided in Detroit. During the twenties they almost captured the mayor's office. Several council members, in fact, were known to be Klan members. A particularly ugly racial confrontation had taken place in 1925 over the "Henry Sweet affair," but Clarence Darrow's brilliant courtroom victory in that case served, for the moment at least, to prevent the racial situation from deteriorating further.³⁴ The tense racist environment remained, however, and undoubtedly facilitated the founding of the first Black Muslim community.

...

Under the leadership of Wallace D. Muhammad and his successors, the future of the Black Muslims promises to be different in some respects. The "white devil" belief is being abandoned, which means that the "Yakub" myth will be discarded and that whites are now eligible to join the organization.⁴⁴ The belated recognition that Malcolm X was "ahead of his time" suggests that we shall see the Black Muslims become politically involved. In terms of millennial belief, such a shift means an abandonment of the premillennial pattern and an endorsement of the post-millennial position, since a more activist program was what Malcolm X was urging at the time of his break with [Elijah] Muhammad.

--- end of quotation ---

That was long, but it indicates a second level of complexity to the question. Much of the supposed influence, as Allen has pointed out, is not even related to doctrinal influence. In this I fully agree that there was something very important that Fard and Elijah Muhammad thought they saw in Rutherford's philosophy and social positioning and practice that they considered useful in their method of "peddling" a new religion. Also there was a more general reason to point to the doctrinal teachings of Rutherford due to their anti-establishment and anti-Catholic emphasis.

We can leave to the side for the moment any questions about just how they happened to pick up on the idea that 1914 was the time when the lease of the world's rulers ran out, or the 6,000 years since Adam leading to a 1,000 year millennium to follow, or that they as a chosen people would survive Armageddon into a new world. But that doesn't mean we covered all of the similarities yet. For example, even though Babylon the Great is considered to be America herself, the NOI taught that Babylon had fallen just shortly after 1914, in the sense that she was now doomed, and that her complete fall would be accomplished by the time of the final battle of Armageddon. At the time the Watchtower taught that Armageddon had already begun but the judgment was cut short for more to be chosen to survive. So even some ideas that seem different to us today, were actually a closer match at the time. But admittedly, causation of influence is a complex subject.

What make it more complicated is that there has been change in doctrine in both religions, JWs and NOI. Over time, the NOI may, in some ways find itself apparently more similar to JWs on some millennial doctrines, especially as they adopt a less racist and more inclusive philosophy. But it would be a mistake to think that changes they make now are evidence of influence back in the 20's and 30's. So, as I've pointed out before, no one can just look at any of these similarities one by one, outside the historical context of the full doctrine of NOI, and believe they are always seeing causation by influence. Some of the similarities will derive from coincidence, just by virtue of being another millennial religion that pulled a few ideas from the Bible (such as the 144,000, etc.).

The Nazi philosophy was a millennial philosophy, too, we must remember, but they were definitely not influenced in any way by the Watch Tower.

Allen,

You have made a lot of good points. In fact, there are no points made in any of the evidence you quoted from that I disagree with. I still agree with every one of your sources.

I think the problem is that we have come at this issue with a different understanding of what it means to be "influenced." I notice that you keep going back to questions about whether Rutherford had a positive influence on the NOI, and you have spent a lot of time showing that the NOI is very different from the Watch Tower Society and perhaps not even worthy of any influence by the Watchtower. I still agree on those points too.

I'm guessing that you have thought about this idea of "influence" and are thinking of the perspective that if there is nothing of any socially redeeming value in the NOI, then there must be no evidence that it was influenced by something good. I understand your perspective.

I think you have also wanted to make the point that if I am claiming that there was some level of influence on the NOI from the teachings of Rutherford, that this somehow reflects badly on Rutherford or the Watch Tower Society. I didn't understand this, but I'm thinking that it must be based on the corollary of the idea just stated. It must have sounded like I was saying that if something that is so "totally bad" (like the NOI) was influenced by the Watch Tower Society, then it's like saying that the WTS influenced something to be "bad." I don't believe the WTS produced any kind of bad or negative influence -- AND I don't think that what I am calling influence produced anything positive in the NOI. The only possible, potential advantage I mentioned was that any familiarity with Rutherford's teachings might have made the transition just a little easier if anyone would have later decided to convert from NOI to JW.

In fact, my reason for bringing up this idea in the first place was to support something you had said earlier about the variety of beliefs within the supposed "umbrella" of the Bible Students. In fact, I have always agreed with you on this point: that there was no actual "umbrella" that defined all groups of Bible Students. You mentioned the Bangalore Bible Students, and I thought you might also be aware of some of their differences, and that there were dozens of Bible Student groups that would draw crowds and congregations after themselves in many countries around the world. There were several who had associated with Bible students, and then made themselves "prophets" or claimed to be the fulfillment of some prophetic Bible character as a modern-day "antitype." Some used a small part of the original Bible Student message that they had picked up from Russell and then created something quite strange and almost unrecognizable from it.

In fact, you can still go back to the topic where this came up and see that I was supporting something you, Allen, had recently presented.  http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28202-what-does-it-mean-with-the-april-2017-study-edition-of-the-wt-are-all-who-wereare-baptized-still-bound-to-this-vow/ The following is an exact quote from that topic, although below I highlighted the sentence where I had mentioned you.

On 1/8/2017 at 10:19 AM, JW Insider said:

The "Bible students" under Russell had similar problems with the various "Bible student" associations. "Allen Smith" has pointed out examples, in some of his posts. The split-offs of both Russell-styled Bible Students and Rutherford-styled Bible Students (and even Jehovah's Witnesses in a few cases) have been springing up for years. There has been a long-standing problem with dozens of such splinter groups and self-styled prophets in Africa, for example, that make use of the Watchtower publications as a foundation. Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States.

The idea that the NOI had been "influenced" was just mentioned as an extreme example of how some of the Watch Tower Society's teachings have been misused. Apparently you might have agreed with the idea had I worded it a little differently. Perhaps you have a better idea how to word it in a way that supports the point you had made in previous posts.

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I will give you an opportunity to offer your own hypothesis for doctrinal similarities first.

I noticed you still can't handle the core of the question, about their doctrinal similarities. You've touched on "hell/hellfire" but that's only a start.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You're supposed to be the genius here. You’re the man with the plan because of your insight in the Bethel House.

All your many ad hominem "red herrings" about how I'm 'supposed to be a genius' and supposedly have 'insight' for having worked at Bethel might really be seen as outright dishonesty on your part. I usually ignore these diversions, as they have nothing to do with the question, but I'll respond here:

You claim to have two PhD's in Theology. I admit that I expressed my doubts when you first made this claim, and I'm sorry for doing that, but I never claimed that you didn't have them. On the other hand, I have never claimed that any of my experiences at Bethel made me intelligent, or that I was chosen for any of my assignments due to intelligence or insight. I readily admit to being a fool on most subjects, and I readily admit to having been studious on a narrow set of subjects. My regular daily assignments at Bethel revolved around the Art Department, and because of my nerdy personality, I was also allowed to do extra research. (Every artist does some level of research when given an assignment.) I'm sure that the only real reason I was also assigned to work on a series of research assignments for Brother Schroeder, is that he knew my father from KM school, and my father is also fairly well known as an Electrical Engineer, specializing in audio/sound, and he has helped the Society on various projects for decades.  So, from literally my first day at Bethel, Brother Schroeder and Charlotte "took me in" as a kind of adopted son in hopes that Judah would have a friend of the same age, and he even asked me if I could get Judah interested in studying NT Greek. I was, and still am, just an amateur at NT Greek. But he knew about it, and he thought that this hobby should be "nourished," so several of his assignments were based on NT Greek. He might have thought at first that he was just giving me a good excuse to spend more time in the libraries, which I loved. But naturally, as a young kid, just turning 20, I also tried to impress him by putting more work into the assignments than he expected, and so I continued to get regular research assignments from him for several more years, even for a few years after I got married and left Bethel. I know for sure that none of my assignments were based on genius, because I know for sure that I am no such thing.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Your questions just come to show how clueless you really are.

Actually, my questions, you might recall, were just reminders that these were points you skipped, and evidently had no answer for. They even tended to show that your line of reasoning could be flawed, because they can imply that you knew I might be right. I notice that you still haven't addressed them. For now, I will assume that the reason you didn't try to answer the question about why they left is because you realize the point is either not important to your claim, was completely irrelevant, or perhaps even counters your claim.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

If you can’t further your research on why Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali disassociated themselves from the Nation of Islam. Figure it out. Read their “Bios”

I never cared and still don't. Although Malcolm X's reasoning is widely known from his autobiography, I never knew what Muhammad Ali's relation to the NOI was, exactly. 

If you think you can tie something from their biographies to the point of the question, feel free. As for me, I'll stick to the point. Here is something that is not a diversion, but gets to the actual point of discussion. It's from one of the major works of Elijah Muhammad: "Message to the Blackman in America." I've added some highlights, but these are exact quotes, many of which are very much aligned with the pre-1930 Bible Student doctrines, not necessarily current doctrines. Sometimes it's clear from context that these doctrines have been re-interpreted, but there are some places where the context brings in even more details that match the wording of the Watch Tower publications of the time period. You should also note that Judge Rutherford was referred to "for his interpretation of the Bible," not his legal maneuverings, or methods. Note that the beliefs are never exactly like the Watchtower; we are only talking about "influence."

Page 191: They hated Judge Rutherford for his interpretation of the Bible which condemned the church and its father, the Pope of Rome.

Page 11: He (devil), the god of evil, was made to rule the nations of earth for 6,000 years, and naturally he would not teach obedience to a God other than himself.  So, a knowledge of the true God of Righteousness was not represented by the devils. The true God was not to be made manifest to the people until the god of evil (devil) has finished or lived out his time, which was allowed to deceive the nations (read These. 2:9-10, Rev. 20:3[,]8-10).

Page 88: We are now living in the early morning of that seventh thousand years. The world of evil was given 6,000 years to reign over the righteous. Now, since their time expired in 1914, as all religious scientists agree, we are in the seven-thousandth year since the creation of Adam,

Page 18: He spoke with authority, not as one who is under authority but as one independent. He said the world's time was out in 1914, but people could get an extension of time, depending upon their treatment of the righteous.

Page 20: They will fail and be brought to disgrace as Pharaoh's magicians and he himself were by Allah (God), for you have not known Him, or His religion, as Israel had not known God by His name Jehovah (Exod. 6:3). . . . They felt that they should not believe Moses' representation of God by any other name than God Almighty, regardless of Moses' stress upon Jehovah as being the God of their Fathers.

Page 72: This mighty One, is known under many names. He has no equal. There never was one like Him. He is referred to in the Bible as God Almighty, and in some places as Jehovah, the God of Gods, and the Lord of Lords.

Page 21: Armageddon has started, and after it there will be no Christian religion or churches.

Page 56: When should we expect Allah (God) to make all things NEW? After the destruction of the wicked, their king and world. Just when should the end of the old world be? The exact day is known only to Allah, but many think that they know the year. But we all know that 1914 was the end of the 6,000 years that was given to the old world of the devils to rule.

Page 57: Seventh, it is the only religion that has the divine power to unite us and save us from the destruction of the War of Armageddon, which is now. It is also the only religion in which the believer is really divinely protected. It is the only religion that will survive the Great Holy war, or the final war between Allah (God) and the devil.

Page 12: Because of the false teaching of our enemies (the devils), God has made Himself known; (for I teach not the coming of God but the presence of God, in person.) This kind of teaching hurts the false teachings of the devils, for they knew that God would come in person after you. They, (the devils) also are aware that God is present among us, but those of you who are asleep they desire to keep asleep.

Page 37: . . . another new people must be made to be the ruling voice of tomorrow out of this old world that is now living her last days.

Page 109: The rising of opposition against divine truth, revealed in the last days (years), also has been told by the prophets of old, and we have it in writing that this opposition against the truth is not to be feared by you who believe and have understanding. The truth will be attacked by the disbeliever and hypocrite in the last days.

Page 54: . . . could easily be frightened and worked up into emotion by the preacher, yelling and spitting out foam all over the pulpit, preaching hellfire after death and the dying of Jesus on the cross. He would paint an imaginary picture in the minds of the listeners -- of meeting some dead relative up in the heavens (sky) after death or mourn them into grief and sorrow. My people are leaving and rejecting such nonsense as they advance more and more educationally.

Page 170: It is the Pope of Rome today whom the church accepts as its intercessor between and Christians and God. And all Catholics, such as priests and cardinals profess to have the power to pray the soul out of purgatory.

Page 158: condition, they are classified with the devil, to be destroyed in hellfire -- the final end to both.

Page 88: The early morning is the first part of the seventh thousand years [note: Millennial Dawn] and the year under the name Millennium (which the Christians say means the 1,000 years Christ will reign on the earth). This is the 1,000 years which it will take to restore peace and honor, after the removal of peace breakers. This time also includes the birth of a new nation from the mentally dead. . . . For in that 1,000 years of Millennium, the disbelievers will cease to be. And to those who live in that time it shall be binding upon them to serve and obey One God:

My own suspicion is that Rutherford's new campaign about the "Birth of a Nation" as the final piece of the failed 1925 Millions campaign would have caught the attention of several African-Americans and other blacks all over the world. Rutherford, a master advertiser, had re-used the name of the recent, infamous, racist movie (Birth of a Nation) that promoted the KKK as saviors of the South. (Rutherford claims that he published this article [in the March 1, 1925 Watchtower] even though the majority of the Governing Body "strenuously objected" adding that "by the Lord's grace it was published and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization." - See June 15, 1938 Watchtower, page 185.)

Of course there are many ideas that we could associate with the Watch Tower's teachings, which are not necessarily from the Watch Tower publications. Many of the individual points above could easily be countered with contradictory material or shown to be taken somewhat out of context. If we decided to take them apart piecemeal, one by one, it would be easy to make some headway against the idea of influence by the Watch Tower's teachings. But they still need to also be taken altogether, as a "composite" item of evidence.

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:

I gladly accept the definition you gave. I think this is exactly what we are talking about. We are not talking about acceptance of the Watch Tower's views, or promotion of those views. We are talking about producing effects on another person's opinions, etc.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Their purpose to have Rutherford's literature read? was that they liked that Rutherford was fighting the establishment in their eyes. Yet, with your own eye's you can read what they thought of their influence by Christianity. Malcolm X found out later, as did Muhammad Ali. That's why "Ali" dropped the Nation of Islam.

OK. You apparently believe that what you've said here provides a serious response to the question. You believe that NOI leaders and founders chose to endorse Rutherford because they liked that he was fighting the establishment in their eyes. You apparently believe that because they claim no influence from Christianity, that they must be telling the truth. You believe that "Malcolm X found out later, as did Muhammad Ali." They found out WHAT later? That the NOI had been too much influenced by Christianity? Did he find out that they had been influenced by Rutherford? Or that they had not been influenced enough by Christianity or Rutherford? You probably didn't mean that, but you don't say what they found out. Why do you think "Ali" dropped the Nation of Islam? You don't say. Why not?

What you hadn't noticed, first of all, that the choice of Rutherford even at the level of someone they liked for their particular perception of the way he was fighting the establishment is already an admission of influence. The only way it would not be is if they chose him at random, or decided to endorse him because they thought they could influence him. We know that this wasn't the reason. Otherwise "influence" is already admitted in anyone's non-random choice and endorsement of teachers, writers and speakers. The more time one spends listening, reading, and learning from someone, then the greater the potential influence. And any later denials of such influence is not very meaningful if teachings have already been endorsed and adopted.

I noticed that you have not yet attempted to answer questions about why Armageddon, 144,000, and 1914 were adopted into the teachings of the NOI. I don't really expect you to, unless you are willing to discuss specifics. So far you have quoted a lot of specifics, some of which support exactly what I have been saying, and none of which have given anyone any reason to question the claim that teachings promoted by Rutherford had an influence on the NOI.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You just want to find fault with the Watchtower, plain and simple. Your type of disingenuous schemes are will known, now. 

This is your typical red herring. But I can't see why anyone would get fooled by it, because it claims no fault with the Watchtower. If you feel that it reflects badly on the Watchtower anytime Rutherford's teachings might have influenced a group whose teachings you generally find distasteful, then you are hanging onto an illogical premise. I wonder if you can even explain why you think this claim reflects as a "fault" with the Watchtower. We could have a similar discussion about a dozen other groups influenced by the Bible Students. I wonder what your criteria would be for deciding whether or not a certain level of influence counts as influence. Based on your comments, so far, I have to suspect that your criteria has more to do with the reputation of the group, or your personal "perceptions" about the one who presented the facts. 

In spite of these defects in your presentation so far, I will attempt to take you seriously and address a few more of the claims you made so far:

On 1/12/2017 at 1:51 AM, AllenSmith said:

Fard, was a racketeer, He saw an opportunity after the death of “Ali” to come up in the ranks of prominent men, and started finding any kind of scam to employ to have people listen to his message. The Watchtower views were among them. The reason he chose the Watchtower was due to him seeing similar challenges the “Society” was having when it came to legal matters. Did Fard promote the Watchtower teachings? NO! He promoted how to observe the operation on how Bible Students dealt with people (interactions) and gain social understanding by suggesting to his followers to read “Rutherford’s” literature to have a better understanding of his philosophy. Not their faith.

So your claim here is that Fard started using any kind of scam to have people listen to his message, and the Watchtower views were considered by him to be, for him, a kind of scam to get people to listen. So you agree he wanted people to listen to the Watchtower views, but that this type of scam, you think, would not have any influence on those listening. Perhaps you can explain that claim. It sounds naive.

You do give a reason, but it seems to be your own reason that you present without evidence, and not the reason that you can give any evidence for. You say he chose the Watchtower because he saw a similarity in legal challenges. He very well may have. I wouldn't doubt that this was noticed, although remember that we are talking about a period PRIOR to 1933. The number of court cases and arrests were picking up since the late 1920's but we weren't really winning many of the court cases until late 1933 and beyond. So this might very well be one of the reasons that NOI leaders took notice, but it doesn't at all prove that they were not also influenced. 

You merely make a claim "Did Fard promote the Watchtower teachings? NO" You say it was only about observing how Bible Students dealt with people in their interactions to gain "social understanding." And you say that he suggested reading Rutherford's books to better understand his philosophy, not his faith. Again, I'm quite sure that this was one of the ideas behind their interest in Rutherford. It's pretty clear they didn't want to BECOME Bible Students. But again this does not mean that they would not be influenced. Even if Fard or Malcolm X told NOI members that they should study the Watchtower's operations, style, social methods, legal arguments, and philosophy, this does not provide any evidence that they were not influenced, nor that the members themselves would be able to avoid influence from such observations.

If what you say is true, you would certainly expect to find those very important warnings like: "Study them, but don't be influenced by their teachings." You don't find that however, and it turns out there is a very good reason. The reason is that there is plenty of evidence that what attracted NOI leaders was the teachings themselves. I already gave you an overview of that in Maesan's article, for which you only commented on "hell" instead of the more Watchtower-specific doctrines such as 1914.

You are probably aware that William Maesen's article that I quoted from was just a shorter version of papers presented in 1969. "This is a revised and shorter version of papers read at the fall meeting of the Michigan Sociological Association at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, 21 November 1969; and at the annual meeting of the Illinois Sociological Association at Loyola University, North Campus, 30 October 1970." In it he quotes from authors who had made this deduction prior to him. 

I mention that because of what you said about Google book authors seeming dependent on him. In fact, there are prior resources that are more specific, that I haven't even touched on yet.

But I will give you an opportunity to offer your own hypothesis for doctrinal similarities first.

In

8 hours ago, Kurt said:

But some will ask—wasn’t Pastor Russell the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses? No! Nothing could be further from the truth.

8 hours ago, Kurt said:

Not the Founder of “Jehovah’s Witnesses”

After the death of Pastor Russell in 1916, Joseph Rutherford,(a man whom Pastor Russell had recently dismissed from his staff} rapidly returned to Brooklyn from California to seize control of the Watch Tower, dismissed the majority of the Board of Directors and established dictatorial control. The writings of Pastor Russell were soon to be discarded. The Watch Tower under Rutherford became the central headquarters, holding authority over all congregations willing to yield their sovereignty. Basic doctrines of the society seriously digressed from the teachings of Pastor Russell. The methods of conducting the evangelistic work were altered. The more sensational digressions such as refusing blood transfusions and refusal to salute the flag quickly caught the public’s eye.

However, many individuals and congregations refused to surrender their Christian liberty or accept the new teachings. As early as 1917 the exodus from the newly declared sovereign headquarters began. By 1931 over three quarters of those associated with the Bible Student movement in Pastor Russell’s day had separated from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and formed independent and autonomous congregations. Today’s Bible Students trace back their roots through these separatists to Pastor Russell and his teachings.

Any idea if these figures are accurate. I had heard that it was over 50%, but never fully believed it was over 75%.

The basic idea that 'comes to our rescue' is that the Watch Tower Society was on a path that would soon lead them into more and better light.

But I understand your point, and if Jesus were looking for those who were faithful in what is least, then he must have been looking at their future, not every "least thing" they were doing and saying at the time. The 1917 "Finished Mystery" was a book filled with falsehoods by today's standards. Some of it was perfectly ridiculous. The 1918 preaching and convention campaign was based on the false prophecy that millions of people then living would never die because they would survive until the fulfillment of the Biblical promises in 1925. Rutherford promoted the Great Pyramid for another decade. He admitted that he helped promote "creature worship," in other words, the "cult" that had formed around "Pastor Russell."

We can look back on false doctrines and false prophecies now and justify them as mistakes based on the limits of what they could know at the time. But in reality, it was possible to know that Jesus had specifically said not to follow anyone who would say that the "time is at hand" with reference to his presence (parousia). Yet, Rutherford, in 1916 to 1933, continued campaigns to distribute a book by Russell with that very name: "The Time is at Hand."

Yet these were all mistakes by humans who wanted to do the right thing. I think it's pretty obvious that the motivation was pure, at least for the vast majority of these Bible Students. That's why I'm happy to overlook those mistakes of the past. But I also have brought up some of these same points, which probably sounds like I'm not overlooking those mistakes of the past. But that's not what the problem is.

The problem is that -- now, in the present -- we keep looking back on these times in our history and repeatedly claiming things about them that weren't true. Of course, these things that we currently claim are partially true, but this just makes the untrue parts more insidious in the way that they can mislead us. Are we really honest today, if we think we need to use some deceptions to try to clean up our reputation from the past?

We sometimes, for example, make a big deal out of the fact that the churches of Christendom all praised the League of Nations as "the political expression of God's kingdom on earth." This supposedly showed why the prophecy in Revelation was fulfilled against them:

(Revelation 17:8) 8 The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.

It turns out that it was not all these "churches of Christendom" that had praised the League as the "political expression of God's kingdom" and who found it something to "wonder" at, and "admire." Notice what the Watchtower said about it in the February 15, 1919 issue, page 51:

“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.”

This is exactly what is meant by the phrase claiming that the League of Nations is a "political expression of the kingdom of God on earth."  In addition the Watchtower expressed that we wondered admiringly at it. Rutherford changed his mind and began saying instead what many "evil slave" Bible Students, and many church leaders had already begun saying about it.

But even as late as 1933, Brother Rutherford continued to be fooled into thinking that proposals by political leaders were an "expression of the kingdom of God on earth."  Rutherford said the following in his letter to Adolph Hitler regarding the ideals of the Nazi party:

The conference [WT convention] of five thousand delegates also noted - as is expressed in the declaration - that the Bible Researchers [Bible Students] of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator. The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich [German Nazi Party]. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich. Based upon the supposedly strong language of our literature, some of our books were banned. The conference of the five thousand delegates pointed to the fact that the contents of the books which were criticized, only refers to the situation and actions within the Anglo-American world power - especially England - which is responsible for the League of Nations and its contracts and burdens imposed upon Germany. What is written in our literature - no matter whether from a financial or political point of view - is only directed towards the suppressors of the German people and their country, but by no means refers to Germany itself, which is trying hard to fight against the imposed burdens.

This idea of using a lack of honesty about our past is clear even in this 1933 letter to Hitler. Of course, Rutherford quickly understood that the deception was not going to work to stop the ban on our literature, and again, Rutherford changed course accordingly.

These are just a couple of important examples, but it should be clear that what we say about not being neutral before 1919, but learning our lesson was not really true. The majority of Rutherford's books, speeches and booklets were politically charged for decades, and took sides on many issues, especially between labor and capital, for example. When the publications sided with another politician, they could be praised as if they were a Biblical prophet.

For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:

We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.

Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

Of course, this was during a time when Rutherford was campaigning that 1925 was even more of a sure thing than 1914 was.

Some scholars read the two canonical letters to the Corinthians as compilations of several letters, with some duplication likely left out. I haven't read all their reasons, but when I come up with a question on my own based on a text-based issue, I often find that some scholars' explanation for that particular question makes as much sense as any other explanation.

Psalm 14 and 53 shows that duplication has happened. (The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many Jews had kept 151 songs as canonical, not 150.) Jude and 2 Peter contain identical passages.

Paul does not appear to necessarily think of his own words as inspired in all passages when he says:

(1 Corinthians 7:12) 12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:. . .

Jesus does not necessarily speak of Moses as inspired in all passages when he says:

(Matthew 19:8) 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning.

Yet, the Jews were given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not:

(Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew,. . . 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.

And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, in spite of "Babylonian captivity," were apparently given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not for the Greek Scriptures. One of the last books by the apostle John gave them good advice:

(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

In Spain, I understand that it's considered a problem when any organization (religious or otherwise) attempts to handle criminal cases with their own private judicial system. It's like a parallel government. The "Church" caused Spain a lot of embarrassment trying such systems over the centuries.

Looks like it's time to add a necessary caveat again. For any readers who wonder whether this is a typical way in which JWs discuss information with each other, it isn't. Outsiders should not read too much into the way in which this particular topic has been discussed here. Most Witnesses are quite patient and reasonable, and do not so quickly lose control or lose confidence in their evidence such that they resort to the ad hominem. red herring, strawman, or any number of other logical fallacies. Please do not let this dialogue in any way shape your opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses in general. So with that said . . .   

You've done it again Allen. You have claimed that a point of fact was wrong, and then provided detailed evidence proving that you misunderstood. You provided evidence that shows that your claim is false. It has become even clearer with these recent posts that you are an opposer of true facts. I get the impression sometimes that you actually know that the evidence shows you are wrong, and that you just like to play the part of an opposer, which makes it odd that you so often use the word "thespian" as some kind of accusation against others. 

You made one partial statement that is true, and I will address it:

On 1/12/2017 at 1:51 AM, AllenSmith said:

they could have included any number of other denominations when it came to the understanding and belief of a literal “Hell”, and similar Ideologies

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-hell/dont-believe/

This is absolutely true that they could have.  Maesen even admits this along with admitting certain other weaknesses in his "Exploration" of the idea (that the NOI was influenced by Rutherford's teachings). I saw a couple more weaknesses based on Measen's misunderstanding of Watch Tower teachings. (For example, he thought that Rutherford was teaching that only 144,000 would survive Armageddon, which, if it were true, creates a closer match to the "official" NOI teaching. But of course it's not true.)

The problem of course is that while official leadership of the NOI did borrow from a few different sources, they also singled out Rutherford as someone to read and listen to. Currently, of course, they deny Rutherford's influence, and you apparently believe them, which is fine. But there has been no attempt to explain why they once encouraged the buying of Rutherford's books, and they even encouraged people to buy radios to listen to Rutherford's lectures. So while they could have picked up a non-traditional view of "hell" from other sources we should still factor it in as we try to explain why they endorsed Rutherford. Rutherford was apparently the only white man the NOI ever endorsed as a kind of teaching source. That fact alone appears to entail some kind of influence. At least posit some reasonable explanation of that fact before going on to just say they could have got their idea about hell from other denominations. On that matter, too, please note the following:

• The Nation of Islam (NOI) teaching about "hell" is closer to Rutherford's than to the most common Christian sources, Jewish sources or even the Quran, which equates hell with Gehenna (Hebrew Gehennom; Arabic, Jahannam).
• The Pew survey you linked is not useful regarding the point made. That survey evidently asked about religions that believe in "hell" and apparently did not distinguish religions that believed in "hellfire." You will notice that it gives the impression that 98% of JWs believe in "hell" and 2% do not, while only 55% of Christianity in general believes in hell. This response is worthless because we already know that 100% of JWs believe in hell, and 0% believe in hellfire. Other denominations would more likely respond that they do not believe in hell only when what they really mean is that they do not believe in a literal hellfire.

At any rate, this is not about any one reason, but about all the composite doctrinal reasons, combined with the official endorsement of Rutherford as a teacher. Perhaps they did get their idea about hell from another place. So now we should try to explain their interest in the meaning of:

• 1914
• Armageddon
• The 144,000
• The Millennium.
• New World on Earth
• The Mortal Soul

Was there any other person who spoke of these 6 other items as much as Rutherford did, during the very time when they encouraged members to listen to Rutherford and read his books? 

The idea that the world's time was up in 1914 and that it was a time of judgment deferred so that more could be saved is curious in many ways on its own. How many religions do you know that were also teaching this besides the religion represented by Rutherford?

2 minutes ago, ARchiv@L said:

my intention is not to take your valuable time

I didn't mind at all. I did this while waiting for my wife to get ready for a meeting . I was hoping to express some of the fun that can be had while learning a language. Some people like crossword puzzles, cryptograms or sudoku and the like. I like them too, but I especially like language-based puzzles, and this particular type is guilt-free.

On 1/14/2017 at 9:28 AM, ARchiv@L said:

Later, this month, I will add the additional information.

I don't want to ruin the "game" if anyone else wants to play, but this has long been my favorite kind of "puzzle."

The prior verse is a very popular one, but it's very puzzling here because there are so many letters missing on the partial line on the right and it's sometimes more difficult based on the fact that the words that start at the beginning of the column often start in the middle of a word.

For example: EUSOMETHA (Which looks more like "EYCOMEθA") on the top line must be only part of a word, since several words end that way, but it's not a real word on its own here. The second picture says it's really "PEYSOMEθA"  (the C is actually S). Since the P is the way the Greek language makes an "R" then this word ends in ". . . reusometha." The most common word here would be "poreusometha" (πορευσόμεθα) which is a verb meaning to proceed, go, depart, walk, etc. The root of this verb will contain poreu- but it can have literally FIFTY different endings. This particular ending will make it 1st person, plural, middle voice, and either Future or Aorist. So we could bet that the word would be translated "we [1st pers, plural] will/shall [future] walk." If not, "we will walk" or "we shall be walking" or we could try "we shall go" or  "we will go" or "we will proceed" etc, and this would also narrow down the location.

A very similar puzzle shows up in the next line which is also the verse prior to the verse with the divine name. It's the word that looks like "..HKOAMEN" or based on the tiny piece of the previous letter, either "...MHKOAMEN" "...LHKOAMEN" or "...KHKOAMEN." The first two choices don't make much sense, but if it's "..KHKOAMEN" then this is surely part of the word "AKHKOAMEN." Since the H is the long E, and the E is the short E, this is the word "akekoamen" which is a form of "to hear" or "understand" or "hear a report" etc. The particular form of the verb is 1st person, plural again, but this time it's not in the future tense, but in a "perfect active indicative." This means that the action of "hearing" has already been completed and the verb indicates the result of this, such as "we have heard" or "we heard."

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Perhaps this modern dates refer to some reprint of the original work

That's true. They have both been re-published by various publishers through the years. At Bethel, in the 1970's when we quoted from it a lot more often, we only knew of one edition of Matthew Henry, although that same edition with same page numbering was also in a three-volume paperback version. For Albert Barnes, there was an 1850-something version that was on the shelf until 1977 and it disappeared, probably to someone's office. There were also a couple of old stand-alone volumes from an incomplete set, or from prior to the combined set. We also had two single-volume Barnes' Notes on the New Testament both from Kregel Publications: a 2nd printing 1963, and a 7th Printing from 1974. The page numbering was nearly the same. Also, Brother Schroeder had, in his office, a set of them which had been published in several separate volumes, along with some standalone OT commentaries by Barnes. They had completely different page numbering.

It's not wrong to mention only the publishing date, which could be any of about 25 different dates for Barnes (less for Matthew Henry). But in WTS publications, we sometimes mentioned a date, but without a page number, and we sometimes mentioned a page number, but without any date. I was primarily commenting that the Watchtower readership would generally have no idea if these men were from modern times or hundreds of years ago. Since Insight, the Watchtower, as far as I know, has never put a date next to quotes from Matthew Henry, or Albert Barnes.  Since the 1980's, except for two footnotes (without dates), all references to Matthew Henry do not refer specifically to a commentary or a book, but to Matthew Henry as a commentator, scholar, or British author:

*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry . . .

*** w07 4/15 p. 14 Follow Paul’s Steps to Beroea ***
They tested what they heard by using the most trustworthy touchstone. They carefully and diligently searched the Scriptures. Bible scholar Matthew Henry concluded: “Since Paul reasoned out of the scriptures . . . .

*** w98 9/15 p. 14 par. 17 Times and Seasons in Jehovah’s Hands ***
Some Bible scholars link this expectation to Daniel’s prophecy. In commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry wrote: “We are here told . . .

*** w94 2/15 p. 11 “What Will Be the Sign of Your Presence?” ***
British author Matthew Henry commented: “The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was very terrible, but this exceeded it.

Prior to Insight, references to him more often included the name of his work: "Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible" even if without a hint about the fact that it originally came from the 1700's.

With the exception of one side note (like a footnote) this is similar to the "Barnes' Notes" references. Since Insight, there is never a date or name of his books or commentaries, although at least the term "19th-century" is mentioned a couple of times. Examples:

*** w11 9/15 p. 22 par. 9 “Run . . . That You May Attain It” ***
Scholar Albert Barnes observed: “As a runner would be careful . . .

*** w07 4/15 p. 27 Let the Congregation Be Built Up ***
Bible scholar Albert Barnes recognized that Jesus’ direction to “speak to the congregation” could mean . . .

*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .

*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .

*** w00 6/15 p. 17 par. 2 “All You Are Brothers” ***
. . . it is contrary to the ‘simplicity that is in Christ,’” noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. . . .

With reference to what I said in a previous post on the use of commentaries in the Watchtower magazine, Albert Barnes is referenced 10 times in the 1970's (positively) and only 2 times in the 1980's (once negatively). Yet, his works, such as "Barnes' Notes" are mentioned 8 times in the 1970's (positively) and have only been mentioned twice since the 1970's until now. And one of those was a negative reference in 1984. Discounting the negative reference that means only one time, positively, since 1978. And even that supposedly positive reference said he "makes an honest admission" that something was true. (Imagine how "positive" we would take it if someone said that Brother Splane had to honestly admit that something was true.)

There is also a tendency, as partially indicated above, to reference any commentators as persons: as scholars, commentators or theologians, but not necessarily as authors, and therefore with very few references to their specific books. Before Insight, it was much more common to also reference the title of their commentaries or books. 

Sorry for a lot of trivial detail, but if you are looking for subtle differences between the Aid Book research "era" and the Insight research "era," then the above does express a kind of trend to quote commentaries less. Although the two commentaries I used in the examples above are almost always used favorably, except in the 1980's, it is a little more common now to quote a commentator as a "bad" example, too. I think this helps serve as a kind of reminder that we heard in the 1980's, in warnings against seeking out commentaries for a different view of something.  

On 1/12/2017 at 4:50 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Are they any subtle differences between the Aid and the Insight books? Well, the easiest to perceive is the abandon of the chronology emphasis.

Yes. There are many subtle differences between Aid and Insight. All of them together make Insight much better, and much more valuable as a Bible reference. Aid was printed at a time when we did not have the ability to print multi-color and at a time when we rarely referenced our sources as a matter of policy. Content-wise, the vast majority of the Aid book remained unchanged. The subtle differences will be in the style of the additional material. The additional material is primarily based on more recent, or updated information and a lot more relevant photographs. Naturally there will be exceptions to every rule, but I don't think you were looking for a discussion of all the trivial differences. As far as minor mistakes and typos remaining in the latest material, I don't know of any in Insight. The Aid book went from Remington-Underwood-Selectric style typewriters to linotype typesetters. Everything was therefore typed twice and there was no direct transfer through Word Processing or Spellchecking utilities, and some typos and mistakes remain in the latest printed version. Insight took advantage of both. 

I'll quote the Watchtower article below at the end of this post, and it explains the best reasons for Insight, and draws several comparisons. The one point you made that is relevant here is the fact that the Insight book tried to push some doctrinal material into the content, and the Aid book almost always avoided this. While working on the Aid book, writers were suprised that the factual, non-doctrinal style had allowed commentaries like Matthew Henry and Barnes Notes to remain valuable for a hundred, or even 200 years, and they were amazed at how much Biblical knowledge could still be drawn from them.

A lot of the "in-demand" speakers from Bethel (those usually called upon to give talks in area congregations), along with Governing Body, District Overseers and Circuit Overseers) began to quote more often from such commentaries, and they were more often made use of by everyone in the two Bethel Libraries. (124 for Writing and 107 for Gilead Students). Bethelites could even order their own copies through Dean Songer's Department in the factory. Of course, 1980 put a stop to all that. One of the first moves was to stop the ability of Bethelites to purchase commentaries through Society channels. The Bethel Library was then made off limits to Bethelites, the Gilead Library now had very limited access, which was also then removed from easy Bethelite access. These were replaced with a few bookshelves placed in public access areas of the larger Bethel residential buildings with mostly just Society publications. Governing Body members spoke out against the use of commentaries to the Bethel family.

On 1/12/2017 at 4:50 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

It should be fine if we could have a commentary on the whole Bible -without extended applications- It’ll not be necessary to rewrite the work continuously, because no “new light” would arise.

This was the reason that the Insight books needed to get an update. The article on the Faithful and Discreet Slave was updated in 2015 to match the latest Watchtower changes, for example. There were a few other articles with more minor changes, relative to some parables. The Insight book has added information about 1914 in the Gentile Times article and the Earthquake article. Some of these changes that add specific doctrinal material to the content might make the Insight book subject to more frequent revision as was required in 2015. I believe in these cases, that the Aid book remained just as accurate all along. Both of them had some trouble with chronology, but the Insight book sticks its neck out a little further with claims that might not prove accurate.

Here's the Watchtower's assessment of the differences. Quoted in its entirety:

*** w89 3/15 pp. 10-11 “Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia ***
“Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia
AT THE “Divine Justice” District Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses, announcement was made of the release of a new Bible encyclopedia entitled Insight on the Scriptures. This is a two-volume publication, with a total of 2,560 pages, all of it in clear, readable type. At present it is available only in English, but translation is already well under way in a number of other languages.
Insight on the Scriptures includes much of what was formerly in the book Aid to Bible Understanding and a great deal more. In what respects is it different? Scores of sections have been revised and updated. There are also many new articles as well as added features in Insight on the Scriptures.
Books of the Bible
Each book of the Bible has been given special attention. Valuable background material is presented. There are fresh outlines of all the books of the Bible, each one drawing attention to the book’s distinctive features. These convey a concise but comprehensive view of the contents of the book in a manner that is easy to grasp. For example, there are four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, each having a different objective. When introducing the Gospels, the respective outlines present those objectives in this way: ‘The apostle Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life was written primarily with the Jews in mind. This Gospel demonstrates that Jesus is the foretold Messianic King.’ ‘Mark sets out a concise, fast-moving account of Jesus’ life, presenting him as the miracle-working Son of God.’ ‘Luke’s account of the life of Jesus was written to confirm the certainty of events surrounding the life of Christ and in a manner that would appeal to people of all nations.’ ‘The apostle John’s account of the life of Jesus highlights the theme that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, by means of whom eternal life is possible.’ After these introductory remarks, the outlines present the contents of the books under a limited number of main headings. This can help you to remember the principal ideas that the Bible writer developed.
Refinements
Careful analysis of statements in this publication has been made in the light of the meaning of words used in the original languages of the Bible. Details have also been included to enable the reader to appreciate the Biblical scope of meaning of the original-language words. Additionally, Biblical name meanings have been refined in the light of the way the basic elements of those names are actually rendered in the New World Translation.
A diligent effort has also been made to bring the material in this publication up-to-date with what has been published in The Watchtower in recent years. For example, we have learned much about the heart, the book of life, being declared righteous, and many other things. This information has been embodied in Insight on the Scriptures.
Details of secular history have been checked against the original sources, where available, instead of simply relying on what other writers have said about the content of those sources; hundreds of references have also been included to show where such information can be found. Scientific aspects of the articles have been updated. There has been a complete reappraisal of geographic locations on the basis of archaeological research done in recent years.
A Bible Atlas
Insight on the Scriptures includes some 70 maps, showing hundreds of locations mentioned in the Bible. Thus, included in this publication is a comprehensive Bible atlas. In most instances, an individual map focuses on just a limited aspect of Biblical or secular history. Hence, it draws attention to places that are of special significance in that context. You will find a map setting out the travels of Abraham, one outlining the wilderness wanderings of Israel, another covering the conquest of the Promised Land, one for David’s life as a fugitive and another for events associated with his kingship, a series of maps outlining the places to which Jesus traveled during his earthly ministry, and a number of maps showing details of Jerusalem during various periods of history. A map index is provided to help you to locate the specific maps that provide the most helpful information regarding given places or locations.
With many of the maps, there is also a list of place names, along with scriptures that show why the places are significant in the particular historical context under consideration. On the adjoining pages of the book are color photographs of locations featured on the map. These features can help you to benefit more fully from the Bible accounts, as you see the relationship of one location to another, read details as to what took place there, and see what the places look like today.
Special Features in Full Color
In preparing this publication, museums in North America, Europe, and the Middle East were combed in order to locate valuable objects related to the Bible record. Pictures of the most worthwhile items were obtained. In addition, a number of collections of photographs of places mentioned in the Bible were reviewed, in order to select the ones that would be most helpful. The results have been worked into eight 16-page full-color inserts that are of practical value. These are fascinating highlights that you will enjoy and will be able to use in many ways when teaching others.
For example, there is a section entitled “How We Got the Bible.” Graphically, it depicts the steps through which the Bible has reached us—from the original writings down to modern translations. It contains pictures of portions of some of the oldest manuscripts and visual evidence testifying to the care taken by early scribes, even to the point of counting the letters in manuscripts that they copied.
Another section is about the “Flood of Noah’s Day.” It considers such issues as, “Could the ark have held all the animals?” and, “Where did the floodwaters go?” It also presents an analysis of Flood legends from six continents and the islands of the sea to show that memories of the Deluge of Noah’s day are found among people of diverse cultures all over the earth.
Other sections deal with geographic features of the Promised Land, ancient empires whose activities affected Israel, and a picture tour of places that visitors can see in and around Jerusalem today. Altogether, there are 50 of such topics developed in full color.
All this information has been made easily accessible by means of comprehensive indexes right in these volumes. These indexes direct you to the choicest discussions of scriptures cited and subjects listed.
Taking an overall view of the work, these introductory comments appear in the first volume: “The objective of this publication is to help you to acquire insight on the Scriptures. How is it done? By bringing together from all parts of the Bible the details that relate to subjects being discussed. By drawing attention to original-language words and their literal meaning. By considering related information from secular history, archaeological research, and other fields of science and evaluating this in the light of the Bible. By providing visual aids. By helping you to discern the value of acting in harmony with what the Bible says.” So within the pages of Insight on the Scriptures is a wealth of truly valuable information that you can use to benefit yourself and others.

On 1/12/2017 at 4:50 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

It should be fine if we could have a commentary on the whole Bible -without extended applications- It’ll not be necessary to rewrite the work continuously, because no “new light” would arise.

One thing I noticed that I thought was a bit funny is that the Insight book quotes Barnes Notes about 5 times and Matthew Henry about 2 times. But each time it quotes Barnes it always references only the date 1974, and each time it quotes Matthew Henry, it always references only the date 1976.

This reference method tends to obscure the fact that Barnes Notes was completed in 1832, not 1974. It also obscures the fact that Matthew Henry was written in 1706, not 1976.

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

"one of the leaders of the United Israel World Union, a movement that sought to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism".

More related trivia:

Guess who wrote the book mentioned below?

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Basically, the info is in the same place you drew most of your information from. But I don’t demand the source.

If that was meant for me, I drew none of my information from that source at all. The reason I did give the source without even being asked is because I quoted directly from it. I picked that particular one because the references section also provides some additional resources. Anyone who wishes could then check these additional sources to see if they were utilized accurately. A few of them are even available online. For example: https://ia902304.us.archive.org/28/items/blackmuslimsinam030743mbp/blackmuslimsinam030743mbp.pdf

If you were referring specifically to Ali and Covington, I haven't read much about it. My oldest son is an attorney with access to LexisNexis and other resources, but it's low on my list of things to look into. I was glad for what you included above. My roommate knew some facts, and at the time, I was able to just call my father and ask what he knew about it. I recall that my parents were very surprised that I hadn't heard anything about it prior to 1976. They thought it was common knowledge. It had just never come up before that I had remembered.

As far as there not being any "positive" influence, I wasn't referring to Covington's specific case with Ali. I was referring to unknown potential positive influence. While pioneering I handled a lot of Bible studies in the prison work that we did from our congregation, both high-security and intermediate-security prisons. The Nation of Islam was a well-known presence in the high-security prisons. I'm not black so I wasn't allowed to study with anyone from that group. (Prison rules, not ours.) But perhaps there was a time when imprisoned Black Muslims were more receptive to the work of Jehovah's Witnesses conducting Bible Studies in the same prisons due to their semi-acquaintance with some of our doctrinal foundations, or a receptiveness to Rutherford's teachings. That assumption might be a long shot, but it's usually true that the more someone knows about our doctrines, the more receptive they are to listening, or at least not actively opposing.

On 1/9/2017 at 2:08 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

What do you think about my view?

I think it's "spot on."

I also hope you continue to give further examples in your posts. I think this point is closely related to one of the absolutely most important recent changes to our teachings. I wanted to add some info from a historical perspective on this point. For better or for worse, I got involved in this same subject in 1978, and learned something interesting from the experience. (Interesting to me, at least.) 

For me, the experience gives some additional perspective on why it took forty-two years to make the official change, from the time this 1972 article first presented this same important question about extended applications, sometimes called: "type-antitype" applications.

The 1972 Watchtower you quoted was actually a summary of what Ray Franz had learned from the team that researched and put together the Watch Tower's first Bible encyclopedia: "Aid to Bible Understanding" (finished in 1971). The "Aid Book" research resulted in adjustments to the elder arrangement and the GB arrangement. It contains literally dozens of statements about how we can't be absolutely sure of the meaning or reason for certain Biblical references. But the biggest practical change for the Writing Department, was that this Bible dictionary/encyclopedia revolved almost completely around Biblical context. It was not a doctrinal reference.

I thought this idea about the importance of Biblical context was almost a "radical" idea, because it changed the way that many of us would read and study the Bible. The article you quoted presented the first evidence that we could question the overly specific extended applications (types and antitypes) that we were so accustomed to. It subtly moved the "type-antitype" application from a specific prophetic drama about specific classes of Christians to lessons that taught all of us something about Jehovah's unchanging principles. Everyone on the "Aid Book" team believed that only a few few specific "types and antitypes" should be a part of our doctrinal teachings. (Only the ones that were specifically said to be "type-antitype" in the Bible itself.) But this would mean that literally hundreds of type-antitype applications would have to be dropped. It was too many doctrines to change all at once. Brother Fred Franz, who was the source or "keeper" of many of the type-antitype teachings, argued against dropping them. Brother Fred Rusk (Watchtower Editor) also supported keeping them. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most of the Governing Body at that time would have sided with Fred Franz on anything doctrinal, since he was still treated as "The Oracle" at this time.

Therefore, the 1972 article was an important and controversial move, but ultimately ended up "compromising" or postponing a big change on this very important point. (The very next article was supposed to balance the idea you quoted with the idea that there are still "prophetic dramas" that have difficult and specific meanings that are too difficult to grasp from principles and context alone.)

The suggested change was not finally made until October 2014 at the Annual Meeting by Brother Splane. This was forty-two years after it was first presented in 1972. The specifics of this change were credited to Bert Schroeder during the Annual Meeting in 2014. Brother Schroeder had died in 2007, though, and I have no idea what time period Brother Splane was referring to. But I do know that Brother Schroeder suggested this change not long after the death of Fred Franz. His reasons might be clearer with a little more context.

The primary members of that "Aid Book" team continued to contribute work for the Writing Department from 1972 to 1980, and they were easily the most prolific writers of our Bible-based study material and convention releases. Many others in Writing worked from "news" material, spending a lot of their day reading about wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilences, and commenting on "pro" and "con" references to "Jehovah's Witnesses" found in outside publications. About 25% of the study material came from Fred Franz, mostly indirectly from those who based their "new" articles almost totally on prior articles from Franz had written. While I was there, about 75% of the study articles and all but a few of the convention releases came from the  "Aid Book" team.

The four primary members of that team were dismissed from Bethel in mid-1980. One was disfellowshipped at the time, and another (R Franz) was disfellowshipped in 1981. A couple of them tried to keep a low profile in their congregations, or even continued to get research assignments for the Society for several more years, being given a bit of support through the "special pioneer" arrangement. (Ironically, some of those continuing assignments were related to replacing the Aid Book with the updated Insight Book.) But ultimately all of them, I'm told, finally found themselves outside of the organization even though all of them, as far as I knew, had wanted to quietly remain inside the organization for as long as they were allowed. One of them lasted at least a couple of decades in his congregation, serving as an elder and special pioneer for years, but I do not currently know his status. I haven't heard from him or about him in 10 years, but I heard a rumor that he was "pushed" out.

While at Bethel, when I read through a large portion of the Aid Book for technical errors and typos, I was a bit troubled at first by the neutral, undogmatic style that sometimes said, "we don't know for sure." I mentioned this to someone on the "Aid Book" team, and said that I'm beginning to understand that the style was necessary as s a kind of public-facing, academic style. In 1978, I asked if it was troubling to anyone else. He said: "There are a lot of people here who would LOVE to hear that about the Aid Book." This really surprised me, because this was early in 1978 and it was a hint of trouble. He explained that the Aid Book was considered "dangerous" and had created a division between Fred Franz supporters in Writing, because it put a new value on context, and relatively less value on "extended applications."

He said that the most common response (letters/comments) from those who had become familiar with the Aid Book's style were commenting on how much more value they were getting out of their Bible reading because they were realizing for the first time that the meaning from context was now more open to them. For example, they no longer read Ezekiel 18 as just the chapter that had a verse or two about the soul dying (18:4). There's another message in the context that is also very important, and they hadn't noticed it before. By 1975 there were many brothers who had been so overjoyed at this "new" way of reading the Bible that groups of Bethelites would join others in their rooms just for Bible reading. The Aid Book "style" was being credited. Because all of these Bible reading groups were "banned" in 1980, and even brothers on the Governing Body spoke out against them, it was assumed that these all had something to do with the apostasy. But there were dozens of them, and hundreds of Bethelites participated. It's true that most of the "apostates" had also participated, but the majority of participants remained in responsible positions.

I regularly attended one in the room of a brother from Writing that often went on for three hours on Wednesday. Whenever I could, I also started attending another one after the Monday-night Watchtower study for one hour. One of these had one of the "Aid Book" team and I was questioned about it later in 1980, although I continued to do research for Brother Schroeder from 1977 until 1983. Schroeder kept a good measure of personal control over who was and was not dismissed for "apostasy" 1980 through 1983. Yet, even Brother Schroeder quietly sided with the "Aid Book" team on this same point about "type-antitype" during the 1980 crisis. My best friends in the Writing Department also included Brother Fred Rusk, who gave my wedding talk later in 1980. (I last saw and spoke to Rusk in 2013, at a funeral talk.) Rusk and Schroeder were both very strong opposers of the entire Aid Book team. But I kept friends on "both sides of the aisle."

I don't know how easy it is to tell that the writer of the article below was asked to write in support of types and antitypes but was intentionally "subversive" or "ambiguous" in a way that would still get past the editors.

*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***

JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. . . .

Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.

The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The Christian disciple James answers: “With evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (Jas. 1:13). . . .

We can therefore read what took place with ancient Israel and surrounding nations and know that they were just as real as our situation today and that God will act toward us according to the same principles, just as surely as he did back there. As we benefit from the record of God’s dealings with his people in the past, we experience a readjustment of viewpoint. But, of course, at times there may be points that we find difficult to grasp.