JW Insider

On 1/6/2017 at 11:42 AM, gregory said:

the new yearbook of 2017 is not on the official page jworg yet.

The new yearbook is on jw.org. It is not on the Watchtower Library CD. Perhaps the Watchtower Library will bring it over as an automatic update. Mine is set up to do that, but the 2017 yb did not download yet.

Personally, I don't think this information is important. I think it's just WTS trivia that will hold some historical interest to academics. But this doesn't mean that evidence should be merely denied just because someone wishes to play the part of the opposer whenever evidence seems inconvenient.

One reason, however, to accept evidence in the way it is intended, is that evidence often pops up again in unexpected places, and we often find it useful to draw on the expertise of others to draw proper conclusions. One example where this type of evidence could have helped, was when I first heard (from a Bethel roommate) that Haydn C Covington had been a lawyer for Cassius Clay (one of the most famous American heavyweight boxing champions) usually known as Muhammad Ali. I didn't believe it at first, and it made no sense to me. (At the time, I was told that Nathan Knorr was very angry at Covington for this and found a way to punish him for it. I took this a crazy gossip.)

Now, of course, it makes more sense that the famous boxer, as a minister for the Nation of Islam, would hire Rutherford's most famous lawyer.

Here is the article I spoke of in the opening post. What follows is entirely made up of quotations and excerpts from the article with no additional comments added:

WATCHTOWER INFLUENCES ON BLACK MUSLIM ESCHATOLOGY: AN EXPLORATORY STORY

WILLIAM A. MAESEN

Department of Sociology

Lewis-St. Francis Colleges

. . .

DOCTRINAL SIMILARITIES

The doctrines to be cited here are drawn principally from the works of Joseph F. Rutherford, second president of the Watchtower Society, and Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Black Muslims. These are official, authoritative sources for beliefs of the respective movements, at least at the time of the early 1930s. (Since the time of Rutherford's writing, the Watchtower Society has made some changes in its belief system.) At least one other writer has noted the doctrinal similarities (Essien-Udon 1962: 403n.); another has hinted at suspected adaptations (Martin 1968:262). . . .

1914: Deferred End of Time

The Watchtower Society held that the end of the "Gentile times" must come in 1914,. . . Some believed Jehovah stopped World War I so that a great preaching activity might begin before the "final end" (Rutherford 1928b: 202-204, 1936:211). Black Muslims teach the world's time was out in 1914, but "so-called Negroes" must hear Islam before the judgment can occur. Hence, Allah delayed the final end (Essien-Udom 1962:155, Lomax 1963:169; Muhammad 1965:18, 83, 289, 294).

Millennium Now Beginning

Jehovah's Witnesses taught that the millennium, the last 1,000 years after the 6,000 from the creation of Adam, began in the 1870s (Russell 1911:33, 1917: 301; Rutherford 1921:239). (The date for the end of the 6,000-year period was changed later to 1975, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 1966:31-35.) Black Muslims also teach that the world is in its last 1,000 years after the 6,000 following the creation of the white man, but the millennium period began in 1914 (Muhammad 1965:141-42).

Battle of Armageddon

The Watchtower Society anticipates the Battle of Armageddon which would end Satan's rule (Rutherford 1927:317-18, 1932:150, 1933:311-29, 1934:12), . . . Black Muslims also anticipate the Battle of Armageddon, which for them, will signal termination of the "white rule." The battle is a central expectation (Essien- Udom 1962:239; Lincoln 1961 :87; Lomax 1963:27; Muhammad 1965:32,210-11).

144,000

Until around 1935 the Watchtower Society preached . . .  144,000 elect people . . . requiring no resurrection (Rutherford 1921 :259, 1926:271, 1930:235). Black Muslims instruct that 144,000 black people would survive the Battle of Armageddon since Allah permitted the Messenger (Elijah Muhammad) to reconvert only that number to Islam (Essien-Udom 1962:155, 371; Muhammad 1965:46).

New World on Earth

Jehovah's Witnesses held that the earth will not be burned up but will abide forever (Rutherford 1928a :25). After 1935 the Watchtower Society preached there also would be an "earthly class" (Macmillan 1957:145-58; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 1959:139-40). This "great multitude" would be saved from the Battle of Armageddon so that it might create Jehovah's New World on Earth (Rutherford 1936:294).

Black Muslims also believe the earth will not be burned, but will exist for many thousands of years (Muhammad 1965:281). But the 144,000 would be an earthly, rather than heavenly, group constituting Allah's New World (Essien-Udom 1962: 157; Muhammad 1965 :46, 82-83, 247).

Non-immortality of Souls

The Watchtower position taught there is no immortality of the soul nor eternal hellfire. Instead, the dead are asleep until the judgment (Rutherford 1926:298, 1928a: 118, 1929 :272-73). Black Muslims do not profess immortality of the soul, but believe heaven and hell to be conditions in this life rather than postmortem places (Lincoln 1961 :80; Malcolm X 1965:209; Muhammad 1965: 76, 303-304). Consequently no one already dead will be resurrected in the hereafter (Muhammad 1965: 304).

EVIDENCE OF INFLUENCE

Are the influences more apparent than real? It appears not too likely. Wallace F. Fard, founder of the Nation of Islam sect, and Elijah Muhammad endorsed Rutherford. During the 1930s Black Muslims were encouraged to read Rutherford's writings and to purchase radios to hear his addresses (Beynon 1938 :900; Lincoln 1961 :13; Lomax 1963: 44). Rutherford appears to be one of the few white men referred to in a favorable manner by Muhammad (1965: 323). Such prestige suggestion could make Nation of Islam leaders selective to Rutherford's positions.

. . . . Although neither Black Muslims nor Jehovah's Witnesses is pacifistic, since both would fight in holy wars, both have taken strong stands against military service (see Maesen and La Fave 1960).¹ 

Another similarity is that both groups also take positions against salute to the flag, although it is not clear that this similarity can be attributable to influence by the Watchtower Society. Black Muslims took this position in the early 1930s (Lincoln 1961:15; Muhammad 1965 :237-40). The Watchtower position was not formalized until 1934-35 (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 1959:143-44; Manwaring 1962 :30-33).

. . .

1. When Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was starting his fight for deferment from induction into the armed forces, claiming status as a Nation of Islam minister, one of his attorneys was Hayden C. Covington (New York Times 1967:58). Covington was the Watchtower attorney who argued Jehovah's Witness ministerial deferment cases before the United States Supreme Court (Shrake 1967:20).

. . .

REFERENCES

Beynon, Erdmann D.

1938    The voodoo cult among Negro migrants in Detroit. American Journal of Sociology 43 (May): 894- 907.

Empson, William

1948    Seven types of ambiguity. New York: New Directions.

Essien-Udom, E. U.

1962     Black nationalism: A search for an identity in America. New York: Dell.

Lincoln, C. Eric

1961    The Black Muslims in America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Lomax, Louis E.

          1963     When the Word is given.... New York: Signet Books.

Macmillan, A. H.

1957    Faith on the march: My life of joyous service with Jehovah's Witnesses. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Maesen, William A., and Lawrence La Fave

1960    The Jehovah's Witnesses today: A study by participant observation. Proceedings of the Southwestern Sociological Society 9 (April):102- 104.

Malcolm X

1965     The autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove Press.

Manwaring, David R.

1962     Render unto Caesar: The flag-salute controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

... [etc]...

This subject was brought up in a rather off-topic way (by me, sorry) in a discussion that included the idea of using baptism to clarify denominational distinctions.

The WTS has influenced several spin-offs and sects over the years, although obviously this does not mean that the WTS is responsible for how its teachings are used or misused by others

I don't have any fears about the influence of WTS doctrines on other religions. For example, the WTS has taught several generations, now, that traditional doctrines about hell, hellfire and eternal literal torment should be reconsidered. Many denominations now preach a doctrine about hell that would have been unheard of in these same denominations 130 years ago. If the WTS teaching has had some influence on that, I don't think this is anything to be ashamed about. It's possible that as doctrines are repeated and slowing sink in, that this makes conversion to JW doctrine much easier. At any rate, it makes people think that there might be non-traditional ways to learn about a loving God, and other things about his Person, and personality, which is a good thing, in my opinion.

So back to the topic. In the next post I'll present a well-documented research paper on the topic written by an academic. I believe it makes the point that it really is possible to trace influence by the Watch Tower's teaching on the "Nation of Islam."

21 hours ago, Anna said:

I never thought the WT endorsed or promoted anything like that, and neither did JWI I'm sure. This is why I never bothered asking about details as I gathered this was something opposers would have been promulgating, and frankly I am not interested as it is basically the same old, same old. It is still WT trivia though, not in the sense that it itself is trivial, but it really is not important, because as you say, it's just an outrageous fabrication.

Thanks. I have never heard about opposers promulgating this. I can't see how it would add anything or take away anything from our reputation. It's not something that we as Witnesses would promote as part of our history, but it shows why it's important to keep a legal distinction that defines membership. Several denominations handle baptism very similarly.

To help avoid too much off-topic discussion here, I've added a new question on this subject of Rutherford's influence:

Allen,

You did it again! You opposed something, but then provided evidence that you were wrong and that you were opposing the truth again.

I have often kind of "marveled" at how you often take an oppositional position to certain facts and ideas and then when you present the information to try to denigrate these facts and ideas, you end up providing evidence that you were wrong and the person you were opposing was right!

Here's how you did it this time:

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That speculation started with such people as, WALLACE D. FARD that utilized any publication he could to promote his hatred for whites, but to also agree with certain biblical teaching. . . .

Then you quoted, and even highlighted a portion of the evidence that agrees with the statement I made, and would indicate that you were wrong:

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Finally, Fard used stories from the Bible, the Koran, books on Freemasonry, the teachings of Joseph F. “Judge” Rutherford, leader of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other sources.

I would give the same two pieces of evidence you just gave, as evidence in support of the same fact that you are opposing. You offered these bits of evidence about "Fard" as if you didn't realize that he was one of the founders of the "Nation of Islam." Therefore, if you indicate that Fard used stories from the teachings of Joseph F. "Judge" Rutherford, then you are merely providing evidence that: "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."

As a reminder to those who may not be aware, here is the opening Wikipedia entry for Fard:

Wallace D. Fard aka Wallace Fard Muhammad /fə.ˈrɑːd/ (born February 26, 1877^[3]) was a co-founder of the Nation of Islam. He arrived in Detroit in 1930 with an obscure background and several aliases, and taught a distinctive form of Islam to members of the city's African-American population. He disappeared in 1934.

Wow!! Not surprised at this one at all. Talked about this same thing last year. In some ways the entire language of all doctrinal matters has already been simplified anyway. The simpler text of the NWT 2013 even makes the Simplified English superfluous. Just simplify language everywhere. None of our doctrines should need to be any more complex than the simplified Bible anyway.

I expect the English one to be gone by December. If we really think that something is still too complex, and needs to be said that way, then merely insert a paragraph or footnote (or audio supplement) that says: "In other words . . . . [insert simpler version here] . . . " Those who find difficulty will quickly learn to skip immediately to the simplified material.

3 minutes ago, Witness said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses say they are “dedicated” to doing God’s will, which includes every necessary item on the list of running an organization.  This is their dedication; without such dedication, salvation apparently cannot be achieved as the below statement clarifies:

"Bible students need to get acquainted with the organization of the “one flock” Jesus spoke about at John 10:16. They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah’s organization is essential to their salvation. (Rev. 7:9, 10, 15) Therefore, we should start directing our Bible students to the organization as soon as a Bible study is established." KM 11/’90 p 1 

I see a danger in misunderstanding, because it is so easy to be idolaters without thinking much about it. This goes for idolizing money, materialism, the so-called American dream, sports and entertainment heroes, worldly ideas we try to copy, and any organization that we begin to feel we must have faith in. Jehovah tells us not to put our trust in princes in whom no salvation belongs, and we are not to be surprised that only God is really the only one to be found "true" and every man may be found a "liar."

If anyone takes the words from the KM above to mean ONLY Jehovah's earthly organization, as identified "generally" with the Watch Tower Society, then they are making a mistake. It's true that we must identify ourselves with Jehovah's heavenly organization, and we expect an earthly component, even today. And if we honestly feel that we can best serve his heavenly organization through our association with fellow Witnesses, then we will need to associate with an earthly component to continue serving in part of Jehovah's heavenly organization, and that's what's essential to our salvation, because meeting with others shows we have a desire to help others. (Hebrews 10:24,25) Christianity is social by definition. In effect, we are introducing our Bible students to this particular earthly organization as an option that they may or may not believe is a part of Jehovah's overall organization. When we are directing them to a particular organization, we are taking the lead, and they may or may not imitate our faith if they like what they see:

(Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

Personally, I am very comfortable among Witnesses, and I would not be comfortable associating with non-JW denominations that I am familiar with. I am happy to introduce Bible believers to my friends and brothers among the Witnesses. But I don't limit Jehovah's ability to work with any and all who serve him in any place on earth, under any circumstances they find themselves in. I personally believe that the wheat and weeds grow together inside and outside of earthly organizations, because it's not the earthly organization through which Christians are identified by Jehovah and Jesus. It's, in effect, only our heart and heart-motivated actions that identify us.

We sometimes say that "by their fruits you will recognize them" is a reference to the true "organization." But, of course, it's how individual Christians are identified. But all Christians whose circumstances allow it, should seek and find the most appropriate association of Christian brothers and sisters that best reflects the ideals of the first century congregation in the circumstances of the twenty-first century. If the Watch Tower based organization(s) were somehow dissolved, or became totally corrupted from a material point of view, then we should still be able to continue serving as Christians among ourselves, and even among other groups of people who want to be Christians like us, too.

If we have used our opportunities for Christian association and encouragement during our "favorable season" to refine our hearts and minds, and grow in love and faith, then we will always stay motivated to do the right things (morality, good works, sharing our faith). No obstacle can separate us from the love of Jehovah and his Son. Even if we temporarily felt alone, we would have comfort knowing that we are still part of an invisible brotherhood that Jehovah recognizes -- other sheep around the earth who recognize the voice of their shepherd Jesus. Even when Elijah was sure he was the only one left serving the true God, Jehovah told him that there were actually 7,000 people who hadn't turned the knee to Baal. Jehovah sees a visible brotherhood even where we can't see it.

(Romans 11:2-6) . . .Do you not know what the scripture says in connection with E·liʹjah, as he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Jehovah, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and now they are trying to take my life.” 4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? “I have left for myself 7,000 men who have not bent the knee to Baʹal.” 5 So in the same way, at the present time also, there is a remnant according to a choosing through undeserved kindness. 6 Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer through works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness would no longer be undeserved kindness.

“People at war with themselves will always cause collateral damage in the lives of those around them.” ― John Mark Green

My favorite "poetic quote" from John Mark Green is this:

“One by one she slew her fears, and then planted a flower garden over their graves.”
― John Mark Green

But I can't find a good scripture text to go with it. There's always that passage about Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard....nah!

2 hours ago, Witness said:

We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicated ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah.”  WT 10/1/66 pp. 603,4

I was going through the catechism in the book "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot" (80 questions) when this article came out. I wasn't baptized until the next summer, but this is an important point to remember, even for those baptized under the 1985 (post-apostasy) questions. The fact that the new question replaced spirit-guided Word the Bible with spirit-guided organization still does not mean that we are dedicating ourselves to that organization, though. The idea is that our personal dedication vow to Jehovah and Jesus is what makes us a Christian. We then recognize that we are using this same opportunity to confess a faith that aligns us as members of a particular religion. It is part of our dedication in that we expect to make use of the congregation to keep our faith continually aligned through our association with other Christians, being built up and encouraged by their examples, opportunities to do good especially toward those related to us in the faith, and the discipline and reminders to remain on a righteous path and active in our ministry through the examples of overseers, elders and other servants who act as shepherds in the congregation by imitating the example of Jesus Christ in their own lives. The congregation is vital to Christians, and we recognize our best opportunity among fellow Witnesses. But we do need to be careful not to be confused about our dedication and begin believing that we are dedicated to the organization or to the structure and activity or people within it. Our dedication is to God and Christ.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Interesting. Didn't know that.

It's not one of the most popular bits of Watch Tower trivia.

Or, from a different perspective . . . Be careful who you associate with. Those who are at war with themselves have a a better appreciation and empathy for those around them. (Less chance of collateral damage.)

(Romans 7:22-25) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.

(ESV) "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."

On 1/6/2017 at 8:14 PM, Witness said:

Baptize In the name of these three - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Is this what the organization does?

"On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?" 

"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"

I think that Anna is on the right track as to how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the first question to be the near equivalent of the supposed "formula" in Matthew 28:19. And therefore, the primary meaning of the second question is merely a re-iteration of the desire to be a dedicated Christian associated with the world-wide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

What makes you think one has to repeat those exact words as quoted in Matt 28:19,20?

Although, I agree that it is not a "formula," I wonder what makes all the speakers at baptism talks (and/or administrators of Witness baptisms) around the world think they need to treat the Watchtower's words as an exact formula, and repeat them exactly as they have been translated by the Watch Tower Society into their local language?

Witness, I agree with you that it's not just a coincidence that the the Father, Son, and holy spirit are mentioned in Matthew, and that Jehovah, Jesus and the spirit-directed organization are mentioned in the Watch Tower's version of a baptismal formula.

We have already discussed how the expression "spirit-directed organization" is not meant to be limited to the earthly, visible part Jehovah's universal organization. That's from an overall doctrinal perspective. But in this particular case, I would have to agree that the addition was evidently with the earthly part of the organization in mind. I say this because I had learned that the addition was done for legal purposes.

I don't mean that the overall purpose was legal instead of spiritual, but that the legal ability for the earthly organization to remove persons from its membership roles without fear of lawsuits or repercussions has become an important practical means to keep the earthly organization clean. (Eoin and others have already begin discussing this.)

The idea that Jehovah directs the earthly, visible organization (through his spirit) is often stated in the Watchtower as integral to the idea of our dedication. I won't deny that most Witnesses are thinking primarily and sometimes only about the Watchtower Society when they think of the words: "spirit-directed organization." The idea reaches back to well before the "FDS"/"GB." For many years they were so blatant, they were almost embarrassing. The old version of the "Kingdom Ministry" when it was called "Bulletin" and "Informant" would sometimes include statements like, Brother Rutherford has been appointed by the Lord, and not following instructions coming from him would be like disobeying the Lord.

I remember another one, but can't remember which issue where it said basically that if the Lord says that pioneers should make "x" hours per month, then that's what the Lord wants. (Ironic in that the hourly quotas change every few years.) In more recent times, the idea is more subtle, but ubiquitous, as the following types of examples can be multiplied hundreds of times over:

*** w06 7/1 p. 19 They Delight to Do God’s Will ***
Graduates Andrew and Anna said: “We dedicated our life to Jehovah. We made a promise to Jehovah to do anything he asks of us. It just so happens that Jehovah has asked us to go to Cameroon, Africa.”

*** w01 1/15 p. 9 “A Masterpiece of a Project” ***
“The ‘Photo-Drama’ was a masterpiece of a project, when we consider the small number of Bible Students and the proportionately small amount of finances available. It really had Jehovah’s spirit behind it!”

*** w00 10/1 p. 29 Blessed With a Special Heritage ***
The two months we spent in Patterson as Paul received training was the highlight of our life so far. Observing Jehovah’s earthly organization up close reaffirmed a conviction passed on to me as part of my precious spiritual heritage: This is indeed God’s organization. [Italics in original 10/1/2000 Watchtower]

The legal reason was similar to the reason that the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was changed to "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the early 1970's. The first version without a capital "w" was purposely ambiguous, but that ambiguity could be taken advantage of in international copyright or intentional or misleading identification with those of similar names. 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 "apostasy of 1980-1983" became a catalyst to finally adding the reference to a specific organization into the "formula." When I was baptized, this was not included, and the Watchtower had even explained why it should not be included.

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Oh! OK.

Thanks.

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

and you point to the same author with perhaps revised books, then you’re a bigger fool than I thought.

That might well be true. I am a fool, and have never claimed to be otherwise. On the question of whether I quoted from the same author with perhaps revised books, it seems I quoted from Scot McKnight's book, The Letter of James, published February 2011. This book of his was made an official part of the "New International Commentary on the New Testament." Apparently, then, this matches the source you quoted:

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Scott_McKnight_The_Letter_of_James_New_International_Commentary_on_the_New_Testament 2011

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

. . . I forget to sometimes to include the source . . .

No problem.

Thanks, again.

Allen,

Between this forum and jw-archive, this is easily the 100th time have quoted long passages without crediting your source. Sometimes you change a few words in the passages, and sometimes you even switch the word order around a bit. But it's always best practice to give credit where credit is due. The following came up at the top of my Google search when I typed in "plagiarism."

What is Plagiarism? — Plagiarism.org - Best Practices for Ensuring ...

I don't think anyone minds that you find and re-quote from commentaries, and other reference sources. Sometimes the information is very interesting and appropriate to the discussion. But I also know that more than one person has asked you if you could start crediting your sources, and I noticed you started including source references in two or three posts for about a week or so. But then you went right back to this old habit.

In the post you just made, it clearly includes a full quotation, and except for introducing some font and formatting issues, you made no significant changes other than the problem of juxtaposing it with statements by you, or quotes from Marilyn Monroe. So you make it difficult, sometimes, to know which quotes come from where, or where your ideas end and the ideas of someone else begin. Sometimes these quotes will even contain information that you don't even agree with, or information that gives evidence against the very point you make in your own statements which creates another difficulty. 

At any rate, I'd like to see you quote your sources, and others have said the same thing. We are all going to make mistakes on here and I, for one, always appreciate it if someone points them out.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Structurally, James states that the purpose of trials is to produce mature Christian character (1:2-4), but, knowing that discerning the purpose of trials is no easy matter even for the spiritually mature, James then exhorts the
messianic Jewish community to ask God for wisdom when they encounter trials (1:3-8). Revealing just what he has in mind, James now turns to the specific form of trial the messianic Jewish community is encountering: it is facing poverty in the context of others having wealth (1:9-11). And James clearly sides with the poor who can learn to glory in their (paradoxical) exaltation. In his "plausibility structure,"2 to be poor means to be on the right side
of God's work.3 Finally, because James knows that his community will ask the penetrating question and that some are already questioning the goodness of God, he turns to how God relates to trials (1:12-18). God is good, James
teaches, and trials are an opportunity for the community to be tested. Sin emerges from the human condition and can be overcome by the "new birth" (1:18) as it creates a new community as a foretaste of what is to come.

2.1. T H E P U R P O S E O F T E S T I N G (1:2-4) JAMES

2 My brothers and sisters*, whenever you face trials of any kind0, consider* it nothing but joy, 3 because you know that the testing5 of your faith6 produces endurance*; 4 and let endurance have its full effect1, so that you may be mature and complete,1 lacking in nothing.

I found the source for all of that here in Scot McKnight's book, "The Letter of James":

9 hours ago, Anna said:

I agree, the WT is consistent in reminding Witnesses not to be speculating about setting dates.

This is actually another point to reconsider. Looking back, the Watchtower might appear to be consistent because we can find several of these reminders in the WT going back to Bible Student days. But there is actually a fairly consistent pattern that highlights how inconsistent these reminders have been. The pattern goes like this:

• STEP 1: Early on, when the chronology doctrine is first presented, it's rather tentative, and might have some reminders about not speculating and the need for caution.
• STEP 2: Then as the doctrine has been out there a few years and gets brought up a few more times, it tends to become more sure, and almost gets set in stone.
• STEP 3: As the time period approaches more closely and it seems unlikely that all the expectations surrounding the time period could really come true in time, then we see cautious statements again, and either just before or just after the failure has past, we sometimes get outright denials that any of the things said in STEP 2, were actually said. 

When we are defending our past chronology doctrines, and non-prophet status, we will point to the statements from STEP 1 and STEP 3.

Ex-JWs and "opposers" are more likely to only quote from STEP 2. This is the time period when the dates start becoming, as Russell said, "God's dates, not ours." And we see statements about how nothing can be moved by even one year without throwing off the entire plan. Or we see claims that some of these "pyramid inches" have been measured to within a fraction of an inch. Or that 1925 is even more well established than 1914. And this is of course when the period surrounding 1975 becomes more of a probability than a possibility. 1975 becomes, in effect, an "appropriate time for God to act." If we bring up the fact that Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour, we might get a snarky response that "now is not the time to be toying with Jesus' words." Etc., etc., etc.

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

I agree, the WT is consistent in reminding Witnesses not to be speculating about setting dates. But I ask myself, why then did the WT even mention 1975? Wasn't that a date? Why was it discussed in the first place? Why even go into the calculations of 6000 years and God's rest etc.?  Was it not to highlight where we may be in the stream of time? And wasn't that speculation itself? Why even mention all of it? What significance does the date 1975 have now? (except for discussions such as this) None at all! So you can see how unnecessary it was to mention that date in the first place!

You are deceiving yourself Allen if you think that those who came up with that idea in the first place didn't have in mind that Armageddon may come in 1975. 

A couple things here. One is that Allen has made some good points in all of his posts up until these ones about 1975. But even here, he is right that no one said anything about Armageddon coming in 1975. Ex-JWs and opposers often say something like this, but the speculation was not about 1975, per se, but about the time period surrounding (and including) 1975.

Remember that the cover of the magazines not only said: "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" but "What Will the 1970's Bring?"

1975 was the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. Franz had wavered from 1976 to 1974 on this, but after 1976 was dropped and, obviously if even 1974 was a possibility, then the 6,000 years were definitely up by 1975. But Franz never lost site of the difference in time between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. This problem had been brought up already by Brother Russell himself.

But you will see 1976 come up as the new, end of 6,000 years of man's existence even in Watchtowers from the 1940's. It was brought up again in the 1955 Watchower, along with talk of Eve and how long it takes to name the animals:

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.
Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name. (Gen. 2:19 footnote d, NW) It was not until after Adam completed this assignment of work that his helpmate Eve was created. Since God created nothing new whatever on the seventh day, Eve must have been created on the sixth day; and this the divine record confirms in its account of the sixth day: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Gen. 1:27, NW.
The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.

47 minutes ago, Anna said:

I am not sure I think this has some kind of significance. I understand this to mean simply that we shouldn't idolize them as if they were angels, because they are not.

Yep. I'm not sure it does either. And this particular idea is much ado about nothing. But I read it again, and it still strikes me as unnecessarily specific, and therefore I think a good editor would read it and do a double-take to see if he or she missed something in the context. Also, there is a difference in being treated as if one is some kind of angel and counseling against thinking there might be an angel standing nearby. It made me think I had missed a Broadcast or Convention talk where this particular idea had been stated, even if it was intended as some kind of light-hearted or self-deprecating exaggeration. (It's easy to imagine any of the Governing Body giving a talk and getting a bit of a laugh out of relating the uncomfortable experience of someone who hesitated to come up to them because they were looking all around and wondering whether they should take their sandals off, first.)

On the other hand, we do believe that angels often take an interest in the Kingdom preaching work, and not too long ago, we would not have been surprised if we heard an experience where it is strongly implied that an angel must have run some kind of interference to produce a certain outcome. And, of course, in some sense also do think of the Governing Body as messengers (angels) as in the expression: "To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write. . . " (Rev 3:14). 

But what tied it in to the discussion, for me, came right out of the idea that you just repeated in your post:

47 minutes ago, Anna said:

This whole idea made it sound like the GB were getting some kind of visions, or ideas put in their heads

As you probably remember, the 1935 doctrine, was received through "flashes of light in God's holy temple." Rutherford used this phrase about it, and it was used several times since. But what was even more interesting is that from the period after 1918 and for many years, Rutherford denied that such a flash of light could have come from the holy spirit.

47 minutes ago, Anna said:

This did not sound right at all since the only helper Jesus said his father would give us was the holy spirit.

He denied the holy spirit's effect on revealing doctrine because he said that the holy spirit had already been taken away now that Jesus had returned to the Temple in 1918. The near "presence" of Jesus or angels was actually the exact explanation used for many years to explain why Rutherford could receive new doctrinal truths, and the more "modest" way of saying this was to call it "flashes of light."

*** Preservation [J.F.Rutherford 1932], p.193-194. ***

"By his spirit, the holy spirit, Jehovah God guides or leads his people up to a certain point of time, and thus he did until the time when "the comforter" was taken away, which would necessarily occur when Jesus, the Head of his organization, came to the temple and gathered unto himself those whom he found faithful when he, as the great Judge, began his judgment, in 1918."

Look at the picture in the March 2017 Watchtower (Study Edition). I've attached it below, but the whole article is also here:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/give-honor-to-whom-it-is-due/

Since 1995, all WT references to the "24 elders" have also included an explanation that they represent the full anticipated number of the 144,000 in their heavenly, resurrected to heaven. (Sometimes this is stated as if it means, only the current number of already resurrected members of the 144,000 at any given time, even during the time when a significant portion of them are still on earth.) Although the exact meaning is a bit hard to pin down, sometimes, the WT has even drawn chronological conclusions about the 24 elders as of 1935, for example. But we can get to that later, if anyone is interested. 

For the first time in 20 years, the Watchtower has mentioned the "24 elders" and never specifically said in the article that they represent the 144,000. The article not only mentions them in the text, but shows a picture of them, asks the reader to look at the picture, and also merely combines them with other heavenly creatures (myriads of angels and the 4 living creatures) in a second, less direct reference. It's an unusual amount of attention drawn to the "24 elders" without any reference to their meaning.

This might not mean anything, of course, but this latest WT reference would nearly mark a decade since the Watchtower specifically mentioned the "24 elders" at all! (And the last two mentions about a decade ago were really brought up only because of a convoluted bit of circular reasoning to try to show that the first resurrection most probably started before 1935 because one of these elders in Revelation asked John who the "great crowd" was. This supposedly showed that one of these spirit creatures must have been communicating from beyond the veil with Brother Rutherford, or persons close to him, before 1935.)

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

The idea that Rutherford was communicating with the spirit of someone who had died might feel a bit uncomfortable, and perhaps that is even a factor in a potential change -- if there is a potential change, that is. 

One could also argue from these most recent WT references that there is no change, because the wording is precise enough to allow for the current doctrine to remain. However, it might also have been true in the past that certain doctrines changed because someone asked (or tested out) whether there was a level of concern, or if there had been a lot of questions about it -- especially the questions that come in to the Service Department from Circuit Overseers and elders with reference to disfellowshipping. We have seen, for example, changes to doctrines about blood products in vaccines, organ transplants, [un]acceptable blood fractions, private sexual practices within the confines of marriage, working for a company associated with false religion or a branch of the military, certain types of voting, etc. Many doctrines related to such subjects were stated one way, then dropped from discussion for several years and then sometimes restated in an ambiguous way. The idea might have been to test whether the ambiguous statements resulted in any questions or concerns. If there were no concerns, then the doctrine could be dealt with later. Not all of these were about serious disfellowshipping matters.

I saw this happen with a brother I worked for at Bethel who wanted to "float a trial balloon" about a doctrine he had once championed claiming that the heart was the actual, physical seat of emotion and desire. He said he could try out a talk in Europe where he had served as a Branch Overseer and see if it raised questions over there, and if the concerns seemed important enough to deal with, or if they could be safely ignored. He had an idea about the meaning of "this generation" that he tested out this way on European audiences, too. Brother F.W.Franz was also known for being able to give talks about several subjects in a very ambiguous manner which evidently helped test out their usefulness for a doctrinal article. He did this in talks on "1975," "the Governing Body," and even one in 1978 on the figurative meaning of "fat" and the "liver" when mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.

So that's the background to this particular conjecture -- and that's all it is, conjecture.

The wording that refers to the "24 elders" strikes me as an interesting, if ambiguous, replacement of the usual description and explanation. Note how the term "exalted creatures" replaces the term "24 elders" below. (I have also attached the scripture reference that wasn't spelled out in the article, although you can click on the link.)

Exalted creatures in the heavenly realm lift their voices in praise to Jehovah, “the One who lives forever and ever.” They declare: “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because  of your will they came into existence and were created.”—Rev. 4:9-11.

(Revelation 4:9-11) 9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanksgiving to the One seated on the throne, the One who lives forever and ever, 10 the 24 elders fall down before the One seated on the throne and worship the One who lives forever and ever, and they cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

Do you not feel moved to join with myriads of heavenly creatures in proclaiming: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”—Rev. 5:12.

(Revelation 5:11, 12) 11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”

Think of congregation elders, circuit overseers, Branch Committee members, and the members of the Governing Body. Our brothers and sisters in the first century had high regard for those appointed to take the lead, and we feel similarly today. We do not idolize well-known representatives of the Christian congregation or react in their presence as if angels were standing nearby.

---- end of quotes ---

That highlighted phrase about angels might seem very out of place because nothing explains it in the context. It might refer to a paragraph that was edited out of this issue. I'm guessing that it was probably a reference to a point that made it into the previous February 2017 Study edition. The connection is vague because this point is not expanded upon very much in either issue.

 And Jehovah told him: “Lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you. Look! My angel will go ahead of you.” (Ex. 32:34) The Bible does not report that the Israelites saw a materialized angel perform those duties. However, the way Moses instructed and guided the people made it clear that he had superhuman help. . . .  Nevertheless, despite the imperfections of these men, the Israelites were expected to follow their lead. Jehovah was supporting those men with his superhuman agents. Yes, Jehovah was leading his people.

However, the rejection of the idea that something like "angels" are standing nearby could also come from an idea that has been stated out loud by people who see the GB in person. It's a common phrase heard by visiting tours at Bethel who appreciate the value of the work and say something like "you can just tell that the angels are standing nearby." Even a couple of the JW Broadcasting broadcasts have come very close to presenting phrases like this when a building project, or Bible-printing project is spoken of and the speaker adds, in effect, 'you could just see the hand of Jehovah in all this.' [2015 JWB] Or, 'you just know the angels were looking on in delight.' [2014 convention experience].

It was also a joke about my grandmother's driving. She once made a left turn onto the railroad tracks, and her survival was attributed to the fact that "an angel must be riding alongside her." Another elder answered, "No angel would dare ride along with her, Brother ..."

But there is a slight chance, too, that the omission is purposeful, and is tied to the removal of angelic beings from the picture. The idea that any of the 24 elders were in direct contact with Rutherford, or persons around him in the past, might now be seen as a dangerous teaching. This could be a first step toward removing that picture from our teachings.

19 hours ago, Anna said:

And there will be another discussion about the "Slave" in the Feb 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you've already read. So with regard to that, and going back on topic, what is your understanding of the "Slave" as per the parable? (In one or two sentences )

No I can't say it in one or two sentences. It's a handicap I just have to live with, even if it makes others suffer.  

I think an even better discussion about the slave comes up in the March 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you already read, too.

Remember that the two most important features of this slave are "faith" and "discretion" (or "faith" and "wisdom", KJV, AS). Appropriately, the title of the article is "Exercise Faith—Decide Wisely!"

And when we study it, we'll sing Song 35 that opens with the words: "How great our need today for discernment . . . " which is, of course, wisdom and discretion.

Obviously, we use the terms "service," "servants," and "slaves" fairly often with reference to all true Christians. In congregational prayer, any of us can refer to Jehovah or even Jesus himself as our Lord, Owner, or Master and no one bats an eyelash (especially if their eyes are already closed).

So while the February article makes several statements that are quite difficult to back up with scripture, the March article makes some very appropriate statements applying to us all, and they fit the entire context of Jesus' parable. If you don't have the issue in hand, you can find the article here: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/exercise-faith-decide-wisely/

I'll quote a few portions:

Hence, the ability to make good decisions can help us to live a relatively smooth, peaceful life rather than one that is full of chaos, controversy, and disappointment.—Prov. 14:8. [which says: "By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going, But the stupid are deceived by their foolishness."]

. . . Accordingly, we develop the habit of consulting God’s Word before making decisions. . . .

The above-mentioned examples convey to us a clear lesson. It is up to each of us to make decisions, and the wise, right choices are based on sound Scriptural knowledge. Galatians 6:5 reminds us: “Each one will carry his own load of responsibility.” (Ftn.) We should not give someone else the responsibility to make decisions for us. Rather, we should personally learn what is right in God’s eyes and choose to do it.

. . . Still, no matter how others try to pressure us, it is our responsibility to follow our Bible-trained conscience. In many respects, if we let others make our decisions, we are essentially deciding to “follow them.” It is still a choice, but a potentially disastrous one.

The apostle Paul clearly alerted the Galatians to the danger of letting others make personal decisions for them. (Read Galatians 4:17.) Some in the congregation wanted to make personal choices for others . . . Those selfish ones were seeking prominence. They overstepped proper bounds and did not respect their fellow Christians’ responsibility to make their own decisions.

Paul set a fine example of respecting his brothers’ right of free will to make decisions. (Read 2 Corinthians 1:24.) [which says: "Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. "] Today, when giving counsel on matters involving personal choice, the elders should follow that pattern. They are happy to share Bible-based information with others in the flock. Still, the elders are careful to allow individual brothers and sisters to make their own decisions. That is logical because those individuals will bear the responsibility for the results. Here is an important lesson: We can show helpful interest in others and call attention to Scriptural principles or counsel. Still, others have a right and responsibility to make their own decisions. When they do this wisely, they benefit. Clearly, we should avoid any tendency to think that we are authorized to make decisions for other brothers and sisters.

... When we take the time to weigh carefully all the aspects or facts related to a decision, we will likely be more successful. (1 Thess. 5:21) [which says: "Make sure of all things. . . ."] Before determining a course of action, a family head ought to take the time to research the Scriptures and Christian publications, as well as to consider the opinions or views of others in his family. Recall that God urged Abraham to listen to what his wife had to say. (Gen. 21:9-12) Elders too should take time to do research. And if they are reasonable, modest men, they will not fear losing respect if new, relevant information comes to their attention that indicates a need to reconsider what they had already decided. They should be ready to adjust their thinking and decisions when appropriate, and all of us do well to follow that example. This can promote peace and order in the congregation.—Acts 6:1-4.

. . . Thus, it is vital to draw on the Bible as the best source of advice and to seek Jehovah’s guidance in prayer. And bear in mind that Jehovah can give us the qualities we need to make decisions that are in harmony with his will. When facing important decisions, make it a practice to ask: ‘Will this decision give evidence of my love for Jehovah? Will it bring joy and peace to my family? And will it show that I am patient and kind?’

. . . Jehovah does not coerce us into loving him and serving him. That is our choice. In line with the free will that he grants us, he respects our responsibility and right to ‘choose for ourselves’ whether we will serve him. (Josh. 24:15; Eccl. 5:4) . . . With faith in Jehovah’s way of doing things and the principles that he has kindly provided, we can make wise decisions and prove ourselves steady in all our ways.

---------- end of quotes -------------------

So, I'm sorry if that was long. I'm not saying that the words of Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42 should not also apply to the Governing Body, or even all who profess to be of the anointed, but there is no Biblical reason to limit it. In a practical way, all of us are expected to understand that we are obedient in our service to the Master, and all of us are expected to show patience and to carry out our responsibilities of service in a serious and orderly manner. "What is looked for in a steward is to be found faithful," to paraphrase the apostle Paul.

But Jesus wasn't necessarily referring to a specific type of Christian arrangement or organization here. He wasn't necessarily speaking of specific areas of responsibility that referred only to some Christians and not to other Christians. And even if he did, there is nothing in the illustration that says it should apply only to "anointed" Christians. Or that the food spoken of here is supposed to refer to "spiritual" food. In our own view of matters, the Watchtower's view, we hardly expect that there would even be 1 out of 1,000 Christians who would claim to be "anointed" when the Master returns. And if it referred only to a very limited Governing Body who had been associated as officers of a legal corporation for about 50 years (per the February article) and who then later understood that they were actually a different kind of Governing Body for the last 50 years (rounded), then the entire parable refers to only about 30 people in total. Do we really believe that Jesus was talking about giving a level of authority to only 30 people since 1919? And does it make sense then that Jesus says he is going to appoint "him" these 30 people, over all his belongings? How many of these 30 "anointed" members of the Governing Body do we expect to be here when Jesus returns? 7, 4, 2, maybe even just 1 (or less)?

In previous parables, Jesus referred to a household that was going to be broken into by a thief. Does that mean Jesus is a thief? Obviously not! It's a parable that lets us think about how someone would have to be awake all night to avoid being surprised by a thief. The idea was that Christians could then think about what it might mean to be prepared at all times because they would never know the day or the hour of Jesus' return.

Similarly, Jesus gives an illustration here that might not have anything to do with specific functions that any of us might perform, but it's still one that makes us think about how certain circumstances would require patient, orderly and obedient servitude, and the kinds of trouble they would be in, after a surprise, thief-like return of their master.

I say this because all Jesus asked us to do was imagine a situation where a rich and harsh* master counts on some of his servants to be obedient to keep things going smoothly when he is gone. Jesus doesn't say that he is the rich and harsh master in the illustration, any more than he says that he is a thief in the previous illustration. Jesus wants us to imagine what would happen if those persons who were left in charge of the food supply of that household began taking advantage and started over-eating, and getting drunk, and ordering other servants around to do their own bidding instead of the instructions of their master. When the master returns he is going to be mad enough to chop some of them in half, literally. But if servants remain faithful in these circumstances, the master will be pleased enough to reward them.

*I mentioned that the master is "harsh" because he actually is spoken of as chopping the body of the wicked servant in half. Some translators prefer not to translate it this way, because we have a built in prejudice that the master here refers specifically to Jesus, and it makes him sound cruel. The NWT says:

(Matthew 24:51) . . .and he will punish him with the greatest severity. . .

This is a play on words, since he will be severed in two. As the KJV says: " And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. . . "

2 hours ago, TrueTom said:

What do Jehovah’s Witnesses have against college? 

Where is the photo from? Is that the Charles River circa Cambridge, circa 1914? Or 1936 Olympics? Can't find it on the internet.

If Cambridge, it's an amazingly different view from now. My son's dorm from 2013 to 2015 was 10 floors up along the Charles where a more modern version of this same sight is common.

I have nothing against college, by the way -- except for the high costs, drinking and drug problems, promiscuity, exploitation of young people, ideological bias in teaching and grading, etc. In spite of that, my youngest son recently graduated with honors with his degree in physics and music. I'm proud enough to mention it here.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

"In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date".

The most amazing transformation to someone's thinking that I ever witnessed up-close-and-personally was when my mother read this article and apparently took it to heart immediately. I had been pioneering full-time since May 1973 with 2 to 3 other pioneers and as of February 1976 my mother also began pioneering with us full-time. Most weekdays we would all meet at the Hall in the morning and worked separately with congregation members who showed up for the meeting for service and work with them until about noon, usually, and then the 4 pioneers would meet up again at the Hall around 1pm to pair up in two car groups for RVs until 3pm and Bible studies afterwards. My mother drove a station wagon that held all five of us comfortably, and she always paid for all the gas, so on Fridays at 1pm all the pioneers would pile into the station wagon; I'd drive, and we'd work out the most efficient routes for all of us to get to a bunch of RVs anywhere between the Hall and a 50-mile radius. This led to a lot of long conversations and Kingdom Song marathons.

1975 came up a lot in those months, and we even had to deal with it door-to-door, with RVs and from our Bible study students. But in the car conversations, as of May 1976, my mother was the first to decide that the WTS had absolutely no culpability and that 1975 was completely our own doing -- but that the end would still probably come within a year because Jehovah could have brought all the animals to Adam in the same year in which he created Eve. Her view was obviously based on the Watchtower she had just read. I left for Bethel around the first of August 1976 and this Watchtower was the first one I studied with the entire Bethel family (at the Bethel Monday-night Watchtower Study.) I was amazed that the Bethelite's comments on that paragraph were exactly like my mother's. I also learned that nothing had changed with respect to the actual date of Armageddon being tied to the start of the 7th 1000-year day, and therefore the unknown amount of time between Adam's creation and Eve's creation. This was in the very same issue, and I couldn't believe we were still pushing the speculation on how long Adam would have stayed alone, and then saying that the speculation was on the part of the reader.

A full NINE PARAGRAPHS, more than one-third of the first study article, specifically dealt with speculation on how long Adam might have been in the garden prior to Eve, and that this was the main reason we didn't know the exact time!

The nine paragraphs concluded with this one:

*** w76 7/15 p. 437 par. 25 Keeping a Balanced View of Time ***
What, then, does this mean? Simply this: That these factors, and the possibilities for which they allow, prevent us from saying with any positiveness how much time elapsed between Adam’s creation and that of the first woman. We do not know whether it was a brief time such as a month or a few months, a year or even more. But whatever time elapsed would have to be added to the time that has passed since Adam’s creation in order for us to know how far along we are within God’s seventh “day,” his grand day of rest. So our having advanced six thousand years from the start of human existence is one thing. Advancing six thousand years into God’s seventh creative “day” is quite another. And we do not know just how far along in the stream of time we are in this regard.

Another point that didn't bother me at the time, but one I noticed later, was that the paragraph following the one you quoted goes to a typical type of rationalizing when a mistake is made. It's the one that says that the timing might have been off but it was still the right thing. In other words, "the right thing at the wrong time" as Brother MacMillan put it. Here's the paragraph:

*** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 16 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
16 However, say that you are one who counted heavily on a date, and, commendably, set your attention more strictly on the urgency of the times and the need of the people to hear. And say you now, temporarily, feel somewhat disappointed; are you really the loser? Are you really hurt? We believe you can say that you have gained and profited by taking this conscientious course. Also, you have been enabled to get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint.—Eph. 5:1-17.

This reminded me of the similar comments made about the correct view of Romans 13 that Russell had in the 1870's, which Rutherford changed to an incorrect view, but which was changed back to the correct view in the 1960's. It was wrong food, but the at the right time, because, as the publications inadvertently indicated, Christians somehow needed incorrect doctrine during the turbulent times of the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's up to the 1960's.

This kind of made it ironic that the very study article in 1976 that you quoted from included a secondary article on the same page that brings us full circle to the subject of this particular topic. Sharing the page with the study article is a small article squeezed onto the bottom of the page, called, you guessed it: "Who is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?"

*** w76 7/15 p. 443 ‘Who Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?’ ***
Jesus’ words revealed that during all this long period of time there would be a “faithful and discreet slave” who would be giving God’s household “their food at the proper time.”—Matt. 24:45.
. . . Their duty while on earth has been to disseminate spiritual food among the members of the household of God, especially seeing that they are equipped spiritually to face the issues confronting them from time to time.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

The question is, was this direction from the Slave, or was it the interpretation of elders, on how they decided to handle the situation? The same with the other problematics. I don't know. And how do you know the GB thought it was "bad food".

It's a simple principle. It's based primarily on an idea that Jesus spoke about:

(Luke 8:16, 17) 16 “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel or puts it underneath a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open.

As a teaching organization with a teaching ministry then we will naturally want everyone to know exactly how we have handled issues both in the past and in the present (now what we have learned from any of our own mistakes from the past). This shows how appreciative we are even where Jehovah's discipline has taught us to do better, and how we are now joyous about the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" that comes from it.

(Hebrews 12:5-11) . . .“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” . . .  but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness. 11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore, whenever the Governing Body is not open and clear and transparent about publishing its directions to all, then the reason for hiding it is necessarily because we know that there was something wrong with the ingredients. Whenever a member of the Governing Body is reluctant to speak out in person to explain what we do and why in every matter, doctrinal, financial, and legal, then they must be aware that there is something toxic to someone, something embarrassing to someone. Otherwise we would embrace every opportunity:

• (Matthew 10:18-20) 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you.

We have argued that there is sometimes a trade-off in protecting Jehovah's organization and this sometimes means that the victims, the "little ones" must suffer. Protecting "Jehovah's" reputation instead of protecting victims of abuse is a perfect example. But it doesn't stop there. Protecting traditions in doctrines instead of being open and transparent about the ingredients of that doctrine is not just evidence that the doctrine is too weak to stand up to transparency, but is also proof that the promoters of such doctrine realize the potential danger and toxicity. Any thorough study of the attempts to explain some chronology doctrines in our publications, for example, shows that as much as 95% of the evidence is never mentioned at all, and even the 5% remaining is often dealt with through obfuscating, specious, or fallacious argumentation. When various documented elements of our organizational history are not just hidden but consistently reviewed with a false spin (whitewash) then it is clear that the intent is to hide the fact that past servings have been "toxic," and this makes the current purpose of such review suspect as toxic too.

For me, this is a very small portion of the overall menu, but through personal experience I can have no doubt that a type of dishonesty fueled some of the "food" preparation for such portions. The percentage of the portions might be insignificant, but the principle is serious:

(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

On 12/28/2016 at 11:19 PM, Anna said:

So we, inclusive of the GB, must be doing something right.

Yes. We ARE doing something right, and this results in Jehovah's blessing on the kind of work we do. But it's not, in my opinion, because the GB, from 1919 on, were prophesied in Mathew 24:45, but because these brothers are doing their best with a strong desire to do the right thing.

On 12/30/2016 at 11:32 AM, Witness said:

If you put these together, Anna, you will see that the "good news" which takes place under all the signs of the end that Jesus gave us, "preached in all the inhabited earth", is to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations.   Please consider the meaning of "world"/"earth" in Matt 24:14:

Witness, I am trying to understand what you have said here. I have two major problems understanding it.

One problem is spelled out in a little bit more detail from the "Pearl" blog that apparently coincides with several things you are saying here:

Regarding Matt.24:14; If we go back to the grass roots Greek of the translation of "world" and "nations", we see that both these translated words, are assumptions.
The Greek only and simply says, that the preaching will be done in the "home",
and that all those who are *a group occupying together the same home (definition of "ethnos"...translated "nations"), will be the target of that message.
Jesus made clear by his direct statement, who his brothers would be preaching to when he arrived (Matt.10:23). That literally reads "the circuit of Israel". That "circuit" was a first century mail route, and is exactly depicted by the seven congregations listed in Revelation. This ancient mail route went to those cities in that order. It was the "circuit of Israel". 
We know that this is symbolic, for the "Israel of God" (Rom.9:6; Gal.6:16; 3:29). 
God's last warning, is to the same group (1Pet.2:9-10; Rev.18:4; 1Cor.6:15; Rev.17:2; 2:22)
People of all nations are included (Rev.5:9,10).

Some of this reasoning contradicts not only Romans 10:18 which I quoted in my previous post to Allen, but also requires further redefinition to avoid contradictions with the "world" Satan dwells in. I'm not trying to get into all the reasons I disagree, but I'm sure you already understand that there are other ways to read this, and most persons find those other reasons more likely. It's not that I don't understand the appeal of the argument you are making, as it looks like a simpler solution to dichotomy of the references to both the first century judgment and the final judgment. But there are new problems with your solution, and of course, I admit that there are some problems remaining with the Watchtower's solution, too. As with the Watchtower, there is no consistent meaning attached to Jew and Gentile in a spiritual sense, and we sometimes use contexts from the Hebrew Scriptures to mean the spiritual solution when the first century context in the Greek Scriptures could have referred to a natural Jew and a natural Greek. These Jewish/Gentile problems even occur between Romans and Revelation, for example. I'd like to pick up on these questions under a different topic, but the main reason I quoted this section of the blog here is this:

Do you agree completely with the reasoning in the portion of the blog I quoted above. Is that why you are making the same argument to Anna about the "circuit" of the cities of Israel (and/or Asia Minor if you include the 7 congregations of Revelation)?

My other question is about this part of your quote to Anna: the "good news" which takes place under all the signs of the end that Jesus gave us, "preached in all the inhabited earth", is to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations.

Why do you believe that the preaching of the "good news" is specifically to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations? What makes the Watchtower so special in your view?

One more question while I think of it. Do you understand the meaning of "world" as God's "inhabited or occupied place/dwelling" to mean something like the opposite of the "wilderness" in Revelation 12?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And at what point do you consider “Ecumene” differs by definition “ALL” the “inhabited world” to mean something other than “earth” or “World”. You can even include “All Nations” here.

Good point, Allen.

The inclusion of "all nations" takes away any ambiguity of the Greek meaning. It's true that one could try to make a larger point out of the less likely and rarely used definition(s) based on the fact that many words that start out with "oik..." (or "ec..." in English transliteration) can refer to dwellings and households. But this is the least likely meaning in any context, and in this case we even have the context to clarify. The word "all" goes with it, and it's tied to "all nations."

What "Witness" is depending on here is closer to the the definition of related words, such as the one used in Titus 2:5 oikourgos  - worker at home. Or Matthew 10:36 oikiakos - household. Or oikos - house, dwelling.

But the use of the same word is clarified perfectly in Romans 10:18 for a first century application prior to the judgment on the Jewish system in 70, and it works again in a larger sense for the judgment on the whole world. Note how Romans 10:18 echoes  the poetic Hebrew parallelism in Greek to make "world" the equivalent of the "earth" here:

Romans 10:18  ἀλλὰ λέγω μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν μενοῦνγε Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν [earth, planet] ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης [world, earth] τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν

(Romans 10:18, NWT) But I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.”

(Romans 10:18, KJV): But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.