JW Insider

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see.
And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.
LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.
My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.
And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.
Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon."
Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914.

The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below):
Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings:
The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness. R1874:5 We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . .
Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3):
The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus:
The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII.
Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . .
Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble.
To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon.
*** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.
 

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty."
Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure.
Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

This might often true, but it might not be our part to judge the majority so harshly. I have been on many a call to those who have left and in my experience the most common issues that get brought up are things that I would file under "Euodia-Syntyche Syndrome." I don't know if there is a specific reason common to the majority. However, the complaints I have heard most often are that they are just burned out trying to maneuver through a perceived lack of love, coldness, pettiness, jealousy, suspicions, contentions, competition for good brothers to marry, being judged as materialistic or haughty if they have a good job, house, car, education, etc. (Most of these are also issues for brothers, even if this looks to some like a "sisters-only" list.)
When encouraged to come back and the assurance that Jehovah has not forgotten the love they have shown for his name, etc., they often say that surely Jehovah will understand that it's just not worth the toll on their health: depression, anxiety, stress, loss of sleep, etc. When reminded of the importance of sacred service and good association and other "useful habits" and then warned of the temptations of the world and the higher likelihood that bad associations can pull them into worldly thinking, they sometimes reply sadly or even tearfully that this was never a problem, and that the desire to associate with others of good morals was what attracted them to the Witnesses in the first place. I have encouraged them to speak again with Witnesses who they knew well as friends, Witness relatives, to attend the next assembly, and even consider another congregation to associate with.
I find that it is most often plain old discouragement, and one of the more successful methods for getting persons to try and come back has been to ask them to think of someone in the congregation they know who is in worse straits and needs encouragement, with the appeal that often the best way of finding encouragement ourselves is to provide it for someone who needs it worse than we do. There is more happiness in giving than receiving.

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

This is true, and this is why I took it into account by explaining that this was the "general view" of those who closely followed Russell's own writings.
You have cherry-picked several of Russell's statements by the way, and then made false claims about what else he must have believed or not believed. Instead, you should be aware of everthing that he wrote about a subject before making such sweeping (false) claims. (example: " Therefore, the ONLY expectation Charles Taze Russell had for the year AD1914 was the conclusion of the “gentile times” that’s it.") I'm sure you are aware that anyone could open almost any of Watchtower volume from 1879 to 1914 and see 100 examples proving this statement false.
You have also taken some statements about Russellism and in defense of Russellism, and falsely claimed that these are my views.
He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see.
And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.
LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.
My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.
And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.
Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon."
Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914.

The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below):
Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings:
The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness. R1874:5 We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . .
Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3):
The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus:
The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII.
Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . .
Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble.
To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon.
*** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.
 

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.
LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.
My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.
And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.
Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.
LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.
My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.
And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.
Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon."
Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914.

The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below):
Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings:
The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness. R1874:5 We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . .
Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3):
The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus:
The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII.
Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . .
Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble.
To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon.
*** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.
 

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty."
Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure.
Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty."
Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure.
Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty."
Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure.
Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

The low retention rate is also more than offset by the high participation rate of those who stick. After all, in many religions, persons might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did?

This might often true, but it might not be our part to judge the majority so harshly. I have been on many a call to those who have left and in my experience the most common issues that get brought up are things that I would file under "Euodia-Syntyche Syndrome." I don't know if there is a specific reason common to the majority. However, the complaints I have heard most often are that they are just burned out trying to maneuver through a perceived lack of love, coldness, pettiness, jealousy, suspicions, contentions, competition for good brothers to marry, being judged as materialistic or haughty if they have a good job, house, car, education, etc. (Most of these are also issues for brothers, even if this looks to some like a "sisters-only" list.)
When encouraged to come back and the assurance that Jehovah has not forgotten the love they have shown for his name, etc., they often say that surely Jehovah will understand that it's just not worth the toll on their health: depression, anxiety, stress, loss of sleep, etc. When reminded of the importance of sacred service and good association and other "useful habits" and then warned of the temptations of the world and the higher likelihood that bad associations can pull them into worldly thinking, they sometimes reply sadly or even tearfully that this was never a problem, and that the desire to associate with others of good morals was what attracted them to the Witnesses in the first place. I have encouraged them to speak again with Witnesses who they knew well as friends, Witness relatives, to attend the next assembly, and even consider another congregation to associate with.
I find that it is most often plain old discouragement, and one of the more successful methods for getting persons to try and come back has been to ask them to think of someone in the congregation they know who is in worse straits and needs encouragement, with the appeal that often the best way of finding encouragement ourselves is to provide it for someone who needs it worse than we do. There is more happiness in giving than receiving.

Don't remember if this Watchtower discussion was added to the topic, but this is one of the major ones that explains the point about what should be expected to happen within months, not years, from 1975:
You don't need the Watchtower Library because it's on jw.org:
Remember that it's not specifically about Armageddon, but about the end of 6,000 years. But we need to pay more than the usual attention to how even THAT date, the date ending the 6,000 years since since Adam/Eve is supposed to drive lively discussions among "serious students of the Bible." It is "such an important date." No matter what it stands for, it should answer the question as to "why are we looking forward to 1975."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602
Why are you looking forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. . . . The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .
How do we know their calculations are correct? . . .  Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?
. . . Already with the help supplied by the Bible we have accurately measured back from the spring of this year 1968 C.E. to the spring of 1513 B.C.E., a total of 3,480 years. With the continued faithful memory and accurate historical record of Jehovah’s Holy Word we can penetrate even deeper into the past . . .
Since the affliction of Israel ended in 1513 B.C.E., it must have begun in 1913 [B.C.E.], 400 years earlier. . . .
It is now only a matter of adding up the years of a few generations to date the Flood correctly. The figures are given in Genesis, chapters 11 and 12 . . . Adding this figure 1,656 to 2,370 gives 4026 B.C.E., the Gregorian calendar year in which Adam was created.
Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates.
. . . of what benefit is this information to us today? Is it not all dead history, as uninteresting and profitless . . .
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. . . .
It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?
One might wonder how persons were then "toying with the words of Jesus" in a way that drew away from the idea that 1975 proved that the end of this system was rapidly coming to its violent end. In other words, all this talk of 1975 somehow proved that Armageddon was rapidly coming. Perhaps persons were "toying with" the words of Jesus in the way that someone might be "toying with" immoraility?

"Millions now living will never die!"  (WT publications: 1918-1925) "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things." (WT publication: Awake! 5/22/1969) These two prophecies are nearly equivalent, and were both made for very similar reasons, although under different circumstances.

This might often true, but it might not be our part to judge the majority so harshly. I have been on many a call to those who have left and in my experience the most common issues that get brought up are things that I would file under "Euodia-Syntyche Syndrome." I don't know if there is a specific reason common to the majority. However, the complaints I have heard most often are that they are just burned out trying to maneuver through a perceived lack of love, coldness, pettiness, jealousy, suspicions, contentions, competition for good brothers to marry, being judged as materialistic or haughty if they have a good job, house, car, education, etc. (Most of these are also issues for brothers, even if this looks to some like a "sisters-only" list.)
When encouraged to come back and the assurance that Jehovah has not forgotten the love they have shown for his name, etc., they often say that surely Jehovah will understand that it's just not worth the toll on their health: depression, anxiety, stress, loss of sleep, etc. When reminded of the importance of sacred service and good association and other "useful habits" and then warned of the temptations of the world and the higher likelihood that bad associations can pull them into worldly thinking, they sometimes reply sadly or even tearfully that this was never a problem, and that the desire to associate with others of good morals was what attracted them to the Witnesses in the first place. I have encouraged them to speak again with Witnesses who they knew well as friends, Witness relatives, to attend the next assembly, and even consider another congregation to associate with.
I find that it is most often plain old discouragement, and one of the more successful methods for getting persons to try and come back has been to ask them to think of someone in the congregation they know who is in worse straits and needs encouragement, with the appeal that often the best way of finding encouragement ourselves is to provide it for someone who needs it worse than we do. There is more happiness in giving than receiving.

You may disagree, but I agree with @BillyTheKid46 on the point that the WTS never actually predicted that Armageddon would come in 1975. You are right that they "projected" it by very strongly implying that the appropriate time period should end within a few months, not years, from 1975. The WTS definitely led people to believe that Armageddon would come in 1975, but this was through a series of misleading and misguided statements. They never predicted outright that Armageddon would come in 1975. As BTK, Space Merchant (and I) have said, they only directly predicted that the end of 6,000 years of man's existence would end within a few months, not years, from 1975.
I recall the most careful readers of the Watchtower making that point clear to others. I even remember several specifics from  a conversation on January 2, 1975 between my father and one of his employees, who was an overly excited elder and recently returned Gilead Student, whose wife had become pregnant on their assignment. I was spending the day in my father's lab, and the brother (who worked afternoons) loudly and proudly announced his excitement about having reached his last year in this wicked system. My father had another employee there, and two graduate students (who did work-study for credit) were also there in the lab. I knew my father was a bit embarrassed for the non-JW onlookers. But he decided to deal with the issue in front of the others because this brother brought it up in front of the others.
I know that my father's opinion on this was very different from the more outspoken people in the congregation, and it was definitely different from our District Overseer and two Circuit Overseers we had in the period from 1972 to 1974. In fact, he got counseled by the District Overseer for adding Matthew 24:36 to a talk he gave at a circuit assembly just before that. My mother took the side of the District and Circuit Overseers, and therefore believed that Armageddon would have to come between 1974 and 1976. She specifically thought it was less likely to happen in 1975 only because most all JWs (in the general opinion around us) believed that this is when it would happen, and it had to happen at a time when we did not think to be it. But I also know that my father was not alone in his "negative thinking" about 1975 and I knew he could defend it well from the publications. My father believed that it could be any time, and thought it just as likely to be 1973 as it would be in 1993. Part of his reason to say this was to convince me to get a High School education, and a job, before I started pioneering. For me, this meant that I had to quit school when I was still 15, but got the GED High School equivalency instead.
Anyway, if you look very closely at all the official statements in the publications surrounding 1975, you can see that there is no prediction of Armageddon in 1975. The problem was the way these statements led people to believe that the end would most likely come either in 1975, or within a matter of months. Usually this was in the context of "What will the 1970's bring?" or "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" By the 1980's the prediction about Armageddon itself had become much more clear: that it would come before the end of the century, as you already pointed out.
You are right that the Watchtower publications definitely HINTED at Armageddon coming in 1975. It's easy to say, as Space Merchant said, that we never taught that the end would come in 1975, but we did teach that the end SHOULD be expected to come within a matter of months, not years, from 1975. Therefore it's wrong to say that "nothing of the sort was ever mentioned."
Space Merchant may not know any better,  but for those who do, this is what I mean by dishonesty when it comes to how our teaching on the subject is defended.

Don't remember if this Watchtower discussion was added to the topic, but this is one of the major ones that explains the point about what should be expected to happen within months, not years, from 1975:
You don't need the Watchtower Library because it's on jw.org:
Remember that it's not specifically about Armageddon, but about the end of 6,000 years. But we need to pay more than the usual attention to how even THAT date, the date ending the 6,000 years since since Adam/Eve is supposed to drive lively discussions among "serious students of the Bible." It is "such an important date." No matter what it stands for, it should answer the question as to "why are we looking forward to 1975."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602
Why are you looking forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. . . . The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .
How do we know their calculations are correct? . . .  Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?
. . . Already with the help supplied by the Bible we have accurately measured back from the spring of this year 1968 C.E. to the spring of 1513 B.C.E., a total of 3,480 years. With the continued faithful memory and accurate historical record of Jehovah’s Holy Word we can penetrate even deeper into the past . . .
Since the affliction of Israel ended in 1513 B.C.E., it must have begun in 1913 [B.C.E.], 400 years earlier. . . .
It is now only a matter of adding up the years of a few generations to date the Flood correctly. The figures are given in Genesis, chapters 11 and 12 . . . Adding this figure 1,656 to 2,370 gives 4026 B.C.E., the Gregorian calendar year in which Adam was created.
Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates.
. . . of what benefit is this information to us today? Is it not all dead history, as uninteresting and profitless . . .
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. . . .
It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?
One might wonder how persons were then "toying with the words of Jesus" in a way that drew away from the idea that 1975 proved that the end of this system was rapidly coming to its violent end. In other words, all this talk of 1975 somehow proved that Armageddon was rapidly coming. Perhaps persons were "toying with" the words of Jesus in the way that someone might be "toying with" immoraility?

You may disagree, but I agree with @BillyTheKid46 on the point that the WTS never actually predicted that Armageddon would come in 1975. You are right that they "projected" it by very strongly implying that the appropriate time period should end within a few months, not years, from 1975. The WTS definitely led people to believe that Armageddon would come in 1975, but this was through a series of misleading and misguided statements. They never predicted outright that Armageddon would come in 1975. As BTK, Space Merchant (and I) have said, they only directly predicted that the end of 6,000 years of man's existence would end within a few months, not years, from 1975.
I recall the most careful readers of the Watchtower making that point clear to others. I even remember several specifics from  a conversation on January 2, 1975 between my father and one of his employees, who was an overly excited elder and recently returned Gilead Student, whose wife had become pregnant on their assignment. I was spending the day in my father's lab, and the brother (who worked afternoons) loudly and proudly announced his excitement about having reached his last year in this wicked system. My father had another employee there, and two graduate students (who did work-study for credit) were also there in the lab. I knew my father was a bit embarrassed for the non-JW onlookers. But he decided to deal with the issue in front of the others because this brother brought it up in front of the others.
I know that my father's opinion on this was very different from the more outspoken people in the congregation, and it was definitely different from our District Overseer and two Circuit Overseers we had in the period from 1972 to 1974. In fact, he got counseled by the District Overseer for adding Matthew 24:36 to a talk he gave at a circuit assembly just before that. My mother took the side of the District and Circuit Overseers, and therefore believed that Armageddon would have to come between 1974 and 1976. She specifically thought it was less likely to happen in 1975 only because most all JWs (in the general opinion around us) believed that this is when it would happen, and it had to happen at a time when we did not think to be it. But I also know that my father was not alone in his "negative thinking" about 1975 and I knew he could defend it well from the publications. My father believed that it could be any time, and thought it just as likely to be 1973 as it would be in 1993. Part of his reason to say this was to convince me to get a High School education, and a job, before I started pioneering. For me, this meant that I had to quit school when I was still 15, but got the GED High School equivalency instead.
Anyway, if you look very closely at all the official statements in the publications surrounding 1975, you can see that there is no prediction of Armageddon in 1975. The problem was the way these statements led people to believe that the end would most likely come either in 1975, or within a matter of months. Usually this was in the context of "What will the 1970's bring?" or "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" By the 1980's the prediction about Armageddon itself had become much more clear: that it would come before the end of the century, as you already pointed out.
You are right that the Watchtower publications definitely HINTED at Armageddon coming in 1975. It's easy to say, as Space Merchant said, that we never taught that the end would come in 1975, but we did teach that the end SHOULD be expected to come within a matter of months, not years, from 1975. Therefore it's wrong to say that "nothing of the sort was ever mentioned."
Space Merchant may not know any better,  but for those who do, this is what I mean by dishonesty when it comes to how our teaching on the subject is defended.

"Millions now living will never die!"  (WT publications: 1918-1925) "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things." (WT publication: Awake! 5/22/1969) These two prophecies are nearly equivalent, and were both made for very similar reasons, although under different circumstances.