JW Insider

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc.
As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874.
It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.)
I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288:
"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."
. . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . .  "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.
While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .
The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . .
The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.
As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother,  B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind.
Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming.
But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place.
When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . .
It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . .
To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.
"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word."
. . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . .
The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."
Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:
(Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.
The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.
The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 
But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"
It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

The New Creation, Studies in the Scriptures, is not so different than what was continued until the 1970's and proposed again in the 1980's:
We believe our readers will agree that although the length of these epoch-days is not indicated, we will be justified in assuming that they were uniform periods, because of their close identity as members of the one creative week. Hence, if we can gain reasonable proof of the length of one of these days, we will be fully justified in assuming that the others were of the same duration. We do, then, find satisfactory evidence that one of these creative "days" was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week would be 7,000 x 7 equals 49,000 years. And although this period is infinitesimal when compared with some geological guesses, it is, we believe, quite reasonably ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein—the ordering and filling of the earth, which already "was" in existence, but "without form [order], and void [empty]." . . .  Evening and morning, Day Six, at its close, 42,000 years after "work" began, found the earth ready for man to subdue. . . .
Edited to add that the December 1912 Watch Tower also explained it similarly:
Six great Thousand-Year Periods or Days have passed since Adam was created, according to Bible chronology. We are now in the dawning of the great Seventh Day or Sabbath Day of human experience. God has promised that this Seventh Day of a thousand years will be very different from the preceding Six Days, in which mankind has experienced a reign of Sin and Death. The Seventh Day of a thousand years is Scripturally called the "Day of Christ," and by many it is styled the Millennium. In it Satan and Sin are to be overthrown, righteousness is to be established by the Redeemer, and mankind, purchased by the precious blood at Calvary; are all to have full opportunity for arising from present degradation to re-attainment of the image and likeness of God, lost in Eden by Adam's disobedience.
The Seventh Day of the Creative Week began with Adam's creation and has already lasted six thousand years, and is to be completed with the thousand years of Christ's Reign. The Seventh Creative Day will be seven thousand years long. Whoever sees this to be a reasonable deduction can easily suppose that the six preceding Days of the Genesis account were, likewise, seven thousand years each. Reckoned thus, the total period from the time that Divine Energy began to operate upon the waste Earth down to the time when the whole work of creation and Restitution will be fully completed, would be 7 times 7,000 years, or 49,000 years.
According to the Bible, that time will be a thousand years hence, when The Christ shall have accomplished His work for mankind to the full and shall deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. At that moment the fiftieth thousand-year period will begin, with every creature in Heaven and on earth ascribing praise to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and to the Lamb, forever. How appropriate this will be, especially when we recall that in God's arrangement fifty is the greatest climax of numbers! In Bible usage the number seven is symbolical of perfection, and 7 times 7 represents a completeness of perfection; and the fiftieth or Jubilee following is climacteric.

Humor....  Be  aware,  Queen Elisabeth can move in any direction  
But the bishop can take her in just one move, haha

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum.
I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so.
The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc.
As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874.
It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.)
I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288:
"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."
. . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . .  "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.
While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .
The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . .
The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.
As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother,  B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind.
Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming.
But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place.
When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . .
It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . .
To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.
"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word."
. . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . .
The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

I did. 
 
I have read not all of it but enough of it to formulate my opinion and make a good comment in good conscience.
 
Tom, you have written with a passion and a poise from your true belief and heart. I cannot deny that fact. I commend you for the amount of what you put into words and can honestly say that it truly takes a writer to write as much as you have in this, and the other books you have written. You have given the reader a solid grasp of the topic you represent and that is something I struggle to see here in this forum at times. While I understand that everyone writes for different reasons, some want to provide facts while others want to present missed information and many more reasons. The only thing I can say about your book that is relevant to this topic on this forum, is that it is a  opinion piece. There is nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is. I appreciate the fact that you let me read it, it gives me more understanding of who you are and where your thoughts reside. Thank you Tom. 

Never again will I play with the ‘i’s of Shiwiii and am a little ashamed of having done so at all. Thank you.
 

I gave two reasons why it does matter. Like TTH I don't do dates. There have been several persons who came on the forum to advertise their predictive prowess with prophecy. I think the same thing about all of them. I think it's both dangerous and un-Christian to do dates.
It's not my personal opinion. It's a fact. The Watchtower has claimed that they erred on this matter. So if they didn't err, then they erred in claiming that they had erred.
You have a much overblown opinion of my opinions.
There could be some truth in that. This is why I am always happy to have any supposed "facts" checked. It's a good reminder that even when I quote the Bible or the Watchtower publications or any reference work, I am still presenting an opinion overall as I might not understand the actual meaning of what I'm quoting. This is true no matter how much it might look like facts, and no matter that it makes use of actual facts. Based on the nature of many of the topics that I choose to discuss, I should probably remind everyone, again, that I only consider my posts to be my opinion about things. And often it's just an opinion about someone else's opinion. I might express my opinions strongly when I have no doubt about it for myself, but this doesn't mean that anyone else needs to take my opinion so seriously.
So, yes, these are conclusions on what I personally think the Watchtower publications are conveying. You are correct.
I can't say that I know exactly what an "overdrawn" conclusion is. It's an expression I had never heard until a conversation with Allen Smith, but I never asked him what it meant. Perhaps you can tell me. If not, perhaps BillyTheKid could tell me, since he just used the expression less than two months ago.
 

I certainly hope you can be more specific. Otherwise, your accusation is just another empty claim.

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc.
As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874.
It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.)
I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288:
"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."
. . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . .  "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.
While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .
The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . .
The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.
As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother,  B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind.
Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming.
But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place.
When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . .
It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . .
To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.
"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word."
. . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . .
The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Although none of this brings any of us closer to God, I will share another thought that I had years ago.
I thought 2015. 40 years in the wilderness for the Org not being ready in 1975.   But we are not supposed to now and we know we are not supposed to know.
That is why it is not important. Because it does not bring any of us closer to God. 

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."
Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:
(Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.
The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.
The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 
But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"
It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."
Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:
(Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.
The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.
The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 
But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"
It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. 
This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. 
You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today.
To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles.
Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor.
That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic.
But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the:
entire decade of the 1970's, then by the end of the 20th century, then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant.  Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here.  For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."
Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:
(Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.
The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.
The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 
But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"
It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

The latter part of your theory is still based on trying to defend a chronology system that attempts to put the times and the seasons in our own jurisdiction. It could be dangerous to our Christianity besides being presumptuous. Also, the premise that Peter was speaking about the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord is without foundation.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. 
This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. 
You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today.
To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles.
Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor.
That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic.
But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the:
entire decade of the 1970's, then by the end of the 20th century, then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant.  Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here.  For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.

The latter part of your theory is still based on trying to defend a chronology system that attempts to put the times and the seasons in our own jurisdiction. It could be dangerous to our Christianity besides being presumptuous. Also, the premise that Peter was speaking about the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord is without foundation.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. 
This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. 
You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today.
To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles.
Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor.
That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic.
But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the:
entire decade of the 1970's, then by the end of the 20th century, then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant.  Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here.  For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.