JW Insider

Of course, it is. I will never claim otherwise. It's impossible to get into the mind of another person, no matter how many clues they give us, or how much we hear about them from others. A person can seem haughty and presumptuous and sarcastic, like F.Franz, but be motivated by good intentions. A person can seem always friendly, humble and spiritual, like R.Franz, but have murderous intentions that we might never know about.
All we can do is try to evaluate their stated perspectives from evidence and experience.

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

Okay. Still, you seem to indicate that you knew him, too. What was he like?
Yeah. That’s fair. I guess I do. I mean, he’s been where I haven’t.
Whether it’s a good idea for him to blab away as he does, I have no idea. I was livid about it at first, but I have grown used to it. The point is, he is going to do it whether I am here or not, so I just glean what I can, always keeping in mind that it is through the eyes of another. That’s why I asked about how it looks through your eyes.
I am probably one of the few here who has not read Ray’s book. I might someday but have no immediate plans. Such things are just red herrings to me, a distraction. I mean, if my books were about personalities, I would go there. But they’re not. My books are what of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done, not so much the individuals in it. I tell a lot of stories, but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.
 

I suppose. 
But somewhere there is a story of some old-time Bethelite who, when the younger ones would start squabbling over something, would tilt back and marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with.
I mean, there’s always going to be people. They’re always going to do things. How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.
It’s not my area of focus, that’s all. If I was shocked at it, I wouldn’t be here.
You commented a while back about pulling back the curtain at Oz. The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

Are you really still in school? Well well well. Most here are far older. You express yourself uninhibitedly.
What!? A day off? For cold weather??!!!
You kids are soft!
Why, back in MY day....
#WalkFiveMiles #Uphill #BothWays.  

You could be right about this one. Especially the part where I made a big deal about how F.Franz says we shouldn't be "toying with Jesus' words." Those words were in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
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. But you pointed something out in the May 1, 1968 Watchtower that tells me I need to correct something I've said here. I still think it's wrong to write an article in such a way that so many points are ambiguous. But I don't think that the above highlighted words mean that F.Franz was saying not to think about and apply Jesus' words. I have never seen the Watchtower say to ignore a scripture. If the writer means to override the common meaning given to a scripture, it will provide another scripture or some logic that shows how it shouldn't be applied in every case, at least in the way we might think. 
So I don't think that F.Franz is saying that we should ignore Jesus words, or that we shouldn't invoke them as a caution to potential over-speculation. Someone might have thought I was saying that this was like F.Franz saying, "Don't try to use Jesus' words against me on this, because you would just be toying with them." Or, it could sound as if he was saying that no one else knows how to use Jesus' words, so don't toy with them: don't try to put a stop to all of this talk with your one little scripture." I do NOT think this is what F.Franz meant.
And, of course, this scripture is usually used among ourselves to remind us that we should avoid speculation. That's the way it is used with almost identical sounding logic and very similar context in the May 1, 1968 issue that @FelixCA already quoted:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly.
In this May 1st issue, its meaning is clearly to be cautious not to go overboard with speculation. Jesus had used it in the original context, not primarily about speculation, but primarily as a reason to avoid complacency, knowing that the end will come at any time as if a complete surprise; so be ready at all times.) But the meaning is slightly different from both of those prior meanings in the later August 15 issue. Here the most likely meaning is "Don't go making light of Jesus warning that no one could put a date on the end of the system, and therefore start thinking that it could therefore be far off in the future."  
If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrased:
"It's absolutely certain that 6,000 years of man's existence will be up soon, yes, within this generation, and if you read carefully what we just said, it was pretty much proven that those 6,000 years will be up in 1975, and that the actual 7th day (after Eve's creation) must have begun at most a few weeks or months, but not years after the fall of 1975. So that final millennium of the 7th day is going to be here very close after 1975. So don't any of you go thinking that just because Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour that this means we shouldn't be looking into all this. Don't go thinking that those words of Jesus mean that it could still be a ways off just because after all "we don't know; no one knows." To the contrary, we do know something here that's very important and significant about how close that end must be."
If that's the meaning in context, then it is used in a way that tends to supersede or outweigh the original meaning in Jesus' context: "No one knows so it MUST be close." This of course fits not just the context of the paragraph and article, but the entire context of all publications that year. (The Truth book with a half-a-dozen 1975 quotes from experts, later removed in the next version. Articles pushing urgency, from January through December: January Watchtower: "THE TIME IS SHORT" . . . December Watchtower: HOW WE KNOW IT IS GETTING NEAR")
And as you say, I could be mistaken on this point especially, by reading too much into it. And this was August 15, only a few months after the May 1 issue, when the Watchtower had published nearly the same idea, but had used it with a meaning that was made perfectly clear by the context.
The problem with the May article is that it had another problem/mistake in the context that was just ridiculous. Perhaps it's a mistake that the August 15 issue is trying to correct, but if it is, it doesn't correct it by much. This is the mistake.
*** w68 5/1 p. 270 par. 2 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
With accurate knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes, the Christian rejects the speculations of men.
Good so far.
According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.
This is speculation of men about what time of year he was created, but that's not the problem.
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
Now we have speculation but it is properly labeled as such by saying "it is logical that..." rather than "it is definite." There's a bit of speculation in the idea that God's 7th day, his "rest" day immediately followed Eve's creation. But the main point here is that we are speculating that Eve was created in 4026 BCE, within 12 months of Adam in a year that is counted from autumn to autumn.
Now the next paragraph:
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.
So this article is saying that we KNOW that the full end of the 6th day was 4026 B.C.E. and that we KNOW --no speculation-- that the autumn of 1975 is "fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day."
This article is basically rewritten in August, just a few months later. In this one we don't speculate about the time for Armageddon even though we KNOW that 1975 marks the last 1000 years of the 7th day, God's rest day. In the re-write we are back to looking an UNKNOWN gap between Adam and Eve and THIS is why we can't speculate as to the time when the millennium will most likely be timed. It puts a different flavor on the use of Jesus' cautionary words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

Of course I agree with everything you say, and I am sure GJ would too. He obviously didn't want to go into so much detail. The last part of your quote would have no doubt made a good impression on the commission as it could have been linked to the child abuse issue and its resolution. You are probably thinking of the misapplication of scripture which led to problems for the worldwide body of Witnesses in the past. I think now though these are being considered much more, and I would say lives are changed for the better. But this can also be a matter of opinion, because some things are still being judged as a "law" rather than a principle and left to be a matter of conscience.

Yes.... I know, I know. He obviously had strong opinions. Perhaps he was covinced these opinions were guided by holy spirit? But were his intentions bad? I think you said everyone at Bethel though he acted haughty and self righteous, and that that was just his way. I wonder how he was received at his final calling. I wonder if he is speaking beyond the veil to the new "kids on the block", telling them not to make the same mistakes. Perhaps he already did, through, Raymond's book 

Who gets called "The Oracle"? Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'? Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"?  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned? Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not? Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000? Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 
A similar attitude was shown in R.Franz experience after the GB had elicited input from various Branch Overseers in many countries where "alternative service" was an issue. In the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" page 268, R.Franz writes:
Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed
doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of
the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he
had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply
increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information
come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or
from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision
around the situations found in different countries.
As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new
to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had
used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the
organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely
upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the
brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded
the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision
to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were
among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and
if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose
expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding
was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and
had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that
we should even find the concept personally repelling.
Edited to add that the Watchtower article written by Fred Franz from 1971 referred to above is this one, an article stating that the Governing Body can't be voted in because they are appointed by Jesus Christ himself:
*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
They do not want to cause anything like a situation where the “administrative agency” controls and directs the user of that agency, which user is the governing body as representing the “faithful and discreet slave” class. No more so than to have the tail wag a dog instead of the dog’s wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar’s law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control and direct it. . . . Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up.
 
 

I answered both questions already. You asked if F.Franz wasn't referring to the first century [Jewish] governing bodies. I already said he wasn't and that he referred to modern governing bodies of Christendom today. Then you asked me why he would have mentioned such an irrational thought about the first century governing bodies anyway.
Remember, don't confuse the objective.

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Of course the account in Genesis is scriptural, and Psalms and Peter too, as you must specifically be referring to the "thousand years as one day with Jehovah." What was unscriptural was to say that just because we had a doctrine that said that all the 7 creative days were 7,000 years each (not scriptural) for a total of 49,000 years -- that a point that was 6,000 years into the 7th of those days should be significant as a time marker related to the end of this system. That would be building an unscriptural point on top of an unscriptural point which also happens to defy Jesus words that neither he nor the angels knew the day or the hour. After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.
Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:
I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you.
I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you.
I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

Who gets called "The Oracle"? Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'? Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"?  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned? Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not? Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000? Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 
A similar attitude was shown in R.Franz experience after the GB had elicited input from various Branch Overseers in many countries where "alternative service" was an issue. In the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" page 268, R.Franz writes:
Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed
doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of
the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he
had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply
increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information
come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or
from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision
around the situations found in different countries.
As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new
to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had
used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the
organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely
upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the
brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded
the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision
to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were
among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and
if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose
expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding
was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and
had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that
we should even find the concept personally repelling.
Edited to add that the Watchtower article written by Fred Franz from 1971 referred to above is this one, an article stating that the Governing Body can't be voted in because they are appointed by Jesus Christ himself:
*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
They do not want to cause anything like a situation where the “administrative agency” controls and directs the user of that agency, which user is the governing body as representing the “faithful and discreet slave” class. No more so than to have the tail wag a dog instead of the dog’s wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar’s law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control and direct it. . . . Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up.
 
 

It is impossible to even fathom how God operates. One thing is sure; He has the power and the desire to fulfill his purpose.  He can do it anyway he wants, and in his superlative wisdom he knows the best way. I cannot deny that He probably works some type of miracles today, but I cannot see how he would single out certain individuals because he thinks their life has more value than another person’s life. The only factor that may play a part is if that certain person has a role in fulfilling his purpose. The person himself will not even be aware of that. But whether Jehovah protects someone because of a role they play in fulfilling his purpose, or does not protect someone because they have a less important role, eventually both persons will gain everlasting life.  So the reward  will be the same for both. And another factor to think about (and I think it has already been mentioned)  is if Jehovah would protect individuals serving him, then Satan’s challenge he raised with Job would have no meaning.  So I am usually pretty sceptical when it comes to claims that Jehovah stepped in and saved someone.  Anyone can claim that, but that doesn’t make it true. I have already shared this story on here somewhere, but it’s relevant so I will mention it again: A while ago a sister, a Bethelite, was walking back to the Bethel from having been out in service all day when someone grabbed her from behind, stabbed her in the neck and ran off with her handbag.  The surgeons were amazed and said that the chance of the blade missing her jugular was almost zero. They told her she was lucky to be alive. This sister (and others) believes Jehovah saved her, by making the blade miss the jugular. Personally, I believe it was chance. But I cannot deny that if Jehovah had wanted to, he could have of course. This sister works in the translating department, so she plays quite an important role. So did Jehovah “save” her because of her role? And had she worked as a housekeeper, would he have allowed her to get killed? Housekeepers are a dime a dozen, good translators are not.  But then Jehovah could bring in a replacement couldn’t he? So where would the line be drawn with regard to “interfering” in man’s affairs, and putting a "protective fence around his people"?
All good things come from God. But they may not always be directly caused by God.  People can do good deeds by themselves, because that is an innate trait created in them by Jehovah when he created man in his image.  We should give thanks to God for every good thing, so there is nothing wrong with this sister thanking Jehovah, even if Jehovah may have had nothing to do with it.
Also, as JW Insider pointed out, many people who believe in God also attribute apparent miracles to Him. If the sister had been a Catholic lady walking to her church, no doubt she would have also attributed this “miracle” to God.
But as @Srecko Sostar mentioned "time and chance happens to them all". Some for better and some for worse.

Excellent point!

Of course the account in Genesis is scriptural, and Psalms and Peter too, as you must specifically be referring to the "thousand years as one day with Jehovah." What was unscriptural was to say that just because we had a doctrine that said that all the 7 creative days were 7,000 years each (not scriptural) for a total of 49,000 years -- that a point that was 6,000 years into the 7th of those days should be significant as a time marker related to the end of this system. That would be building an unscriptural point on top of an unscriptural point which also happens to defy Jesus words that neither he nor the angels knew the day or the hour. After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.
Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:
I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

Each one will carry his own load. I don't feel any remorse or bad feeling toward the Watchtower for recommending that I quit school to pioneer. I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of full-time service and am very thankful for the experiences it afforded, too. My parents even sold their house just before 1975 so that my father could spend more time closer to a newly formed congregation and my mother could pioneer, too. By then I was living 100 miles away because I had just turned 18, so having two out of three kids out of the house might have influenced the decision as much or more than 1975, but it was on their mind. 
I do think that persons like R.Franz should have done more to curb the influence of F.Franz in what I think was his obsession with 1975. The way R.Franz tells it, it was several people who knew better, but didn't do much about it.

It's not a lesson to me, because I have always known this. I have never claimed to write any better than anyone else. I only asked about the meaning of a word that I assumed might have been used correctly, but which didn't make much sense in context. Anytime someone asks what someone meant, it's the same as asking about the meaning of word(s) used. No reason to get angry just because someone asks what you mean. I welcome it when someone asks me what I mean, and I welcome it when someone points out my mistakes.
Also quite different from you, I don't consider bad spelling and grammar to be any kind of "fail" on your part, my part, or for anyone else. That's why you don't see me degrading others, or making fun of grammar or bad spelling. In this case I really wondered what actual meaning was intended in the several recent instances of that particular word I asked about. I also knew why you might seem sensitive about it, but I also really wanted to know what you meant.
I know how important it might be to impute wrong motives to me. But if you think you know something different, why not share evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations?
It's another example of Fred Franz' obsession with 1975 and something akin to numerology.
You're right. I did learn something from that. Curious too that, before I knew about that Canadian incident, I had already expressed concern that the recent videos being shown with the guns and hiding in rooms could have an unpredictable effect on some Witnesses.
Interesting. Do you have evidence?
I never saw "hysteria" anywhere. Just a lot of serious people who seriously believed that the period around 1975 was destined to be a very important date related to the time of the end. By serious, I mean they truly believed, but they were also happy about it. I was also both happy and serious about it too. My parents were different as to how they took the predictions about the 1970s, but circuit overseers were encouraging quitting school to pioneer, and I quit school at 15 (1973) to do just that. Naturally, I discussed that plan with my parents in 1972, but was asked to finish out my high school "sophomore" year. My mother liked the idea that it could be as early as 1974, because that would allow for a lot of growth from the increased activity, but it would still come at an hour we were not expecting it. My father was more like: 'It could come anytime between now (1972) and the end of the 80s, picking the 80s because he didn't see world conditions lasting much beyond that. (As the 80s approached he was quick to pick up on some of that "end of the century" talk, always tending to push the end out about 15 years.)
My mother surprised me yesterday because she said I might want to wait until I'm 67 to collect Social Security instead of collecting when I turn 62. I didn't say anything, but thought: "Wow!! What a difference half-a-century makes!!"
I have Penton's book, but must admit that I haven't read even a quarter of it yet. Is that where your evidence of Canadian hysteria comes from?
I think you are referring to F.Franz Gilead talk. If you listened to it you would see that he said it was Knorr himself who came up with the idea of the School of Gilead to send out evangelizers, and it was Knorr himself who sent out these first missionaries under the direction of the Watchtower Society. He didn't need a committee to approve. He was, as F.Franz said in the talk, NOT just a figurehead, he was NOT a "do-nothing President." F.Franz considered a president getting direction from a committee, to be the equivalent of the "tail wagging the dog." (He didn't use that expression in the same Gilead talk, but it was implied.)
I think you might be saying that just like Jesus sent out the 70 instead of the unapproved leaders, that the WTBTS or GB or FDS can just as easily represent the approved leaders who send out true missionaries as opposed to the unapproved leaders of Christendom. That might be a true statement, but it was not what F.Franz had in mind when he made it clear that no "ecclesiastical body" should have that responsibility. He made it clear that he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. I don't think it was lost on some in the audience that F.Franz knew his time in that office of president would be just a few months away. 
Yes, you're right; he was correct in saying that. It was his rant against governing bodies (and committees) that seemed out of place, even though he used plenty of scriptures to back it up. He showed how even the apostolic body in Jerusalem was not a centralized body acting in the capacity to send out missionaries.
No. It doesn't. In fact that was one of the most ambiguous passages in that May 1, 1968 Watchtower about 1975, when it said "1975! And Beyond."  It stated that perhaps some can't see beyond 1975, but Witnesses should see ourselves continuing right on into a new system. These were very carefully crafted words.
I recalled the date problem in the Russell story of his announcement of the "end of the Gentile Times" and it reminded me that F.Franz used this opportunity to also announce the "end of the 6th 1,000 year day in the 7th 7,000 year creative day. His, as I recall, also produces a date problem. But it was to show that he was still obsessed with the unscriptural doctrine of the 6,000 years being significant. It is against scripture in that it's based on the idea that either Jesus and the angels either can't count, or this scripture is false:
Matthew 24:36  “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

I believe it was at a District Convention, and the speaker was exhorting those not to believe every dumb thing, when the he related the one about the sole Witness walking the gritty streets at night with all the Society’s money and how he escaped mugging on account of the huge angels walking alongside.
”What was he doing alone at night with all the Society’s money?” the speaker said. “I’m sure the Society would like to know.”
I’ll overlook this bit of clumsiness just once. The byline for ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ is a Dylan line: “The game is the same, it’s just up on another level.”
It is best to blame things like this on autocorrect. May its inventor rot in hello.