JW Insider

Exact same thing that Allen Smith accused me of stating, too. It's still just as untrue. Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.") The Watchtower that same year said:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes.
But it was always more about the closeness to 1975, since 1975 marked the 6,000th year of that 7,000 year period. You might be aware that I've been consistent about that point all along on this forum. 1975 got emphasized because of that available point of measurement, yet it was NEVER stated that the world would end in 1975, nor that Armageddon or the end of this system would occur in that year. The point was that it MIGHT, which was a very true statement; we had no reason to believe it couldn't. And we had every reason to be extra alert because we were given many reasons to believe that the end of the system must have been about to occur, not necessarily in 1975, but at least in the decade of the 1970's. From just before the 1970's started, right up until early in the year 1975, the year was emphasized because it was "Biblical" date in a sense, but no one ever said that the end could not come before 1975, or even a few years after 1975.
Combined with our view of world events at the time, this made sense and many statements were made that would convince a normal person that Armageddon could come in 1975 or within a matter of months, not years, beyond 1975.
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
To a careful reader, this statement says that at the most we had about until October 1977 until we entered the last thousand years of that "rest period" which would (appropriately and lovingly and purposefully) run parallel with the thousand year reign of Christ. (Because after 1977 it would now no longer just be a measure of months, but years, in the plural, and we had just been told that it may be weeks or months, but NOT YEARS.) Then a small note in the same Watchtower reminded us that another factor might add or subtract 6 months to that limit. This could potentially have pushed that maximum limit out until April 1978. 
This explains why the talks, the Awake! and Watchtower magazine covers, Circuit Assembly lapel badge messages, and even Watchtower subscription campaigns (in the late 60s and early 70s) made several references to the "mid-70s," "the decade of the 1970's," "What will the 1970's bring?" "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" etc.
*** w71 9/15 p. 561 pars. 10-12 Set Apart from the World ***
With populations exploding all over the earth, many nations now stand at the brink of starvation, and disaster is predicted by experts for the mid-1970’s. Rather than fit in with political promises of a bright, materialistic tomorrow, this devastation on earth fits Jehovah’s prophecies on mankind’s waywardness in the “last days.” . . .  And now, as we enter the 1970’s, an astonishing picture presents itself.
*** w69 11/1 p. 668 How to Avoid Regrets ***
Just as we looked back over the past five years, let us look five years into the future. That will be the year 1974. What will we be regretting then? What are we doing right now, or failing to do now, that years from now we will wish we had done or had done differently? Jehovah has provided sufficient information so that we can definitely know the trend of future events. His Word reveals that we are without question fast approaching the end of this entire wicked system of things. (Matt. 24:3-14; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:17) . . .
So when the end of this system of things soon comes, what will be our greatest need?
But it was not even a new point about the end of the 6,000 years ending in the 1970's:
*** w74 8/15 p. 507 No Spiritual “Energy Crisis” for Discreet Ones ***
In 1943 the Watch Tower Society’s book “The Truth Shall Make You Free” did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence in the 1970’s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ’s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E.
Back then (in 1943), the end of 6,000 years was not 1975, but 1976. And it was also not a new point to discuss the gap between Adam's creation and Eve's creation that could effect the expectation of the 1,000 year reign starting immediately that year. The only difference was that all the arguments were for a longer time gap between Adam and Even, and by 1968, all the arguments were for a shorter time gap between Adam and Eve.
*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
. . . six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.
Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name. (Gen. 2:19 footnote d, NW) It was not until after Adam completed this assignment of work that his helpmate Eve was created. Since God created nothing new whatever on the seventh day, Eve must have been created on the sixth day; and this the divine record confirms in its account of the sixth day: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Gen. 1:27, NW.
The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.
This was the big difference in emphasis about 1975. Note, how every point of "delay" above is refuted just 13 years later:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or “histories” that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . ” The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated “was forming” is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a “helper” for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as “had been forming.”—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le).
32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins.
33 This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time. The pronouncement at the end of the sixth day, “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good,” proves that the beginning of the great seventh day of the creative week did not wait until after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

I believe you probably have seen such a list.
But I never made such a list. I could try, but I'd probably only get about 14 of them right. Still, I imagine it would be difficult to track and manage all of these personas without a list of some kind. So I wouldn't doubt your claim. 

You spelled sauna wrong. I won't marry you.

It might look that way. But I think many of the GB (more than one-third) could have believed that voluntarily submitting in support of a military organization was breaking integrity to God. Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations.
The Pharasaic, legalistic issues come into play when someone questions, then, why we would submit at all after imprisonment (because the typical sentence in most countries was often to just do 2 to 5 years of the same thing the brother just refused to do voluntarily, and the instruction from the Society was to follow orders of the court in that case. (Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.)
That's always a tendency, but it is not the case that they are corrupt, just human.
I think the problem took 50 years to fix because it had a long tradition. It had become one of those "strongly entrenched things" as the Bible calls them. Perhaps it was seen as possibly going against something that Rutherford had received through one of those "flashes of light" that he claimed to get, perhaps received at a time when Jehovah needed to influence him more directly than he influences the GB today. Remember, that if we "rank and file" publishers have trouble understanding the workings of the holy spirit and inspiration, it must be an even touchier subject for those who claim they have no more holy spirit than a member of the great crowd, but who also know that their decisions will effect thousands or millions. How do they know if Rutherford might have been right when he claimed, for a while, that angels, not holy spirit, brought "flashes" of insight "directly" to the earthly part of God's "temple?" By changing a doctrine, even if it seems wrong, the current GB might feel they are  "standing on holy ground." That time period when military service and alternative service questions started was the same period that brought Jehovah's Witnesses victoriously through persecution, Hitler and WWII. And now the GB are going to question that past and say that a big part of it was wrong all along? It's always so much easier to just let things go as they always have until the issue reaches a crisis or boiling point.
 

I think so. I think they are much better, and I think that discussions of doctrinal issues go beyond the GB circle now. That was true up until about 1978, when there were very open discussions of doctrinal issues, and any Bethel Elder might talk to a table of Bethelites with a new idea.  Then they cracked down on that from 1979 until F.Franz died, and then tightened those kinds of discussions into the GB "inner rooms" only, according to a brother from Writing (who had too many of his own ideas anyway). But in the last 10 years or so, even some of the helpers have researchers.
When I was at Bethel, I was in the Art Department but was also doing research. Brother Schroeder (GB) gave me my first of many research projects in early 1977 and it was to do a survey/report on all the Greek words and expressions that can translate the expression "house to house" and report on Bible dictionaries, Bible translations, and uses from the LXX, Josephus, Philo, etc. His own Greek was pretty good, much better than mine in fact, but at least I knew how to use a dictionary and could do some leg work for him. I don't know who else used researchers back then, because all the brothers in the Writing Department did their own research, as far as I could tell. (There were no sisters in Writing then as there are now.)
F. Franz died more than a quarter-century ago. I think it's much different now. I don't really know any of them personally but we can see a pattern in the types of talks and topics each of them gets assigned. I don't get the impression that any of them are trying to outdo one another these days. Politics was rampant when I was working at Bethel from 1976 to 1982.
I doubt that anyone can know, but there are a lot more talks at Gilead Graduations and Annual Meetings that give you a good idea what has been talked about in terms of updates to doctrines. Also, you can learn to listen in a certain way to how some doctrines are brought up to know if it's under discussion. The "Peace and Security" issue came up recently, for example. I was at a WT study about a month ago where a member of the GB was in the audience and I thought it odd that he brought up the scripture and then without any reason I could think of decided to defend the idea that the Peace and Security issue might be a bigger thing than just a general condition. Bringing it up in a defensive way would make one think that maybe it had needed defending recently. I made a note of it on my iPhone at the time, but didn't think much of it until I just noticed that it was under discussion at the annual meeting, which means that if a new doctrine were to come out of this, it was also very likely discussed in a GB meeting. 
Would be wonderful if it were recorded and made public. But that would probably change the whole tenor of the meeting if they knew outsiders might know what goes on. I have heard that things go very smoothly among the GB at their meetings, but that a lot of "we can hear you through the wall" arguing goes on among the GB Helpers. Again that was just one man's report, and he is not one of the Helpers, just a brother in Writing, who might even be jealous. (Just kidding!)

They very well could. I am not one of the anointed and I therefore don't know exactly how that particular expression of the holy spirit manifests itself. We say it has a lot to do with how sure such individuals are, in their heart, that they are "invited" to heaven. I expect it has a bit to do with "feeling" that they have long felt that the calling to eternal life in heaven is much more appealing and much more sure than the prospect of living forever in a paradise earth. Beyond that, I have never heard an anointed person express much. Although I expect (and have been told by longtime non-anointed brothers) that within themselves there is a certain inexplicable "joy" involved in that heavenly calling.  I have never personally heard an anointed person describe it with that term. I'm positive that some would, however.
I say this, because I think that there would be certain sense of "I just feel it! I know we have this one right!" when an issue that has come up to the Governing Body has been resolved in a positive way, perhaps by updating or completely changing a teaching or practice. It's hard to imaging that there wouldn't be something like that, because I'm sure all the rest of us have felt a kind of warm fatherly love when an issue we struggled with has been resolved through prayer and scripture, and sometimes through new circumstances that either highlight a proper direction, or resolve an issue by showing a way out of the problem. Or sometimes we just feel a certain kind of "pure joy" at reading a Bible passage for the 10th time and seeing something that is not only new but helps us appreciate Jehovah better, or will help us with our own or someone else's problems.
This is why I think that Brother Jackson's testimony seemed a bit mundane. Perhaps there is more to the "sureness" or some kind of "sign" seen in the fact that others bring up the same scripture they were concerned with, but help them see it in a new way. Perhaps there is more to the way each of them personally feels that a prayer is personally answered with some unstated "connection" to the right answer. But in any case, Brother Jackson boiled it all down to what sounds like a prayer, followed by a scripture search to sort of see what pops out at them. It does sound more mental than heartfelt, more rationalized than motivating.  And I understand that making a big deal about the difference in the words "heart" and "mind" can sometimes be artificial, but I think you know what I mean.
It reminded me of comments such as these in 2016:
*** ws16 January p. 22 pars. 6-8 “We Want to Go With You” ***
So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else. . . . They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18.
Of course, I'd be just as happy if anointed ones did meet to study the Bible together, and send their suggestions to the GB for evaluation and distribution. Doesn't mean that they would split off from the congregations and be disunited. The Society gets missionaries together, pioneers together, elders, circuit overseers, branch overseers, doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, building specialists, orchestras, choirs  . . . why not a meeting or two with those who claim to be anointed?

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression:
And also here:
At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit  the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression:
And also here:
At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit  the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

Could either one of you tell me what you mean by "doctoral" in these cases? A "doctoral" understanding is the understanding of someone who is a a doctor or who has a doctoral degree. But that wouldn't make any sense in any of these examples.

Great answer!

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

Great answer!

I would not go to war in the real sense of going prepared to kill people. But I would work on a farm producing food. 
I would not vote for a person or political party. I would not become part of a political party. I would not salute the flag. 
But :- 
Matthew 5 v 41 
"And if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles."
 
 

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

I think so. I think they are much better, and I think that discussions of doctrinal issues go beyond the GB circle now. That was true up until about 1978, when there were very open discussions of doctrinal issues, and any Bethel Elder might talk to a table of Bethelites with a new idea.  Then they cracked down on that from 1979 until F.Franz died, and then tightened those kinds of discussions into the GB "inner rooms" only, according to a brother from Writing (who had too many of his own ideas anyway). But in the last 10 years or so, even some of the helpers have researchers.
When I was at Bethel, I was in the Art Department but was also doing research. Brother Schroeder (GB) gave me my first of many research projects in early 1977 and it was to do a survey/report on all the Greek words and expressions that can translate the expression "house to house" and report on Bible dictionaries, Bible translations, and uses from the LXX, Josephus, Philo, etc. His own Greek was pretty good, much better than mine in fact, but at least I knew how to use a dictionary and could do some leg work for him. I don't know who else used researchers back then, because all the brothers in the Writing Department did their own research, as far as I could tell. (There were no sisters in Writing then as there are now.)
F. Franz died more than a quarter-century ago. I think it's much different now. I don't really know any of them personally but we can see a pattern in the types of talks and topics each of them gets assigned. I don't get the impression that any of them are trying to outdo one another these days. Politics was rampant when I was working at Bethel from 1976 to 1982.
I doubt that anyone can know, but there are a lot more talks at Gilead Graduations and Annual Meetings that give you a good idea what has been talked about in terms of updates to doctrines. Also, you can learn to listen in a certain way to how some doctrines are brought up to know if it's under discussion. The "Peace and Security" issue came up recently, for example. I was at a WT study about a month ago where a member of the GB was in the audience and I thought it odd that he brought up the scripture and then without any reason I could think of decided to defend the idea that the Peace and Security issue might be a bigger thing than just a general condition. Bringing it up in a defensive way would make one think that maybe it had needed defending recently. I made a note of it on my iPhone at the time, but didn't think much of it until I just noticed that it was under discussion at the annual meeting, which means that if a new doctrine were to come out of this, it was also very likely discussed in a GB meeting. 
Would be wonderful if it were recorded and made public. But that would probably change the whole tenor of the meeting if they knew outsiders might know what goes on. I have heard that things go very smoothly among the GB at their meetings, but that a lot of "we can hear you through the wall" arguing goes on among the GB Helpers. Again that was just one man's report, and he is not one of the Helpers, just a brother in Writing, who might even be jealous. (Just kidding!)

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.
 

Hence, if a government / ruler of a country offered Alternative Service that was not going against the will of God, then the people should obey it. - Romans 13.
The reasoning was that alternative service would be a substitute or "in place of"....which was perceived being "the same as" fighting in a war, in which case Acts 5:29 would apply  And the point was that as long as this service was commanded by the army, you couldn’t do it. But if it was commanded by any other institution it was ok. I think the problem starts when the brothers get bogged down with absolute detail in an effort to cover all bases. Unfortunately, it then becomes a pretzel of reasoning. It’s like Trinitarians trying to explain the Trinity. Someone on here posted an anecdotal example of this pretzel type reasoning with a mock WT article on why true Christians shouldn't own a cat. I have a suspicion that it was one certain brother who had a penchant for this type of reasoning......
All probably would have been well had this ambiguous situation been left to conscience in the first place, instead of trying to make rules where none existed......

Yes, that is truly sad. It helps me to think of a few scriptures, this one particularly with reference to to the conscientious objectors:
"For it is agreeable when someone endures hardship and suffers unjustly because of conscience toward God. For what merit is there if you are beaten for sinning and you endure it? But if you endure suffering because of doing good, this is an agreeable thing to God". (1Peter 2:19)
For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. (Hebrews 6:10)
And these in general:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment". (James 3:1) and  
"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him" Luke 12:48
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad". 2 Corinthians 5:10
"For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad". (Ecclesiastes 12:14)
"So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God" (Romans 14:12) etc...

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.
 

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.