JW Insider

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
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. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
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. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement.
I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.)
EVIDENCE
I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.
b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous. †2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs.
II.II That which manifests or makes evident. 3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications.
b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation. †4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs.
5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.
But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof:
PROOF
Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true.
1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).
2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.
4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof.
-------------------
Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921)
"Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
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. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
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. 

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.
Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:
Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:
This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh. We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change. [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]
There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.
Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:
The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.
Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!
The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?
 

I guess you've pretty much completed the list. I can't think of anything else....
Although I must add that some of these reasons in themselves are not enough for some to quit. There are some in the truth, and faithful, in spite of feeling some of those things on the list. And there are many who just don't even know about some of these issues....heck, many don't know why we believe in 1914. They assume it's because of WW1 and that's good enough for them. Some things are just too complicated to analyze and "make sure of", and so they remain kind of blissfully covered over. I agree, knowing about some of these things can be faith shaking. Ignorance is bliss indeed. And yet, there is so much that makes sense also. To me, at least. As an organization we are a work in progress and in the past we were made out to be...well..."almost" infallible. It is only in recent years (and perhaps due to unfulfilled interpretations) have we, as an organization, admitted that we are not always going to be right. More to the point; the Governing Body isn't always going to be right, in fact they are only "scratching the surface" (Br. Herd quote). It is a very difficult thing sometimes to trust someone who has failed you in the past. And yet this is what is being asked of us. But the good thing is we have an infallible source to fall back on, the Bible. So in my opinion, when there are scriptures that are a little ambiguous, but are interpreted in a certain way by the Slave, from past experience, should I be blamed if I find it hard to embrace this particular interpretation, and  would rather wait and see?
It is a very difficult thing. Do you think it's possible to have a good and close relationship with Jehovah, and yet be wary sometimes about what the Slave says? In the past these two things were inseparable. If you were not agreeing with the Slave, you were automatically against Jehovah.

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

Yes, the Millions campaign was the 1925 campaign. The 1918 sermon was based on the 1925 date as found in the 1917 book, "The Finished Mystery." The "canvas" offer for that book, remember, only required that people stay alive until 1925 in order to be among the "millions" who would never die.
By, 1920, the entire talk was published and expanded upon a bit, in the booklet "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." They would never die because millions of people alive in 1918 would still be alive in 1925. By 1921, the new book, "The Harp of God" came out, which also used the 1925 promises as a theme. In fact, note what is embossed on early covers of that famous book. If it's hard to read, it's repeated on the inside title page. "Proof Conclusive that Millions now Living will never Die." (This was removed in the 1928, 2nd edition.)

It was advertised in newspapers with the year printed in the advertisement. The following example from April 1921, saying: "to apply it to ourselves requires positive knowledge based upon indisputable evidence. Thousands of profound Bible scholars can prove from Bible prophecies which have been fulfiled during the last 5 years that those living until the year 1925 can live forever if they choose to do so." ". . . [H]ear and consider definite Scriptural proof for this proclamation."

 

No matter how many aliases he uses he gives himself away every time with the contents of his posts.

Nothing needed to be done to explain it away for nearly 100 years, because there was still a chance within the first 100 years, that the prophecy might have come true. (At least the prophecy made in the title of the talk might still have come true, even if almost all the other details of the prophecy and its foundation had still failed.)
And after 100 years any "scandal" over it is long past, and could easily be dismissed with favorite phrases like "the light gets brighter." 
The statement made in March 1918 ("Millions now living will never die.") has only recently become a truly "false" prophecy in that a fulfillment of sorts was still possible up until a couple years ago. Technically, you would need at least 2 million persons to make the plural "millions" part come true, and we would evidently have needed Armageddon to come sometime around 2016 in order for 2 million 98+ year-olds to still be alive, who had just born in March 1918. Perhaps, some worldwide estimates of the number of 99+ year-olds in 2017 could have been around to potentially survive Armageddon. As of now in late 2018, however, there would have to be 2 million 100.5-year-olds, going on 101 in the next few months. According to average best estimates there are now far less than 1 million 100-year-olds. In fact, barely over 500,000 as seen in the PEW chart that Google returns if you ask "how many centenarians are currently alive in the whole world."

Another point that would make it even more difficult to be fulfilled would be the fact that back then these millions were going to be unbaptized, worldly people who would simply begin "not to die" as of 1925 and thereafter. It did not refer to the great crowd of Revelation 7. It referred to people of all religions and non-believers who would survive Armageddon because it was Jehovah's purpose, as stated at the time, to save almost everyone through Armageddon into a time when they would simply stop dying. Remember that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7 were still going to heaven along with the 144,000 kings and priests, according to Russell's and Rutherford's teachings. The only difference between the 144,000 in heaven and the great crowd in heaven is that the great crowd were not of the "higher" heavenly calling and were not part of Christ's Bride.
By normally obscuring this fact, and wrongly claiming that the "millions" were the equivalent of the "great crowd,"  the Watch Tower publications have been able to just "chalk up" the prophecy to over-optimism in thinking so many would respond to the Bible Students in such a quick period of time after 1918. It is very rare for the Watch Tower publications to admit how closely this prophecy was tied to the year 1925. In other words, when the great tribulation does come in the next few years, as expected, it will only have been a few years off.
Understanding the original prophecy in its full context is a good idea, in order to understand how and why the references to it have evolved over time. Maybe in another thread?

OK.
As was already pointed out, we have always known that a generation can include overlapping contemporaries, but these contemporaries belong to another generation. The Watchtower has said that "three or even four generations" may overlap at the same time. So the overlapping explanation is not about how to define a single "generation that will not pass away." My own issue with the current explanation has more to do with the disrespect it shows to Jesus, in trying to twist up the meaning of language so much that we have inadvertently tried to present him as some kind of trickster.
*** w52 9/1 pp. 542-543 Questions From Readers ***
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?—G. P., Liberia.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: “The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years.” But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster’s first-quoted definition, “the average lifetime of man.” Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping. (Ps. 78:4; 145:4) Before the Noachian flood the life span was hundreds of years. Down through the centuries since, it has varied, and even now is different in different countries. The Bible does speak of a man’s days as being threescore and ten or fourscore years; but it assigns no specific number of years to a generation.—Ps. 90:10.
Even if it did, we could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation. There are hundreds of millions of persons living now that were living in 1914, and many millions of these persons could yet live a score or more years. Just when the lives of the majority of them will be cut short by Armageddon we cannot say.
 
 

This is not difficult to grasp at all. But I do think there is something wrong with thinking that this says the same thing as the current publications are saying. It may have been a "trial balloon" for the current doctrine, but it's very different from the current doctrine.
That is a very sensible explanation of the economics-related overlapping generations model. Note that it is plural as it ought to be. Quoting, the article, with extra highlighting, it states:
The Watchtower "model" is the singular, and very non-sensical "overlapping generation" model. The difference one little "s" can make is important. Note that in Spanish "esposa" means wife, but "esposas" means handcuffs.  For most people, that's quite an important difference.
 

Sounds like a waste of time. But I'm retired, so I'll tell you what I would come up with:
..."millions now living will never die."... This was a risky prophecy to make. But the risk probably didn't seem too high at the time since, after the failure of 1914, Rutherford said that people had more on which to base their faith in this prophecy than Noah had on which to base his faith in Jehovah telling him there would be a Flood. He said that there was more Bible evidence for 1925 than there was for 1914. But it turned out to be a false prophecy. So it turned out to be a "lie" in the Biblical sense, but it might not have been intentional if the human sources of this false prophecy believed it, and those who repeated it had faith in that human source. "'The Finished Mystery,' the posthumous work of Pastor Russell" . . . This book quoted many times from Russell, but was definitely not the posthumous work of Pastor Russell. (For that matter, the title of the book was a lie, because it promoted itself as the final explanation of the mysteries of Ezekiel and Revelation, yet almost every explanation of the "mystery" in it is now considered to be false.) The Watch Tower publications explained why they called it the "posthumous" work of Pastor Russell in a very odd way. It was because, as a spirit creature who had just died, Russell was supposedly still alive in the spirit world (heaven) in 1917: "Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work." according to "The Finished Mystery" page 144. It was clearly believed that Russell could still continue to influence the Watch Tower Society's publications in a way analogous to how Jehovah influenced the Bible writers. "Since 1881 everybody ridiculed Pastor Russell . . ." Not everybody. Some believed him. Most people in the world had still never heard of him. According to current WT publications, many created a "cult" around him. Rhetorical hyperbole, not necessarily a "lie." "Since 1881. . . the International Bible Students Association" . . . The International Bible Students Association [IBSA] did not exist until 1914 when it was incorporated in London. Before then Bible Students used the simple name "Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." Some refused a name, and some even called themselves Russellites and names related to Millennial Dawn, etc. This is not a "lie," just a potentially misleading ambiguity. "Since 1881. . . Pastor Russell's [and IBSA's] message that the Bible prophesied a world war in 1914." The Bible never prophesied a single world war between multiple nations, but this could be a matter of interpretation. The Bible never prophesied anything whatsoever to do with the year 1914. In 1881, and for the next 20-some years, Russell and the IBSA promised that 1914 would be the year when the expected worldwide trouble would end, not begin. All human systems would collapse in 1914, governments, institutions, religions. There would be chaos for several months, but there would be no earthly governments remaining who would be capable of prosecuting such a war. The 7/15/1894 Watch Tower, p.226 said: "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." "but the war came on time." Very misleading. By the time late 1913 had rolled around, Russell pretty much gave up hope and faith in this 1914 date and moved it to 1915. For a few months even into 1914, Russell even gave up altogether and talked about there being no chance of all that was expected actually happening on time, and he conceded that they must have been wrong, and talked about the prospect that 100 years from now [2014], people might wonder what all this talk had been about. As it was, in about 1904 they had moved the expectation of the great time of trouble to 1914 (sometimes 1915) and began holding to the idea that this time of trouble might happen around October 1st or 2nd 1914. A world war broke out in July and gave them hope that this might be the beginnings of a worldwide collapse of all nations, governments, religions and other human institutions, where the only government with continued authority would be that of literal Israel in Palestine, and God would take a spiritual Israel to rule from heaven in 1914. It turned out, instead, to be a world war between several nations, and many more nations existed after the war, than were numbered before the war -- the opposite of the expectation of all nations disintegrating. Also Israel didn't get back on the map until decades later, and Israel never did become the only remaining human government on earth. Nothing predicted about 1914 ever came true. The most important things proved to be quite the opposite. "and now the message of his final work" . . . Again with the false attribution to Russell who did not work on this book. It was written by George Fisher and Clayton Woodworth along with the claim that Russell had communicated from beyond the veil as a spirit creature to write it posthumously (after he died). "It is an absolute fact. . ." . . . The phrase most often prefixed to bigger than usual lies, especially to sell products. You don't usually have to look at the next phrase to know that it won't usually be true. "It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible. . ."  Like I said, you didn't need to look. It's absolutely false. "It is an absolute fact. . . foretold by every prophet of the Bible" . . . Just like with the books, it turned out that it was not predicted by any book of the Bible nor any prophet of the Bible. Calling it thus is just an embarrassing way of trying to say you are a prophet speaking in Jehovah's name, sticking your neck out further to make sure that people will later see you as a false prophet if your fantastic guesses don't happen to come true. "well worth a few evenings' time for investigation." . . . Quite the opposite. In fact, anyone who wants to discuss the book today among Witnesses will usually be suspected of apostasy. Even though it is still touted as a book that supposedly had the "ring of truth" no one can go more than a couple pages in the book without coming across something that Witnesses now recognize as false, if not embarrassingly false. And remember, the purpose of this investigation was to prove to yourself that Armageddon was culminating in 1925. "The Golden Age" . . . The idea was that the Golden Age had already begun when the Millennium dawned back in 1874 and various advances in the world, new technology, and even medical advances and theories (that turned out to be from quacks and fraudsters) were supposed to give evidence that the Millennium had started 45 or more years earlier. "both for two seventy-five (don't say dollars)" . . .  This speaks for itself. Internally, the persons who distributed most of these books were spoken of as selling the book, and book salesman could make a profit if they sold enough. The sales process was not so different from the way "colporteurs" in those days were selling books along with Fuller Brushes, Carter's Little Liver Pills, Bibles, Encyclopedias, etc. (Books by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] were a profitable moneymaker for colporteurs for many years. See below.)  If you followed the sales instructions and learned the pitch you could make a profit, whether you believed in the content or quality of the material or not. This reminds me of a story I heard about colporteurs who used to sell the books of Mark Twain in the late 1800s and early 1900's. They could be had in about 4 or more levels of quality. The idea was also to upsell them on a better quality book if the householder agreed to a lower quality, or if they said no to the price of the highest quality (leatherbound, embossed, lithographs, etc.) then they might finally agree to a lower quality. It was a very irritating process to the householder. The goal of course was to get them moved to absolute most they might pay, so they might even split it up with part now and part cash on delivery. Just a quick search didn't find me the story, but I did notice this in a book called "Mark Twain's Road to Bankruptcy," below. You can see that "colporteurs" were not considered the best of society at the time.