JW Insider

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.
THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.
After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.
So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.
======reference=======
FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.
FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.
FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

Malarkey: American English, of unknown origin; perhaps from Greek μαλακία (malakía, “stupidity, idiocy, nonsense, bullshit”).
This word always makes me laugh.
This whole subject is another of those areas strong on detail but thin on fact. It seems that some are almost obsessed over identifying who is or who isn't anointed and also get rather bogged down in the murky waters of "times and seasons" as they relate to the rather specific time periods in Daniel and the Revelation.
In my limited experience, most of those I have known with the heavenly hope have little doubt over it, and don't actually shout about it. I can see the necessity to make such information public however in the face of Christendom's apostasy and the need to preach the current kngdom message. 
I never entertained such a belief myself, even when educated as RC, and apart from a brief period of extra-terrestrial notions during a pre-"truth", pyschadelic era which I no longer remember, I have always had my feet very firmly planted on terra firma.
Discovering the Bible teaching that there would be two destinies for mankind was pretty reassuring. Understanding that everlasting life on earth was actually a God-given prospect was enlightening to say the least. Considering that there would come a time when a unique group of prospective, earth-destined, Armageddon survivors would appear on the world scene at a time close to that event, and that individuals with both hopes would "overlap" (there's a contraversial word) and share space with each other on earth for a while was pretty exciting. Over time, I came to realise that my personal inclusion in that post Armageddon population, (given God's approval of course), could be either by survival or resurrection, depending on time and unforseen circumstance. This was a welcome, albeit sobering element to the rather euphoric notion of imminent deliverance.  
It seems pretty clear that the majority of Jehovah's servants since the time of Abel have entertained the prospect of living forever on earth. A small number since Pentecost 36CE have been personally invited to go to heaven for a specific purpose, a number as small as 144,000 of chosen, tried and tested individuals, destined to rule with Christ in heaven itself.
Of the rest of the population since Abel, apart from those with a genuine heavenly calling, there is no difference between the interim destiny of Jehovah's servants and the vast majority those who were not, as made clear at Acts 24:15.
Pe-Israelite, there were many worshipers of Jehovah, some we know, some we don't. During the time of the Israelite nation, it was quite possible for people of the nations to join with Israelites in the worship of Jehovah as the record makes clear, and although they could have an unrestricted relationship with the true God according to the parameters of the time, they were restricted as to cetrain privileges and prospects, many of which they may well have had a limited perception given the appalling lack of spirituality amongst Jehovah's named people at times.
So, on the basis of these sketchy details, it seems that to suggest that since the first Century there would be (hundreds of) thousands drawn to Jehovah on the basis of a genuine heavenly hope to which they then proved unfaithful is, quite frankly, mularkey.
Despite the attempts of false Christianity to obscure the Bible's message, individuals were irrepressible in their loyalty to what they perceived of the message of scripture. Some like Wycliffe and Tyndale we know by name. There must have been many we do not. 
With the heavenly hope held out with little alternative over centuries, it is no wonder that many who embraced the scriptures would profess this even in the more scripturally post-Reformation enlightened days, but to suggest that the majority of these, right down to the 20th Century were actually genuine anointed and destined for Gehenna due to their apparent unfaithfulness is more...mularky! They were just God-fearing folk with wrong ideas. And Lord knows we have had a few of these even amongst genuine anointed ones in more recent times.
I have met genuine Christians who were asociated with the Bible Students prior to 1935. They uncomfortably partook of the emblems prior to understanding the significance of Revelation 7:9-10, because there seemed to be no alternative. They were greatly relieved to learn that there was an earthly destiny held out to active worshippers associated with the congregation and not just something to be achieved by non Christians through a resurrection, something apparently denied if you knew you were a Christian, but entertained a heavenly calling inappropriately.
So long and short of it for me until proved otherwise is that many have been drawn to Jehovah through the centuries, including the Christian era. Some have had specific enlightenment into God's purposes and have been greatly privileged in His service to the benefit of others. All faithful anointed are included in this group, despite their small number of only 144,000. But there have been countless others known only to Jehovah who have been attracted to whatever truth was available at the time and have faithfully held to whatever their perception of it was.
Interestingly, many who thought they were possibly of the "great crowd" were actually not. They have died and are in the same postion of any other servants of Jehovah since Abel, but currently dead. Was it not holy spirit that revealed their destiny to them? And yet they are not deemed "unfaithful" are they?
As for those intriguing time periods? I'm waiting for a bit more clarity there.
Malarkey!  I love that word! ?

Agendas can be proven wrong with FACTS.
Facts cannot be proven wrong with Agendas.
No matter how noble the motive ....
Wrong is Wrong.
 

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication.
THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication.
After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing.
So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914.
======reference=======
FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words.
FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice.
FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts):

Some WT publications in articles that talk about the end of 6,000 years, and these are the well-known passages on the Internet, even today show that people of that time had great expectations about 1975. And today's reader, by reading same quotes, who did not live in that time and euphoria about a possible future, may come to the conclusion that JW expected change on global scale (nothing new in fact,  IBS and then JW expected that change more then one time, and still now talking "the end is very near")
Is there a sentence in an article that speaks directly or indirectly about some details about 1975 may not be a crucial thing that have to give us an answer today to the question of truth and honesty of WT, and then of the JW member too.
JW brothers and sisters in the time before 1975 had the expectation that change might occur. Did those who had hoped for the new world were a lot or a few, what motives they had and why, that is irrelevant !! WT has given material, spiritual food that has led to the warming up of interest for the possibility in coming of Armageddon and for the Kingdom that will rule over the Earth.
This very fact how 1975 is mentioned not only by ex-JW, but also by JW members and was/is of public speaks and in WT magazines show how something was controversial and  disputable in connection/with 1975.
I was baptized in 1977, started study "blue bomb" in 1975. And have memorized that 1975 was year that some JW with whom i had contacts (elders too)  expected how something will happen. 
Today, I drove a car to the service and returned by bus to the city. One sister, her husband is elder, recognized me after many years and she knew I was no longer JW, started talking to me. She said how she is very happy for getting  new job (in school) after been unemployment for some time, and now can easier to repay the mortgage. In the end she told me that she is hoping  I will return to the assembly because "now is very close to the end".   What is interesting, she and her husband was single workers at Zagreb Betel. They get married and continue work in Betel. After some years must left because personal problems, She became suicidal. Her husband was one to whom i send many quotes from articles, before few years, in English language, about some issues and 1975 also. He never responded to my e-mails. 
Well, JW people living from generation to generation with similar "now is very close to the end". 

Sounds like an excuse for murder to me.

Sounds like an excuse for murder to me.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

I guess it depends on how seriously we consider "honesty" and "truth" to be in our teaching:
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. (Philippians 4:-8) .5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. . . . 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, . . . continue considering these things. (Proverbs 14:25) . . .A true witness saves lives,. . .
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, . . .  and they are subverting the faith of some.
(James 3:1-5) 3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. . . . . 5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze!
(John 4:22-24) . . .. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
(John 14:15-17) . . .. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(Psalm 40:10, 11) . . .I do not hide your loyal love and your truth in the great congregation.” 11 O Jehovah, do not withhold your mercy from me. May your loyal love and your truth constantly safeguard me.
(Psalm 51:6)  6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person; Teach my innermost self true wisdom.
If a person is stating something that's untrue, then, yes, it's true that they might just be stating a falsehood that they believe to be true. But in that case what is the reason for the lack of care, the lack of attempted verification, the reason for the willingness to believe something false when it often would have been no trouble at all to make a true statement in its place. Is there a motive that tends to make someone blame others when they themselves are to blame? Is there a motive for a string of repeated falsehoods, even when the person believed each falsehood to be true at the time. Should we learn from our mistakes? Is it worse if the promoter of their own private interpretations of scripture is forced to defend against clear scriptural counsel in order to continue promoting a private interpretation of scripture.
If this type of dishonesty keeps happening, even though it requires kicking against the goads, then there is likely a problem worth looking into.
 

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

This is perfectly reasonable, but still a bit whitey-washy. I would be more inclined to something like: 
"Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. And indeed, there were some influential ones who made firm assertions based on pure conjecture. This even led some to take rather rash life course decisions that they later regretted. But there were cautionary statements too. Many Witnesses, who understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction, were able to take a more rational and measured approach to life in the face of the frothy enthusiasm generated by end-time speculators"

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

I think that deep-down most of us probably know that the ambiguity is on purpose. And we wish it were not so. We have all seen how carefully worded the Watchtower presents certain episodes from our history. The purpose of that careful wording is often so that we cannot be technically charged with lying, but it allows the average reader to believe something that would seem significant and make the Organization appear in a better light. This affects the wording of experiences in the Yearbook, from the platform, the habit of discouraging abuse victims from going to the police or reporting abuse to hospitals and doctors. But it especially affects every book we have ever published about our own history, and the way almost every mistaken or false teaching in our history has been turned into a time for an adjustment, further refinement, a clearer understanding, or increased light.
And it also affects the way an "apology" is worded in the "official" Watchtower publications that speak about our own history. Here, for example, is how the Proclaimers book presents the entire 1975 episode of "Watch Tower history," with the portion in red being the official, candid admission of the culpability of the Watch Tower Society:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
“Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?” . . .The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975. At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’ In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation. Notice the first two paragraphs are just an anecdote and a bit of a speech from way back in 1966 when this idea about 1975 was first being "trial-ballooned." The idea had been brought up in the 1950's when it was tempered with the idea that no one really knew whether it was months or if it was years between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That was still the doctrinal position in 1966 and 1967. But that doctrinal position changed in 1968. Only after truly understanding that change should we go back and re-read the "apology." For now, just notice that the writing changes to "passive voice" and that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are treated as the object of counsel and statements and caution against dates and expectation of early salvation [which had elsewhere been called selfish].
Passive voice, of course, is often the recourse of children who can't say, for example, that they broke a glass by knocking it off the kitchen counter. Instead, many children prefer to say something more like, "I was in the kitchen and the glass fell off the counter."
At least it candidly admits that some of those statements were "too definite" and some were "more definite than advisable," right? No! It's made to give that appearance to someone who might be looking for such an admission. But its also made to not truly admit wrong. It only goes so far as to admit that "some statements were likely more definite than advisable." It's trying to play with the differences between possibilities and probabilities again, which ironically was considered the core problem of the 1975 issue. The only other place where this 1975 issue is raised again in Proclaimers also toys with the same kind of language:
*** jv chap. 9 pp. 110-111 Jehovah’s Word Keeps Moving Speedily (1976-1992) ***
At times, specific needs of Jehovah’s people have been addressed by means of timely counsel in the pages of The Watchtower. For example, the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work. Was the decrease at least partly due to disappointed expectations concerning 1975? Perhaps. But there were other influencing factors. What could be done? The Governing Body took steps to strengthen the conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses that there was a need to continue zealously proclaiming the Kingdom from house to house. . . . These and other articles reaffirmed that house-to-house preaching has a solid Scriptural basis and urged zealous and whole-souled participation in this important activity. Again, the Watchtower and the Governing Body took steps to give timely counsel addressing decreased activity among Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it admit that expectations surrounding 1975 could be to blame? Not exactly. Only "Perhaps." Also notice that a direct statement is avoided by turning it into a question. It's a well-known rhetorical technique that is often used by politicians to minimize blame. [For example: "Did this administration make some mistakes? Maybe. But look at the mess the previous administration had left us with."] Questions are useful to more carefully shift blame without a direct statement, just as it was used earlier in the book to imply the unwarranted excitement or even selfishness of Bible Students who believed Russell's statements, rather than admitting what Russell had actually written:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will? THE CHANGE IN DOCTRINE IN 1968!
So, back to the change that happened in 1968. Previous to that year, saying that 1975 was the end of six thousand years of man's creation since Adam was not so meaningful as to a specific time expectation, even though the "Life Everlasting" book clearly intended to build excitement about the closeness of the end. Not until the time period between Adam and Eve could be reduced from years to less than one year. This was the first significant point that caused careful, prayerful readers of the Watchtower, such as District and Circuit Overseers to say "Can't you see what the Society is trying to tell you?" "Stay alive 'til '75!" etc.
*** w68 5/1 pp. 271-272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
THE SEVENTH DAY 4 According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. . . . Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. . . . The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, . . . perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam’s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. 5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. . . . . From the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day. . . . Hence, when Christians note from God’s timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the “last days” has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the “time of the end” in 1914. And, as Jesus said, “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matt. 24:34) Some of the generation that discerned the beginning of the time of the end in 1914 will still be alive on earth to witness the end of this present wicked system of things at the battle of Armageddon. Fred Franz must have thought this to be his most brilliant epiphany. He now knew something that even the angels could not have known: that Adam and Eve were both created in the same year, 4026. [This can be the only reason the angels had no idea when the end would come.]
A slightly more honest review of the history could easily have summarized the range of statements, with something like: "Were some statements made that were more definite than advisable? Yes. But there were cautionary statements, too, and many Witnesses understood the importance of those cautionary statements in harmony with Jesus' words that the times and seasons are not in our jurisdiction."
Notice instead that another version of the failed "Millions Now Living" campaign was started with that last quoted sentence about how some people old enough to discern something in 1914 would still be alive. This new "Some Now Living Will Still Be Alive at Armageddon" campaign has also now failed to come true if we assume, as we did once, that a person needed to be about 15 to discern the sign in 1914. (1899 to 2019 is 120 years.)

This makes perfect sense to me. And it should not cause us to disrespect the Governing Body. Jesus said that the stumbling blocks would surely come. Anyone at some time, could be a stumbling block, and they can also be forgiven.
(Matthew 16:23) 23 But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Matthew 18:7) . . .Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Luke 17:1-4) 17 Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be more advantageous for him if a millstone were hung from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones. 3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. But teachers will receive heavier judgment because it is their job to keep the little ones from stumbling, like a good shepherd keeps the sheep on the right path to green pastures. Still, if our brother commits a sin that stumbles others --even a sin of pride, haughtiness and presumptuousness, or beating fellow slave -- we are still to rebuke that brother. If that brother is an elder or governing body member, this should make no difference, as we are not to show favoritism. However, we should still hold back and perhaps wait until the second offense before seeing to it that an accusation is lodged.
(1 Timothy 5:1) 5 Do not severely criticize an older man. . . . (1 Timothy 5:17-19) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. . . . 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
 
This does not mean we should avoid our responsibility to rebuke a person who sins publicly, even if they be on the Governing Body. But we should present our evidence to the brother(s) first, before presenting it to the congregation. After all, we might easily be wrong, and they should have an opportunity to present counter-evidence or an explanation.

You must be thinking of someone else. I think I know the incident you are thinking about but it's unrelated to Metzger. The WTS has come to appreciate Metzger now that they realize he is one of the most respected scholars who agrees with our take on the translation of all the questionable passages in the NT that are supposedly Trinitarian (except one). He is more recently referenced as a "Bible scholar" in the majority of cases, because he agrees with us in those cases. However, in those few cases where he disagrees, he is referenced in our publications as just a religious leader, trinitarian theologian, a seminary professor, and for some reason, even an "apostate" in one instance.
The closest thing to the example you speak of is the fact that Metzger took exception to the supposed criteria by which the NWT committee added the name "Jehovah" in several places in the NT where the Biblical manuscript evidence only uses kyrios (Lord). He pointed out at least one inconsistency, which indicated to him, that we were not really serious about our claimed criteria. So in 1960, someone representing his position asked a question about that point for the "Questions From Readers" article in the Watchtower:
*** w60 5/15 p. 318 Questions From Readers ***
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, a member of the faculty of Princeton, New Jersey, Theological Seminary, writes: “In the New World Translation it is stated (page 9 of New Testament volume), ‘To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.’ My question arises from the failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians 2:11, where the word kyrios, elsewhere rendered ‘Jehovah’ 237 times, is not rendered ‘Jehovah’ despite the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where the word Jehovah appears. Could it be that the Arian theology of the translators overrode their expressed rule of translating?” Do you deem this inquirer’s question deserving of a sound and thorough reply?—U.S.A. The reply was actually in some ways embarrassing in that it mostly avoided the question and seemed to pretend that the actual question was something else. The response even included the claim that it was Dr. Metzger who had selectively quoted the criteria from the foreword of the NWT. The response is mostly a complete repetition of the criteria that Metzger had already questioned thoroughly, but the WT implies that he hadn't even read the criteria:
If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the above volume through, then he should have learned on what basis the New World translators restored the divine name, Jehovah, to the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Beginning on page 19, he should have read the following: . . . . . . This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or of parts of them, have been made from the Greek into the ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew translators, including Professor Franz Delitzsch and also Dr. Isaac Salkinson and Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, used the name Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton (with vowel symbols) in translating the writings of Christ’s apostles and disciples, generally known as the New Testament.
What Metzger undoubtedly knew and what the WT QFT response avoids admitting is that these very nineteen translations sometimes provided "damning" evidence that proved Metzger's point. Some even put their representation of the "Tetragrammaton" at that very spot in Philippians, because (for the most part) these 19 translations were not some evidence of Hebrew-Greek scholarship.  Often they were just translations from Greek into Hebrew from Hebrew-speaking Trinitarian Christians who clearly wanted to make sure that Jesus was identified as the "replacement" of YHWH as Lord. At least one of those 19 translations was published by a "Trinitarian Bible Society."
----
Just an aside, but I just remembered. At Bethel, Brother Schroeder once saw me reading Bruce Metzger's "Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek." (I still have it, and still think it is the absolute best way to quickly gain NT Greek vocabulary.) He gave me some books to replace it with because he specifically said that "Metzger had attacked us."
 
 

Yes, Allan

Millions still dyeing are Grateful Dead fans!

Millions still dyeing are Grateful Dead fans!