JW Insider

You should have stayed where you were. The end did come in 1975 but only in Zaire.

I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. The apology that appeared in the 1980 Watchtower over 1975 was actually as good as written back in 1976, and should have been the idea included in that same 1976 issue. But some brothers on the Governing Body were very vocal that you never admit a mistake because it will be used against you. (R.Franz wrote the 1980 apology but admits that he had to keep it weak because it had to be approved by those same brothers who would not agree to a stronger, clearer apology.)
Even the following portion of the "Choosing" book caused no little skirmish, because it claims that "many stumbled" and blames it on looking to a particular period or year, but didn't clearly blame it on the individuals themselves, which could have implied guilt on the part of the WTS. I'm including the surrounding context only because I like it for the fact that it finds a way to discuss the "presence" and still ignores 1914. (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)
*** bw chap. 10 pp. 169-170 pars. 41-43 Safeguard Your Christian Hope ***
Like Peter, the other faithful apostles taught their fellow believers to keep ever before them the certainty of Christ’s coming to execute judgment and to reward his loyal disciples. A prime objective of such teaching was to aid Christians to be found approved on the Son’s arrival “with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) As Jesus had done, the apostles continued to emphasize the importance of proving faithful to the end. That end could come either at their death or at “the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Peter 3:12) Since even the resurrection of Christ’s joint heirs is linked in the Scriptures with his return, the hopes of all true disciples are bound up with the arrival of the Son of God in the capacity of a glorious heavenly King. (Matthew 10:28; 24:13, 36-44; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:14-17) Thus, during the entire history of the Christian congregation, unshakable faith in the Master’s coming “with power and great glory” has been an aid in a person’s proving loyal to him.  42 Partly because of eagerness to be alive when Jesus Christ reveals himself in glory, there have been believers throughout the centuries who began looking to a particular period or a year for the windup of the ungodly system of things. This has happened right down to these “last days.” Since certain expectations were not realized, many stumbled and returned to the ways of the world. In fulfillment of Peter’s words, even today we hear the voice of ridiculers. (2 Peter 3:3, 4) In effect, they say: ‘What reason is there to believe that the Son of God is going to execute the ungodly and to reward his disciples? Why, nothing has changed since the time of creation. The original processes of life are continuing and give no indication of coming to a disastrous end in the near future. Men are marrying, and women are being given in marriage, babies are being born, and men continue to grow old and die.’ Thus they imply that the Lord Jesus Christ never will come to execute judgment or that this event is so far off in the future that it is of no immediate concern.  Such ridiculers have totally lost sight of the fact that either death or “the day of Jehovah” will inescapably overtake them. In either event, they will have no further opportunity to lay up treasure in heaven in the form of fine works. (Luke 12:15-21, 31, 33-40) Hence, for disciples of Jesus Christ there has never been a period of history when they could afford to be neglectful of their responsibilities. Certainly, the risk in doing so is even greater in our time.

We can't know exactly what the writer was thinking, but we can all see ways in which the scenario ties back to the theme "Don't give up!" One of the worst things you can do to a child waiting for a reward is to make promises about the time and place and then when you get there, reset the goal line, as they say. Going back to the illustration of running toward a final goal in Sinutko's talk, imagine if you were promising your child that if he could run a mile, you would buy him an ice cream cone. He had never run a mile before, and he struggled especially in the second and third quarter-mile lap. But seeing the goal ahead, he puts on that final burst of speed, amazingly, through pain and sweat, in the final lap -- and succeeds in running a mile for the first time!
Then you tell him he needs to run another mile.
(Proverbs 13:12) . . .Expectation postponed makes the heart sick, But a desire realized is a tree of life. The idea or lesson is that this "expectation postponed" became a trial, a sickness. It could even be traumatic in the illustration of the running child.
 

I think this series of stages, while not definitive of course, helps put a framework on statements made during this time period and others too. For example, before 1925 the statements were very definitive about the "end" in 1925, and all caution was thrown to the wind in 1924. The statements became more cautious in 1925. There was another stage somewhere between 4 and 5 in those days where the Watchtower just denied that they ever said the things they said. Naturally, those who wish to defend the Watchtower Society against having made a false prophecy about 1925 will quote the stage#4 and stage#4.5 statements, and those who wish to embarrass the WTS will quote the stage#2 and stage#3 comments.
As to the "finger-pointing" stage#5 note the similarity between the following two statements, especially the portion highlighted in red:
*** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***
God's people had to adjust their thinking about 1925. . . . . A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection. *** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 15 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises. *** w80 3/15 p. 17 par. 5 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***
. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.

I think this series of stages, while not definitive of course, helps put a framework on statements made during this time period and others too. For example, before 1925 the statements were very definitive about the "end" in 1925, and all caution was thrown to the wind in 1924. The statements became more cautious in 1925. There was another stage somewhere between 4 and 5 in those days where the Watchtower just denied that they ever said the things they said. Naturally, those who wish to defend the Watchtower Society against having made a false prophecy about 1925 will quote the stage#4 and stage#4.5 statements, and those who wish to embarrass the WTS will quote the stage#2 and stage#3 comments.
As to the "finger-pointing" stage#5 note the similarity between the following two statements, especially the portion highlighted in red:
*** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***
God's people had to adjust their thinking about 1925. . . . . A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection. *** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 15 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises. *** w80 3/15 p. 17 par. 5 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***
. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.

The new JW Broadcasting with Sam Herd includes his talk to the Gilead Graduation class.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb_201712_1_VIDEO
There were several items of note, but this one seems important. In the introduction he mentions evidence that Jesus has been around Jehovah for at least 4 and a half billion years, based on that morning's text plus a rock found in Australia. And yet, the Father knows so much more than Jesus. Therefore we have only begun to touch on a few things. It's like we are new-born with our eyes barely open. He makes fun of things we thought only twenty years ago. At the 6 minute, 45 second mark he starts to say the following:
When measured by Jesus, we're newborn infants. We barely have our eyes open. Barely. What we see is not what we're going to see -- in years to come. We're just looking; we're just learning. We're touching things -- and for the first time. Just think in the past 10 years how many things we've touched for the first time -- even though we've read the Bible over and over again and we've listened to it being read to us over and over again. But, we've just touched a few things: like the generation. Ahhh! [purposely making a sound as if something was bad-tasting in his throat and he needed to spit it out] Twenty years ago we -- "Ahhh" -- the generation. [with a dismissive hand movement] And now we know all about that generation, right? And so many other things. Then Brother Losch starts singing a gospel song "Oh Happy Day! . . . when Jesus washed my sins away." He also touches on the NA'OS issue with respect to the Great Crowd serving not just near the temple or before the temple, but IN THE TEMPLE. I liked his statement: Have a positive outlook: Don't be sad that some rosebushes have thorns, but be glad that some thornbushes have roses on it. Then Brother Breaux tries to prove that Jehovah forgets using a verse in Hebrews that says he doesn't. His theme was work is more important than titles. Gary Breaux has told people privately that he was surprised that his talk on the two-witness rule was added to the monthly broadcast last month. I thought that Brother Breaux also related a story about District Overseers that could give some insight into the experience with those special talks on 1975 that were being given by District Overseers in the late 1960's and 1970's. Here are his exact words, taken out of context, of course:
I'd like to tell you another little story about a brother that had somewhat of a difficulty with this [showing love]. When I was a young circuit overseer, uh, the District Overseer I had was, uh, I was afraid of him. Everybody else was afraid of him, too.

A lot of people think it's part of Christianity to think of God and Satan in similar ways, as if they are working together, and Satan is doing God's work for him by punishing bad as God rewards the good.
After 60 years, the new NWT Bible removed the references satyrs in 2013 by changing the "goat shaped demon" references to just "wild goats." Here's an example:
(Isaiah 34:14) 14 And haunters of waterless regions must meet up with howling animals, and even the goat-shaped demon will call to its companion. . . . This was changed to:
(Isaiah 34:14) . . .Desert creatures will meet up with howling animals, And the wild goat will call to its companion.. . . Even the Greek word satyr appears to come from Hebrew. The following is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 34:14 and Isaiah 13:21 also.
שָׂעִיר sa`iyr   (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/13/21/t_conc_692021 )  
(Isaiah 13:21, 22) 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight.. . .(NWT pre-2013) KJV:
(Isaiah 13:21,22, KJV) But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces:  

Just so you know @DespicableME, I removed my own comment regarding a link about a porn star who left the JWs. With that comment gone, your comment in response to it (referencing Ruud) seemed even more out of place, so I deleted it along with mine. I didn't do this as a censorship, just didn't want to make your comment seem more awkward than it was.
Just so you know @Srecko Sostar someone (not me) moved your comments about copyright to a new topic, linked below, so I moved the other followup comments from this topic over there too, which included a couple of my responses. I ended up dragging over about 10 comments that had veered off onto that topic, also affecting comments by @DespicableME and @Noble Berean
 

Just so you know @DespicableME, I removed my own comment regarding a link about a porn star who left the JWs. With that comment gone, your comment in response to it (referencing Ruud) seemed even more out of place, so I deleted it along with mine. I didn't do this as a censorship, just didn't want to make your comment seem more awkward than it was.
Just so you know @Srecko Sostar someone (not me) moved your comments about copyright to a new topic, linked below, so I moved the other followup comments from this topic over there too, which included a couple of my responses. I ended up dragging over about 10 comments that had veered off onto that topic, also affecting comments by @DespicableME and @Noble Berean
 

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.
I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.
It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975. He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.
The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon? Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying: This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:
The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing. Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.
"The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635 "It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:
*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects. While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")
Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:
*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1. This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.
I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

I read this book several years ago. An excellent explanation of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis. At least it showed why a lot of people believe the theory.

True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914.
So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation. 
So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120)  People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today.
How far off is that reasoning?

Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

I don't think we can criticize the WTS itself for revealing hypocrisy, and in this way being critical and judgmental about religion and other parts of society. It is part of our belief system that wheat would grow alongside hypocritically similar-looking weeds for example. The WTS has not been guilty of going beyond fair use in the content of most of their work. There have only been minor exceptions that I know of. It's also possible they did not get the rights to Seola, but I'm not sure. When they wanted the rights to the Diaglott, they bought them. They licensed the rights to print the American Standard and Byington.
I know that when someone found a story told from the perspective of an unborn child in a Reader's Digest, for example, an Awake! article was produced over the exact same idea and a lot of phrases remained intact. But a lot of work was put into making it different, so I don't think it was plagiarized on purpose. Similar complaints about Awake! articles have less basis. Sometimes an author writes a non-fiction book on a particular subject and another author says he or she can do a much better job, and comes out with a book with nearly the same title. I have done work for commercial publishing houses, and I know that when a specific genre of writing makes a publishing house some money, another publishing house often puts out a call for anyone who has worked on a similar book.
More often than not, the WTS is right in claiming its rights to such material. There have been cases when internal material, never intended for public publication has been "leaked." Leaked material can seem damning, but unless everything is leaked it will always tell a partial picture. And the leaker is often interested in making it seem as if the partial picture is the while picture.
However, if material that was already intended for the public, or put out on a public website (jw.org) is leaked, this is where the WTS might find a PR problem trying to suppress it. But even here, they would have no legal problem trying to suppress it if they wanted on many sites that are primarily known for quoting large chunks of material or giving out access to publications on their own non-JW sites.

Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing."  Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. 
You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important.
So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914.
So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation. 
So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120)  People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today.
How far off is that reasoning?

AL,
Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:
The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/
I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.
I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).
---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------
Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.

It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

Much of what the Watch Tower Society has produced since 1879 is in the pubic domain. MOST of what is not already in the public domain has been offered to the public, and if a price was put on it, this was said to only "cover the cost of printing."  Then the outcome of some lawsuits (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart) convinced the WTS to stop requesting a specific price for the items if they wanted to keep their tax-free status in the United States. At this point it was declared that the literature offered to the public was to be distributed free of charge, and within a few years this policy was also applied to the rest of the world. Also, all Jehovah's Witnesses have been commended in the same publications of the WTS for their free and wide distribution of literature (Bibles, books, tracts, booklets, magazines, videos) in the Yearbooks, pointing out that even an Internet distribution can be counted as one of those placements. 
You may also look up the term "Bible-based literature" and "Bible-based publications" on the Watchtower Library CD and notice the number of times that such literature is not only indicated as free, but "life-saving," "life-improving," "important" and again, individuals are praised for considering it and reading it even when they were not the intended audience. The costs of transporting it to remote regions is noted. The fact that there are volunteers of all ages who are involved in all aspects of publication and delivery is also important.
So the copyright issue of "fair use" on a forum where much of the content of those publications is discussed for learning and critiquing is a fair point, and I think that hundreds of Witnesses and non-Witnesses have sites that break the "fair use" rule. But it's also quite possible that the WTS finds itself between a rock and hard place, or like Moses, "between the Pharaoh and the deep Red Sea." Because the WTS has already praised volunteers who distribute and promote this free, life-saving literature, they would look hypocritical if they began picking on sites that provide extensive access and quotes to such literature, along with discussion of the same. Legally, they could go after all sites except their own, but this would also give out the impression that they are afraid of critique in the way Scientologists are, for example.

It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

AL,
Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:
The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/
I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.
I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).
---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------
Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.

Yeah, that way when she sits down she sits where the camera is pointed so the video does not consist of an empty chair. They are not the first filmmakers ever to have done that.

If you are going on publicly published material, it's based on two or three principles put together. You can start with this one.
*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint. In it's entirety, this was a very good and balanced article I thought.
Edite to add, whoops, @Noble Berean and @Srecko Sostar, the above was not the paragraph I meant to include:
*** w74 8/1 pp. 469-470 par. 15 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?  

Correct. Free speech should NOT BE CENSORED just because someone doesn’t like the outcome. Political correctness should not be part of a religious forum.

As an agnostic? Censoring everyone that opposes a view by demonstrating facts from fiction shouldn’t be used against anyone that expresses “free will”, with their opinion. I have seen enough, to see it doesn’t matter to imply rudeness if everyone here has done that in some fashion.

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all…