JW Insider

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…

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.

True. I should have used a few of the other sources that pointed to 1999/2000. Remember that the 1970's were pointed to since 1956 or even before. Then more strongly in 1966 building up to a maximum around 1968 to 1971. The particular quote I used may have been using the term "shortly, within our twentieth century . . . [Armageddon will take place]" to  loosen the prediction away from the 1970's and allow an extra 20 years at the most. Or it could have just been intended to be a book that strengthened the parallel discussion of the 1970's without ever mentioning the 1970's . The main point of the book was that the nations would know that a prophet had been among them since the 1919 period, so there may have been some hesitance to point out in the very same book that this prophet had been pointing to the 1970's as the appropriate time for God to act on their behalf.
After the 1970's were over, then we could say that any references to 1999/2000 from that point on would be using the end of the twentieth century as a true terminus ad quem (the latest possible date of an event). So when 1980 rolled around this was published:
*** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. This does not count as breaking the Biblical rules of date-setting, because the assumptions are built in. It only shows that the writer was thinking about the end of the 20th century as a possible "terminus ad quem." At that moment, the implied age of understanding the events in 1914 was being reduced to 10 rather than 15 as stated before, (and it would soon have to be reduced again to include 1-day-old babies). The word "if" saves this quote even if the spirit of the quote was to break the rule.
This next one comes a little closer to breaking the letter of the rule, not just the spirit:
*** w84 3/1 pp. 18-19 par. 12 Kingdom Unity a Reality Today ***
And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—“will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) 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! In a court of law, juxtaposing the 1980 quote and the 1984 quote, it is easy to see that the second one is trying to close the gap allowed by the first one. The first one allows that the generation could technically go on past 2000, defined by the number of 96 years olds and older who might still be alive that year. The second reminds us that "the end" need not wait until the end of the century, and there is much evidence that it's not just a little closer than the end of the century, but "much closer." Still, a good lawyer might convince a judge or jury that no "terminus ad quem" was defined here, technically.
In the next quote, however, the "letter of the rule" was broken here, not just the "spirit of the rule:"
*** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” ***
The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century. There we have the undeniable "terminus ad quem" which someone questioned later that same year so that a correction was made through a QFR and finally an adjustment was made to the bound volume and subsequent electronic copies.
*** w89 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
We have ample reasons to expect that this preaching will be completed in our time. Does that mean before the turn of a new month, a new year, a new decade, a new century? No human knows, for Jesus said that ‘even the angels of the heavens’ did not know that. (Matthew 24:36) There was no time to fix the error in the original issue, of course, but it was changed to this very idea in the bound volume.
It's more informative to plot breaks in the "spirit" of Jesus; words at Matthew 24:36 and combined with Luke 21:8:
(Luke 21:8) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. Obviously we can still be encouraged that this system will not go on forever, and that man has already proven that he cannot even attempt to take the place of God's kingdom. Therefore we can be encouraged that the end is ever closer, and pray that Jehovah's will be done with reference to the time when that Kingdom comes and God's will is done in heaven and on earth. But we are always breaking the spirit of Jesus words if we point to a specific time period, or specific signs seen during this time period, and say this is evidence that the DUE TIME for the end has now approached. On that count, I would have to admit, as we all would, that these words of Jesus are ignored several times a year. So the "plot" only thickens, every time we think we have figured a way to define "that generation."

And the beat goes on . . .
 

Ooooh, second paragraph; "It's a murder epidemic" declared a Negro student in Atlanta".
LOL
Some things have changed, yet others haven't. It's like reading today's news. No wonder some say " Why,.......... all things are continuing exactly as they were......."
Page 12/13/14: "A crucial question now arises: Is there any indication in God's timetable as to how much time there is left before this system of things comes to its end? Can we know how many more years remain for this violent system of things? The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. How can we be so certain of this? (ouch). One way is by noting what Jesus said when he gave his great prophesy about the "last days". After he listed the many events that would mark this period, he also stated: " Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur Matt 24:34. Jesus was obviously (ouch) speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the "last days" began."  And then it goes into calculating that a 15 year old in 1914 would now be nearly 70 years old. "And remember Jesus said that the end of this wicked world would come before that generation passed away in death. This of itself, tells us that the years left before the foretold end comes cannot be many" Then it goes into calculating the 6000/1975 years etc.  "does this mean that the above evidence positively points to 1975 as the time for the complete and of this system of things? Since the Bible does not specifically state this, no man can say. However, of this we can be sure: the 1970's will certainly see the most critical times mankind has yet known..........If the 1970's should see the intervention by Jehovah God to bring an end to a corrupt world drifting towards ultimate disintegration, that should surely not surprise us"
 
 
 
 

Yes. You've said this before, but of course the Watch Tower has now broken the Biblical rules about date-setting regarding several different time periods: 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1970's, 1999/2000.
The last one, listed as 1999/2000, might sound confusing. Here's how it was worded in the Ezekiel book, back in 1971:
*** kj chap. 12 p. 216 par. 9 “Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right” ***
Shortly, within our twentieth century, the “battle in the day of Jehovah” will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom.

That's a good question. I suspect that Anna is right with the general idea that it is those who feel they suffered an injustice. This seems to be true of all persons who are vindictive. They are looking for a kind of "justice" usually believing they are acting against injustice. Of course the word "vindictive" itself is related to the word "vindicate" which can happen through winning a vanquishing vengeful victory -- or in some cases it can be accomplished with a kind word. When we pray for Jehovah's name to be vindicated, we are in effect asking for his name to be avenged in that it is either set free from false claims (or impending punishment) or set free by punishing those who spoke against it or made claims against it. I'll try to brainstorm a few scenarios:
In some cases, of course, it's an ego so big that it can't let go of being told they were wrong. In some cases, the persons thought they were fooled and lost a part of their life when they would have otherwise tried their hand at a business, a career, a philanthropic charity, or whatever. In some cases, I suppose, that as Witnesses they learned that the right and moral thing to do when one learns the truth is to go out and convince others in spite of persecution or being made fun of or argued against. Thinking they now have the truth and it's the Witnesses who need to hear it, they focus on the very ones who taught them to preach about such things. In some cases, the person has become unconvinced of so many of the doctrines that they believe it is not worth joining or rejoining after earlier association with their believing family members. When those family members shun them, they believe that they have lost their family to a cult, because they think those with the crazy beliefs are shunning those with reasonable beliefs. And they will probably also think that the rule against association is just because their "cult leaders" don't want them to spending enough time with non-believers to see that the non-believers' beliefs are reasonable In some cases, persons begin to focus on (obsess over?) issues with things like child abuse, deaths from not accepting blood transfusion, control over a person's educational opportunities, control over their associations, etc., and they feel like some kind of justice warrior who must make the world right -- but decide that this must start with Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe it's just the loud 10% who are the only ones we hear about. Based on the Pew numbers, I have a feeling that most of us probably never hear much again from 90% of former JWs, and they just go quietly about their business and almost forget they were ever JWs. (Actually, that seems impossible, so I'm going to revisit that one.) I've met a few in service like this. So the ones we hear from must feel they have a good reason to speak up. If they seem vindictive, they probably want vindication. If they are nasty, then we can just be glad they are no longer with us.
It occurred to me that there is probably something about becoming a JW that is polarizing. I don't think anyone can easily forget their dedication vow. If they leave they probably think it's important to justify it to those who they once loved. I also think there is emotional trauma and even a level of PTSD in thinking someone loves you and then having your world turned upside-down on seeing their hatred (through shunning). This must be jarring. Of course, it's true that shunning is not a good way of showing that we love our enemies, but I see it as more of an immaturity on our part than a hatred.

Very good points. Just like the early Trinitarians made additions and adjustments to the meaning of 1 John 5:7-9, because their own ideal meaning of Trinity wasn't there in any parts of the REAL Bible. Similarly, ex-JWs have actually gone to the trouble of splicing and editing a talk by Fred Franz, in which they remove his cautionary statements and make it look like he was promoting 1975 as the time for Armageddon, not just the end of 6,000 years on man's existence. I think many ex-JWs like to pride themselves on being able to take exact words and exact photocopies of older doctrinal material and using our own words against us. In this case, partly because  I think the full 1975 issue is not even understood, some have resorted to dishonesty because the actual point made in those days is not so damning as they wish it was. They wish it had been something very bad, so some (at least one case I saw) dishonestly changed the words of the original.
I was concerned when the GB brought up the topic of 1975 again earlier this year, and think that it was a great error to try to dismiss it by implying that it came from the unauthorized speculation of individuals in the "rank and file" as the GB sometimes have called us. A good part of this really was from speculation, of course Although I think this was the very goal of the person behind it. He was hoping for speculation. None of this foundational material about 1975 could have come from anyone but Fred Franz, because at the time he was the only one allowed to speculate about prophetic matters. He was called the Oracle at Bethel sincerely by peers who loved him, and sarcastically by those who were jealous (like Bert Schroeder). But Fred Franz was now giving us permission to speculate. It was even more than that. He put information out there and pretty much told us that it was time we should start speculating on what it means. He gave us a few guidelines about what we say to the public regarding this speculation, but he simultaneously guided the parameters of the speculation. He reminded us of all the things that we might see happening around this time period. If we listen to his ideas combined from several of his talks on the topic we can see why so many understood that he was hoping and implying that we get the following meaning (in loose paraphrase):
Are we saying that the fall of Babylon, the attack on God's people, the Great Tribulation and Armageddon would start by 1975? No ..... but it could! (wink, wink, nod, nod) Just don't be telling the public that it will. [This is our own little secret bit of knowledge, because we know that God doesn't do a single thing unless he first tells his servants, the prophets.] So, if you know who it is the constitutes Jehovah's prophet today, it should be clear to you privileged few: what you can expect -- not necessarily in 1975 specifically, but definitely in the months to shortly follow. Let him who has ears listen! I think there is plenty of evidence that we were being ASKED to speculate, at least up until 1974.  By 1974 we were being told to stop speculating. Don't know if it's true but R.Franz says that F.Franz had lost some credibility at this point from N.Knorr, because F.Franz had told Knorr that he needed to adjust the end of 6,000 years of human existence to 1974 instead of 1975. Knorr thought this finally asking too much, and asked Fred Franz to just leave it alone.
In fact, it was speculation that caused some to understand the partly ambiguous material as NOT applying specifically to 1975, or even necessarily to the short months following 1975. Some were speculating that it might still take years before the generation died out. They were speculating about how to combine the material about 1975 with the fact that the generation that saw and understood 1914 would have to have been born around 1900 and would begin dying out after 70 or 80 years. That could reach until 1980. Others were already talking about the end of the twentieth century. And rarely, someone would mention that someone in Siberia was known to live to be 120. That could take us all the way to the year 2020. So how should we speculate that this new information about 1975 meshes with the generation that could take us all the way until the year 2020, if necessary.
Fred Franz also promoted and wrote most of the Ezekiel book material to go along with this 1975 idea. The idea of promoting Ezekiel in was so that we could be reminded that "The nations will know that there had been a prophet among them."
(Ezekiel 2:3-5) 3 He went on to say to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to rebellious nations that have rebelled against me.. . .  and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says.’ 5 As for them, whether they listen or refuse to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will certainly know that a prophet was among them. (Ezekiel 33:32, 33) . . .They will hear your words, but no one will act on them. 33 And when it comes true—and it will come true—they will have to know that a prophet has been among them.” Ezekiel had been mentioned 5 to 15 times a year in most Watchtower, but suddenly it about 50 times in 1969, 306 times in 1972, 116 times in 1973, dropping back to only 6 times in 1975. Some have speculated that all this talk about Jehovah's Witnesses acting as God's prophet was only because of the teaching of God's word. But notice the time period and the references to the time period when the point was made. Note the years on the following articles, which of course coincided with the Ezekiel book which we were studying in 1972 and 1973:
*** w73 3/1 p. 150 Heeding Divine Warning Is Wisdom ***
Better it is to know now, rather than too late, that there is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us, and to accept and act upon the Bible message, “not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) Those who wait undecided until what Jehovah’s Christian witnesses have been proclaiming ‘comes true’ “will also have to know that a prophet himself had proved to be in the midst of them.” (Ezek. 33:33) But such belated knowledge will not mean salvation for them, for it will find their hearts and their ways to be unchanged. What is to be gained by hesitating and doubting to the end that Jehovah can raise up and has raised up a genuine “prophet” within our generation? Certainly it will gain for no one the divine favor and protection needed during the speedily approaching “great tribulation.” If our course is to be that of wisdom and of faith, then, with Bible in hand, we will heed the warning of Jehovah’s true watchman and will take refuge where Jehovah indicates in his Word. Then, when Jehovah’s prophetic watchman gets the report that Christendom has been struck down, we, together with the faithful watchman, will continue to live. *** w72 4/1 pp. 197-200 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ ***
So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE “PROPHET” These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?. . . This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning, and have been joined and assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons who have listened to their message with belief. Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? . . .  Ezekiel’s name meant “God Strengthens,” and . . .  At the time, they might not view or appreciate him as a prophet of Jehovah. Nevertheless, whether they paid attention to him or refrained, the occasion was to come when these rebellious people would “know also that a prophet himself happened to be in the midst of them.” Jehovah would confirm him as a prophet then by causing what Ezekiel prophesied to come true. (Ezek. 2:3-5) Ezekiel was further told: . . .Since the year 1919 C.E. Jehovah’s witnesses have found circumstances to be just like that . . . . To Ezekiel, in his vision, and, symbolically to the modern-day “prophet,” the spirit-begotten, anointed ones who are the nucleus of Jehovah’s witnesses today, . . . The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision. This would indicate that Jehovah’s witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as directed from heaven.  Yes, the time must come shortly that the nations will have to know that really a “prophet” of Jehovah was among them. Actually now more than a million and a half persons are helping that collective or composite “prophet” in his preaching work and well over that number of others are studying the Bible with the “prophet” group and its companions. It was no coincidence, and definitely intended to help fuel speculation during this time period of 1975-era predictions, when these predictions were then accompanied by a claim that there was a prophet among Jehovah's Witnesses, directed from heaven to deliver a message that would be fulfilled. "Yes. the time must come shortly." 
 

We say Witnesses got all excited over something that turned out to be a big nothingburger. Give them the short answer - ‘Everyone is allowed one failed end-of-world date per lifetime. It is in the rules’ - and be done with it.

That's a good question. I suspect that Anna is right with the general idea that it is those who feel they suffered an injustice. This seems to be true of all persons who are vindictive. They are looking for a kind of "justice" usually believing they are acting against injustice. Of course the word "vindictive" itself is related to the word "vindicate" which can happen through winning a vanquishing vengeful victory -- or in some cases it can be accomplished with a kind word. When we pray for Jehovah's name to be vindicated, we are in effect asking for his name to be avenged in that it is either set free from false claims (or impending punishment) or set free by punishing those who spoke against it or made claims against it. I'll try to brainstorm a few scenarios:
In some cases, of course, it's an ego so big that it can't let go of being told they were wrong. In some cases, the persons thought they were fooled and lost a part of their life when they would have otherwise tried their hand at a business, a career, a philanthropic charity, or whatever. In some cases, I suppose, that as Witnesses they learned that the right and moral thing to do when one learns the truth is to go out and convince others in spite of persecution or being made fun of or argued against. Thinking they now have the truth and it's the Witnesses who need to hear it, they focus on the very ones who taught them to preach about such things. In some cases, the person has become unconvinced of so many of the doctrines that they believe it is not worth joining or rejoining after earlier association with their believing family members. When those family members shun them, they believe that they have lost their family to a cult, because they think those with the crazy beliefs are shunning those with reasonable beliefs. And they will probably also think that the rule against association is just because their "cult leaders" don't want them to spending enough time with non-believers to see that the non-believers' beliefs are reasonable In some cases, persons begin to focus on (obsess over?) issues with things like child abuse, deaths from not accepting blood transfusion, control over a person's educational opportunities, control over their associations, etc., and they feel like some kind of justice warrior who must make the world right -- but decide that this must start with Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe it's just the loud 10% who are the only ones we hear about. Based on the Pew numbers, I have a feeling that most of us probably never hear much again from 90% of former JWs, and they just go quietly about their business and almost forget they were ever JWs. (Actually, that seems impossible, so I'm going to revisit that one.) I've met a few in service like this. So the ones we hear from must feel they have a good reason to speak up. If they seem vindictive, they probably want vindication. If they are nasty, then we can just be glad they are no longer with us.
It occurred to me that there is probably something about becoming a JW that is polarizing. I don't think anyone can easily forget their dedication vow. If they leave they probably think it's important to justify it to those who they once loved. I also think there is emotional trauma and even a level of PTSD in thinking someone loves you and then having your world turned upside-down on seeing their hatred (through shunning). This must be jarring. Of course, it's true that shunning is not a good way of showing that we love our enemies, but I see it as more of an immaturity on our part than a hatred.

Very good points. Just like the early Trinitarians made additions and adjustments to the meaning of 1 John 5:7-9, because their own ideal meaning of Trinity wasn't there in any parts of the REAL Bible. Similarly, ex-JWs have actually gone to the trouble of splicing and editing a talk by Fred Franz, in which they remove his cautionary statements and make it look like he was promoting 1975 as the time for Armageddon, not just the end of 6,000 years on man's existence. I think many ex-JWs like to pride themselves on being able to take exact words and exact photocopies of older doctrinal material and using our own words against us. In this case, partly because  I think the full 1975 issue is not even understood, some have resorted to dishonesty because the actual point made in those days is not so damning as they wish it was. They wish it had been something very bad, so some (at least one case I saw) dishonestly changed the words of the original.
I was concerned when the GB brought up the topic of 1975 again earlier this year, and think that it was a great error to try to dismiss it by implying that it came from the unauthorized speculation of individuals in the "rank and file" as the GB sometimes have called us. A good part of this really was from speculation, of course Although I think this was the very goal of the person behind it. He was hoping for speculation. None of this foundational material about 1975 could have come from anyone but Fred Franz, because at the time he was the only one allowed to speculate about prophetic matters. He was called the Oracle at Bethel sincerely by peers who loved him, and sarcastically by those who were jealous (like Bert Schroeder). But Fred Franz was now giving us permission to speculate. It was even more than that. He put information out there and pretty much told us that it was time we should start speculating on what it means. He gave us a few guidelines about what we say to the public regarding this speculation, but he simultaneously guided the parameters of the speculation. He reminded us of all the things that we might see happening around this time period. If we listen to his ideas combined from several of his talks on the topic we can see why so many understood that he was hoping and implying that we get the following meaning (in loose paraphrase):
Are we saying that the fall of Babylon, the attack on God's people, the Great Tribulation and Armageddon would start by 1975? No ..... but it could! (wink, wink, nod, nod) Just don't be telling the public that it will. [This is our own little secret bit of knowledge, because we know that God doesn't do a single thing unless he first tells his servants, the prophets.] So, if you know who it is the constitutes Jehovah's prophet today, it should be clear to you privileged few: what you can expect -- not necessarily in 1975 specifically, but definitely in the months to shortly follow. Let him who has ears listen! I think there is plenty of evidence that we were being ASKED to speculate, at least up until 1974.  By 1974 we were being told to stop speculating. Don't know if it's true but R.Franz says that F.Franz had lost some credibility at this point from N.Knorr, because F.Franz had told Knorr that he needed to adjust the end of 6,000 years of human existence to 1974 instead of 1975. Knorr thought this finally asking too much, and asked Fred Franz to just leave it alone.
In fact, it was speculation that caused some to understand the partly ambiguous material as NOT applying specifically to 1975, or even necessarily to the short months following 1975. Some were speculating that it might still take years before the generation died out. They were speculating about how to combine the material about 1975 with the fact that the generation that saw and understood 1914 would have to have been born around 1900 and would begin dying out after 70 or 80 years. That could reach until 1980. Others were already talking about the end of the twentieth century. And rarely, someone would mention that someone in Siberia was known to live to be 120. That could take us all the way to the year 2020. So how should we speculate that this new information about 1975 meshes with the generation that could take us all the way until the year 2020, if necessary.
Fred Franz also promoted and wrote most of the Ezekiel book material to go along with this 1975 idea. The idea of promoting Ezekiel in was so that we could be reminded that "The nations will know that there had been a prophet among them."
(Ezekiel 2:3-5) 3 He went on to say to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to rebellious nations that have rebelled against me.. . .  and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says.’ 5 As for them, whether they listen or refuse to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will certainly know that a prophet was among them. (Ezekiel 33:32, 33) . . .They will hear your words, but no one will act on them. 33 And when it comes true—and it will come true—they will have to know that a prophet has been among them.” Ezekiel had been mentioned 5 to 15 times a year in most Watchtower, but suddenly it about 50 times in 1969, 306 times in 1972, 116 times in 1973, dropping back to only 6 times in 1975. Some have speculated that all this talk about Jehovah's Witnesses acting as God's prophet was only because of the teaching of God's word. But notice the time period and the references to the time period when the point was made. Note the years on the following articles, which of course coincided with the Ezekiel book which we were studying in 1972 and 1973:
*** w73 3/1 p. 150 Heeding Divine Warning Is Wisdom ***
Better it is to know now, rather than too late, that there is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us, and to accept and act upon the Bible message, “not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) Those who wait undecided until what Jehovah’s Christian witnesses have been proclaiming ‘comes true’ “will also have to know that a prophet himself had proved to be in the midst of them.” (Ezek. 33:33) But such belated knowledge will not mean salvation for them, for it will find their hearts and their ways to be unchanged. What is to be gained by hesitating and doubting to the end that Jehovah can raise up and has raised up a genuine “prophet” within our generation? Certainly it will gain for no one the divine favor and protection needed during the speedily approaching “great tribulation.” If our course is to be that of wisdom and of faith, then, with Bible in hand, we will heed the warning of Jehovah’s true watchman and will take refuge where Jehovah indicates in his Word. Then, when Jehovah’s prophetic watchman gets the report that Christendom has been struck down, we, together with the faithful watchman, will continue to live. *** w72 4/1 pp. 197-200 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ ***
So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE “PROPHET” These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?. . . This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning, and have been joined and assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons who have listened to their message with belief. Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? . . .  Ezekiel’s name meant “God Strengthens,” and . . .  At the time, they might not view or appreciate him as a prophet of Jehovah. Nevertheless, whether they paid attention to him or refrained, the occasion was to come when these rebellious people would “know also that a prophet himself happened to be in the midst of them.” Jehovah would confirm him as a prophet then by causing what Ezekiel prophesied to come true. (Ezek. 2:3-5) Ezekiel was further told: . . .Since the year 1919 C.E. Jehovah’s witnesses have found circumstances to be just like that . . . . To Ezekiel, in his vision, and, symbolically to the modern-day “prophet,” the spirit-begotten, anointed ones who are the nucleus of Jehovah’s witnesses today, . . . The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision. This would indicate that Jehovah’s witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as directed from heaven.  Yes, the time must come shortly that the nations will have to know that really a “prophet” of Jehovah was among them. Actually now more than a million and a half persons are helping that collective or composite “prophet” in his preaching work and well over that number of others are studying the Bible with the “prophet” group and its companions. It was no coincidence, and definitely intended to help fuel speculation during this time period of 1975-era predictions, when these predictions were then accompanied by a claim that there was a prophet among Jehovah's Witnesses, directed from heaven to deliver a message that would be fulfilled. "Yes. the time must come shortly." 
 

How old is @The Librarian?

Yes, but surely you have heard of the "MAN in the MOON."
Or we could compromise with "MON"

Anyway, these are very nice pictures of the moon. Also I saw it for that last couple of evenings, and it's very beautiful.

When you annoy Top Cat O'Malihan (the old hen) it is time to take a breather. After all, it is what I have said to others: 'If you can't abide by the rules, leave.'
However, I am freshly chastened and from now on will do nothing but breathe joy and love to everyone - relatively speaking and with minor caveats.

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.
 

 
 
 
 

 

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.
I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.
I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?
This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.
I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.
I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.
But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.
 

 
 
 
 

 

I think I understand the sentiment of this first idea, that there was something appealing about being able to know the Bible's "historical sweep" of 6,000 years, and even the fact that the Bible had left enough internal evidence to count large unbroken portions of this chronology without any required references to secular support. (From Adam to Zedekiah, as it were.)  With a little help from interpretation and some secular "tent-pins" we could even reach from Adam to Jesus and fit all this into a chronological framework that included the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple, The Return/Rebuilding, second destruction in 70 C.E., the probable timing of Paul's missionary journeys, etc.
I was not the type of person back in 1966 to think that any of us were supposed to speculate. I heard the talk about 1975 at the 1966 summer district convention, probably twice. I thought that maturity meant that we studied the publications, reasoned on them, and then made solid decisions based on accurate knowledge. My brother was 11 and I was 9 and we both were assigned in 1966 to read the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God." and "Things in which it is Impossible for God to Lie." If we read these books and studied all the baptism questions in the book "Your Word is a Lamp to My Foot" then we would both be ready for baptism in the spring 1967 circuit assembly, although we both waited until the summer convention. I don't remember personally thinking much about 1975 back in 1966 even when I read the "Life Everlasting" book that covered the topic. I read it as saying that we should be ready for Armageddon because it could happen sooner than we think. The goal, I thought, was to remind those who weren't taking Armageddon seriously, to remember that even the chronology shows that it might be "later than you think." I really didn't think that anyone was supposed to read the book and begin saying that Armageddon was going to happen in 1975.
I don't recall any "hysteria" either. There were those who took it more seriously than others, but prior to 1975, I don't really remember anyone trying to point out exactly why they were taking it more seriously based on specific wording in the publications that they had caught and other people had missed. My mother was of the opinion that Armageddon would more likely take place in 1974 or 1976 because if it happened in 1975 that's when everyone would be expecting it, and it has to come when we are NOT expecting it. Once I told her that if she could just convince everyone that this was true, then it couldn't happen in 1974 or 1976 either, could it?
This is probably correct. And I'm sure it happened that some were trying to show how the Watchtower was not being specific about Armageddon in 1975, even though we had heard about 4 District Overseers be as specific as Brother Sinutko. (My father would take us to two district assemblies per year because his work on the Sound systems kept him from paying close attention to the content. So we'd take one assembly in the Midwest and then we'd go back to California for two weeks to visit relatives and take in an assembly while we were out there. My California grandparents or circuit-overeer uncle were always sending us copies of the special talks and I think I heard about three other Sinutko-styled talks: similar content, but without his dramatic delivery. Then I remember the circuit overseers would give at least one talk per visit from about 1968 to 1971 that emphasized that there could have been very little time between Adam's and Eve's creation, just months or even weeks. I believe it was 1969 when the circuit assembly talk on 'the time left is reduced' included a big chart of the the number of months left between 1969 and October 1975. That same idea was used at another assembly. My father had a talk at an assembly in 1970 where he let slip a reminder that none of us should get so excited that we stop taking care of our teeth, for example, because "no one knows the day or the hour." He added the scripture from Matthew 24:36. The District Overseer was angry and met with my father and the circuit overseer telling my father  that this was not the spirit of the talk, which was to encourage excitement. The District Overseer read him the Watchtower from two years prior:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. My father got counseled for "toying" with the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:36 by adding them to an assembly talk. And he was not assigned another circuit assembly part for 3 years.
I also saw my father counsel another elder who worked for him, and who had seemingly gone overboard and had begun embarrassing him (and all other Witnesses for that matter) by starting to preach to others who came into my father's office and one of the labs my father ran at the University of Missouri. He was preaching 1975 explicitly. This brother and his wife had been Gilead missionaries back home from Ecuador when they were expecting their first baby.  My father gave him a part time job in the afternoons, and I also came back after a day of pioneering at 3:00 to work (aka "play") in the electronics labs for a couple hours. I remember this was the first work day in January 1975 and he was announcing to people that this was the year for Armageddon. This was the first time I heard a brother (fellow elder) talk to my father using argumentation from the actual wording of Watchtower publications that he was convinced were saying something more than conjecture. It was just that the Watchtower, for some reason, didn't want to word it so explicitly that it would sound like a prophecy. It was left for us to notice the clues, he thought. I can't remember any of the exact examples this elder had used. But it was clear that his general position was that it was the more astute brothers who were seeing it, and it was a serious thing to take notice, and that only the weaker, less spiritually mature Witnesses were downplaying the idea.
I disagreed and took my father's side on this. I remember only shrugging, having nothing to say when the brother looked over to me for some agreement. It was as if he was sure his argument was winning, and he was saying to me "I'm right! Right? You can see it. Right?"  I don't remember my father even looking at me, or talking about it with him. Now I wonder if he thought he had been counseled for actually missing something, but he held his ground through the rest of the year. I remember my brother and my mother would also discuss it because my brother had started a business in 1974 which was doing very well, and I went to work for him for a year before going to Bethel. My father would always encourage the business, and my mother was afraid that starting a business, especially a successful one, was a scary thing that would make him forget about 1975. My brother sold his business 3 years later and got to Bethel after me, even though 2 years older.
But my mother was not caught up in any hysteria either. As I said, I don't remember any "Armageddon Ernie" types. I don't even think anyone was really speculating in any negative sense. It's just that there were two ways to read the statements in the Watchtower from about 1966 to 1973. By 1974, the Watchtower was clearly downplaying the earlier rhetoric, so looking back I'd say the highest level of "speculation" was the idea that this "downplaying" was only for the outside public, but that we, on the inside, were supposed to continue "knowing" secretly that the earlier statements were still in effect. Of course, none of this means that the Watchtower ever predicted 1975 for Armageddon. The prediction, except for a few circuit and district overseer statements, were not about 1975, per se, but about the fact that the system could not go on more than a few months or years beyond 1975. It wasn't about what 1975 would bring, but: What will the 1970's bring?:

 

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.