JW Insider

Sounds like it was a gathering party. If I were a judgmental person I might even suspect alcohol, too. Although I can think of other reasons for the confusion.

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 
[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

To you...
To you....
But to me it is not strange, and makes perfect sense.
By your method of exposition in bolding the personal pronouns and italicising certain verbs,  you emphasize your view that the Holy Spirit is a separate person "distinct" from the Father and "distinct" from Jesus it would seem?
Using the same method, how do you see wisdom?:
"Is not wisdom calling out? Is not discernment raising its voice?  On the heights along the road, It takes its position at the crossroads. Next to the gates leading into the city, at the entrances of the doorways, it keeps crying out loudly:  “To you, O people, I am calling; I raise my voice to everyone.  You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness; you stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.   Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right;  For my mouth softly utters truth, and my lips detest what is wicked. All the sayings of my mouth are righteous. None of them are twisted or crooked.  They are all straightforward to the discerning and right to those who have found knowledge. Take my discipline instead of silver, and knowledge rather than the finest gold, for wisdom is better than corals; all other desirable things cannot compare to it. I, wisdom, dwell together with shrewdness; I have found knowledge and thinking ability. The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. I hate self-exaltation and pride and the evil way and perverse speech.  I possess good advice and practical wisdom; understanding and power are mine. By me kings keep reigning, and high officials decree righteousness. By me princes keep ruling, and nobles judge in righteousness.  I love those loving me, and those seeking me will find me. Riches and glory are with me, lasting wealth and righteousness. My fruitage is better than gold, even refined gold, and what I produce is better than the finest silver. I walk in the path of righteousness, in the middle of the pathways of justice; I give a rich inheritance to those who love me, and I fill up their storehouses." Pro.8:1-21

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 
[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 
[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 
[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

That's me getting some Vitamin D.

While at Bethel my table head shared a lot of really negative stories about Brother Rutherford. I had no idea if they were correct at the time, but I listened carefully to a lot of other brothers who knew Rutherford, and I even recorded several hours of interviews with older Bethelites and some of them volunteered information about him. These tapes were for use when I traveled to other congregations to give public talks, because they made giving a public talk very easy. I had a lot of material that I could not use without editing because two of them gave a much more negative view than the publications give. The brothers and sister interviewed were F.W.Franz, Grace DeCecca, Maxwell Friend, Sam Friend, and Bert Schroeder.
 
But another side of Rutherford also shows up, not just in the interviews, but also in his own speeches and writing. Most of the brothers credit Rutherford as the one who promoted the changes made to doctrines single-handedly. He was fearless when he thought he was right. There were dozens of doctrinal changes made between 1927 and 1931, and a large number of those who were active in the organization decided to leave during that time period. But I believe that while he lost a majority for a while, he had an attitude that one brother likened to Judge Gideon, his all-time favorite Bible character. It didn't matter how many persons left the organization, if the change was the right thing to do. (Gideon went from 32,000 to 10,000 and after a final test ended up with only 300 faithful with whom he would fight the battle against Midian.)
 
With that in mind he wanted to root out "creature worship" from the organization. This was his word for the "cult of Pastor Russell" wherein people wanted to dress like him, look like him, talk like him, carry his picture, name their kids after him, etc. Rutherford did not want such a thing for himself, and knew he was the person with the "faith" to get rid of it, even if it meant the majority of Bible Students would leave. It was in effect, the "sword of Jehovah and Rutherford."
 
Also, there were very few progressive changes under Russell. Very early on they had already set a solid doctrinal course when it came to Trinity, Hell-fire, Immortal Soul, Ransom, Restitution, Salvation, Morality, Christian Character, but only a very few changes, except where these were forced upon them in the area of chronology. Rutherford, from the start, turned the Bible Students into a progressive organization that came to expect change, and that very soon would constantly looked forward positively to more changes. Naturally, he got a few things wrong, but I believe a majority of the changes reflected the Bible more accurately.
 
For example, if we were to solely give Rutherford the credit for being the author of these changes, we'd have to admit that he got the following right:
Getting rid of Pyramidology. Getting rid of Creature Worship Getting rid of almost all the complexities and methodologies of the old Barbour/Second Adventist chronology Ultimately turning a system that included 539 C.E. (not BCE) 1799, 1844, 1859, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, and 1915 into a simpler system that still included most of those dates but focused almost exclusively on just 3 or 4 dates. He put the organization on a road to a more consistent political neutrality including the view that flag salute was a form of idolatry helped true Christians see the folly of involvement in divisive wars and social movements helped Christians recognize political and religious hypocrisy He pushed for legal freedom of speech, and freedom of religion before the world was even ready for it, and these battles were hard-won. He also prompted true Christians seriously consider the relationship between national and religious holidays and their unchristian origins. He promoted the wider use of Jehovah's name Didn't hold back from using the "Old Testament" for life lessons Set an example as a strong personality, full of strong commitment, without mincing words, or pulling punches Prepared the congregations for persecution so that they were not surprised and not weakened Look at how well JWs handled persecution in many countries, not just Germany under Hitler Organized a very efficient organization in terms of ability to publicize and mobilize with the message Made use of all available technologies and venues to spread the word to large assemblies and audiences Organized for growth, envisioned and prepared for expansion Promoted practical, active Christian conduct and morality, but not the mere, quiet internalized form of worship Promoted a purpose and identity that helps Witnesses produce an international brotherhood that transcend class, nationality, and race. Lots of doctrinal specifics are left out to avoid too many off-topic doctrinal discussions, but even where disagreement exists, the bulk of most publications drove more attention to the Bible, Jesus, Jehovah, and Bible characters that we could learn from as examples in our daily lives  
And from the perspective of "executive leadership" he was both serious and successful with these changes. The numbers he lost from Russell's time were gained back again and multiplied a couple of times over before Rutherford died. Outsiders have been impressed with the levels of activity, and participation, and therefore the levels of growth and conversion over the years. Ultimately, a very strong and powerful organization has been built that rivals the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists in terms of its current size, rate of growth and stability. And those religions, for the most part, had a bit of a head start in the 19th century. It outpaces most other religions in terms of publications distributed internally, and definitely outpaces every religion when it comes to publications distributed externally. Most of the foundation for the current organization was made workable under Rutherford's watch. This has created an excellent foundation for an international brotherhood where people show love and generosity and good works toward one another and which continues to bring teachings into closer harmony with the Bible.
 

The caption below the picture in the link says approximately the following in Portuguese:
A new line of research, known as intelligent design, believes that the complexity of life and the perfection of nature proves the existence of a higher being. At the core of research in science, faith and society, newly opened by one of the largest universities in São Paulo, in partnership with American institutions, scholars discard the creation of the world by mere chance and analyze genetic codes as a kind of 'signature of God '.
Of course, "intelligent design" is actually an old line of research, not a new one. And everything else said about intelligent design here in the above quote is correct. However, these attempts to make it seem like a science are extremely flawed and nearly always end up embarrassing themselves by joining with "young earth" enthusiasts who claim the earth (and sun, for that matter) are no more than 6,000 years old. They often either deny the existence of dinosaurs, or say the fossils were placed here by God or Satan as a test of our faith, or claim that dinosaurs were alive when Adam named them, but died in the Flood.
The idea that DNA is a kind of signature of God is a good way to put it. But throwing in the idea that the NAME of God might be found in DNA is completely fake. By whatever methods anyone can tell you that the name YHWH is in DNA, those same methods will also be able to prove that the name Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebul, Devil, Hezekiah, Lincoln, Trump, Hitler, Jesus, Putin, Petunia, Sally, etc., are found just as easily -- because anything can be done with numbers. People will see what they want to see. (A little like 99% of all the so-called Biblical chronology predictions that have gone on for the last 1,000 years.)

It's not really a case of slipping through the cracks. And what policies in particular are you talking about? The purpose of disfellowshipping is twofold, and has been mentioned on another thread recently. Whether you agree or not, it is primarily to protect the congregation and keep it clean morally. You don't want members who are known to be practicing something which is condemned in the Bible to be freely associating with the congregation as if it was OK. I'm sure you can understand that. You also don't want members publicly speaking out against what JWs teach and cause a disturbance to members. Believe me, not everyone wants to discuss Malawi/Mexico and why 1914 could be wrong, even if they suspect it could be wrong. And that needs to be respected. Nothing likely would happen unless a number of members started complaining about this particular individual. You read in the letters yourself, no one gets dissfellowshipped automatically just for sharing some "controversial" information, but to try and hammer "TTATT"  (which by the way is subjective anyway) at every opportunity is obviously not going to go down very well. But if you call that exercising your conscience, then you might also need to reflect on the conscience of others too.
So, in a nutshell, the elders are not so interested in making life hard for someone who no longer wants to be a JW as you wish to believe. They have other things to do, most have families they'd like to spend time with. If the individual is not causing any trouble, then I can guarantee they'd much rather leave things alone. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had, and your friends, they either had Nazi elders, or must have been causing a disturbance among the friends. Somehow I think it's more likely to be the latter.
 

I came late to this discussion, knowing that my viewpoint on this particular subject is based on what might seem a bit radical to some. So I apologize in advance for the opinions to follow:
I wouldn't suggest "civil disobedience" either, but to your point, the earth didn't open up when Rutherford successfully attempted his own hostile takeover of the Watch Tower Society from 1916 to 1919 (technically, until 1931). After all, he went directly against the leadership of Russell and illegally went against the leadership of the majority, physically shutting that majority out, until he could put his own majority in place. But this is another one of those potential contradictions of a similar nature to the contradiction that forms the basis for this topic. We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered.
Yet, this also suggests that the 'guide from history' has more to do with how we respond to the true Leader, the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. Thinking of men as effectively taking the place of Jesus as head is merely an expedience for modern organizational purposes, and is not related to theocracy, which is rule by God. If a doctrine shows up differently in God's Word from the way it shows up from the GB, then we surely have nothing to fear from merely obeying God as ruler rather than men. That's the true definition of theocracy.
But we don't initiate discord, either. That's for the exact same reason we accept and respect the GB in the first place. We appreciate that the role they take on is for keeping order and for efficiently carrying out our ministry in an organized manner. So we gladly subject ourselves to the decisions of an organizational Governing Body. I don't see why anyone would object to that. Besides, it's working; the worldwide ministry is becoming increasingly more organized and efficient through this arrangement.
These men also maintain "doctrinal order" by taking on the role of "guardians of the doctrine." This can be a very good thing. Teaching materials, presentation materials, publication content, dramas, videos, convention talks are coordinated and this produces less confusion. When a change is made it is often highlighted and even if not, there are usually efficient ways for us to discover and explain the change. We appreciate that the work done to find the support for these doctrines scripturally is taken very seriously and we have no major doctrines without some Biblical reason for it, even if that reason (for a former doctrine) was based on an admitted misunderstanding. 
I won't use this topic as a place to show the kind of trouble that can happen if the "guarding" part is taken more seriously than fixing any misunderstandings, but I think that should be obvious, from our own history. But the point is that it should not be difficult for any of us to rattle off anywhere from 10 to 20 doctrinal changes and changes in procedures that came about through "public pressure" even though this public pressure was not well-known to most of us, nor was it any kind of civil disobedience.
I can think of a couple cases where it really was something like civil disobedience from the rank-and-file Bethelites, for example, but I am referring primarily to the public exposure of certain embarrassing doctrines by ex-JWs, or the pressure of civil courts and tax courts (US, UK, Belgium, Australia) and scrutiny of doctrine by psychologists, surgeons and law enforcement. Add to this an unknown number of letters that came in from Witnesses whose questions and objections really have been taken seriously over the years. It must be a lot more than some Witnesses and others here would believe.

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents.
So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse:
(Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents.
So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse:
(Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

If you've seen any of the lengthy topics lately that deal with the "generation" and related issues, you'll notice that I'm probably not the right person to ask. Also, I don't want to turn this particular type of post into a doctrinal discussion that no one bargained for, based on the topic name. However, I do think it's a good question, so I'll attach some notes to one of those other recent discussions.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that:
This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to:
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame. (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? 
In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run.
(Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.
Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Thanks for all the input, and of course, if you decide to participate again, I'm sure you will be welcomed. Whether or not I am still here will be based on several factors. It's nice to find a place where one can show complete loyalty to the truth and still not hold back in sharing all aspects of the good news that we have found spiritually profitable. While no one can compare themselves to the Apostle Paul, we should still strive to be imitators of him. 
(Acts 20:20) 20 while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But as some have pointed out, this place, although a useful public forum for ideas to be shared, often becomes a place where opposers of scripture, and opposers of truth and evidence can become ridiculously juvenile and ill-behaved. And while joking and enjoying a laugh, and light-hearted association can be just fine, the propensity for unloving insults, sniping, and sarcasm can easily rub off on any of us. I have recently felt embarrassed at the way in which fellow brothers have claimed to proudly make a conscious decision to disregard Bible truth as long as they are generally confident that the men they choose to follow are backed by Jesus and Jehovah. This is so much like the high-control thinking that certain men have been able to achieve in several of the religious associations of Christendom, and I fear the trend of attracting more and more persons who are happy and proud not to think about scripture and evidence and truth.

I think everyone knew that this was one of his favorite subjects along with his favorite numerology topics. I'm sure he was the one who wrote the article in 1956. I have been assured that he was the one who often repeated the idea that 999 people out of every thousand would die at Armageddon. This was even included in assembly speeches open to the public. The 99.9% figure was also included in the Watch Tower publications a few times.
*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***
Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. . . . On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” He was also the one who said that due to the current laws of the land, we aren't allowed to kill our apostate children even though they are our own children.
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. That's a very useful reminder not to kill our children, based on a question probably sent in by Percy Chapman, the Branch Servant in Ontario at the time.
And of course, Fred Franz was the one who assured me that the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who were willing to die for their faith in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were mostly all in Gehenna now, with no hope of a resurrection.
Yes, he had a dark side. But at least he could snicker and joke while saying such serious things. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, though.

*** w56 8/1 p. 465 pars. 16-17 Jehovah’s Message Against Gog of Magog ***
16 In the wake of Armageddon’s carnage, disease and pestilence from the rot and decay would plague the survivors were it not for the fact that Jehovah sends forth an invitation to the birds and beasts to attend this great slaughter. “Speak unto the birds of every sort, and to every beast of the field,” Jehovah says, and say to them, “Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, . . . Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.” This certainly shows the contempt in which Jehovah holds the proud and haughty of Gog’s system, letting the wild beasts and vultures feed upon them as worthless carrion!—Ezek. 39:17, 18, AS.
17 With such a glorious feast of victory concluded, only the bones, bones from one end of the earth to the other, will be left for burial. What a task that will be for the survivors, to cleanse the earth of every remaining evidence of Gog’s forces! Even with the work well organized it will take seven months, Jehovah says, just to bury the bones. Scouting corps will be sent out on a full-time basis to search the land thoroughly and, when bones are found, markers will be set up for those with the spades and shovels who follow. (Ezek. 39:14, 15) Those privileged to share in that cleanup work will not view it as a revolting and disgusting assignment but will rejoice to be alive when Gog’s long and oppressive rule has come to an end and when the wicked are no more. Survivors of Armageddon will be happy and will greatly rejoice to have a share in preparing the earth for a global paradise of beauty and perfection under the reign of the King Christ Jesus. But first, before that happy day, this message against Gog must be delivered in its completeness.

---------------
In 1965, or so, several congregations used to put on skits for the Circuit Overseer's visit. ("Circuit Servant" in those days.) We did one where we re-enacted this scene from Ezekiel. To prepare, we literally gathered some sun-bleached skulls and bones from long-demised cattle, always plentiful on the acres of land and farms in Missouri. Then we set up some sand-piles on the platform of the Kingdom Hall behind the back curtain, with the bones already placed there. Then, when time for the "drama" came around during the meeting, we opened the curtain, had some little kids play the scouts who put markers by the bones, and then had some more mature brothers put the bones in their large burlap sacks. In rehearsal, one brother picked up a skull and would say things like, "looks like this one died because he was too bull-headed," etc. But the conclusion of the actual drama went like this. One sack-toting brother asks the others, "Hey. Has anyone seen Brother One-hour?" After learning that no one has seen him, he then says: "You don't suppose!?!?!?!?!  . . . . . and then, of course, he gets all dramatically wide-eyed, and throws the whole sack across the stage. Lights go to dark. Applause!!

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Thanks for all the input, and of course, if you decide to participate again, I'm sure you will be welcomed. Whether or not I am still here will be based on several factors. It's nice to find a place where one can show complete loyalty to the truth and still not hold back in sharing all aspects of the good news that we have found spiritually profitable. While no one can compare themselves to the Apostle Paul, we should still strive to be imitators of him. 
(Acts 20:20) 20 while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But as some have pointed out, this place, although a useful public forum for ideas to be shared, often becomes a place where opposers of scripture, and opposers of truth and evidence can become ridiculously juvenile and ill-behaved. And while joking and enjoying a laugh, and light-hearted association can be just fine, the propensity for unloving insults, sniping, and sarcasm can easily rub off on any of us. I have recently felt embarrassed at the way in which fellow brothers have claimed to proudly make a conscious decision to disregard Bible truth as long as they are generally confident that the men they choose to follow are backed by Jesus and Jehovah. This is so much like the high-control thinking that certain men have been able to achieve in several of the religious associations of Christendom, and I fear the trend of attracting more and more persons who are happy and proud not to think about scripture and evidence and truth.

Hmmm kinda reminds you of all the JW elders and their secret sins.  I love how witnesses always ask for the indiscretions of their members and leaders to be overlooked but continually harp on or about any issue with Ex members.  The hypocrisy is palpable.

The source did NOT make those things any LESS true.
If your allegiance is to the TRUTH ... it is never mis-spent.

I try not to be condescending. I don't think I am. 
Everything is subjective, though. Apparently, you think it.

I may have expressed something inelegantly but, in general, if it goes back from before I was born, I lose interest. If it also it requires eyestrain  - I am not an eagle-eyed kid anymore - it disappears almost entirely.
You have to be an historian for something that long ago, and that's not my thing - not for the sake of some piddly item that may have been no more than a bad hair day. If the man says he can't translate, what do I care? The fact is, it is translated by someone, they all remain anonymous there, who knows what was farmed out and to who? Of maybe God wrote it himself. (sigh...I'm being facetious here) The fact is, the translation exists and it get high marks. Not by Trinitarians, for it messes with some verses that cannot be rendered literally because it louses up their teaching. And there are some academics who look askance at the Name in the New Testament - inclusion of which is explained in an appendix. But other than that, it's well thought of.
If you have to go back 70 years to dig up dirt, there can't be much dirt to dig up. Statements play differently at different time periods - just watch a movie from that time, or reflect that John differs so much from the other three gospels because times had changed and the foremost needs of the congregation had changed with them. So I don't necessarily want to unravel mindsets back then that accommodated statements that today's mindsets do not, especially if I think an opponent simply wants, and cannot get his head around anything but, a sound byte.
Anyone can go back and have at it debating events back and forth and I'm not suggesting they can't or that it is a waste of time if they do. I'm just saying it it should hardly be considered mandatory after many decades, and a perfectly valid possible response is: 'who cares?' Even were a report from that long ago completely true, in our times complete scoundrels overhaul their image in far fewer years. So it doesn't interest me much to go there. Others will differ. More power to them if they do. But it's not mandatory.
Similarly, I have little taste for things having to do with chronology, because even if opponents were to be absolutely correct, it amounts to little more than misreading a bus schedule. In athletics, runners jump the gun all the time, and they simply restart the race; nobody makes a big deal over it. It's the runner sitting on his rear end at the starting blocks that you wonder about. Grumblers here ought to specify whether they still even believe we are in the last days. Some do. But some have gone atheist, and dismiss ISIS as just one of those things - why, there have always been bad people.
i like the truth also because it makes you nicer over time, when applied. I follow many sources on Twitter, which is the best way to get news, because you can choose your feeds. I choose all kinds of villains, along with the agreeable, so as to keep tabs on them. Few persons are as openly condescending and contemptuous than certain prominent atheists. Sometimes I worry that their cherished evolution is true and that they are the end result. If so, it's good-bye to the human race, for they do not suffer fools gladly. And a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.

I think everyone knew that this was one of his favorite subjects along with his favorite numerology topics. I'm sure he was the one who wrote the article in 1956. I have been assured that he was the one who often repeated the idea that 999 people out of every thousand would die at Armageddon. This was even included in assembly speeches open to the public. The 99.9% figure was also included in the Watch Tower publications a few times.
*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***
Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. . . . On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” He was also the one who said that due to the current laws of the land, we aren't allowed to kill our apostate children even though they are our own children.
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. That's a very useful reminder not to kill our children, based on a question probably sent in by Percy Chapman, the Branch Servant in Ontario at the time.
And of course, Fred Franz was the one who assured me that the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who were willing to die for their faith in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were mostly all in Gehenna now, with no hope of a resurrection.
Yes, he had a dark side. But at least he could snicker and joke while saying such serious things. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, though.