JW Insider

Thanks for the response. I tagged your name there in case I had it wrong. You might have been enlightened through a yoga epiphany or something you read, after all.
Yes, it was "merely" the end of 6,000 years but with an important catch that every circuit overseer repeated at each visit for a while there. Whenever Eve was created, that's when the 6th day ended. The great tribulation would start exactly 6,000 years from Eve's creation. So we'd get talks about how Adam had ONLY ONE JOB! To name the animals. And he didn't have to go to them, they came to him. After seeing all the animals he recognized he needed a mate, too. It could have been a matter of months, or even weeks, NOT YEARS!
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If it was not years then, in standard English, it could be one year, possibly 1.1 to 1.9 years, but must be less than two years. This was why the Awake! article indirectly mentioned 1977 as a time when this system would be well on its way out, if not actually gone. This is saying that it probably must happen before October 1977. Whether you put the emphasis on the "probably" or the "must" was a kind of a test of how mature you were, or how much you trusted the Governing Body. (In those days the Governing Body was still just another name for the  "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."
So everything fit so well, because the generation of 1914 should have been at least 10 to 15 years old by 1914 to "discern" the significance of the sign. That meant they were born around 1900. That meant they were going to be about 75 years old by 1975. A Biblical lifespan is 70 or 80; so that's also about 75. So, not just the end of the 6,000 years, but the year 1975 itself, became the "appropriate time for God to act." At the very worst, in the mind of Fred Franz and those willing to echo him, it meant no more than 5 years past 1975. This is why we got articles that said "What will the 1970's bring?" And that article talking about it being a matter of a few "months" at the most "not years" after 1975. Even with a few "age" adjustments for the 1914 generation, several of the publications and assembly talks continued to mention that this system of things could not go on past the end of the twentieth century. That type of talk lasted until 1989.
For all I know, I did much better than I might have otherwise. At any rate, I have enjoyed all aspects of service, an my only complaint in life right now is stiff knees, and I never get enough sleep. But I still feel badly for those who made decisions without proper guidance, context, support, and who were left without a back-up plan. We have to at least participate in the responsibility of our decisions anyway.
*** w14 4/15 pp. 25-26 par. 17 Be of Good Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper! ***
17 Seek Jehovah’s direction before you make decisions and commitments, not after making them. Pray for his holy spirit, wisdom, and guidance. (2 Tim. 1:7) Ask yourself: ‘Under what circumstances am I willing to obey Jehovah? Even under persecution?’ If so, are you willing to obey him when it may mean having to lower your standard of living? (Luke 14:33) Ask the elders for Scriptural advice, and show your faith and trust in Jehovah’s promise to help you by following his counsel. The elders cannot make decisions for you, but they can help you make choices that will lead to happiness in the long run.—2 Cor. 1:24.
 

Thanks for the response. I tagged your name there in case I had it wrong. You might have been enlightened through a yoga epiphany or something you read, after all.
Yes, it was "merely" the end of 6,000 years but with an important catch that every circuit overseer repeated at each visit for a while there. Whenever Eve was created, that's when the 6th day ended. The great tribulation would start exactly 6,000 years from Eve's creation. So we'd get talks about how Adam had ONLY ONE JOB! To name the animals. And he didn't have to go to them, they came to him. After seeing all the animals he recognized he needed a mate, too. It could have been a matter of months, or even weeks, NOT YEARS!
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If it was not years then, in standard English, it could be one year, possibly 1.1 to 1.9 years, but must be less than two years. This was why the Awake! article indirectly mentioned 1977 as a time when this system would be well on its way out, if not actually gone. This is saying that it probably must happen before October 1977. Whether you put the emphasis on the "probably" or the "must" was a kind of a test of how mature you were, or how much you trusted the Governing Body. (In those days the Governing Body was still just another name for the  "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."
So everything fit so well, because the generation of 1914 should have been at least 10 to 15 years old by 1914 to "discern" the significance of the sign. That meant they were born around 1900. That meant they were going to be about 75 years old by 1975. A Biblical lifespan is 70 or 80; so that's also about 75. So, not just the end of the 6,000 years, but the year 1975 itself, became the "appropriate time for God to act." At the very worst, in the mind of Fred Franz and those willing to echo him, it meant no more than 5 years past 1975. This is why we got articles that said "What will the 1970's bring?" And that article talking about it being a matter of a few "months" at the most "not years" after 1975. Even with a few "age" adjustments for the 1914 generation, several of the publications and assembly talks continued to mention that this system of things could not go on past the end of the twentieth century. That type of talk lasted until 1989.
For all I know, I did much better than I might have otherwise. At any rate, I have enjoyed all aspects of service, an my only complaint in life right now is stiff knees, and I never get enough sleep. But I still feel badly for those who made decisions without proper guidance, context, support, and who were left without a back-up plan. We have to at least participate in the responsibility of our decisions anyway.
*** w14 4/15 pp. 25-26 par. 17 Be of Good Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper! ***
17 Seek Jehovah’s direction before you make decisions and commitments, not after making them. Pray for his holy spirit, wisdom, and guidance. (2 Tim. 1:7) Ask yourself: ‘Under what circumstances am I willing to obey Jehovah? Even under persecution?’ If so, are you willing to obey him when it may mean having to lower your standard of living? (Luke 14:33) Ask the elders for Scriptural advice, and show your faith and trust in Jehovah’s promise to help you by following his counsel. The elders cannot make decisions for you, but they can help you make choices that will lead to happiness in the long run.—2 Cor. 1:24.
 

That's true in our congregation, too. There are 9 pioneers in our congregation, and we were fortunate to keep 3 for most of the years that I was pioneering.
I thought it was good to get the whole context. There are similarities to now, but there is much less "guilting" into increased activity, and it's positive aspects are emphasized more these days. Pioneering is also much easier now than it was, with more leniency on making your hours, and easier ways to count your hours. These days, I could pioneer with both hands tied behind my back. [pulling a cart!]
The talks on pioneering back then were laced with some of the "guilting" you see in this KM, like: You have health problems? Family responsibilities? No excuse! Let's listen to this experience from [someplace] where a hearing and sight-impaired mother of 10 with no arms and legs got her kids ready for school every day and then put in 8 hours of service. [I'm probably conflating 4 or 5 experiences from that time period, but you probably remember the basic idea.]
Also, the specific counsel on higher education has become MORE practical as time has gone on. For almost 4 decades after this anti-career talk started, it was still quite possible to generally get a good return-on-investment from higher education (at least in the USA). In the last decade, it has become almost impossible. Of course, that's a bit like the 'stopped clock being right twice a day' analogy. If the real reason for the counsel is to keep an institution from attacking your superior morals, that's a very good reason, and it should be highlighted to the extent that it is considered important. Other reasons should also be highlighted to the extent they are considered important.
 
 

That's true in our congregation, too. There are 9 pioneers in our congregation, and we were fortunate to keep 3 for most of the years that I was pioneering.
I thought it was good to get the whole context. There are similarities to now, but there is much less "guilting" into increased activity, and it's positive aspects are emphasized more these days. Pioneering is also much easier now than it was, with more leniency on making your hours, and easier ways to count your hours. These days, I could pioneer with both hands tied behind my back. [pulling a cart!]
The talks on pioneering back then were laced with some of the "guilting" you see in this KM, like: You have health problems? Family responsibilities? No excuse! Let's listen to this experience from [someplace] where a hearing and sight-impaired mother of 10 with no arms and legs got her kids ready for school every day and then put in 8 hours of service. [I'm probably conflating 4 or 5 experiences from that time period, but you probably remember the basic idea.]
Also, the specific counsel on higher education has become MORE practical as time has gone on. For almost 4 decades after this anti-career talk started, it was still quite possible to generally get a good return-on-investment from higher education (at least in the USA). In the last decade, it has become almost impossible. Of course, that's a bit like the 'stopped clock being right twice a day' analogy. If the real reason for the counsel is to keep an institution from attacking your superior morals, that's a very good reason, and it should be highlighted to the extent that it is considered important. Other reasons should also be highlighted to the extent they are considered important.
 
 

Yes. it was easy to get the frustrated feeling back then that whatever you were doing, it was not enough. And there was always some individual loose cannon somewhere to push that meme even harder. Such motivation has faded, and pioneering increasingly is presented for a more noble reason.
Pioneering is also being redefined, IMO, as a means of keeping ones occupied in kingdom activities of various types, giving ones more avenues to bring their gift to the altar.
As to the hour requirement, it is a concession to the times - an acknowledgment that life is simply so much more aggravating on all counts, and not just that of making a living. An insurance matter, for example, can take hours, even days to unravel, whereas at one time, you simply reached into your pocket and paid it. One now needs help to 'negotiate the health care system,' an indication plain as day that it is no good.
Sometimes in jest, with the new permutations of auxiliary pioneering at special times, I play hardball with the brothers. 'I'll do it,' I tell them, 'when the requirement drops to 15.' If one counts 'online witnessing,' I have special pioneered for many years. But I don't count it.
Having said that, a brother once expressed his annoyance at those who harp that Jehovah's Witnesses stress hours over people. 'The hours are people,'  he said.

You could say it, but why? What's the reason we don't want to say Jesus was ruling as king in 33? We don't think he was occupying the royal office? Then why does Paul call him "King of Kings"? A crown is just another way of describing that he is king. One can also say he is ruling at God's right hand. There may be no such thing as a physical crown in heaven, or probably even our human concepts of "left" and "right." The Bible doesn't make a distinction about a crowned and an uncrowned king, so why should we?
Also, when the Watch Tower publications first spoke about Jesus not having the royal office until 1878 (which later become 1914) it was because he had not shown his power in any physical way yet. But now, since he had been physically present since 1874 he was going to make a physical mark on the world by removing humans in 1878 and taking them to heaven, a "harvest" if you will. Russell was sure enough of this to sell his belongings so as to distribute as many of Barbour's pamphlets as possible in time for the 1878 "rapture." ("Three Worlds, Harvest of This World"). The same idea became true of 1881, then 1910, then 1914, then 1918, then 1920, then 1925. Jesus was about to prove that he was MORE than just a king of his congregation.
Now, of course, nothing happened with any of these expectations except disappointment. The Watchtower's later claim in 1914 that the "world had ended" (but only those with spiritual discernment could see it) was based on all those prior expectations that nearly all earthly institutions would physically collapse within months of 1914. But the nations were not smashed with an iron rod. No major institutions collapsed. If anything many of them became more powerful than they were prior to 1914. It's as if all the talk about an invisible kingship became the new replacement for the expectations of a visible parousia in 1874 that Barbour had spoken about. It was only after the failure that Barbour and some of his contributors scrambled to make it an invisible parousia. Similarly, it was only after the failure of all the expectations of 1914 that Russell and some of his contributors made it an invisible end of the nations. Prior to that it was a physical end of the nations. (End of the times of the Gentile nations.)
To me, it's a little bit like we are participating in a cover-up.

They were both anointed so I had them overlap. Using a 24-hour clock ("military time") Jim started at 19:14pm and then Fred ended around 20:34pm. I don't see why that is significant in any way though. Why do you ask?

I appreciate your position on these chronology issues. I held on to some of them just as strongly as you from the time I was four until I was nearly twenty-four. I might have still been hanging on to them, even now, if it weren't for the fact that my assignment at Bethel put me right next to a member of the Governing Body (B.Schroeder) who had his own questions, and who also lashed out at others who had questions about them. While looking for solutions to some of these same questions, I became friends with other researchers, especially three non-GB brothers who had been the Writing Department's team researching articles for the "Aid Book" (now "Insight"). Some of them had been asked to look over the initial manuscript from an elder in Sweden, who had done a lot of research himself. The brother who assigned my research projects only showed me portions of it, and I didn't see the whole thing until another Brother, (F.Rusk) let me see it as he was working on it. This brother (Rusk) also gave the main part of my wedding talk (with the vows), and one of the brothers from the Aid Book research team also gave 30 minutes of my wedding talk.
But this manuscript, now a book, was of very little interest to me, because it was mostly about archaeological reasons not to try to "anchor" anything on 607. I was only interested in Bible topics, and didn't really think that counted. I don't think I would have necessarily discovered any of this on my own, and therefore I probably wouldn't even be here if it were not for discovering that several members of the Governing Body, and several members of the Writing Department also had doubts and questions about 1914 and related chronology issues, from a Biblical perspective.
So, now that you have impugned and imputed motives for me, I will let what you know what my real primary motives are:
Love of the Truth, Love for the whole association of brothers, A clean conscience, Of course, I realize you probably don't believe this, and further, you probably could not admit that you believed it if even you knew it was true. I'd prefer to assume that you are like me, when I was in your shoes, and preferred not to think about such questions, and assumed that anyone who asked me to think too strongly about such questions was some kind of apostate.
But, I can also explain why I have presented what I have on this particular forum. A conversation or presentation of information about the topic, still cannot happen in a normal congregation setting. This doesn't mean that it is not important to question. It is your Christian duty to question every claim, at least if you wish to be noble-minded.
I think that most of us who are willing to open up about these questions online all realize that we can't do this in our congregations, and yet we also realize that it is important to question. In a forum like this, where ideas can be exchanged, and challenged, we are also able to question without the same kind of effect that it would have inside the congregation. That's because no one needs to believe that we are sincere, if they don't want to. It's easy to dismiss any challenge by just saying things like: "I don't believe it;" "I don't want to look at the evidence;" "I think anyone who questions such things is probably an apostate." No one need be stumbled, because such information and questions are already all over the internet. 
Yet from the perspective of a Witness who has such a question, on a forum, they can ask any question and it is technically no different from any other person on the street asking such a question. Someone can say Trinity is taught in the Bible, and we can either defend our belief, ignore it, assume the person is sincere, assume the person is insincere, assume they are an ex-JW who has gone back like a dog to his vomit, assume they are just like a neighbor we met in service last week, assume they are dishonest, assume they are honest --- the point is that it doesn't matter. They are online, and we are online too. Therefore we are all subject to the rough and tumble world of online discussion -- a forum for ideas.
We can't claim we are stumbled by a non-Witness we meet at the door who could ask the very same question. Yet, they might have read about our belief in an apostate book or from an apostate site. In fact, a sincere non-JW we meet at the door, may be sincerely curious about whether or not something he or she read or heard is true or not. We could always just say: "Oh, we don't answer that particular question because it was once asked by an apostate." We don't think of doing that for questions about hell-fire or Trinity, or neutrality yet many of us are instantly inclined to respond like that if the question is about 1874, 1925, 1975, pyramids, miracle wheat, Hitler.
In fact, I've noticed that we are usually quite willing to discuss 1914 and its repercussions on other doctrines until WE start realizing that the questions are difficult. At that point, we tend to assume the question is no longer sincere, but is some kind of attack. And that's only based on the level of difficulty. We don't generally start lashing out and making accusations when we feel that our foundation is more solid, as it is on Trinity, hell-fire, neutrality, war, etc.
Now I admit that I made it easy for anyone who is uncomfortable to back away from the conversation when I mentioned the "deception" that invariably accompanies chronology doctrines, especially as time goes on, and no one wants to display their dirty laundry. This is a surprising point to a lot of people but it's easy to find the evidence. How many times have you heard or read something in the Watch Tower publications that sounded like this:  "Decades in advance, the Bible Students as Jehovah's Witnesses were known at the time, announced that 1914 would see the start of a great time of trouble." This has never been true. Decades in advance, 1914 was seen as the END of a great time of trouble not the beginning.
The July 15, 1894, Watch Tower said:
"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
Granted, an adjustment to the doctrine occurred one decade prior to 1914, but not "decades" and it was not consistently held to for that entire decade in any case. This could be an honest mistake, even though it has been made at least a dozen times, but it still deceives people into thinking that it's a true statement. However, if we KNOW this, then we should renounce any association with such a claim for the sake of our conscience:
(2 Corinthians 4:2) But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God.
However, my main goal here is not to highlight the "deceptions." These occur almost naturally and should be expected. My goal is to open up the discussion so that if it is wrong, or I am going down the wrong track, I can be corrected. If there is more to learn on the subject (and for me there is more to learn on any subject) the ideas are out there for anyone who is concerned to add to the discussion, and point out what's wrong. If we have questions on such a serious subject we should not keep them to ourselves, and we should not hold back from asking. We should test every expression, even if we feel it is as good as inspired. (1 Jn 4:1; 2 Th 2:2) It would be underhanded for us to keep such things hidden.
(Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.
I was also hoping to find others who might be willing to discuss some of these issues out in the open, and this has already occurred. There are several people who appear willing to discuss it further and I am very interested learning from their views. (Especially on Revelation 11 and 12 with @ComfortMyPeople since I think he has given this more thought than I have.) If you are not interested any further on this type of discussion, and that's your choice, of course.  But I'm sure you'd have something worth considering if you did participate.

They were both anointed so I had them overlap. Using a 24-hour clock ("military time") Jim started at 19:14pm and then Fred ended around 20:34pm. I don't see why that is significant in any way though. Why do you ask?

Where they disrespectful?
Ex 18:17: Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good.” A non-Israelite making amends to the greatest prophet!
2Sam 12:7: Then Nathan said to David: “You are the man! (Murderer and adulterer!)
1Chro 21:3 “But Joab said: “May Jehovah multiply his people 100 times! My lord the king, are not all of them already servants of my lord? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he become a cause of guilt to Israel?” The anointed interpellated as causing trouble to the nation!
Gal 2:14 “But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news I said to Cephas before them all…” Even the behavior was anything but exemplary.
Likewise, JWInsider, me and other have scriptural evidence that disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We’re not saying the GB are persons that deceitfully want to exploit us. On the contrary, many of us think these brothers are, basically faithful and prudents. We would not want to be marked with these strong words: (Jud 8) “…despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones…”
But we think the brothers in the GB are LIKE US… mere mortals, mere humans, imperfects. With their phobias and philias. They, like me, are afraid of losing authority or credibility when recognizing mistakes. They, like me, are afraid the humbles ones perhaps start thinking this is not the correct religion when seeing mistakes…
Do these commentaries make others to stumble?
Do vaccines hurt? Absolutely. The necessary hurt to get immunity. You probably are aware Native Americans almost disappeared because their bodies lacked defenses. And this is our intention (JWInsider and me). To inoculate defenses against doubts asking the similar questions these other brothers would find, sooner or later.
And don’t obviate the obvious! We’re are active JW. We’re giving support to this people. We’re following the direction of the brothers on authority… year after year, for decades.

I appreciate your position on these chronology issues. I held on to some of them just as strongly as you from the time I was four until I was nearly twenty-four. I might have still been hanging on to them, even now, if it weren't for the fact that my assignment at Bethel put me right next to a member of the Governing Body (B.Schroeder) who had his own questions, and who also lashed out at others who had questions about them. While looking for solutions to some of these same questions, I became friends with other researchers, especially three non-GB brothers who had been the Writing Department's team researching articles for the "Aid Book" (now "Insight"). Some of them had been asked to look over the initial manuscript from an elder in Sweden, who had done a lot of research himself. The brother who assigned my research projects only showed me portions of it, and I didn't see the whole thing until another Brother, (F.Rusk) let me see it as he was working on it. This brother (Rusk) also gave the main part of my wedding talk (with the vows), and one of the brothers from the Aid Book research team also gave 30 minutes of my wedding talk.
But this manuscript, now a book, was of very little interest to me, because it was mostly about archaeological reasons not to try to "anchor" anything on 607. I was only interested in Bible topics, and didn't really think that counted. I don't think I would have necessarily discovered any of this on my own, and therefore I probably wouldn't even be here if it were not for discovering that several members of the Governing Body, and several members of the Writing Department also had doubts and questions about 1914 and related chronology issues, from a Biblical perspective.
So, now that you have impugned and imputed motives for me, I will let what you know what my real primary motives are:
Love of the Truth, Love for the whole association of brothers, A clean conscience, Of course, I realize you probably don't believe this, and further, you probably could not admit that you believed it if even you knew it was true. I'd prefer to assume that you are like me, when I was in your shoes, and preferred not to think about such questions, and assumed that anyone who asked me to think too strongly about such questions was some kind of apostate.
But, I can also explain why I have presented what I have on this particular forum. A conversation or presentation of information about the topic, still cannot happen in a normal congregation setting. This doesn't mean that it is not important to question. It is your Christian duty to question every claim, at least if you wish to be noble-minded.
I think that most of us who are willing to open up about these questions online all realize that we can't do this in our congregations, and yet we also realize that it is important to question. In a forum like this, where ideas can be exchanged, and challenged, we are also able to question without the same kind of effect that it would have inside the congregation. That's because no one needs to believe that we are sincere, if they don't want to. It's easy to dismiss any challenge by just saying things like: "I don't believe it;" "I don't want to look at the evidence;" "I think anyone who questions such things is probably an apostate." No one need be stumbled, because such information and questions are already all over the internet. 
Yet from the perspective of a Witness who has such a question, on a forum, they can ask any question and it is technically no different from any other person on the street asking such a question. Someone can say Trinity is taught in the Bible, and we can either defend our belief, ignore it, assume the person is sincere, assume the person is insincere, assume they are an ex-JW who has gone back like a dog to his vomit, assume they are just like a neighbor we met in service last week, assume they are dishonest, assume they are honest --- the point is that it doesn't matter. They are online, and we are online too. Therefore we are all subject to the rough and tumble world of online discussion -- a forum for ideas.
We can't claim we are stumbled by a non-Witness we meet at the door who could ask the very same question. Yet, they might have read about our belief in an apostate book or from an apostate site. In fact, a sincere non-JW we meet at the door, may be sincerely curious about whether or not something he or she read or heard is true or not. We could always just say: "Oh, we don't answer that particular question because it was once asked by an apostate." We don't think of doing that for questions about hell-fire or Trinity, or neutrality yet many of us are instantly inclined to respond like that if the question is about 1874, 1925, 1975, pyramids, miracle wheat, Hitler.
In fact, I've noticed that we are usually quite willing to discuss 1914 and its repercussions on other doctrines until WE start realizing that the questions are difficult. At that point, we tend to assume the question is no longer sincere, but is some kind of attack. And that's only based on the level of difficulty. We don't generally start lashing out and making accusations when we feel that our foundation is more solid, as it is on Trinity, hell-fire, neutrality, war, etc.
Now I admit that I made it easy for anyone who is uncomfortable to back away from the conversation when I mentioned the "deception" that invariably accompanies chronology doctrines, especially as time goes on, and no one wants to display their dirty laundry. This is a surprising point to a lot of people but it's easy to find the evidence. How many times have you heard or read something in the Watch Tower publications that sounded like this:  "Decades in advance, the Bible Students as Jehovah's Witnesses were known at the time, announced that 1914 would see the start of a great time of trouble." This has never been true. Decades in advance, 1914 was seen as the END of a great time of trouble not the beginning.
The July 15, 1894, Watch Tower said:
"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
Granted, an adjustment to the doctrine occurred one decade prior to 1914, but not "decades" and it was not consistently held to for that entire decade in any case. This could be an honest mistake, even though it has been made at least a dozen times, but it still deceives people into thinking that it's a true statement. However, if we KNOW this, then we should renounce any association with such a claim for the sake of our conscience:
(2 Corinthians 4:2) But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God.
However, my main goal here is not to highlight the "deceptions." These occur almost naturally and should be expected. My goal is to open up the discussion so that if it is wrong, or I am going down the wrong track, I can be corrected. If there is more to learn on the subject (and for me there is more to learn on any subject) the ideas are out there for anyone who is concerned to add to the discussion, and point out what's wrong. If we have questions on such a serious subject we should not keep them to ourselves, and we should not hold back from asking. We should test every expression, even if we feel it is as good as inspired. (1 Jn 4:1; 2 Th 2:2) It would be underhanded for us to keep such things hidden.
(Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.
I was also hoping to find others who might be willing to discuss some of these issues out in the open, and this has already occurred. There are several people who appear willing to discuss it further and I am very interested learning from their views. (Especially on Revelation 11 and 12 with @ComfortMyPeople since I think he has given this more thought than I have.) If you are not interested any further on this type of discussion, and that's your choice, of course.  But I'm sure you'd have something worth considering if you did participate.

This certainly offers a rather crass view of the priorities. It makes it seem like the primary focus is on money. But it should not be overlooked that the contributions to the worldwide work are also designed to be providing the initial funds to set up Kingdom Halls in places that can't afford to build their own. Then the contributions in those congregations with new Kingdom Halls will pay back the cost through their own contributions at the rate that they can afford it. If and when the confiscation of properties in Russia is considered legally irreversible, the funds to the worldwide work can be used to help them rebuild when and if their situation changes. In the meantime, their excess contributions can be redistributed to places where Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls are built legally.
In our current suburban congregations, we are considered to be in a wealthier area, so the push is to build in areas of prime real estate value. In just a few years, we have sold off two halls, as soon as they were paid for, and the new bigger hall was built in a fancier area, with more congregations paying for it through maximized contributions. Any other halls in this area that are already paid for become prime targets for selling off and being replaced with bigger and better ones. There are two problems with this. One is that the hall must be set for the size of the largest congregation (of four that meet here) with room for a bit of expansion, so this means that the other three congregations meeting here fill up only 30 to 50% of the seats. The other problem is that we have created an environment where more people think that the idea is to keep all of us maximizing our contributions to pay for a hall that is much bigger and fancier than anyone would have thought reasonable. (This also makes it look as though the primary goal is to keep "feeding" the contribution boxes even though the profit on the last two "flipped" Kingdom Halls was enough to pay for most of the single, new hall where congregations from those last two halls now meet.)

... perhaps a short ANALOGY will bring clarity .....
 
 

I take this as a kind of rhetorical question. I think you have already pointed out why much of what happens on the human side of organizations is exactly what we would expect to happen. Similar issues came up in the first century congregations.
Each of us has a responsibility to question. But not everyone is in a position to take their own questions seriously, due to having already put that responsibility onto others. But that's also a natural consequence of our imperfection. So it's not ours to judge the level of understanding of anyone else. It's not ours to judge who was put in charge of much, or who thought they were put in charge of much. But in any case the principle is true. It shows up again when James says that "not all of you should become teachers." It shows up in Hebrews 13:17 "for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account." And Hebrews 5:12 shows that it's unavoidable that we will also have the need to rely on teachers. 
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
But none of these scriptures are specifically about the persons who publish and promote our doctrines. These scriptures are about all of us: all elders, and all others, too. All of us are expected to be stewards.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.
So the principle is surely for all of us. Faithfulness is expected of all of us. And the greater the responsibility, the more seriously we should take it. We may push off our responsibilities onto others, but ultimately:
(Galatians 6:4-6) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

Although not addressed to me, I have to take issue with this statement. For a start, this forum is not a source of "official" teachings but is merely the expression of the opinion of others and open to discussion. Saying someone is "trying to destroy the faith of others" is being rather presumptuous, implying a motive which may not be true at all. In any case, what is this faith IN that you are talking about that can be destroyed? You say it's more than just about 1914. Is it faith in the current chronology? Faith in the current interpretation of the generation? But are these things the core of our belief and and does our salvation hinge on believing them? Why get upset by someone questioning 1914 etc. Isn't this the criterion for getting saved: "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,.............Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace" (2.Peter 3:11,12, 14- in fact all of ch. 3 is good)
Isn't our preaching ministry and our life as Christians the important thing, rather than dates and chronology? As for a supposed "improper" attitude toward the interpretative authority of the GB, again, this forum is open to discussions about interpretation. Many thinking JW's do have their own opinion on certain things. Those who do not like this, really do not have to read it and/or take part in it. I feel you are concerned about the faith of others because of the valid arguments that have been put forward that undermine our "present" understanding of certain dates. But again, our faith surely does not hinge on dates and chronology does it? We know the GB has not always got everything right and will continue not to get everything right. (Those thinking JWs will not get everything right either). But this is no reason to get our knickers in a twist if we keep Peter's admonition above in mind.
Just a question for you, if in the future the GB scrapped 1914, would you lose faith? I hope the answer in NO.

The green-and-yellow was still being used up until the year before I got baptized. This meant that each hall still had a piano and a couple of sisters who could play the songs, because there was no record set for the green-and-yellow. Some of the old pre-1966 songs still stick in my head like:
Rejoice! The Kingdom Has Begun, Dedication, Hosannas for David's Son, Ministers for the Issue, Christ is Here!, Tell It Out!, etc. The older, more, complex version of "Forward! You Witnesses!" Also, there were completely different words for some of the songs we sang, like: "The Sword of Jehovah and of Gideon" (71) which was much more fun to sing in the old rhyme.
There's a call going out through the length of the land / To serve in the army of Gideon; For our captain has issued the final command / To vanquish the cohorts of Midian. In the pink songbook (Preach This Good News of the Kingdom!, 103), this changed to:
This good news of the Kingdom must now be proclaimed / In witness to each land and nation; And Jehovah's good name must become widely famed / Before his complete vindication. Also we were allowed to harmonize, like in a choir, on several songs: To the Work! 79 Send out Your Light! 65, Take Sides With Jehovah! 57 (also in pink, etc), 23, 53, etc.
The most forgettable song in the pre-1966 was "The Taunt-Song Against Satan." (75) What a title!
 

WOW! I think that's it. You must have gone to assemblies around St. Louis, and sometimes he conducted in Springfield (Illinois) at the racetrack? Some of the same orchestra also played at assemblies in Kansas City, where I played a couple times. I believe his congregation was fairly close to Brother Calvin Lanich, who played harmonica for a famous old group called the Harmonicats. (Several albums on Spotify.) One of the arrangements required a harmonica for a western theme, and Brother Lanich taught me how to play it because he didn't have time to travel with the orchestra.

That would have been quite a thing to hear. I remember once when the record player broke and brothers insisted that I play the piano, because I played guitar in the district convention orchestra (which was mostly violins and violas, btw). They had heard me "plink" on the piano a couple times. I insisted that I didn't play but they were sure. After an embarrassing false start, I ended up just playing the chords without the melody. (We didn't have chords printed in the songbook back then, but I had them scribbled into my copy.)

I played in one of the orchestras that played for U.S. Midwest assemblies in Illinois and Missouri. The brother who conducted was really good.  He produced some excellent arrangements in a lot of different styles. That's probably the main reason I remember many of the older songs that we haven't sung in half-a-century. Wow! It's really been that long!

I take this as a kind of rhetorical question. I think you have already pointed out why much of what happens on the human side of organizations is exactly what we would expect to happen. Similar issues came up in the first century congregations.
Each of us has a responsibility to question. But not everyone is in a position to take their own questions seriously, due to having already put that responsibility onto others. But that's also a natural consequence of our imperfection. So it's not ours to judge the level of understanding of anyone else. It's not ours to judge who was put in charge of much, or who thought they were put in charge of much. But in any case the principle is true. It shows up again when James says that "not all of you should become teachers." It shows up in Hebrews 13:17 "for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account." And Hebrews 5:12 shows that it's unavoidable that we will also have the need to rely on teachers. 
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
But none of these scriptures are specifically about the persons who publish and promote our doctrines. These scriptures are about all of us: all elders, and all others, too. All of us are expected to be stewards.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.
So the principle is surely for all of us. Faithfulness is expected of all of us. And the greater the responsibility, the more seriously we should take it. We may push off our responsibilities onto others, but ultimately:
(Galatians 6:4-6) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

It's a bit off-topic, and I don't mean to pile on here, but this experience was also true for me. I learned to really like some of the same brothers more than some of the stuffier ones. I knew that three of the members of the Governing Body had come out of a previous era were still quite prolific in Rutherford-style swearing. One brother accidentally let slip the S*** word during morning worship. (I'd say for sure it was Jackson, but this might be considered too serious if I got it wrong.) Brother Swingle rarely seemed to hold back, and even thought it was OK to use the N***** word to address brothers of a certain persuasion (never during morning worship). But he was also one of the most down to earth and honest brothers I have ever known. Fred Franz would also use off-color language for effect, to grab your attention, but none of his words were ever vulgar. Franz wore a T-shirt to present the morning worship for three days in a row that had the word "hell" on it. It said "Where in the hell is . . . ?" [with the name of some little "podunk" town, somewhere.] But he wore it only because Brother Sydlik had just announced the previous week that all Bethelites needed to start wearing suit clothes to morning worship and treat it more like a congregation meeting. Franz was clearly sending a message.
I was there during the personal Bible study policing, but I was also there in the Art department during the same time periods that some of the supposed "subliminal art" stuff was supposedly slipped through. I can say for sure that during those years this was all complete "hogwash." There was no such thing. And I knew the brothers in the Art department for the next 10 years, and all the rest of the claims were equally garbage. It's part of the mindset where people see what they want to see. Of course, stupid things happen. Perhaps a brother in one of the filmed dramas thought it would be funny to turn his necklace cross upside-down? Who knows? (More likely it was an accident.)
I haven't pioneered for several years now, but this is the key for me, too. I know that some people have wondered what kind of cognitive dissonance would allow someone who knows about certain items of "deceit" to also go in service with our publications and even study with persons until they reach a decision about baptism. But our goal should be to focus on the more important work of applying Bible principles, and the changes that Jehovah's spirit can accomplish. It outweighs everything else.
I'm glad you are taking some time, and am sorry recent events shut down your local assembly venues. However, if I get time, I will still try to address some of the points you have made that I never responded to yet. So, don't feel that I'm fishing for a response from you, or trying to bait you into coming back. I'll wait patiently with bated breath. Enjoy the fishing.

An interesting theory. But it would mean that every Witness who thinks that our Bible chronology is not ambiguous is a Witness for the wrong reasons. Therefore, according to your theory, it is vitally important that all Witnesses and potential Witnesses be made aware that the chronology is ambiguous.
So, I guess I can't tell if you are thanking me or criticizing me for doing something you believe is so important.

[Referring especially to the half-dozen or so doctrinal changes related to the term "generation" through the years, along with numerous other doctrinal changes with respect to Matthew 24 & 25:]
That supposed anchor, as you called it, is just a "pretend" anchor anyway, allowing the doctrinal boat to drift along and shift and change, and get tossed about, and even require "tacking" which is a way that a boat can try to fight against the wind, and literally end up in a place that was exactly the opposite of where the "wind" was leading. (Note: Hebrew ruahh, spirit, wind)
(Ephesians 4:14) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.
*** w81 12/1 p. 27 par. 2 The Path of the Righteous Does Keep Getting Brighter ***
2 However, it may have seemed to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as “tacking.” By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination in spite of contrary winds. . . . .19 Of course, such development of understanding, involving “tacking” as it were, has often served as a test of loyalty for those associated with the “faithful and discreet slave.”
The seriousness of the problem is that any reliance on chronology almost always involves deception. [even if that deception was not intentional] That's the point made in Ephesians 4:14. [In previous discussions evidence for all of the following points have been made and no one had any counter-evidence:]
There have already been at least a dozen times that the Watchtower has made claims about dates, including 1914, that were plainly not true. There have been claims about what was supposedly predicted decades prior to 1914 that you yourself have seen were not true. A video from the convention implies that the reason for the problem about 1975 started in the local congregations. This same implication has been made many times before. It has almost always been implied that most of what was expected for certain dates, even dates back into the 1800's were mostly correct, even though they were totally false. There has sometimes been a claim that minimizes the error, saying things like: they were expecting the right thing but at the wrong time; or That a particular false teaching was actually better than the true Biblical teaching, because it produced a necessary test of God's people, or That the wrong understanding helped bolster them for a time when they needed to stand up more strongly against enemies. The Watchtower has even gone so far as to print completely unsubstantiated, and flatly wrong, "scholarship" which has obviously deceived people into thinking there was some truth behind it. [Furuli's books, Appendix to the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, etc.] This has been done by selective quoting, or by using the work of scholars who have been deceitful with evidence. The publications have produced statements about what we can know and what we cannot know about chronology through archaeology and history that have also proved to be deceptive.
I'm not claiming that the motive was dishonesty. People can easily be blinded by what they want to see. But the end result on the readers and audiences is still "deception."
A good example is the way in which C.T.Russell used measurements of the Great Pyramid. (It's an old enough example that it won't invoke biases for or against the current Governing Body, who are doing the exact same type of thing today.) His famous books, "Millennial Dawn" (Studies in the Scriptures) sold by the millions of copies worldwide. His most infamous doctrine was the proof that the Great Pyramid was "Jehovah's witness" in stone. It foretold the dates predicted in the Bible. Here is what he started saying in 1890, in Volume 3, along with an approving letter from an Egyptologist, and other information showing how some of the measurements in the Pyramid were accurate to within a fraction of an inch. (Where each "inch" represented a year, of course.)
"So, then, if we measure backward down the "First Ascending Passage" to its junction with the "Entrance Passage," we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year BC 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, BC 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years BC plus 1874 years AD. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation -- no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject...   [all editions of Volume 3, prior to 1910]
Then he made a correction in 1910 when other Bible Students were getting very much involved in corroborating these numbers:
"So, then, if we measure backward down the "First Ascending Passage" to its junction with the "Entrance Passage," we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year BC 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, BC 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years BC plus 1915 years AD. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation -- no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the' Bible testimony on this subject..."
It doesn't matter if Russell was personally trying to be deceitful. He made this change without an explanation and the exact same data that once pointed to 1874 now pointed to 1915. (For a time 1915 was considered the Jewish "year" beginning in October 1914 through September 1915. But this was not consistent. As they got closer to the 1914 date, and stopped believing that all they had predicted was possible, there were statements that effectively would have meant that 1915 could even start in October 1915 and therefore run into 1916. It was the Great European War starting in mid-1914, that brought most of this diffusion back into a focus on 1914. Since then, the false claims made about Russell's predictions in a newspaper called "The World" have been quoted in Watch Tower publications about as often as any specific predictions made in our own publications.)
Russell used pseudo-archaeology to bolster his belief in the period from 1874 to 1914. The Watchtower has since used pseudo-archaeology to bolster the belief in the period from 1914 to the Great Tribulation.

(Luke 12:47, 48) ". . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him."
Will these words be fulfilled? Were they a symbolic warning? 

I take this as a kind of rhetorical question. I think you have already pointed out why much of what happens on the human side of organizations is exactly what we would expect to happen. Similar issues came up in the first century congregations.
Each of us has a responsibility to question. But not everyone is in a position to take their own questions seriously, due to having already put that responsibility onto others. But that's also a natural consequence of our imperfection. So it's not ours to judge the level of understanding of anyone else. It's not ours to judge who was put in charge of much, or who thought they were put in charge of much. But in any case the principle is true. It shows up again when James says that "not all of you should become teachers." It shows up in Hebrews 13:17 "for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account." And Hebrews 5:12 shows that it's unavoidable that we will also have the need to rely on teachers. 
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
But none of these scriptures are specifically about the persons who publish and promote our doctrines. These scriptures are about all of us: all elders, and all others, too. All of us are expected to be stewards.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.
So the principle is surely for all of us. Faithfulness is expected of all of us. And the greater the responsibility, the more seriously we should take it. We may push off our responsibilities onto others, but ultimately:
(Galatians 6:4-6) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.