JW Insider

Yes, of course. The reason was not hidden at all. And while it is controversial, I said it only seems to be foolish, at first. Did you notice how you claimed I said I said it was foolish, when I said "this one might appear silly at first"? Do you see how that is dishonest? Do you see how you would have pointed out the same dishonesty if someone tried that kind of wordplay on you?
I believe it is very serious because it speaks to how well we appreciate truth. I brought those same concerns over from the "Millennium" topic to this topic for the same reason. I'll explain:
It is easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ's invisible presence would start in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ would begin his reign as King in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly claimed that "they" predicted, decades in advance, that the time of trouble seen in 1914 was evidence that what they had predicted (at least since 1904) was correct.
Yet all of those claims are false. "They" didn't predict decades in advance that Jesus would begin his presence, his kingship, or the type of trouble that was seen in WWI. ("They" predicted a vastly different kind of trouble, with a completely different outcome). 
I have put the quote marks around the word "they" to point out that the claim has been worded in different ways so that the following ideas might be believed: "sincere Bible students predicted," "Jehovah's Witnesses predicted," "Bible Students were proclaiming," "Charles Taze Russell and his associates proclaimed" "the pages of this very magazine pointed to the time," "The Watch Tower publications had been predicting,"  etc., etc.  
The claims have sometimes been worded in a way that is clearly false, yet they have been repeated several times. After the Proclaimers book, however, the Watch Tower publications have become more careful about not making these statements in such direct false terms. They have resorted to implying it, instead.
Implying something often enough, however, is just as misleading as stating it in false terms. Any lover of truth should be very concerned about this. We should not just be concerned with the idea that people are being misled, but we should also look at the same point from a higher level and ask why. What is the reason that this same point has been implied dozens of times?
The God's Kingdom Rules book gives us another glimpse into the reason, and it's very consistent with the reason that invariably follows the context of prior claims just like it. It's so that we have more trust in the men who "discerned" these things in advance. If we can be impressed that a "true prediction" as important as this one could have been predicted so many years in advance, then we will be more apt to believe that the persons behind that prediction were "spirit-directed." We will be more apt to believe that the entire "spirit-directed" organization that these men represented must have been blessed with powers of discernment that carries over into all other teachings. In other words, our belief that they were able to make this prediction can lull us into a false sense of security. It may have the effect of motivating us to defend a false teaching because we feel it must be "spirit-directed.
I personally believe that our teachings about hell, Trinity, political neutrality, Jehovah's sovereignty, etc, are the best around, but this shouldn't lull me into thinking that we don't have to test all the teachings. Perhaps the teaching about the "overlapping generation" is a false teaching that we should be questioning, and yet relatively few are questioning the teaching. More persons appear to be defending it as best they can. Also, the misleading idea that the early Bible Students "discerned" Christ's invisible presence in 1914 has been made a key element in the definition of the "overlapping generation" theory. This is not very likely just a coincidence.
Ignoring our responsibility to question every teaching can be dangerous for Christians, because it can make us unwilling to follow the Bible's counsel not just for ourselves, but then we are no longer in a position to help our brothers and sisters if we see that they might be taking a false step.
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21) 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are. . . .
(Acts 17:11) . . .carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Proverbs 14:15) Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.
(Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;
(Romans 12:2) . . .so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(Ephesians 5:9-10) 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. . .
 

Wise words!
Sometimes I can only guess that you don't really understand that, while your sources contain information that is very interesting, it's usually information that I already agreed with. When it's relevant to the topic, very often it even supports of the point I was making. I've seen you include information that I was about to use. Of course, in the case of the various Bible Student groups, we can't just accept everything they say without question. Some have also shown that they are capable of distorting their history, in those "episodes" of their history that they find embarrassing or difficult to explain. (And some are not yet embarrassed about certain beliefs or "episodes" where they should be. Some still don't recognize what Rutherford correctly recognized about their own view of Russell, for example.)
The point you brought up about Russell and the Peoples Pulpit was not very relevant to what Russell taught anyway. It's true that there are some differences between what Russell said about himself and what various Bible Student groups said about him. These differences are interesting but not relevant to what the current Watch Tower publications mean when they speak of Bible Students discerning Christ's invisible presence in 1914.
On the very irrelevant point about Russell's claims about himself or the Peoples Pulpit Association you already countered your own claim for me, and provided the relevant argument that agrees completely with the point I was making when you said:
Thinking that some particular name sounded better, but then going right back to "resuming" the title "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society" in the same year, was probably the very reason that so few people in the world associate Russell with the Peoples Pulpit, and why a relatively large majority of those who know about Russell only associate him with the WTB&TS and IBSA. You also mentioned that some Bible Students said he wanted full and complete control over the PPA. That's true, but it's exactly what he wanted (and had) over the WTB&TS, too.
The reason I hesitate to engage with your argument in more detail however is that, too often for my taste, you tend to sound not just nasty but also dishonest. I think you already know that this is the reason you have lost the respect that you seem to crave, even from fellow Witnesses. When you make false claims and get caught, you can merely claim as you did here, that 'that's what you meant' when your actual words show that meant something different. More often you merely ignore it when it's pointed out that your point was wrong, then pivot off to another subject where you often make more false claims, and you usually remember to offer up a few random insults and project a few of your own bad habits and fallacies onto other people.
If you would like to engage in a real dialog with anyone on any of these subjects, I think you already know what you should do differently.
(1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
(Colossians 4:6) . . .Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.
(Philippians 4:5-7) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.
(James 3:17, 18) 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
(Titus 3: 2) 2 to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable, displaying all mildness toward all men.
(Titus 3:9-11) 9 But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. 10 As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition, 11 knowing that such a man has deviated from the way and is sinning and is self-condemned.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
 
 
 

I think this is a good question. I know from comments some Witnesses have made that they already believe that we should treat the spiritual food at the proper time as if it came from an infallible source. One of the elders in our congregation (who offered the closing prayer at the mid-week meeting this week) often "gushes" about the Governing Body in his prayer, and I cringe for how this sounds to any new ones. It is very common to hear many brothers mention (in prayer) how thankful we are for the provisions that the "faithful and discreet slave" has made for us, and this seems to be in better taste.
But the real answer to your question is that they never would and never will. They don't believe they are, and they never will. If any one of them suggested it, he would likely be kicked off the Governing Body for suggesting something so fallible. They definitely don't treat each other as infallible. Bethelites say that the argumentative spirit is even more palpable among them now than it was in 1980 when political factions among them reached a peak that I thought it could never reach again. But the arguing is now done by proxy through the Governing Body "Helpers," and appears to be getting worse as they all get older. If anyone doubts this, just ask any Bethelite who has been anywhere near the door of the Helpers meeting in the last few months.
So it's an impossible hypothetical. But I'm guessing that the real question is whether we already treat the Governing Body as if they were infallible.
I think there are a few factors that can lead to this, and the types of quotations you made from Watch Tower publications provide the primary basis. The repetition of similar sentiments in congregation talks and prayers is the secondary basis.
The third basis is the way that we cover for them when errors are made, and this is partly due to appreciation for the unity of the organization and for the international brotherhood that has developed from this organization. To that extent, what we are doing is fine and right, for "love covers a multitude of sins."
But it's dangerous is when pride becomes the factor by which we defend any past lapse in judgment. This happens to all of us to some extent, because we can become prideful and arrogant that we have the only true religion, that Jehovah loves us more than our fellow man, that we are preaching to others because we are better and more righteous than they are, that our doctrines are not only correct but that opposing doctrines come Satan rather than human error.
This attitude of pride goes right to the top of our organization, and this is why it sometimes shows up in the self-righteous statements that sometimes slip through the editing process and appear in print. At the highest levels people saw this in Brother Rutherford, and one well-known and well-respected brother even won a case in court against him for Rutherford's abusive behavior. An old friend of mine at Bethel (A.Worsely) who was in court that day defended Rutherford and felt badly for having lied in court to do it, yet he says he lied because of fear of the same abusiveness. Brother Knorr was also known as a vindictive, petty "dictator" when it came to anyone who questioned his decisions. Knorr thought of many of the jobs at Bethel as menial and demeaning and would therefore use them as punishment when someone spoke up about an injustice. He punished older brothers by changing their job from the Home Office to the factory-bindery. He removed privileges from people he saw as gaining too much attention for themselves, even if it was only for the sin of writing "Faith on the March" (A.H.MacMillan) or defending Cassius Clay (H.Covington). A friend of mine, the former editor of the Awake! magazine (C.Quackenbush) was only one of several older brothers invited back to Bethel immediately upon Knorr's death, while I was at Bethel. People (including myself) saw this attitude continue in F W Franz and Ted Jaracz who would also become abusive and vindictive when their views were not seen as 100% correct.
From what I'm told, the current Governing Body are a much more peaceful group, but the Helpers, the ones who prep them on issues (and who are now involved in voting them into office) are vying and jockeying on a lot of issues these days, some doctrinal and some financial.
That background should help you see why such a claim would never happen, but our own pride in our organization makes us treat our doctrine as sacrosanct. Even if we know it could change at any time, we defend current doctrine because of the teaching about the "faithful and discreet slave" who gives us "food at the proper time." The idea is that even if it isn't 100% true, it's "true for now" which is sometimes implied by "food at the proper time." This used to be taught using the same words that Seventh Day Adventists use (and other Second Adventists and Bible Student groups). They called it "present truth" based on the same misunderstanding that Russell and others had about 2 Peter 1:12. The Watchtower has used expressions to defend past incorrect teachings as incorrect but really just 'the right thing but at the wrong time' or 'the right time, but expecting the wrong thing.' Our view of Romans 13:1 between the 1929 and 1961 has been treated as an incorrect doctrine, but sometimes it's pointed out that this wrong doctrine was important for the progress of the organization at the time. Other wrong doctrines have been treated as tools for "testing and refining" of God's people.
A better view of changing doctrines is put in better perspective here:
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. God leads them progressively so that the truth constantly grows brighter, they reflect more fully God’s glory, and they are transformed more and more into his image. (2 Cor. 3:18) They come to know him more intimately. Their needs are fully supplied, everything for their spiritual welfare being provided. (Phil. 4:19) Such progress involves changes, readjustment of their thinking.
Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940’s Jehovah’s witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position. Since 1962 they understand the “superior authorities” of Romans 13:1 to be the rulers of worldly governments, whereas up to that time, since 1929, they had held a different viewpoint. Other examples could be cited. Does this show that Jehovah’s witnesses do not have the truth? Does this bring into question the basic principles of their teachings?
Not at all. Jehovah’s witnesses do not claim infallibility. They are being taught by God. (Isa. 54:13) Never will they know all things, but they will continually be learning from the inexhaustible wisdom of God as they walk in his truth.

The article goes on to discuss some issues, including the importance of believing in "types and anti-types" although this has recently changed again (2014).
Most Witnesses have the proper attitude, because we have been taught that the GB is not infallible, even during that one meeting a week when they meet together and make decisions.
 

Who knows what we all eat, drink, breathe, and whatever else in this rumor-ridden, pathetic excuse for a civilised society?
Surely with your talent for digging you could find some information on this interesting topic? I know it would be a bit different from your usual area of expertise but your skills are presumably transferable?
...and I've ingested a fair bit from some of the posts on this site, but thanks still for the immunity from it's toxic effects that you have apparently granted me!"
C'mon @JayWitness, this is not up to your usual standard. Let's have some real news!
 
 

WHITE MAN'S HEAD (STILL) ON FIRE

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, a newspaper just a few blocks away from the Brooklyn Bethel HQ ran an advertisement for the Wireless Phones, attached below.
It includes the words: "Those who can see into the future prophesy that this means as great a revolution in its effect on social and political life as has been brought about by motion pictures. . [offering]. . splendid music . . . the news of the day . . . sporting events . . . weather forecasts . . stock market reports, reports, speeches by leading men." (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 1, 1922. p. 11)
On April 23, 1922 the Eagle ran a small ad for someone wanting to trade a soccer ball for two of them.
 

"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."
Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.
But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.
1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.
2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment. 
3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.
The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)
In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:
. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would  not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.
The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***
Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27.  *** end of quote ***
[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]
 
This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.
The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:
[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:
The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .
It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence. 
Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower.  But notice the context:
Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.
Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."
But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.
Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:
"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . .  The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .
The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:
The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,
The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:
The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.
 
This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.
The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.
It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.
I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."
Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.
But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.
1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.
2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment. 
3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.
The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)
In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:
. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would  not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.
The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***
Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27.  *** end of quote ***
[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]
 
This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.
The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:
[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:
The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .
It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence. 
Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower.  But notice the context:
Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.
Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."
But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.
Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:
"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . .  The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .
The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:
The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,
The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:
The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.
 
This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.
The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.
It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.
I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

Be careful, here Eoin. You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.
I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?
There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'
A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:
Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915."  . . .  Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914." Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after." Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near." But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***
Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***
"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***
That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.) 
A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.  
*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***
So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in  October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910.  Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***
 
The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?
The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:
*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. 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."  *** end of quote ***
In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:
"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)
The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."
*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***
"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon".   *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be  after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".
However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.
 

True. This is what I meant about "stretching" it a bit. As I'm sure you know, there are several more quotes where the wording creates something misleading, but rarely a complete falsehood. This one pushes the "truth" to its limit, but if you notice it is not technically false. It's true that they were "on hand in 1914." But saying that they "readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year" could mean that by sometime between 1922, 1925 and 1931 some were beginning to readily discern it. It wouldn't have been impressive, but it could have said:
"The first group was on hand in 1914, and within 30 years, almost all the people from this same group who remained loyal to the Watch Tower, readily accepted that 1914 had seen the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence in that year."
There are also several more quotes from the 1930's era that parallel the quote from October 1, 1930:
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple [in 1918] is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***

As I started to point out in my last post, several versions of this same comment have been made dozens of times before, sometimes with careful wording that indicates the writer knew there were limits to what he could claim, and sometimes with not-so-careful wording. Some of these come across as technically true, but misleading. There are even a couple of cases where the wording created not just a false impression but a true falsehood.
The most interesting versions of this pattern go back to the time when Rutherford was still in the midst of re-working doctrines that had been considered true in Russell's time. Here's one that gets right to the point about what was or was not "discerned" in 1914:
*** Watchtower, October 1, 1930, p.291 ***
Understanding that the ''day of Christ'' began when Jesus came to the temple of God, in 1918, it appears that the rebellion must precede that day. The beginning of the falling away or rebellion against God's organization would also mark the beginning of the disclosure of the ''man of sin'', even though none of God's children then on earth understood the matter. The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof. Likewise the faithful have for some years seen the manifestation of lawlessness and now begin to discern the meaning of the term the "man of sin".
*** end of quote ***
 
There are also many published statements from this time period that give a clearer picture about what really was being discerned with reference to the date of Christ's presence between 1914 and 1931. It's difficult to get a clear view with just a couple of snippets, so if I get a chance, I'll look up some of the quotes again and post something either here or in the "Millions" thread.

Be careful, here Eoin. You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.
I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?
There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'
A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:
Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915."  . . .  Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914." Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after." Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near." But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***
Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***
"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***
That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.) 
A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.  
*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***
So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in  October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910.  Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***
 
The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?
The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:
*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. 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."  *** end of quote ***
In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:
"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)
The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."
*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***
"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon".   *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be  after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".
However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.
 

If you boil your argument down to its essence, then, you seem satisfied then that the key part of the phrase "In 1914" might just refer to the time that the beginning events of Christ's presence began, which they could discern later, but which it would at least have been possible to discern in that particular year. (No particular evidence of the "discernment" in 1914 would be required.) Perhaps, as they kept looking back on events that they recalled or considered, it would have become increasingly clearer in time that 1914 itself was that new starting point for "Christ's presence." Whether or not they discerned much, or anything, about it in that very year is not so important, because it was still going to be the events that they had seen that year which would finally be put into place in the updated doctrine.
If we were to focus on the meaning of "discernment," in this case, it need be no more than seeing it, at the time, but what they saw is the foundation they will build on as true discernment becomes clearer. Perhaps you are also crediting them (or some of them) with at least a small measure of actual discernment that 1914 might have been so different than their original expectations, that perhaps some were already thinking "in the back of their mind" that it might end up having a different significance than what they had thought previously. Perhaps someone might have even thought that it could end up becoming be a better year in which to claim that the "invisible presence" had started. 
I think that's fair enough. You are being a bit more flexible than I am. But it's that faint, vague possibility of that flexible interpretation that makes me think that this isn't really a "lie."
I am sensitive to the ease with which this phrase can still be misleading, however. It does give the impression that there must have been Bible Students, in 1914, who had already discerned that Christ's presence had begun in 1914. And if this is true, we know of no evidence that any of them left for us. (And as I said before, they actually left evidence to the contrary, which I'll expand on below or in another post.) I should add that you might also be thinking perhaps that the writer knows something that hasn't been put into evidence, or even that this particular phrase was prayerfully pored over by the Governing Body and will turn out to be right even if there was no evidence for it at the time.
You probably won't be too surprised, but in my opinion, it's more than likely that the writer has purposely worded it this way, knowing it was a "stretch," out of a strong desire to put the Bible Students beliefs in the best light possible, before admitting that the doctrine they were teaching in 1914 about Christ's presence was wrong. This is almost always the formula for presenting this particular portion of the WTS history. It's my opinion that this was intended to lead the reader to think the following:
that the events of 1914 had been predicted by the Bible Students that the primary event they had predicted was a great time of trouble that would begin that very year that they not only predicted the events of 1914, but these predictions turned out to be even more correct than they expected, when it was an actual World War that only the Bible Students had the privilege and ability to "discern" these events in advance that the Bible students, while still in the year 1914, were able to "discern" that these events provided the evidence that they had been right about expecting that Christ's presence would start in that year that this special privilege and ability to "discern" --before 1914-- is intended to "impress" the reader into accepting that the Bible Students were special recipients of Jehovah's holy spirit and guidance that this special privilege and ability to "discern" --during and after 1914-- is intended to "impress" the reader into accepting that the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society were therefore about to be chosen as the special representatives of "the faithful and discreet slave" who were entrusted with providing spiritual food at the proper time. It's also my opinion that the writer knew very well that what he is implying that they had discerned is not true, but that he has worded it very carefully to get some of these same ideas across without pushing the ideas so far that they would be considered "lies" by those who know the evidence behind it. Once those ideas about "discernment" are out there, only then is it OK to admit that they didn't have a complete understanding, or even a very good understanding about Christ's presence at the time.
That probably sounds like I am saying that the writer was dishonest. Not exactly. The writer likely believes very strongly in the last point (#7) above, and believes that the ideas behind all the other points are either true or mostly true. He must maximize how impressive it is at this point, so that he can add the caveat later, and it won't change the overall impression. 
Why would I say such a thing, then? Because I've seen this process up close and personal. Also, it is exactly the pattern that explains the use of similar phrases for many years. There is a very real need to "impress." We can see it in the historical video, Faith in Action, Part 1: Out of Darkness, where (at 44m53s) Brother Anthony Morris III, says "...it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
The full idea behind the points in the paragraph of "kr" are also embedded in the following quotes
*** w04 2/1 p. 19 par. 6 “The Scene of This World Is Changing” ***
As that “time” approached, Jehovah took steps to reveal the answer to a group of humble Bible students. With the help of God’s spirit, they discerned that “the appointed times of the nations” began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and that those “times” were 2,520 years in length. From this, they deduced that 1914 marked the end of “the appointed times of the nations.” They also came to realize that 1914 was the beginning of the end for this system of things.
*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.
*** w86 11/1 p. 6 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***
For over three decades before 1914, Jehovah’s Witnesses called attention to the significance of this date.
*** w81 2/15 p. 10 Insight on the News ***
Hence, another respected authority adds his voice to those of numerous statesmen and historians who, in looking back, recognized the significance of the year 1914. Yet, decades before that year arrived, dedicated students of Bible prophecy were able to identify 1914 as a climactic turning point
*** w69 4/15 p. 243 par. 12 Making Men and Nations a Laughingstock ***
Decades before 1914 C.E., careful Bible students had calculated this date by means of the Bible timetable and Bible prophecy. From world events and conditions since that momentous year, it is unmistakable that something ended, an era ended, for the Gentile nations in 1914.
*** w69 12/1 p. 719 par. 27 Final Woes to Enemies of Peace with God ***
They did not like to be notified that the “times of the Gentiles” had run out in the year 1914 and that these witnesses had been vindicated by world events in pointing forward for decades to that year as the time for God’s kingdom by Christ to come into full control in the heavens, with authority to oust the Gentile nations from the earth.
*** w67 12/15 p. 752 par. 31 “In All the Nations the Good News Has to Be Preached First” ***
Why, for decades before 1914, Bible students associated with the magazine The Watch Tower and with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society looked for God’s Messianic kingdom to come into full power in 1914.
*** w53 8/15 pp. 492-493 par. 3 Living Now as a New World Society ***
For decades before World War I God had been preparing a people to become this altogether different society of our day. To them he uncovered the teachings of his Word . . . He roused them to the realization that the time for the oft-prayed-for Kingdom to be fully established was getting close. Long in advance he even disclosed to them by his Word that the time for the Kingdom to assume power in heaven and in earth was A.D. 1914, for then the time he had allotted for the uninterrupted domination of the earth by the Gentile nations since Jerusalem’s first destruction in 607 B.C. would run out.
*** w53 9/15 p. 561 par. 18 Flight to Safety with the New World Society ***
For decades before A.D. 1914 Jehovah’s witnesses had been preaching the full establishment of God’s kingdom by Christ at the end of the “appointed times of the nations” in that year. To confirm their preaching as correct, World War I for global domination by the nations of this earth broke out suddenly in 1914,
*** g75 4/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
For decades before World War I, Bible students had warned that 1914 would be a critical point in history. “The trauma of World War I . . . is widely regarded as a benchmark in the evolution of modern America,” confirms a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report. And such changes were felt world wide. In more recent decades Jehovah’s witnesses have again noted what Bible chronology indicates, this time warning that the mid-1970’s would be critical for mankind. What does the record so far indicate? According to this article, “Historians compare . . . today’s upsets” with the “time of social and moral change” during World War I.
*** g73 1/22 p. 8 Who Can Accurately Predict Man’s Future? ***
Based on what he said, along with the words of Daniel and John, Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of “the conclusion of the system of things.”
*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired.
*** ce chap. 18 pp. 227-229 The Bible—Is It Really Inspired by God? ***
Decades before that date, there was an organization of people who were making known the significance of 1914. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [Jehovah’s Witnesses] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.”29
A People Who Fulfill Prophecy
*** kr chap. 2 p. 16 par. 12 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
12 The work those faithful men did in championing doctrinal truth in the decades before 1914 was simply amazing!
*** pm chap. 19 p. 332 par. 8 The Kingdom Withstands International Assault ***
For decades prior to 1914 C.E., even since the year 1876 C.E., the nations and peoples of the world had been notified that the Gentile Times would close in that year. Dedicated, baptized Christians, like Charles Taze Russell who became president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, were used to serve this notice, especially upon the nations of Christendom.
*** su chap. 3 p. 25 par. 11 How Long Will the Present System Last? ***
Decades in advance it was known that this would come in 1914 at the end of the major fulfillment of the “seven times” of Daniel 4:10-17. But full realization of its significance came gradually during the years that followed. Progressively Bible students saw unfolding before their eyes details of the composite sign that Jesus said would indicate his heavenly presence in Kingdom power.
*** tp chap. 7 p. 73 par. 11 When Will the Foretold World Destruction Come? ***
After going on record that the Bible pointed to 1914, Jehovah’s Witnesses had to wait for several decades before they saw the outcome.
*** wj chap. 9 p. 23 par. 15 Identifying God-Inspired Truth ***
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8
 

Thats the best quote I have seen on this subject and I would be surprised to see something in Society publications that captures the situation more succinctly.
I am happy with that statement as well. I suppose it is the "conspiracy theory " slant that so many try to sustain when discussing this type of subject that makes me want to lean as far as possible the other way.
Well, I will have to take your word for that, but I have no reason to doubt your first hand experience of the "sleight of hand" employed by writers, especially when trying to maintain interest in a subject that might appear repetitive in nature. I have noted the "massaging" techniques applied to life experiences in this regard, both in written and oral form, where they are used to support a particular theme. Selective quoting is another technique (appearing quite frequently on this forum). These methods have their place, but one needs to be aware of their limitations when submitted as "proof".
I know people are often impressionable and easily lead, so this places a great responsibility on those writing, particularly in this field of all places, to ensure integrity is never sacrificed for the making of an impression.
However, I was introduced to a principle almost at the outset of my association with Jehovah's Witnesses and this has stood me in good stead in evaluating all information I have come across since. It is a piece of advice available to everyone studying the Bible and it is currrently rendered:
Proverbs 14:15: "The naive person believes every word, But the shrewd one ponders each step."
 

As I started to point out in my last post, several versions of this same comment have been made dozens of times before, sometimes with careful wording that indicates the writer knew there were limits to what he could claim, and sometimes with not-so-careful wording. Some of these come across as technically true, but misleading. There are even a couple of cases where the wording created not just a false impression but a true falsehood.
The most interesting versions of this pattern go back to the time when Rutherford was still in the midst of re-working doctrines that had been considered true in Russell's time. Here's one that gets right to the point about what was or was not "discerned" in 1914:
*** Watchtower, October 1, 1930, p.291 ***
Understanding that the ''day of Christ'' began when Jesus came to the temple of God, in 1918, it appears that the rebellion must precede that day. The beginning of the falling away or rebellion against God's organization would also mark the beginning of the disclosure of the ''man of sin'', even though none of God's children then on earth understood the matter. The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof. Likewise the faithful have for some years seen the manifestation of lawlessness and now begin to discern the meaning of the term the "man of sin".
*** end of quote ***
 
There are also many published statements from this time period that give a clearer picture about what really was being discerned with reference to the date of Christ's presence between 1914 and 1931. It's difficult to get a clear view with just a couple of snippets, so if I get a chance, I'll look up some of the quotes again and post something either here or in the "Millions" thread.

Mostly true. As you know, I find it curious that "we" find it necessary to keep "explaining" the Generation. (Actually, it really gets on my nerves. So much so that I think I will have to go to the bathroom when we are going to go over the chart in the Kingdom Book). The question is, what can we do about it? Nothing really. Well there is something, we just continue doing our part as the Praeceptor rightly reminded me, concentrate on helping other see the fundamental truths in the Bible and the comfort for the future, and let the "haughty" (it that's what they are) worry about what they've said or not said. I have to keep telling myself this.
After all we will all stand before Jehovah individually.

Allen,
Just point out what was said that you believed was wrong. No one is going to understand what your point is if you keep telling people they don't have their facts straight, and then, when you can provide any evidence at all, the source of that evidence invariably shows that what people have concluded was correct, and that you were making a false argument.
It's as if you are saying:
"Hey! You are all insidious and embarrassing fools if you don't accept that 2+2=5. I even have proof from an expert who knows it's true. I'll quote him here: "2+2=4" [Mathematical Society Quarterly, p.267]. See there! 2+2=5!!!"
If your words that I quoted from you at the top of this post were directed at me, please stop making general accusations that I am wrong, and then copying and pasting evidence* that indicates that I am right. I can't see any reason that anyone would do that!
*When I say "evidence" I mean the many sources you have quoted which are generally correct. I am not referring to any of the comments that you have often interspersed between them, because more often than not, most sentences of yours contains factual errors. Even your quote above mentions that Barbour was still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date while Russell was teaching that Christ's spiritual presence would last from 1874 to 1914. This is, of course, untrue. It was Barbour who came up with 1874 as the start of an invisible, spiritual presence (via B W Keith after failed expectations of a rapture in 1874) and Russell later agreed with this. Barbour was not still teaching 1874 as the rapture date, but by the summer of 1875 had already moved on to 1878 as the date for the rapture. 1878 was also the end of the Gentile Times for a while in Barbour's view. 

Allen,
Just point out what was said that you believed was wrong. No one is going to understand what your point is if you keep telling people they don't have their facts straight, and then, when you can provide any evidence at all, the source of that evidence invariably shows that what people have concluded was correct, and that you were making a false argument.
It's as if you are saying:
"Hey! You are all insidious and embarrassing fools if you don't accept that 2+2=5. I even have proof from an expert who knows it's true. I'll quote him here: "2+2=4" [Mathematical Society Quarterly, p.267]. See there! 2+2=5!!!"
If your words that I quoted from you at the top of this post were directed at me, please stop making general accusations that I am wrong, and then copying and pasting evidence* that indicates that I am right. I can't see any reason that anyone would do that!
*When I say "evidence" I mean the many sources you have quoted which are generally correct. I am not referring to any of the comments that you have often interspersed between them, because more often than not, most sentences of yours contains factual errors. Even your quote above mentions that Barbour was still eminent in seeing 1874 as the rapture date while Russell was teaching that Christ's spiritual presence would last from 1874 to 1914. This is, of course, untrue. It was Barbour who came up with 1874 as the start of an invisible, spiritual presence (via B W Keith after failed expectations of a rapture in 1874) and Russell later agreed with this. Barbour was not still teaching 1874 as the rapture date, but by the summer of 1875 had already moved on to 1878 as the date for the rapture. 1878 was also the end of the Gentile Times for a while in Barbour's view. 

I figured that by the time I tried to respond to this Ann would have already responded, and I hope I am not jumping in where I'm not supposed to. To save time, I'll re-quote something I said earlier in the thread, although I'll put "[...]" in a few places to cut it down a bit:
When I had referred to 1922, I was thinking of the Cedar Point convention, too. But not because there were any changes to the 1874 chronology at that time. The "hint" was that one of the events, Jesus' kingship, was evidently being considered as starting in 1914 instead of 1878 even though nothing at all changed about his "presence" starting in 1874. (There is a possible mixed message here, since he also calls Jesus the "king of glory" present since 1874. The sense in which Jesus "becomes king" again in 1914 was likely a matter of "taking up his great power" in a new way at that time.)
If anything, this is an indication that Rutherford had just pro-actively dismissed an opportunity to discern the events of 1914 as a sign of his presence. Then again, he still might not have ever considered it yet, even as late as 1922. Nothing in the Cedar Point report says that he had even considered it yet, but even if he had then it means that he had obviously discerned 1914 NOT to be the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence. If there had been any "discernment" about Christ's presence in 1914 by then, then why not move Jesus' presence to 1914 if you thought enough about it to start to move the kingship from 1878 to 1914? Instead, as Ann points out, Rutherford explicitly keeps 1874 as the start of that presence.
Your argument seems to be that because he was still discerned to be present in 1922, that this could very well take us all the way back to 1914 at this rate. Well, this argument actually does take you back to 1914, because that's exactly what they believed in 1914 -- that Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874. In fact, it obviously also takes you back to, say, 1899. But if it takes you back to 1899 in the same way it takes you back to 1914, and 1922, then it means that nothing special was discerned in 1914.

Haughtiness? . . . I'm not sure.  Maybe, a bad attempt at saving face?  It could be that you're right.  A resume might involve some puffing up in details or credentials.  There's nothing wrong with having confidence or pride in your work record or abilities, except if your history and abilities become overstated or based on fallacy.
 
Oh, and I didn't really mean dates and times literally. (smile) 
 
You mentioned earlier the prophets surrounding King Ahab were guilty of false prophecy except Micaiah.  However, if I remember correctly, the prophet Micaiah also uttered a falsehood as God's representative.  I hate to say lied but it was most definitely false testimony, or what most would call a bold-face lie!
 
" . . . At once he replied: “Go up and you will be successful; Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.” (1 Kings 22:15)
 
King Ahab knew he was lying and called him on it: 
"At that the king said to him: “How many times must I put you under oath not to speak to me anything but the truth in the name of Jehovah?” (1 Kings 22:15)
 
Only then did Micaiah cough up the truth adding a somewhat elusive dream about seeing Jehovah on his throne questioning which angel wanted to fool the prophets.
 
What if the King did not question Micaiah any further and just accepted what he wanted to hear as from the other prophets?  Was Micaiah afraid to tell him the truth?  If so, he had a right to be afraid.  As a consequence, he ended up being struck and in chains.
 
What about Adam when God asked him if he had eaten of the fruit.  There is no admission of guilt, and he dodged answering directly by giving God the glorious credit of giving him a woman to feed him.  (lol) 
 
I can certainly see where it is can be difficult at best to admit when we have made mistakes, said or done wrong, whether out of fear or consequence.  I am though beginning to see how ego, haughtiness and arrogance might be applied if insisting that others must agree with revelations of God's appointed faithful and discreet slave even though such preconceived notions can be erroneous and not a basis or necessary for salvation.   Therein lies the problem which can cause others to be labeled apostates if they don't agree.  How have we come to see so clearly the falseness of others, without recognizing the rafters obstructing our vision?  It does take much humility to admit being wrong. 

I'm sorry, Eoin, but this is very weaselly worded - whether you intend it to be so or not.
The Bible Students simply did not 'begin to discern' or 'distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses' in 1914 or in 1915 or in 1922* etc. that Jesus' presence started in 1914 because, as Holly has already pointed out to you, the Bible Students had already discerned that Jesus' presence had started in 1874. Bible Students 'began to discern' (or rethink the 1874 presence idea) long after 1914 
* The 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio convention and the famous call to 'advertise, advertise, advertise the King and his kingdom' re-establishes the Bible Students' firm belief that it was a fact Jesus' presence began in 1874. 

The 'Advent Testimony Manifesto' was a) in 1917 - not 1914, and b) the reasoning behind their thinking that Christ's return was imminent was down to the Balfour Declaration and the move to re-establish Palestine as the Jewish homeland which was understood as fulfilling prophecy about the restoration of Israel, the rapture of the church, and Jesus' physically taking his kingship in Jerusalem! Is this in any way representative of JWs' version of 1914's significance? 

That's a common answer because we can attach a scripture to it. But we have called others false prophets without any concern over whether or not something was said in Jehovah's name. The context of that same quote from 1981 also discusses religious false prophets and makes the point that all religions are "false prophets" except one.
*** g81 12/8 p. 14 Do You Recognize the Meaning of What You See? ***
. . . all of today’s religious groups outside this one true faith must, according to this standard, be counterfeits, composite “false prophets.”
I think there was also a hint as to the official response an article from 1968.
*** g68 10/8 p. 23 A Time to Lift Up Your Head in Confident Hope *** True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end to the world," even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The "end" did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.
That idea has the effect, perhaps, of exonerating us from any charge of false prophesying no matter what was ever said because Jehovah's Witnesses always have "God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them." So that would be true even if the Watch Tower Society had predicted an "end to the world" and were "even announcing a specific date." And of course, this is exactly what we were doing in those years. Guilty on both counts. Both in 1914 and 1925, at least. One could argue that we should put quotation marks around end of the world, but the article did that, too. One could argue that we didn't include the month and day, but a year is pretty specific in the overall scheme of things. We don't have a problem with the fact that Daniel's "70 weeks" prophecy pointed to a specific year.  
I was about to respond to Janice with another point that I will place here. I don't have a problem with the fact that we, as an organization were "guilty" of false prophesying. Jehovah's prophets in the past have been guilty of false prophecy and an explanation was given (the prophets of Jehovah around Ahab, except for Micaiah). Perhaps even that explanation in 1 Kings 22 about God sending a lying spirit was really a roundabout way of explaining that these prophets succumbed to wishful thinking (desire to please the king) and therefore the angel was able to "fool" them. That would be more consistent with James' explanation:
(James 1:13, 14) . . .For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire.
Janice also mentioned the expectations concerning the author of the book we traditionally refer to as the book of John. Might have been their misunderstanding of expressions like:
(John 11:26) . . and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all.. . .
(John 8:51)  Most truly I say to you, if anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.
(Judge* 19 18-25)  Millions now living will never die.
*I half-expected that someone might bring up those verses in defense of the "Millions" campaign, even if they were not related to the original content of the campaign.
But my point again was that we have nothing to fear from honesty about our past teachings. Just being humble and admitting what happened would take some of the "sting" and defensiveness out the equation whenever someone made the accusation.
We often seem to treat our history as so sacrosanct, that we think we can't be completely honest and open about it. I find this to be quite different from the way, for example, that the Bible treats the history of the first Kings, Saul, David, Solomon, the crisis resulting in the split between Israel and Judah, the ups and downs along the way. We don't say that Saul or David or Solomon were not "anointed" because of the errors and even atrocities they committed. Some of their errors were due to the times they lived in and the influences around them, and some were completely inexcusable from any perspective. But the Bible is honest about it, and we appreciate the humility. And it doesn't change a thing about God's love for them, and his ability to get his work accomplished.

LOL!
Best answer I've ever seen to this question.
My father, originally from Chicago, has a photograph of the sign mentioned in the following experience. They didn't want it for the Proclaimer's book but it had been mentioned in the 1975 Yearbook.
*** yb75 p. 127 Part 2—United States of America ***
Recalling the effect of the “Millions Campaign,” Rufus Chappell writes: “We had offered the publication Millions Now Living Will Never Die in and around Zion [Illinois] and the results were of interest. I remember a large, flashing electric sign over the Waukegan Dry Cleaners building on North Sheridan Road about five miles from Zion, which said, ‘We Dye for the Millions Now Living Who Will Never Die.’ This was a very popular subject at that time, and many people had questioned the phrase and learned the truth from this publication.”
We are all loathe to call the slogan a false prophecy. But that is my point. If someone else had said it, I think it would definitely be one. And, of course, we're only focusing on the slogan itself here. If we were to look at the set of teachings that made up the talks and the publications behind the slogan, we would find dozens of "false teachings" and "false prophecies." It's just that we can't use the term "false prophecy" or even "false teaching" when referring to our past teachings and predictions that turned out not to be true.
Still, we have no problem finding quotes from the older publications that spoke of Russell and even Rutherford as "prophets" in this era. But is it the course of humility or a course of pride to speak of the false teachings of others, but never admit that we could have been guilty of a "false" teaching or a "false" prophecy? I know it's OK to say that a teaching or prediction was "mistaken," or that it was a "old light," or a previous teaching before the "light got brighter," or that it was "the right thing expected at the wrong time" or the "wrong thing expected at the right time." We might even say that it was "untrue." But, for many decades now, we can never bring ourselves to admit that we were teaching a "false" teaching.  We are still quick to pin that label on others though:
*** g81 12/8 p. 14 Do You Recognize the Meaning of What You See? ***
Political leaders often end up being “false prophets” unable to fulfill their promises. Of course, not every ruler turns out to be a “Hitler,” whose promised “thousand-year reich” proved to be a disastrous 12 years of misrule. The danger that one will be a “false prophet” increases, however, in direct proportion to their number. And that number is increasing—rapidly.
A very prominent political “prophet” of our present century was the League of Nations, formed in 1919. It foretold a world of lasting peace. But World War II unceremoniously dumped it into a pit of inactivity. It was replaced in 1945 by the United Nations organization, which doubtless is trying to prevent the outbreak of an atomic World War III. But has it truly ‘maintained international peace and security,’ as its charter prophesied?
It's curious too that it was in 1919 that the Watchtower was one of first organizations to speak about the League of Nations as if it was a political expression of the kingdom of God on earth. When we changed our view on that, just a few months later, we spoke of other religions as being guilty as false prophets for having held that same view.
 

This has been stated in the Watch Tower publications, but it might also be slightly misleading:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
This change to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence had been 1872-1873 and was moved to 1976 (then later changed 1975). 
[The person who did most of the outlining of the ka book was the same person who completely wrote the 1943 book, and the 1944 book, "Let God Be True."]
Those particular meanings that had been attached to 1874 were already assigned to 1914 before 1943, although not all of the significance attached to 1874 had been completely removed. The Watchtower apparently avoided any publicity about these changes so this happens to be the only specific mention of when this doctrine was changed. However, some of the changes were mentioned in 1925, and perhaps even a hint in 1922, but seemed not to "stick" until 1930/1.
Another change between 1943 and 1944 was the definitive change to the zero year problem that had resulted in keeping 606 on the books until it was changed to 607 after 1944.
*** re chap. 18 p. 105 Earthquakes in the Lord’s Day ***
Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239
Also, the mechanism behind the "1874 chronology" is what I have sometimes referred to by that term. The mechanism is the use of corresponding time parallels between the Jewish-era "advent" and the Christian-era "advent" and this remained in use even in the 1950's. Some of this remained with a slight adjustment to 1874 using 1878. And it was for the same reason that 1918 remained important. (The "temple inspection" had been 1878 and was moved to 1918, and 1918 had become the date for the first resurrection for related reasons.) 1878 was dropped as the beginning of a 40-year harvest as late as 1961 (evidently). And, lastly, the year 1918 which had also used the "1874 chronology" in this sense, was not dropped in about 2007 (evidently). The idea of the first resurrection in 1918 was once definitive, and has now become only "an interesting possibility."
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible
========added in a late edit rather than creating a new post====
These are footnotes in the Proclaimers book that help explain how some of the "parallels" worked:
*** jv chap. 28 Testing and Sifting From Within *** That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878. Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. (See Volume II, pages 99-101, 171, 221, 232, 246-7; compare reprint of 1914 with earlier printings, such as the 1902 printing of Millennial Dawn.) It seemed to them that this fitted well with what had been published regarding the year 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times. See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” [1943] chapter XI; “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Bible chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.  

Hello Anna,  Welcome. Hope you don't mind if I add a few points.
Russell never scrapped the 1874 date, ever.
The 1873/4 date was actually originally suggested as a possibility by "Father Miller" himself back around 1843/4, but many of the Second Adventists after Miller preferred looking to closer dates in the 1850's and 1860's. (Many others did what Miller himself did, and said they shouldn't be setting dates any more. The Seventh Day Adventists generally followed Miller's advice.)
Barbour had the advantage of having been promoting the 1873/4 date from all the way back when other date-setters were still focusing on those 1860's dates. This is what made Barbour's name most closely associated with 1874 among the remaining Adventist date-setters. (He was the only one left standing after the previous failures.) Therefore, after the the 1860's failure, this meant that Barbour had a newly "captive" audience of Second Adventists that would quickly number to around 15,000 subscribers in time for the initial 1873 date expectations. He had to start building up the numbers again after the two main failures in 1873 and 1874, but Barbour (via one of his "Herald" contributors, B W Keith, and prior to Russell "discerning" it) declared 1874 to be correct as the beginning of an "invisible" presence, and then set 1878 as the new date for Christ's return.
This is why it was so urgent for Russell to put money into publicizing 1878, and why he funded a much larger distribution of Barbour's "Three Worlds" in 1877 that spelled out the "times and seasons" aspect of the Lord's Return, while Russell himself wrote a smaller booklet that focused on the "object and manner" aspect of the Lord's Return. Russell did get his name put on "Three Worlds" as co-author, but I've read that he probably didn't add much of anything himself. But all of this was focused on preparing for 1878. 1874 was used as a foundation to prove that 1878 was urgent!
Russell says that when 1878 failed, Barbour started spouting some bad doctrine in order to create a "distraction" from the failure of that date. Russell said that 1874 was still right, and 1878 was still right, but that they had expected the wrong thing. Russell then funded the Watch Tower magazine due to the urgency of the 1881 date when he was sure that the Bride of Christ would be joined with Christ in heaven, while remaining Christians would participate in a 40-year harvest that lasted from 1874 to 1914. 
It's true, as Ann said, that the 1874 was dropped around 1930, but there were some ways in which the "1874 chronology" (based on a chronological year-by-year correspondence between Jewish and Christian events) remained for several years, even after 1874 itself was dropped. Note the last vestige of this chronology:
*** kr chap. 5 p. 50 par. 5 The King Shines Light on the Kingdom ***
The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven.
This 40-year harvest remained "on the books" up until 1961, but it had been slightly adjusted:
*** w54 3/1 p. 150 par. 5 Restoration of True Religion Today ***
Not until the Lord of the harvest gave the command could that be done. Corresponding to the events of the first advent, there is first an “Elijah” work performed, like the work of John the Baptist, to warn the people, trying to bring them to repentance. Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918
*** w51 7/1 p. 410 par. 6 ‘Time, Times and Half a Time’ ***
6 Now note further corroborative proof of this period of time: “I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (Rev. 11:3, NW) The “two witnesses” are the antitypical Elijah-John-the-Baptist work, and their being introduced at this time is important, for it helps us to understand Daniel’s prophecy. . . .  foreshadowed great works to be accomplished at this end of the system of things, and which were also to be done before 1918. . . . So it was antitypically with the work done from 1878 to 1918.
*** w52 2/1 p. 78 par. 7 Jehovah’s Theocratic Organization Today ***
But again we ask, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time?” In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple for judgment, there was a class of sincere consecrated Christians . . .
*** w60 10/1 pp. 606-607 The Great Wheat Harvest ***
What was foretold in the illustration of the great harvest has been taking place in our day,. . . Christ’s anointed followers have been separated from Christendom, and imitation Christians appearing among them are removed as weeds are removed from harvested wheat. . . . The history of Jehovah’s witnesses, particularly since 1918, verifies the accuracy of what Jesus prophesied. . . .  As the harvest period in the illustration . . . . The more than forty years [1918 to 1960] that have passed since its beginning is short when compared with the centuries that have passed since the congregation was planted.