Anna

On the contrary. It means that if anyone mentions Isaac Newton in my presence, I make them wash their mouth out with soap.

No more than Isaac Newton taught lies.
Forgive me for saying so, John, but I think you have a basic disconnect with the way that God operates towards humans. Continually we read of Bible characters who propagate things that later turn out to be wrong.

What Bible teach not what men teach many times. Motto? Better to know what Bible teach.

All the "evidently"s, "reasoning"s, "understanding"s etc that are postulated with regard to a 49000 year creative week theory remain firmly in the realms of imagination in the light of the 1971 statement  "The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods ."
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jehovah' having a rest day into which we can figuratively "enter" as Paul describes. No problem either with the notion that this rest "day" commenced after the creation of Eve. And also no problem with the idea that this period will of necessity include the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ. This reign, among other things, will oversee successfully the populating of planet earth and the bringing of it into a condition that Jehovah can judge as "very good" when the seventh creative epoch ends.
All the rest of the chronological surgery that goes on regarding the "time of the end" is quite simply "playing doctors" with time. Our Leader, Jesus, helped us to appreciate that when he stated clearly that "“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Matt.24:36.
It seems that individuals get very "precious" about their own sepeculations about when this day or hour will be, or not be. The emotional ranting around this I do not really understand. For me it is interesting, even fascinating, to consider the many views on this matter, including the 49000 year idea, but to be honest, none of them do I loose any sleep over. In fact, since I have had it confirmed from the Holy Scriptures (or the Bible depending on your language) that we are in "the last days" and that there is something that we can do to work along with Jehovah and Jesus at this time, I have enjoyed my sleep infinitely better than ever before, knowing that my future is safely in the hands of the one who says: 
From the beginning I foretell the outcome, and from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, and I will do whatever I please.’  Is.46:10

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

But not David 

Judas sinned against the holy spirit; don't forget. 

Come, come. This is why your side becomes disorganized rabble, each person flailing away, and ultimately accomplishing little. Worse, they soon take sides over the many divisive issues of this system and are presently at each other’s throats—despite each one’s ‘personal relationship with Jesus.’
Every project needs direction and someone to lead. It is no more complicated than that. Refraining from critiquing them over every little thing is not the same as ‘worshipping’ them.
Many have tried to explain this to you, to no end. For the life of me, I cannot bring myself to explain something so obvious.

It’s not so much that you should be. It’s that he shouldn’t have been. It is anything goes here. That’s just the way it is.
The one-sided action favors the perception that The Librarian, that old hen, is in bed with apostates. ( Yeccchhhh)

What! Are you going senile now, you disgusting old fool? At least if you do, the damage will be slight. Nobody will be able to tell the difference!
“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” 2 John 9
Why don’t you try READING that book that you beat everyone over the head with? I think John Butler has you pegged pretty well, you hypocrite!

I think it was personal with Allen. I afterwards had some private communication with him and found that I liked him a great deal. He got under the Librarian’s skin, I think. It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. I don’t try. I just explain what I think happened.
The Librarian is one of those Witnesses who thinks truth emerges from vigorous debate. When you shine the bright light of TRUTH around, cockroaches disappear. (I think they just go elsewhere.) It is even possible that she is disfellowshipped. It is impossible to know with anyone. My practice is to update the words of Paul, “Every man is a liar,” to “Everyone online is a liar.” It is impossible to know, which is why the slave repeatedly advises young ones (and probably everyone else) to friend only those whom you know personally, counsel everyone here has chosen to ignore.
On Facebook there is a originator of Witness memes, commonly copied by the friends, that is supposedly run by someone disfellowshipped. It is a huge page. His work is excellent and loyal, shared widely by those who don’t know his status. Who can say what his motive is? but it doesn’t appear to be bad. Someone who knows he is disfellowshipped because she personally knows involved parties created a major ruckess trying to get everyone to unfriend him. (I never had in the first place; his kind of material is not what interests me) It looks absolutely ridiculous to outsiders, and to even most of us, when you try to enforce congregation standards on the Internet. Talk about a bad witness!
The one serious beef I have with The Librarian, besides her being an old hen, is that she drags people in through social media (I came in through Twitter) purporting to be a fine gathering site for Witnesses. I blew a gasket when I found that it was not, and one of the ones I came after was JWI, though to a MUCH lesser degree than I went after ones like Rook. I wrestled for some time whether it was right for me to stay here at all. In the end, I decided to and that move has facilitated two books, both loyal, and both absolutely one-of-kind, that I would not have been able to write otherwise. I hope that brothers enjoy it, but the brothers are not my main targeted audience in either case.
I have gotten comfortable here now. I’ve even struck up some sort of semi-camaraderie with Rook, the old pork chop, who I sometimes think of as ‘my’ apostate. A good number of opposers here I don’t think are mentally sound. They probably (inaccurately- or is it?) think the same of me. Several I can’t stand, though in some cases I have caught a glimpse or two of what makes them tick. I have gotten to prefer the word ‘opposer’ or ‘detractor’ over apostate, partly because the latter makes for a ridiculous spectacle to ones like @adminand partly because, in my case, it pays to know that they, too, are people. They chose a wrong course, imo, but they are still people, and I benefit by putting myself in their shoes sometimes.
There you are, Felix. As honest as I know how to be. Though it is very objectionable in many ways, I have reaped benefits by being here, and to the extent that my books are any good, Kingdom interests have also. There are so many sites 100% devoted to opposition, that this site cannot rate too highly on the JW HQ annoyance list. However, maybe because it is in some respects disingenuous, it is at the top of the list.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.
Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.
One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".
Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.
So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.
This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 
The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311
Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)
 
None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.
You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.
I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’
That being said, that being said.

I swear that that the fate of Roger Chillingsworth looms ahead for some of the most virulent haters, and it must make some of them very uncomfortable:
Chillingworth cries out, “Thou hast escaped me!”
Left with no object for his malice, Chillingworth wastes away and dies within a year of the minister’s passing, 
It is no surprise that Chillingworth dies, because the “leech’s” source of vitality has been removed. 
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/scarlet/section13/

When was it ever anything else?
From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 
Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.
JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.
The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.
No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.
With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.
Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.
Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?
You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.
 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?
And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:
*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.
Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.
So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.
This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 
And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.
Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.
Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.
If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.
That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

Ok, you don't want to discuss it, fair enough, although you were the one who brought the two witness rule up and said it was a problem.
So I will reiterate for others in case it is not clear to them either:
The two witness rule only applies to the elders handling an accusation of child abuse in the congregation. The two witness rule does not prevent anyone from taking the matter to the police as stated clearly in par 15 of the study WT May 2019 : https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/
which says: .".......Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.
I am not quite sure, because John won't explain, so I will have to guess: Despite this clear black on white statement in the WT, it seems that John's concern was that elders would not actually follow through. Well....I would think that since this WT article is going to be studied by almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I would think that any one of those Jehovah's Witnesses would feel free to report an allegation to the authorities even if there were no two witnesses, in other words even if the elders were unable to handle the situation congregationally because of a lack of two witnesses. So IF an elder for some reason would feel that a publisher should not report it, because there isn't enough evidence, (two witnesses) then all the publisher has to do is show him this clear statement in the WT. Done.

Oh I see, so you are one of these vigilante brothers/sisters who thinks that no one else can see or understand anything as well as they can. Well you are actually completely wrong about Eoin. Please get your facts right before you judge someone adversely. I can private message you a list of who are the apostates or have apostate leanings on this forum, and Eoin Joyce isn't one of them.
Proverbs 13:18

In the Hebrew scriptures it was necessary to discuss things relating to sex fairly graphically.  No beating around the bush. Jehovah wanted his people to be holy so he had to say in detail what he wanted and didn't want. Jehovah is not shy.
"(Leviticus 20:10-21) . . .who commits adultery with another man’s wife: The one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow man should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress. 11 A man who lies down with his father’s wife has exposed his father to shame. Both of them should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have violated what is natural. Their own blood is upon them. 13 “‘If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 14 “‘If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is an obscene act. They should burn him and them in the fire, so that obscene conduct may not continue among you. 15 “‘If a man has intercourse with a beast, he should be put to death without fail, and you should kill the beast. 16 If a woman approaches any beast to have intercourse with it, you must kill the woman and the beast. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 17 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people. He has exposed his sister to shame. He should answer for his error. 18 “‘If a man lies down with a menstruating woman and has sexual relations with her, both he and she have exposed her flow of blood. Both of them must be cut off from among their people. 19 “‘You must not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister or your father’s sister, because that would be exposing a blood relative to shame. They should answer for their error. 20 A man who lies down with his uncle’s wife has exposed his uncle to shame. They should answer for their sin. They should die childless. 21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is something abhorrent. He has exposed his brother to shame. They should become childless."
People are doing all these things now to a greater degree, so it needs to be discussed. In first century the Bible said fornication was being practised by a member in the congregation which was not heard of in the pagan community. Imagine all the perverted things being practised with all the latest technology (sex dolls etc.) and depraved standards.)
(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
 

I get the feeling TTH is like a clever drugs dealer.  The clever drugs dealer gives away small quantities of drugs to get people started on taking them regularly. Then when the people need the drugs, the dealer starts charging them money for them. 
Perhaps TTH is giving away 'samples' of his 'works' just to get people 'hooked' on his books. Then, he will start charging high prices. This time next year he'll be a millionaire.  

@JOHN BUTLER
I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:
 
 

Obviously there are some who push the boundaries and think it's ok as long as there is no actual intercourse/oral sex involved. You know, they rationalize.... a bit like Clinton, when he said he wasn't being unfaithful to his wife because oral sex isn't really sex.
The WT wouldn't have printed this unless it was a problem.

You need to use the complete phrase: "sexual immorality requiring judicial action"

If some don't know anything abot it, they will by now, or at the latest in July.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/