Anna

It appears that with the internet it's too late and the "cat is out of the bag" never to be captured again!

It appears that with the internet it's too late and the "cat is out of the bag" never to be captured again!

Yes, the primary, specific driver of the problem is the fact that Brother Splane has already pointed out the fact that "GROUP 2" are getting "up there" in years, and he pointed to specific people as examples, showing how many of the prime examples from "GROUP 2" have already died. But while this is the driver there are, yes, I think there are a few more general items that combine and catalyze to provide the fuel for the transmission of this vehicle.
One of those general items is a subtle attempt to "herd the cats" back into a more well-defined pen again. The idea of obeying what we might not understand has now been implicitly repeated at least three times recently in various contexts. In 1966, when the first problem started, we were as a group, even more united in thinking than we were in 1925 when some brothers sold their property and created financial issues for themselves. Not everyone, of course, but thousands were just as united in thought as in 1914 when people were pretty much counting down to the very month and day on their countdown cards to October 1, 1914. Many at that time sold property and even bought life insurance policies to provide for their "non-Russellite" relatives when they would be taken. The difference was that, around 1975, we weren't looking to specific day this time, but to a short time period of just months, not years, after 1975 when the 6th creative day would run out. (Of course, brothers were only willing to wait until about December 1975 before forgetting )

The 2018 Circuit Assembly talk on using social media is another example of "herding the cats."

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

I think it's quite obvious that those of the FDS who speculated on this, and originated the idea of 1975,  believed their speculation was an honest assessment.

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

I have not made it a secret that I think we are currently hurtling toward the same problem we created for ourselves in the 1970's. Therefore, I think it's very important that we don't forget this part of our history, as we can learn from it. I think we learn just as much from the defensive attempts, like the one on "Defending Jehovah's Witnesses" linked above. In fact, I think the mistakes made back in the 1960's and early 1970's with respect to 1975 were very trivial compared to the lessons we can learn about our own egos, our pride and our honesty. Honesty is a form of faithfulness, and that's the only reason that this discussion might still be important to some of us today.
 

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

I think it's quite obvious that those of the FDS who speculated on this, and originated the idea of 1975,  believed their speculation was an honest assessment.

It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”.  I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role  to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Thanks. But I was referring to the irony of responding to a point about "honesty" by creating additional, false, contradictory accounts -- alter-egos or "personalities," as it were. However, that is almost a perfect lead-in to what many of us saw happening not long after the 1970's came and went without the expectations fulfilled. I haven't studied the psychology of these things, so I can't speak to egos and ids as others might be able to. But I can agree that ego in the more common meaning of the word would help explain why so many people didn't want to admit having been wrong -- and were more than happy to adjust to the belief that this whole thing didn't really happen the way it did, and even if it did, it was only because a few brothers and sisters "ran ahead" of Jehovah's organization.
Even people who lived through the time period, as I did my along with own large family, including an extended family of Witnesses, were very quick to dismiss the idea that anything was ever said in the way it was actually said. A Bible study could actually read directly from photocopies of 10 to 20 year old publications to my mother and father, and they would deny that these were actual photocopies. My grandmother, who collected almost every special talk from every traveling visitor and Society (branch) representative, had all the old talks from the period, and even a circuit assembly from 1970, I think, that was just full of amazingly unscriptural talks about what the 1970's were sure to bring. My father was usually the "Sound Servant" (speakers, mics, mixers, amps, wires) at any assembly we attended, whether circuit, district, international, special meeting, and we often attended at least 6 assemblies a year due to this fact.  He kept a master copy of most of the assemblies and visits to the Norco Assembly Hall (the first one) and I would sometimes hear a talk again when he made copies of some of these talks on request. I heard the talks from this period more times than I care to remember.
Still, I found this time period to be exciting and entertaining. And I still think that the expectations--even though they were not fulfilled at the time many of us expected--were sill faith-strengthening rather than devastating, as they were to some. I thought they made us imagine more clearly what our lives could be like in just a few years, and it made us imagine what they might be like if things didn't happen as many expected. I never had a problem with this "exercise" of our faith. It was like a kind of mental "fire drill." I think it helped many to clarify their relationship with Jehovah. I was baptized in 1967, when the 1966 book that started this post was required reading for baptism. and began to auxiliary pioneer with all the magazines and books related to this issue. I was scheduled to graduate in 1975 but quit high school to pioneer full-time in 1973, not even 16 years old. This was recommended and encouraged by elders, circuit overseers and district overseers. My father, an electrical engineer, put some strict conditions on me if I were to leave school, including the amount of money I had to earn and split with the family per month, how soon I had to be able to support myself and leave the house (when I was 18 years old). So my life was defined around 1975 in such a way that I was not as apt to forget what happened and why.
But many persons who lived through the same period are now quick to deny that any of what happened actually happened, including things that happened to them personally. This is a disconcerting observation.

Irony sharpens irony.

I have never discussed with anyone how far back these errors actually went, but my father tells me that he knew of the problem when he was first a Congregation Servant in the 1960's and an elder since 1971. I have an uncle who would know, but I'm not comfortable asking about the topic with him, even though, as a former circuit overseer, he could speak to things that came up in entire circuits. My father just mentioned an article they used from the 1950's just months before I was born. I found it:
*** w56 10/1 p. 588 par. 12, 20 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***
12 By the laws of states and nations today divorce is granted on a number of grounds. Persons who have lost or killed their love for their marriage mate try to grab hold of whatever legal grounds they can to break the marriage tie, such as mental cruelty, laziness, refusal of conjugal rights, drunkenness, insanity, incurable disease, desertion or abandonment, barrenness, sodomy, bestiality, criminality, incompatibility, change of one’s religion, and so on, besides adultery. But are all these legal grounds Scripturally right, valid for the Christian? Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s Counselor for us. The Jewish Pharisees once tested him with this question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every kind of grounds?” Jesus did not answer those questioners by referring to the Roman Caesar’s laws concerning divorce. He referred to the superior law of the Most High God and showed there is but one ground for divorce—adultery or moral unfaithfulness. Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce. They are filthy, they are unclean, and God’s law to Israel condemned to death those committing such misdeeds, thus drastically putting these out of God’s congregation. But such acts are not adultery with the opposite sex, making the unclean person one flesh with another of the opposite sex. One would think that the term "adultery or moral unfaithfulness" would have covered the "AOS" ground, but notice that the paragraph explicitly mentioned that bestiality and sodomy were legal grounds but not Scriptural grounds. My father says that questions about this went to the Service Department and in the mid-1960's, at least, Harley Miller (Service Department Overseer) would actually get on the phone with the Congregation Servant and give the instructions that sodomy and bestiality were not the same as "adultery." I can't say how consistent this was over the years, but my father says it was already in effect in the mid-1960's. And here we also have one of the Watchtowers used in defense of it going back to the mid-1950's.
As an aside, the same article from 1956 allowed for scriptural divorce for a wife's artificial insemination where she does not get permission from the impotent husband. This makes some sense, but the idea of "a virtual committing of adultery" should have provided the slippery slope to resolve these other issues. But even where they both agree, they would both be disfellowshipped. Note that there was a stronger tendency to rely on the Mosaic Law to develop some of these rules:
*** w56 10/1 pp. 590-591 par. 18 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***
Where a man is impotent today the married couple in their desire for children might agree for the wife to receive the seed of another man by artificial insemination. Some law courts have already held that artificial insemination is adultery and that children produced by such means are illegitimate. The recent British Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended as a ground for divorce the wife’s acceptance of artificial insemination by a donor of seed without her husband’s consent. Such a divorce would be Scriptural. But where the husband consented it would be grounds for the disfellowshiping of both man and wife. Why? Because it is a virtual committing of adultery, and both man and wife consented to the immoral act. The husband in effect gave her to another man to receive the seed of copulation, and the wife gave herself to a man not her husband to become the mother of a child by that other man with whom she was not one flesh. It is an adulterous course, and the fact that the husband adopts the child does not do away with the fact that he consented to the adulterous use of his wife.—Lev. 15:16-18, 32, 33; 19:20; Num. 5:12, 13, NW. Also, it's odd that even where the congregation would normally disfellowship, he or she can avoid the disfellowshipping if the innocent spouse has forgiven the other spouse:
33 When a congregation withholds an excommunication action because of the innocent mate’s prior forgiveness, this does not mean that the guilty mate may not and should not be deprived of any special responsibilities or service privileges in the congregation. Here, not excommunication, but the qualifications for special service positions in the congregation are involved.  
 

This brings up a topic that often comes up worldwide on the topic of having married or remarried incorrectly based on previous incorrect understanding of divorce and remarriage when the erroneous advice came from a previous religion or culture. The basic idea is to require no changes if the current legal state of a (non-polygamous) marriage is difficult to change. But difficulties in making legal changes after one become a Witness (after an improper divorce and remarriage) will not make the person guilty (or at least reprehensible) of on-going adultery as it would if the person made an improper choice as a Witness, but there are still levels of privilege in their congregational assignments to be considered and various requirements that are suggested for elders to look into. Also:
*** w83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***
Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried. This cannot begin to cover, however, several cases of those (sisters, usually)  who wanted to divorce a husband whom they discovered to have been homosexual. In the 1950's through part of the 1980's and beyond, marrying a sister was considered to be the best solution for Witnesses who are homosexual but are sure they will never act upon their sexual desires. Elders even recommended it. But then, even after infidelity on the part of the husband, and after the husband was usually disfellowshipped, the innocent sister could still never marry a Christian husband for the rest of her life, potentially. This is the primary type of case I referred to when I mentioned to tromboneck that there are still persons living for whom this injustice, even if later corrected, had affected their lives and is still affecting their lives. The problem actually lasted for decades, not months.

Pretty much. Excellent summary.

@JW Insider. Thanks for all the background on this.
So, as far as I can make out with this stuff, the 1969 published section in the Aid to Bible Understanding singled out, more or less, a generally held view (although not unanimous) that porneia as a ground for divorce referred to adulterous, heterosexual intercourse only. 
Dec 15 1972 Question from Readers (QfR). Porneia was expanded to include homosexual, extra-marital intercourse as divorce grounds for the innocent.
QfR 1973 introduces the idea that a third party is not necessary, and that forced unnatural intercourse on an innocent party would be classed as porneia and a grounds for divorce. (Presumably a disfellowshipping matter as well, but the subject of the 2 witness rule or proof is not discussed).
QfR 15 Feb 1978 directs elders not to get involved in trying to identify what does or does not constitute porneia between married couples within the marriage, due to a lack of Scriptural definition. Also that using such as a grounds for divorce by an innocent party should be left to that innocent party to decide and proceed with. (Maybe the 2 witness issue was a factor in this?)
WT 15 March 1983 turns it all on it's head! Porneia can only take place with a partner, (any oriented human or otherwise), external to the marriage relationship. Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible. Other words (akartharsia; alselgeia) are applied to perverted sexual intercourse within a marriage, but not porneia, which dictionary authorities and scholarly commentors define as only occurring with a party outside the marriage arrangement. (Judicial issues not discussed at any length).
Interestingly 15/12/12 QfR indicates that "when fertilization involving eggs or sperm (or both) from someone not within the marital union occurs, this amounts to what the Bible terms por·neiʹa, sexual immorality. Those procedures are a gross misuse of the sexual organs."
This last reference actually divorces the whole matter away from what is usually associated with illicit sexual behaviour, namely indulgence in illicit sexual gratification. It appears to focus more on a misuse of the life transmission processes. This would seem to be a vital core element of the reasons for Jehovah legislating around the whole matter..
Is that where we are on this now?
 

I suspect that while Fred Franz was almost surely both the writer and the "approval checker" of the 1956 article, that he kept his distance from the Aid Book project. This does not mean that the information in the Aid Book , "Divorce" article (written likely at least one year before section A-E was released at an assembly in 1969) came directly from R.Franz. It was obviously copied very closely from the 1956 article. It was also true that R.Franz says that, when working on the Aid Book, he did not think he had the leeway to make changes to the current doctrines, but he also admits to not even having any thought or inclination to discuss changes to doctrines until after such questions were brought to the Governing Body around 1972 and after.
And even though he was not a member of the Governing Body, but just a new guy in the Writing Department, I still kind of "blame" him for being given an opportunity to research through these topics again, and not to question them immediately and strongly. All of us are supposed to question everything, and he appears to have been given a wonderful opportunity from at least 1968 to 1971, and yet spent more of his "political capital" on the new elder arrangement. Returning to an elder arrangement like the one that Rutherford had opposed was a good thing, of course. But I think he was in a good position to push for many more changes and he evidently never considered these things closely. Of course, I have the same issue with the other brothers who just let things go along as tradition had said, but most of the others were not given an assignment with the leeway to just let the facts fall where the Scriptures lead. He says that this is what Fred Franz told him he should do, and there are a couple of blatant areas where he fell short in this assignment.

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want.
In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

Both. 
Yes, WOL "changes in doctrine" and also Watchtower library CD,  by typing in 1975, or other key words.
I think you are misunderstanding. Part of the misunderstanding is because opposers paint it that way.

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"
That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.
However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.
http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html
 
 

Because of the nature of scandals, they don't have to!

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want.
In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"
That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.
However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.
http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html
 
 

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"
That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.
However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.
http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html