Anna

Apologies if I cut off the sentence wrong.
The Bible uses the term. The organization simply picks up on it.
 
Oh give me a break. How meaningful can life be in a system where ISIS, dementia, cancer, or simple human greed can snuff it out in a second? "Sayanara!" your longtime employer sings out, as he packs up for overseas. "Dust off that resume, why don't you?  And that family and financial obligations you have? FUGEDABOUDIT!" It is as Solomon says: he's seen footmen on horses and kings slogging though the mud. Of course you can get some satisfaction out of life today. More power to you if you have. But many ultimately find it is like chomping down hard on cotton candy - though it looked substantial, there was nothing much there.
The thing you are orgasmic about is that you have chosen a place where no one can tell you what to do. Fine. I think it's a poor trade-off but there's nothing to stop anyone from choosing it. Yet by immersing oneself in 'the world' (I am not reformed from saying it) you are likely to find that manipulation from human scheming in the form of Big Government, Big Business or Big Independent Wisdom ultimately take such a toll that the Governing Body will look positively like doddering and kindly old grandparents in comparison.

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.
So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  
I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.
In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.
The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:
(Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.
In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:
(1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)
Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

Had they not been "shown the door," then you would have bitched about them living a life protected from the wild, where MEN have to struggle EVERY SINGLE DAY for existence, and one MISSTEP means INSTANT DEATH!!!
You're not the easiest guy to satisfy.
Did you also create the child baptism one with the misspelled word? Look, I have misspelled many a word here, as it is a here-today, gone-tomorrow thread. But if I were to design a graphic for posterity, I would get the spelling right.
I could design graphics, too. For example, I could picture the ten who jumped from the plane during a choppy flight. Eight are far below, with shoots open, and when the land they will resume their prior life. But two have grabbed hold of a wing, and, with tangled hair, sleet, fumes and dead birds slapping them in the face, they are desperately trying to unfurl a banner for the remaining passengers, who are barely noticing: "Jump off before it's too late! Join us!"
I could do that. But it is simply too juvenile. This from me, the guy who wears out his welcome clowning and who even kidnapped @The Librarianto make a point. (but handed her back - holy moly! that woman is obnoxious)

I will partially agree on this one. It's true. Not everyone is the guide leading the blind men into a pit. Some are merely the blind men.
We have a video of someone who left the truth and came back, cautioning others to not do it. "The world will chew you up and spit you out," he says. I don't care for that video. It is not true. Sometimes 'the world' chews you up but does not spit you out. Sometimes it spits you out but does not chew you up. A prime example of the latter lies in the hospital geriatric wing, where a relative works as a nurse. She tells of people experiencing severe letdown at the curtain call, who look around and say (not literally) "is this all there is?" These are not losers. These are persons who have had successful careers and have raised caring families. But as the end draws near and their bodies ungracefully fall apart, they say "is this all there is?"
Why anyone would throw away the freedom derived from Bible knowledge for the petty freedoms this world has to offer is beyond me.
You know, I kind of like this guy. He does not hide what he is. He is not like one who comes in positively cooing love for God and all his witnesses, if only...if only....it does not come out at first....if only they would assassinate those leaders of theirs. I can't stand people like that.
It reminds me of my ill-advised aborted experience at the apostate website. There was one idiot who would give only short 'sound byte' comments, always with insulting graphics, and whenever he mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses, he would 'dollar-sign' every 'S'. Okay. Got it. He thinks we should be like John, subsisting on honey and locusts. In time, whenever I referred to him, I would dollar-sign every 's' within a two millimeter radius. (this is not to call AM an idiot - believe me, the two are poles apart in presentation, though there is some overlap)

I get it. You don't agree with child baptism. I don't either. However, whatever criticisms I have of the org...I will never regret my dedication to Jehovah God.

The apparent implication of this statement was clarified in the dialogue that followed, (immediately after that statement - so there cannot be any confusion as to what exactly was meant) as I have already indicated above.

1914 is it, to be among the JW. PERIOD! That may change but at this point in time it has not. When young Samuel was at the tabernacle, he saw the daily activities of the sons of Eli, correct? Were they appropriate in the way Jehovah wanted things done then and there? NO! But while it was allowed, the people to serve Jehovah came there and Samuel also served there, not leaving going elsewhere. It is up to Jehovah to clean this mess up, if there is such mess, not us as imperfect humans also.
 We fret and fawn over the the things we avidly complain about, but remember even perfect Jesus worshipped at the imperfect temple, where twice he threw out those he called robbers! He too allowed his Father to cleanse the mess. 
I do not worry about the date, never have. Been doing this now some 5 decades. Jesus told us to be alert, keep on the watch, teach others what he taught, and do do so to the most distant part of the earth. Simple, not hard or difficult. Whoever is trying to get this done, I am with them. Like Peter, who else has sayings of everlasting life? 
So you want to debate and argue, Albert? What do you offer better? Much like Satan, nothing! A wind bag, lots of hot air!

If anyone cares to address questions raised by Albert I created a topic for it here:
 
 

Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks

Dissasociation
Well that's logical isn't it?
 
Simply put, and in a nutshell, you cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you disagree with any of the fundamental teachings and make it an issue in the congregation.  It's logical. Unlike Christendom, where it's a free for all, Jehovah's Witnesses for the most part, believe all their core teachings. If there is something they feel very strongly about, and no longer believe it is true, to the point of not being able to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good conscience, then they dissasociate themselves. This is a choice they make willingly. Conversely, it's impossible to be called a Witnesses if you willingly and unrepentantly  do the things you mention either.  If you join a club, you've got to abide by the club's rules, or you will have your membership revoked. Or if you no longer like the club's rules, you cease being a member (dissasociate yourself)
The question though is, and this leads it back on topic, should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family.

I was only going by what I thought you were implying. But now that you've clarified what you meant, we can say it's not about numbers either way.

Well, there's at least one pre-teen that gets baptized at most conventions and assemblies, so it's nothing new, and visible to all.

Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks

I think your reasoning on this is wrong on several levels.  The JW religion is not about how many numbers it has. If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them. We could allow smoking, turn a blind eye to adultery, fornication and homosexuality, support patriotism, celebrate all the holidays and Birthdays, have blood transfusions......you get the drift. 
The objective of the JW organization is not about numbers but to keep it morally and spiritually clean. It's about quality not quantity. And as @JW Insider remarked on the other thread, which puts it in a nutshell "We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century"
 

Use of the word 'most' is subjective - I do not think it is 'most' - though it is certainly true anywhere that new ones do not know as much as older ones. It's not just in the field of religion. It is everywhere.
GB counsel doesn't encourage people to be shallow. It encourages them to go deep. But people do that at their own pace and sometimes not at all. You don't have to be a theocratic Rhode's scholar to be baptized - you just have to know and agree with the basics. Surely the fact that you cannot (usually) get baptized for close to a year should allay your concern - unless that concern is unallayable.
This is also subjective, and I do not agree with it. I suspect there are some concerns that are important in your eyes that most Witnesses do not know much of, but that is not the same thing.
But this is quibbling. You're main concern i'll speak to later. Unfortunately, I am in and out. A five minute comment I can make anytime, but if there is something that deserves more thought, I want to give it that thought. Start a separate thread on it. Seriously. It's a subject in its own right, and this thread is on something else. The threadmeister can always yank it back on topic and there will be nothing you or I can do about it.
Having said that, I've been known to hijack a thread or two in my tenure.

Isn't that the truth. Cognitive dissonance.

Knowing the role of the Governing Body should help us to understand how to treat them. This was brought up in another thread, but it seems relevant here. In the first century, the order of authority was apostles then prophets (1 Cor 12:28). 
It seems to me that the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one group became too powerful in the first century. They both had different but equally important roles to fulfill: the apostles took the lead over the congregation and the prophets were spiritual guides. 
The prophets were necessary to "fill in the gaps" of an incomplete Bible, but today we have a complete Bible. So, prophets are unnecessary. However, the GB asserts that Bible discernment is unsuccessful without their interpretations of it. In other words, the Bible alone is insufficient--we need the GB to "fill in the gaps." So, the GB acts likes the apostles by taking the lead and prophets by being exclusive interpreters of the Bible.
This premise seems flawed to me. The Bible should stand alone as a separate entity. It shouldn't be intertwined with the GB, because the Bible should act as an external auditor for the GB's actions. At present, by being "guardians of doctrine" the GB can make the Bible fit their method of operation. The Bible is not a rigid thing and this can be taken advantage of.
So while I respect the Governing Body for taking the lead, I feel that they have too much unchecked authority, and this could set a bad precedent for the future. The GB should be actively checked by the Bible and any student of the Bible.  
 
 

Oh boy!! I think that first question was supposed to be rhetorical, right? Clearly you are mistaken in thinking that this is the first time I've pointed out that the answers to such ridiculous questions are sometimes so obvious. The reason I have said the exact same thing on several previous occasions in the last couple years is that it highlights the contradiction you create when you call doctrines from any particular "current" time "God's doctrines." I have to say that it seems so demeaning to an all-powerful God to sully his name by saying that certain false doctrines had to be considered "God's doctrines" just because at the current time, back then, they were being promoted by the Governing Body.
Paul actually cursed at the Galatians for putting up with this kind of thinking: that just because the persons who are promoting a teaching are well-respected persons such as Peter, James and John, that they should just go along with it:
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Yet it was the same people Paul named here that we have called the "Governing Body" in Jerusalem: Peter, James and John, for example. So you can't argue that when Paul says, "beyond the good news that was declared to you" that he was referring to the Governing Body. He was referring to the doctrines of Christ Jesus and Jehovah God as now found in the Bible.
(Galatians 3:1-3) 3 O senseless Ga·la?tians! Who has brought you under this evil influence, you who had Jesus Christ openly portrayed before you as nailed to the stake? 2 This one thing I want to ask you: Did you receive the spirit through works of law or because of faith in what you heard? 3 Are you so senseless? After starting on a spiritual course, are you finishing on a fleshly course? So there's nothing new here in spite of you rhetoric. You have always known that there have been false teachings that were considered "God's teachings" at the time. But this very idea brings reproach on the truth. The entire meaning of the word truth is turned upside down if you are required to say that falsehood is also truth and that a person can even be disciplined for believing truth when he is still required to accept falsehood as "God's doctrines."
Instead, we can be appreciative of the progress that has always been made. We can cheer on the Governing Body for the wonderful tools they have provided, and the set of core doctrines that we appreciate. We can thank Jehovah that they have been so successful under His guidance, as someone here just said. But calling what is good, bad, and what is bad, good is not what Jehovah wants from us. 
(Isaiah 5:20) 20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!  
 

That article from 1951 does indeed indicate that the Watchtower had been teaching that from the death of Jesus (until 1931) all Christians were only allowed to be in line for the heavenly gift, the heavenly calling. Note this from 1965:
*** w65 3/1 p. 148 pars. 18-20 Part Two ***
However, down till recently, the Fine Shepherd Jesus Christ was not calling out and gathering his “other sheep” in hope of everlasting life on earth.—John 10:16.
19 The inspired Scriptures show that God set a definite time for himself to gather together the “other sheep” for whom he reserves everlasting salvation on the Paradise earth under the kingdom of his dear Son. God’s provision for such “other sheep” is not a sort of safety net to catch all those whom he calls to the heavenly inheritance but who do not meet the requirements for it by a Christian course faithful to the death. Christians who have the heavenly inheritance reserved for themselves must either prove worthy of entering into it or else fail altogether without any other life prospects to fall back on. . . .
20 According to the historical facts, the gathering of the “great crowd” of other sheep began not before 1931 C.E., but particularly from 1935 C.E. forward.
So the 1951 and the 1965 articles said that the heavenly hope to be one of the 144,000 was the only hope open to Christians during those centuries following Christ's death [up until 1931].
*** w52 1/15 p. 62 Questions From Readers ***
. . .  the Scriptural limitation of 144,000 placed on the number being in Christ’s body, and which position was the only one open to Christians during those centuries?
The answer to that "Question From Readers" implied that most of these ones must have been only "professed Christians" and "not in line for the high [heavenly] calling." The reader might assume therefore that they could have been in line for an earthly calling, the "other sheep." But we were still teaching even in 1965 that there was no other calling between 33 CE and 1931.**[see footnote]
**footnote: Actually, for a time, up until the 1950's and 1960's, it was taught that the group identified in 1935, had not only been called since 1931, but since 1919, and we just hadn't recognized it yet. The reasoning, if I remember right, is that John saw them come out of the Great Tribulation, and we believed (at the time) that the Great Tribulation was still in effect up until 1919, before a break in the tribulation (on account of the chosen ones). I'll find the reference if anyone is interested.
I asked Brother Fred Franz about this, and he said that many of these 100's of thousands of Christian martyrs must be in Gehenna. He said even if they were just swept up in the Christian movement, they must have had a taste of the heavenly gift. 
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance,. . .
This idea (that hundreds of thousands of persons who were willing to die for their Christian faith ended up in Gehenna) didn't sound right to my wife, who asked Brother Rusk about it. Brother Rusk was the Watchtower's Editor at the time, and he also was the brother who performed our wedding ceremony. He implied that all these reported numbers of  martyrs were just too high, so that these reports were all probably exaggerations in the first place, and so not to worry about it. If you knew the two men, you might have easily guessed that Franz would be judgmental, but Rusk would be more flexible with the Gehenna idea. At least Rusk never made the same claim that we could judge them to Gehenna, but he wouldn't deny it either. I wanted to believe, of course, that if they had not made it to full Christian maturity, then Hebrews 6 didn't apply. After all, the verses leading up to Hebrews 6:4 are these:
(Hebrews 5:12-6:2) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.
JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM . . .
Of course, as ex-JWs will often point out, since upwards of 56,000 were partaking around 1931-1935, and there are something like 19,000 partaking now, this would mean that more than half the 144,000 are already accounted for among Jehovah's Witnesses. That would mean that in those 1,898 years (between 33 and 1931) that only about 69,000 Christians existed on earth. That works out to be about 36 new Christians every year. But we also know that there were at least 10,000 Christians in the very first century. Leaving us with 59,000 in about the same number of years, or 31 new Christians every year. It would almost look like the Gates of Gehenna had overpowered Christianity.

Then you did not understand my answer. Jehovah did not chose the first come first serve on Christians, when it comes with those who are ones sealed as corulers with Christ. It seems to be everyone's thinking that all Christians who DIED from the death of Jesus were in line for this "gift" , whereas scripture clearly tells us that Jehovah makes the choice of the 144000, who would be with his Son in the heavenly kingdom. His choice, not their deaths, or martyrdom. So no matter how many from after Jesus' death until now Jehovah will only choose 144000. And he has not finished with that yet. That number will not be completed until Jesus gathers those who are alive to heaven. Any who are chosen could not be sealed, so things could change. Dealing with imperfect humans. Any of the 3000 who were baptized were not all faithful until death, correct?  That is why your reasoning is flawed.

In all my reading of scripture about these ones sealed for life with Chirst, they have been chosen and sealed; all in heaven. We seem to be trying to figure the number of those dead with those still alive. Not going to happen. Not part of this number until you have died, thus being sealed as anointed part of what John wrote about. None of the guessing? Right? There will be only 144000, we know that as fact, our math as we try to count will be flawed. If we change our outlook, and remember that number is only correct, from a heavenly standpoint, not an earthly one. If Demas had not found the world so appealing, wouldn't he be apart of that number, or those who turned into the wolves among us?, as Paul warned? But these ones are not, as those thousand baptized at Pentecost who faded away, correct? The number is final when Jesus collects whoever is faithful when he calls them, however many it is. For now the number may be growing for Jehovah may in fact still be chasing ones of that class. What makes people think Jehovah picked the first come first served? He is going to give the gift of immortality, this to be shared with his Son, would not others who would be alive centuries later be worthy of this gift? Would not Jehovah know this? From the time of his Son death and this promise, until the time Jesus comes for those who will fulfill the final number, during that time frame, Jehovah will have chosen 144000 worthy ones to serve as kings and priests, not the first numbers of martrys to fill the count. Just reading scripture, reasons as did Paul. Common sense! Agape!

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

Interesting. I was just now going to type up several reasons why salvation is not dependent on us believing in 1914. I have read this 1986 article before. But thank you for mentioning it, as a reminder on here.  Put in context of the time period this article was written, (post Bethel apostasy) it is understandable to a certain extent why it was written. It would be interesting to see if such a view was still strictly adhered to today, and put into the same words as is was back then. A lot of doctrinal water has gone under the bridge since then, and some beliefs had to be revised. (None that are mentioned above though). Because of that, it seems the GB is a lot more careful recently when it comes to insisting on certain past teachings. Knowledge and truth are progressive, that is why the article also mentions "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Ephesians 4:11-13  Evidently we have not attained all the accurate knowledge yet. Perhaps not even the oneness in the faith as is also evident by the discussions on this forum....
 
Not really, since the Good news is and has remained the same regardless of a date. The Good news is about the blessings for mankind brought through the Messianic kingdom, regardless of when established.
 

Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928)  So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it.
Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931.
The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."

What is happening to my eyes?