Anna

I feel bound to respond in that I have been quoted.
The orientation that I received way back then in 1972 was definitely "the right thing" in that it expressed a view, already in circulation, that I was not aware of at the time,  namely, that the date of 1975 was merely the (currently understood) end of 6000 years of man's existence. Nothing more. It had just been rather eclipsed by the more sensational (to some) 1975 speculation about "the great tribulation".
I note that you have not expressed regret at having entered full-time service at a young age, in spite of the rather biased considerations:
I haven't personally met any faithful servants of Jehovah that have expressed regrets about engaging in the pioneer ministry, regardless of their having been possibly prompted at first by chronological expectations that may have been a product of wishful thinking rather than God's spirit. I have, however,  met a few who no longer serve Jehovah and who have voiced regrets both regarding pioneering and early end time speculations.
It occurs to me that, apart from the clear warnings of obvious deviancy in the Christian congregation in the words of Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, and Jesus; we don't really know much about the eccentric side of the 1st Century Christians. The terse record of inspired Scripture fulfils the requirement of 2Tim 3:16 to completly equip, and I am sure the presence of the apostles and the operation of God's Spirit minimised the uncoventional. But, in view of James's observation that only perfect men can avoid verbal stumbling, I am sure a few "kooky" ideas circulated in those 66 or so years in the 1st century before the apostasy took off.
And considering the literaly 1000s and 1000s of pages of information that have been produced in the last 140 years by only a comparatively few minds in our movement, without the safeguards of the 1st Century, surely among those many, many words, trangression cannot be avoided? (Pro10:19).
I think though, before we get overly righteous about dates and their effect on motivation, we need to remember the general principles found in Paul's words at Rom 9:17 regarding our preaching: "If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me". and correct motivation: "Therefore, let those of us who are mature be of this mental attitude, and if you are mentally inclined otherwise in any respect, God will reveal the above attitude to you". Ph.3:15. (This, notwithstanding the immediate, contextual application).
 
 

Having said that, and not disagreeing that there was great emphasis then on increased activity, most of the statements you have underlined have been continually said right down to today. If anything, the perception that one should pioneer whenever possible - that it is an activity 'right as rain' - as opposed to a special escalation of preaching, is more pervasive now than it was then.
I recall pushback from the Watchtower to those who wanted to have the faith, but live a 'normal life.' 'How can one lead a normal life in an abnormal world?' was the GB's answer. I think they have won that battle.
What is also true today, and it is a good thing,  is that there is far more emphasis on how one may acquire education 'a la carte,' so as to support oneself 'decently.' These days, after high school, we are encouraged to 'cherry pick' what we will need, rather than let an unbelieving world shovel indoctrination at us to undermine superior moral qualities.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not ignore education. We redefine it.

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

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

Revelation; It's Grand Climax at Hand! - 2006 version

1988_Revelation--It's Grand Climax At Hand! (2).pdf
 
2006 - Revelation book Adjustments.pdf
1989_The_Watchtower_Societys_end_of_world_prediction_1989.doc
 

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

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

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

In the meantime, Armageddon is just around the one heckuva corner. It's either that, or down the drain for us all, because the world isn't looking too good these days.
I'll hang with what we have because its the only game in town, at present, imperfect though it is.

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

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

For me it was the brown one

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

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

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

Thanks for clarifying your position. It appears that by removing the anchoring notion of 607 BCE to 1914 CE as a 2520 year, free run for the "Gentile" nations under Satan's dominion, you are then abe to "rearrange" the significance of other components of our belief, thus, as it were, changing the perception without altering the picture. A bit like those optical illusions..........  

Fair point.
I think I might say will often benefit from secular corroboration.  But the view I expressed is that our faith is not actually dependant on such matters. They are of interest of course. But unlike Jehovah who does not change, the opinions of secular academia do.....frequently, so they (the opinions) are not the arbiters of our faith.
Some may charge Jehovah's Witnesses with changing their opinions frequently. We certainly will adjust our conclusions when this is warranted by a clearer understanding of God's Word and it's application. But here God's Word is sought to verify the soundness of human thinking rather than human thinking determining the soundness of God's Word. Of course the good results humans experience when following Jehovah's word correcty will provide reinforcement of  faith. After all, "wisdom is proved righteous by it's works" Matt.11:19.

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

I can see that this "tossing about" appears to have definitely been the case for some of you, particularly those with a long history and previous generations of relatives associated with the morphing movement we know today as Jehovah's Witnesses. 
My own first hand experience with legacy association was with a friend, much older than me, whose father was one of the first two to become Bible Students in the UK in the 1880s. This gave me a good grounding in some of the "cloud-cuckoo-land" ideas held at various times over the years. 
That Pyramid stuff??? Wow! One of the first calls I ever had even before baptism was an actual Pyramidologist. That was an experience for someone who had only been associated 3 months.
It must be quite embarrassing to look back and realise what nonsensical rubbish (not just Pyramids) was actually taken seriously at one time, especially if you actually promoted it. The notion that one's loyalty is tested by moving with adjustments and avoiding the understandable temptation to "bite the hand that feeds" is likely not so far from the truth. Probably the 1975 thing is the most glaring example I have personally experienced, although I was thankfully enlightened about the erroneous expectations attached about 1972 or so, and seem to have avoided the "hysteria" others appear to have experienced. I'm looking forward to the Assembly bit on this. In fact,  I think I'll watch in advance as I will probably miss it with Assembly work as my "listening" Assembly has been cancelled due to "terrorism"!
As for strange Bethel behaviour, I remember one of our COs who told me that the first time he heard 4-letter words regularly used was in Bethel! However, Willi Diehl's father understated the matter perfectly in 1931 when he warned his son that "the brothers there are not angels"! (WT 1 Nov 1991 p26)
Funny though, I have never really been subjected to the intensity of weirdness that some others emphasize like the "subliminal art" stuff, or "personal Bible study policing" although these things obviously go on, and I have known some casualties.
I have experienced some child abusers and dodgy elders in my time, but have seen them get their come-uppance. 
Apart from time out to raise children, I have pioneered most of the time so this work and the responsibility of helping others to clean up their lives have been the main focus for me. The experience of observing the way applying Bible principles really changes people's lives for the better so radically has been enough to convince me of Jehovah's active involvement, and has likely minimised the effect of some of these other issues that apparently trouble so many.
So, enjoyed the exchange @JWInsider and other regular contributers. I'll be back some time, but for now I really have...........

"So.....what we gonna do"?? 
(Vultures from jungle book- in case someone is not familiar with the scene)

@JW Insider thanks for your reply. 
So I wonder, could we say Jesus became an uncrowned king in 33 CE and a crowned king in 1914? The definition of “uncrowned”  being :“having royal rank or power without occupying the royal office”. Wouldn't this be scripturally compatible?

Pardon if I am misunderstanding, but when Jesus rode into Jerusalem etc. was he not an uncrowned king? A sovereign prince who had not yet received the crown? And if he had received the crown, which scriptures tell us this?

After about 1995, I have had no first-hand knowledge about their travel arrangements. Up until then, there was a lot of first-class travel in the 1970s through the mid-1990s, but it was always said to be "gifted" and did not come through the general donations to the worldwide work. Also, it depended completely on where they were going, and if a congregation or wealthy brother sponsored the travel. There were some supposed scandals in the mid 1990's too of GB taking expensive "luxury" vacations, but these were "gifted."
I traveled with Brother Schroeder to Europe and he flew first-class while I took Freddy Laker to London for $99. But I also took first-class trains and hovercraft between many destinations: London-Paris-Madrid-Barcelona-Rome-Corfu-Athens-Milan-Innsbruck-Berne-Wiesbaden-Hamburg and Brother Schroeder almost always had a small plane flight or even a car arranged between some of these same locations. Not a private plane, although this happens in Australia and Alaska and parts of Africa in places where private planes (not private jets) are more practical than cars.

A recent example of a sad state of affairs regarding child sexual abuse and the paranoia it has raised:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-man-helped-a-lost-toddler-find-her-parents-police-say-he-was-smeared-online-as-a-predator-and-fled-town/ar-BBDmn1R?li=BBnb7Kz
 
 

As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with no hellfire, no Trinity, political neutrality, and not going to war for example. I consider the last one (no warfare) a major way in which we show we love our neighbor and even love our enemy. Those Christian concepts are rather difficult to justify by participating directly in warfare.