Anna

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.
Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.
Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.
Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

Many times it can be heard that some people, when asked about their lives, say that they would repeat everything and would not change anything. They are very happy with their marriage, their job, their achievements, etc.
My opinion on that is such that I would not really agree with such conclusions. Maybe I think so because I’m not happy with my life (for a very, very long time).
But regardless of me, Arauna said it well when she says that she herself has many things from her past that she is ashamed of today. So, it could be that some other people today conclude that their "historical context" is such that they can be completely satisfied with everything they have achieved before and therefore would not change anything if they could be born again or get another chance for another lifetime.
In a religious sense, perhaps even GB today thinks, that the "historical context" of WTJWorg is such that they should feel no shame for anything. Judge for yourself if it makes sense for GB and JW members to look at their past (as an Organization and active members inside) that way.
On the other hand, repeating, once or more, your life in exactly the same way would mean depriving yourself of new experiences, new delusions, new lies, new successes, new truths, new sorrows and joys in some unique, new and different context.
Sometimes a man “holds on” to what he has, because he is afraid of the different, because he is afraid of the unknown. Maybe it’s just a sign that we’ve stopped being young.  
Yes, one should look at the past in the context of the past. And it should be said, publicly, how that past (from the Organization) is full of misconceptions. And don’t forget, your past is the cause of your present. And the present will define your future. Do we have a chance to save ourselves? As individuals? And you as an Organization?

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.
This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 
Awake October 15, 1968
As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL
(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:
https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary
 

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.
This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 
Awake October 15, 1968
As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL
(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:
https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary
 

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.
This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 
Awake October 15, 1968
As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL
(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:
https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary
 

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.
This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 
Awake October 15, 1968
As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL
(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:
https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary
 

By WOL I mean the Watchtower Online Library via JW.ORG ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol )
I'm sure that a lot of us got very used to doing the Bible reading on the computer screen through the Watchtower Library "CD" because we could turn our NWT into a Study Bible so easily. All we had to do was simply click on the verse number and get instant access to the WT Publications Index for either 1930-1985 or the more recent one (now, 1986-2021).
I was pleasantly surprised recently when I clicked on the verse number and got a link to a book that hadn't been linked before. (Pre-1970 Awake! and pre-1971 books and pre-1950 Watchtowers are still not linked.)
See it?


So I checked the WOL, and it's there, too, of course!

The wol.jw.org is better because you get both the indexes in only one click, and you also don't have to use a pull-down menu to choose between them. They just come right up into the right-hand column. And it's also closer to the format of the new Study Bible.
The additional book, is "ad" -- Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971.
The Aid book is rarely much different from the Insight book, but there are times when it gives a more historical perspective, more information from outside commentaries and supporting Bible dictionaries, and sometimes a less dogmatic or more "neutral" perspective. I've found that most entries still don't have even a single word changed between Aid and Insight. But now and then the differences are useful:
Take for example a question about "Dodanim" vs. "Rodanim." The Aid book's entry for "Rodanim" is twice as long as Insight.
And sometimes the differences are major:
Take for example the Aid book article under "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This article in the Insight book was almost identical to the Aid book when it first came out, but the Insight article has since been updated when the doctrine changed. (The printed Insight book is different in several places from the online and CD Insight book.)

I see you haven’t visit my gift shop to peruse my new line placard, sweatshirt, and accessories offerings: “2034 is the Door!”
I actually didn’t know you could take down your own thread. Comments, yes, but not the whole thread, and even comments only for a limited time. There are some turkeys of mine that long ago would have bit the dust had I known that.

Someone asked me about why the topic was removed. I could only respond with what I thought had happened.  I answered him publicly so that anyone who knows or thinks it was something different could provide something additional. I didn't say or even imply that I was right. I only said what I thought was probably true. I'll repeat exactly what I said was the probable reason in my opinion:
Also, before I said anything, I wrote to the admin and the Librarian and the response indicated to me that they knew nothing about it, and that the most likely scenario was that BroRando had removed it himself. No one else but BroRando and admin/moderators would have that right. I also messaged a couple of moderators to see if they knew. They didn't. I also made sure that BroRando was aware of my comment so that he could respond if he wished.
To tell you the truth, I saw BroRando's last comment to Srecko and thought it was very much out of character for BroRando, since BroRando rarely presents himself the way he did in that post. It occurred to me at the time that he would probably want to delete that comment as it showed a side of him that he had not really shown before, in my opinion. I wondered if he might delete it when I saw it at 10am in the morning. I didn't get back on the forum again until 8pm that evening, and the entire topic was gone -- all 30-some pages.
I was a bit surprised and wondered if he had deleted the whole thing on purpose when he only meant to delete a specific post of his. Then it also occurred to me that it could have been an accidental error by him, or a purposeful move by an admin, or even a software glitch.
That's why I wrote to The Librarian, moderators and the admin.
The ones who responded said that they knew nothing about it, so I fell back on my original opinion that it was probably because no one was being all that supportive of the 2034 prediction, which was the main point that most people were getting from him on that topic. And I also used my response as an opportunity to admit that I had made a lot of off-topic comments that were not supportive of the theory. In saying that I was taking part of the blame.
I never thought I could prove it, which is why I just gave an opinion. There was no false accusation. It's not I said that his words had shown that he had a real problem with ego, for example. It's not like I claimed that he was not humble and that he was shoving his thoughts down everyone's throat.
I think he has opinions, I have opinions, and you have opinions. If someone feels that others' opinions are wrong, they can express the reasons if they want. Or they can simply say they don't like those other opinions. No one is required to respond to or even read those other opinions.
You told me that I needed to look again for something I hadn't remembered reading before. This doesn't mean that all this rambling and cutting and pasting is for you. I really doubted that anyone would take much of an interest. But as long as I am going through a lot of material again, I thought it best to share what I was finding. Especially because such a review is always an opportunity for me to pick up on several things I hadn't noticed before. And there's always a good chance that several of my conclusions are wrong, so I put a lot of them out their for public scrutiny, where they can be corrected by others.  I'm sure I'll also run across what I missed before (the passage that you saw) and I'd very much like to find it. 

This is called a signature. I don’t manually type it out each time, you know. It is time for an update. Thanks for reminding me. I don’t recall what is the free preview on TTvtA, but the entire ebook work of Don’t Know Why is free.
Despite the 200 glitches, and I suspect once I release it I could fine-tune for 200 more (but I won’t), I am very very pleased with it—a vast improvement over that turkey Dear Mr. Putin, which I am embarrassed ever to have unleashed. The new book has four sections: 1) Assault—the ban and its immediate repercussions, 2) Apologia—reasons for the ban are nowhere explicitly stated by Russian, authorities, so I have stated some, as well as how they might be defended, 3) Testimony—the best defense is an offense, someone said, and so these are chapters in which I witness, and 4) Endurance—aftermath of the ban, which took a darker turn than anyone would have predicted, but also put Jehovah’s name and kingdom into the international spotlight. 
Nor are parts 2 and 3 divorced from Russian context. They are both illustrated by Russian examples, making the book a cohesive whole. It has garnered a review already (the more the better, any author says). It is not unmitigated praise, but it is fair. I like it. Straight “5” reviews only indicate you have a lot of friends, anyway. I like honest criticism—in this case it is primarily concerned with reliance on AI for translation, and certain clunky writing that maybe the 200 corrections will alleviate . Although the seemingly clunky AI translating of Bro Sivulsky is actually his own remarks word for word, he speaking English as a second language. So it’s good. Remember, I said in my introduction, I am an American who still thinks Ilya Kuriaken of the Man from UNCLE was a pretty good Russian super spy, even though I recall Pravda or someone saying that he was not and how could those ridiculous Americans think so.
sigh….Nor would any other books be written about the Bible by anyone, nor would anyone else ever comment on it, nor would anyone ever teach it, or expound upon it, or interpret it. Anything other than a direct quote would be taboo.

This reminds me of a scene from Tom Irregardless and Me in which I bring my Bible Student Ted Putsch along on my return visit with Bernard Strawman and the two can’t stand one another. “It couldn’t be simpler!” Ted all but shouts at the pompous fellow, “or is that what is the problem with you?!”
This is not to say that JWI is like Bernard, only that there is almost hostility from Ted, who is ‘zealous for God.’ (I suspect Bro Rando is something like Ted.)  I’ll come to JWI’s defense, even as I say I think he’s off-base and if he should get into hot water over it, I will say ‘it’s on him.’ I’ll do it because I like both you guys, Thinking and him
As best as I can tell, he’s indulging a hobby, the same as everyone else here is. It’s a pastime, same as it is for others. I suppose answering him with rancor is also a pastime, if you get worked up over what he says. You should do it. Why not? It’s not as though I am exactly nice to certain other ones on this forum.
He doesn’t bring it into the Kingdom Hall. He also has no problem with the notion of humans taking the lead. As far as I can see, he teaches what Witnesses teach, with the caveat now and then of saying that ‘this is our present understanding,’ instead of ‘this is the way it is!!’ I don’t have a problem with him. He’s on a tiny internet backwater forum regularly followed by (as he said, and from all appearances it seems to be so) 6 six heroes and 6 villains. Perhaps there are that many again who follow along, but beyond that, I doubt there is any audience beyond the fluke visitor now and then. Of course, once you put something on the internet, ‘it stays there forever!!!’ but it is also immediately buried, and not so easily found even by one searching for it. Not a problem for me. It is when he publishes a book of separatism like Rulf that I’ll leave him to twist in the wind.
He’s indulging a pastime, laying his opinions out with as much support as he can muster, maybe even imagining someone in high places will pick up and mull over it. Everyone here is indulging a pastime. No one, even of the good guys, is a stereotypical Witness. One thing he doesn’t do is link to his own website, as several here do, including myself. Some are going into overdrive on it, Bro Rando and the woman from the hills, I think. PSomH thinks I am here to promote my books. Of course I am in part, but if I really was, believe me, it would be much more in-your-face than the occasional references that I make. 
As an example, here I have received my author’s copy of I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why. Even after numerous proofs, some by self and some by others, when I see it in print, I immediately make about 200 corrections! Whoa! do I appreciate the advantage of a publisher who edits! None of the corrections are major at this point, nor even typos per say, but small glitches that make for reading not so smooth as could be. Once I upload the amended version, finally finally finally a print book is good to go on Amazon. And then I’ll even abuse my stay more here, for this one will have a modest price of $15, though the ebook on most venues will continue to be free. After that I get Tom Irregardless, also TrueTom vs the Apostates into print, also after similar revisions, no doubt.
So if JWI bends the forum to his own purposes, so do I. So do many here. I’m not sure what else IS the purpose of this forum other than that, for in ideal theocracy all the loyal ones will stick with jw.org and all the soreheads will mutter because they cannot picket online conventions. 
So it’s okay to slap him down. Seriously, I have no problem with that, as I have no problem with his long-winded answers, which I do read but usually not too closely. Maybe that is the reason I see no ‘threat’ in them. It’s not the approach I favor, it’s not how I process things. The notion of figuring everything out through pure scholarship doesn’t wash with me, particularly when it is so out of sync with (I love the expression) ‘the facts on the ground.’ If outside scholarship ought not be required on account of the Word making the workman completely equipped, and that argument is used as to chronology, I see no reason why it shouldn’t equally apply here. The ‘facts on the ground’ can be appreciated by most everyone. But the facts on the ground of 100-200 years ago, all openly updated as needed by “tacking” and “new light,” and nobody pretends otherwise, seems not a requirement of the average Joe Witness, but an optional specialty to be chased down by those with the time, talents, and interest.

1881
When 1878 failed to be the "end of the harvest" and failed to be the time when Russell and his associates received their reward, it might seem natural, in hindsight, that they would now focus on 1881, 3.5 years after the spring of 1878. Yet, Barbour's "Three Worlds" (1877), promoted by Russell, never mentioned 1881. It wasn't important because all of Christ's Bride, the 144,000, would already be in heaven in 1878.
However,  the August 1878 issue of Barbour's "Herald of the Morning" with both Russell and Paton listed on the masthead as assistant editors,  had now adjusted the new "end of the harvest" from 1878 to 1881.

When Russell split with Barbour in 1879, Russell carried that 1881 date with him as the revised "end of the harvest," and the time for the saints to "change" from physical bodies to spiritual bodies. Barbour, on his own, was now going so far as to say that Jesus would appear visibly in 1881, and Paton had also left Barbour and joined Russell's Watch Tower, ready to denounce that particular teaching.
Russell and Paton still agreed (in the Watch Tower) with Barbour's view that Israel would rise in Palestine in 1881, and that a time of trouble and conquest of the nations would begin at about that point, and that this time of trouble (wrath of nations) would not end until 1914. The 144,000 would all be with Christ from 1881, "worthy" to avoid that "time of trouble." And, of course, the "door" for new members of that Bride would obviously become closed to new members starting in 1881. But a great crowd of other Christians would come through that "day of wrath" from 1881 on (to at least 1914) by which time most of this  great crowd would come out of that great tribulation and also (ultimately) be in heaven. (The great crowd were considered to be anointed Christians who would also be in heaven, but not of the "high calling," not sitting on thrones or acting as priests with Jesus Christ their Bridegroom.)
Paton himself had just written a book ("Day Dawn") in 1880, which was advertised in the Watch Tower. But Paton's articles on 1881 said not to expect much in that year, because it was only an assumed parallel to the Jewish age, not necessarily a true parallel. Paton's articles in the Watch Tower downplayed expectations for 1881. The following is Paton's article in the Watch Tower, May 1880, p.R103
. . . then there is certainly no ground for expecting anything in 1881 more than in any other year. The advocates of the 1881 point have never claimed any more in favor of that date than a parallel to the last half of the 70th week of Dan. 9. They know as well as we that there is no prophetic period that ends in 1881.
Paton only allowed for a difference in expectation for the natural Jewish people and the Jewish nation. But Russell himself was much stronger on 1881. In the article from the Watch Tower, February 1, 1881, Russell explains:
Articles about these expectations for 1881 were repeated many times over the next few months of Watch Tower issues. Even the Great Pyramid was seen to show the year 1881, as shown in the May 1881 Watch Tower:

In April 1881, Russell also put out the famous call for 1,000 "little flock" preachers who would give away tracts for free and support themselves by selling Paton's "Day Dawn" and taking subscriptions to the Watch Tower, with the offer that they could now keep all the money from this method if they needed it to support themselves. This wasn't to be a long-term assignment because it was related to the imminence of October 2, 1881. This was similar to Russell's promotion of Barbour's book in 1877 to prepare the world for the spring of 1878.





To me, this suggestion in April 1881 (and basically repeated in August and September 1881) is uncannily similar to the 1973 and 1974 praise for those who would sell their homes and property to live out the rest of their days as a pioneer in this old system.
*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
In the midst of all this hype, calling it the "close of the Gospel day," and naming the actual day after which the change could take place, it was necessary for Russell to begin cooling down those expectations a bit. The same May 1881 issue also stated on p.5:

Two paragraphs later, the reason for this change is explained:

The point, of course, is that now it cannot happen until AFTER October 2, 1881. A few paragraphs later it stated:

That was May 1881 when Russell claimed "We . . . have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881." Actually, there appear to be no statements prior to this May issue that "repeatedly said" that. In fact, the March 1881 issue, just two months earlier, had just said nearly the opposite, that there was nothing stopping the change from taking place "immediately." Note the second paragraph in the quote below:

I mention this, because this is only one of several times when Russell claimed he hadn't said something which he clearly had. Whenever Russell says, in effect, "We never said that," these quotes are often used today in order to defend him from dogmatism. But sometimes they are just plainly not true.
A failure for anything significant to occur in 1881 would be hardest on older Second Adventists, people like Barbour who had personally experienced failures in 1843, 1844, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1878, and now 1881. Barbour dropped out of the expectation game himself after 1881. For most of the Watch Tower readers it would would be their third failure 1873/4, then 1878, now 1881. For new followers of Russell it would be more manageable, but there was no new date in the pipeline until 1914, a full 33 more years in the future. A long time to wait. (Although 1910 would also be added to the list of expectation dates.)
We would expect, then, that close to 1881 and perhaps again around 1910, that this would be a good context in which to look for any apologies concerning 1881.
So next we can look carefully at what was said in the immediate aftermath of October 2, 1881.

ZIONIST RESTORATION IN PALESTINE 1878-1914.
By December 1879, (WT quoted below) it was noted that Spring 1878 was also close to the middle of the period from October 1844 to October 1914. This idea allowed more focus on those prophecies supposedly coming true for Zionism in Palestine.
To build up Zion implies a process, and so far as relates to the earthly Jerusalem, includes the restoration of the Jewish nation of Israel according to the flesh, in all its parts; and we believe in its application to the Gospel church, the same must be true. That from 1878 to 1914 is the last half of the last trump, has often been shown, and also that this is the period during which Jerusalem is to be restored. "The last, or seventh trumpet covers the day of wrath, angry nations and the time of reward for prophets, saints and them that fear God's name, small and great." Rev. 11:18. . . . . Some are to be counted worthy to escape the tribulation [144,000/Bride], . . ., while others are left to pass through the fire, wash their robes, and come up out of the great tribulation [great crowd].
Another WT contributor from Barbour's paper was B.W.Keith and he wrote that the 144,000 were natural Jews, and the great crowd were gentiles. See WT June 1880, p.R108: [Note that he uses the term "apology" in the sense of the Greek word "apologia," meaning "defense" or "explanation"/"reason".]
The apology for presenting this subject, is, that the return of the Jews, and the time of trouble are becoming apparent facts; and it is believed that the two facts will be the means, in the next 35 years, of the conversion of the 144,000 Jews, and the great multitude of all nations, who will come up out of or after the great tribulation, with their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb--Rev. 7. B. W. K.
Paton produced a kind of compromise solution in the same December 1879 WT (p.R58). I include the comment by Paton here because it shows he was not ready to produce a single year for the prediction about the date of their "change" or "translation." Apparently he saw the entire period now from 1878 to 1914 as a time for building up both natural Jews and the nation of spiritual Jews.
The making up suggests a gradual and not an instantaneous work; as also, "when the Lord shall build up Zion he shall appear in his glory." Ps. 102:16. This doubtless refers primarily to the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem during thirty-seven years, or from 1878 to 1914, which, according to the prophetic arguments, is the last half of the sounding of the seventh. But there are two Jerusalems --an earthly and a heavenly; a mount that could be touched, and a mount Zion that could not be touched. (Heb. 12:18,22.) We believe these are related to each other; the one outward and Jewish, the other inward and Christian; and that both are to be built up during the same period, "the last trump." According to the parables of the "two Dispensations," Christ was due to enter or come into the office of king in the spring of 1878, the parallel of his riding into Jerusalem in fulfillment of "behold thy king cometh;" and the same king who has the power to restore the natural Jerusalem, has the power to build up the spiritual Jerusalem; and it is declared that he will reward the whole church--prophets, saints and them that fear his name, small and great"--during the seventh trumpet, (Rev. 11:18)--the same period in which it has often been shown that the earthly Jerusalem will be restored.
This will help explain why Paton was initially against setting expectations for the date 1881. Next post.

"CHANGE" WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE OCTOBER 2, 1881
VENGEANCE EXPECTED IN OCTOBER 1881
The March, April, May, June and July/August issues all mentioned October 1881 as the final year of the high heavenly calling for the Bride of 144,000.  The point was that the 7 years of "favor" (1874-1881) would end. And these were years that had protected the Bride/remnant from having to undergo tribulation during the day of vengeance. The wrath of nations could begin at any time after October 2, 1881.

The July/August issue also had to clarify that there was no direct expectation that the change would happen in October 1881, only that October was the terminus of the prophetic parallel, which ended the opportunity for any more to become members of the 144,000. While all would be "counted, sealed and selected by October" "they may not be changed until some time after.


That last quoted sentence shows that something specific was expected in 1881: "this vengeance."
The September 1881 issue didn't specifically mention October, and except for a mention of 1914 and 1874 here and there, it nearly avoided the topic of chronology altogether. It still mentioned how close they were to the end of the "door of opportunity" to become one of the 144,000:

And although the snippet above makes it look like Russell was asking for money, this was about how much one would be willing to give up for the high calling (144,000), not about how much money one might send to the WTS.
From what I've read elsewhere, the October issue itself was never made and the November issue was called October/November.
Therefore, this "November" issue should now be read very carefully. We won't really expect Russell to offer an apology, because, we recall that he never pushed for an immediate change by October anyway, stating that it would only be some time after October 2, 1881. This could have meant months or even years after.
This issue almost broaches the subject here, below, but without directly mentioning the often misunderstood build-up of October expectations:

That November issue had an article that repeated and clarified the expectation further:
 
It reviews the WT teaching about Matthew 25 and summarizes again, all that was taught about 1874 and 1881. But this time it's different from Paton's earlier article. Now the primary thing that distinguishes the wise and foolish virgins is the acceptance of the "time element" -- the chronology: 1844, 1874, 1878 and 1881.
I'm including many snippets from this article below, because this teaching had such an effect on the nature of the Bible Students right up through the 1930's. I have a letter from Rutherford in the 1920's to someone who had asked about being recently anointed to the 144,000 and Rutherford pointed back this article to show how the "door to the high calling had been shut in 1881" but that it was possible that replacements for unfaithful persons of that high calling were still being chosen. 50 years of such statements seem to have built up a Jonadab class (great crowd) who were repeatedly being told they were less "worthy" and less "consecrated."

Note next that "the disappointment had served an intended purpose" by stumbling those who no longer wanted to be associated with the failed chronology. Those who didn't want to be embarrassed or reproached wanted to distance themselves from the subject of "time." Russell himself had previously admitted to being one of those who was ashamed and embarrassed for the Second Adventists in 1873 and 1874, but he would soon (1876) accept that 1874 was the time to be looking, but not for a visible presence or outward sign.



The December 1881 Watch Tower issue, p.304, includes some interesting admissions, and a change in doctrine about 1881, but no apology. The doctrinal separation also is indicated that the WTS is God's true mouthpiece, as other religious organizations now fall under the category of Babylon the Great and are, since 1878, rejected as God's mouthpiece.
It was in the spring of 1879, that seeing clearly the parallelism between the nominal Jewish church and the nominal Gospel church, we were enabled to know just where the latter was finally rejected of the Lord and spewed out of his mouth (Rev. 3:16.) no longer to be his mouthpiece. We saw that this was due in 1878, as the parallel of the rejection of the Jewish church, when Jesus just prior to his crucifixion, wept over them and said, "Your house is left unto you desolate"-The Jewish church was there likewise cast off, or spewed from his mouth. We were led to see very clearly that the nominal church of the Gospel Age, is the Babylon (confused, mixed condition, of worldly-mindedness and luke warm Christianity) described in Rev. 18:2-4. This spewing out, or casting off, of the nominal church, as an organization in 1878-we then understood, and still proclaim to be the date of the commencement of Babylon's fall, as recorded there. And since then we feel ourselves led of the spirit, through the unfolding of this portion of the word of truth to say in the name of the Lord, to all God's true children in Babylon: "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues." (vs. 4.) This seems to accord wonderfully with the second message--"Babylon is fallen." (Rev. 14:8.)
Then p.308 of the same issue brings up an issue that was becoming more important as time went on, because the WT had indicated that it still agreed with the doctrine that those of the "higher calling" would be protected from death as they waited for their glorification or "rapture." Agreement with this doctrine had been implied in the idea that they would be worthy to escape tribulation in the day of vengeance, but if they continued for months or even years beyond 1881 when the wrath of nations was expected, then what about the idea of not dying?
Q. Dear Bro. Russell, I want to make an inquiry relative to the thought advanced in last number of the paper, viz: That all the members of the body of Christ must die physically; and that the translation takes place in the "moment" of death. [And I must say, that it seems reasonable, and in general harmony with the Scriptures so far as I have studied.] My question is, Does not this application interfere with the Elijah type, at which, for some time we have looked with interest? Elijah did not die; and if he is a type and we the antitype, it would seem to teach that we should not die.
There is a Wikipedia paragraph here that summarizes the issue:
Russell consoled members with the news that 1881 had still marked the time when "death became a blessing" in the sense that any saint who died would henceforth be instantaneously changed into a spirit being.[14] The revised view provided comfort for early believers who had held the view that the living faithful would never experience a physical death, and yet had seen other members in fact dying while they awaited their upward call. After 1881, physical death was defined as one of the ways in which some of the saints might undergo their translation.
The article in November 1881, called "The Blessed Dying" made this period since 1881 very similar to the time period that would later be assigned to 1918 and beyond: the idea that all those who died from that point on would be instantly changed to their glorious bodies.
And here it is, just now--1881, that for the first time we are able to read understandingly the words "Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord from henceforth." Evidently the blessing is to the members of the Christ now living. But we inquire, in what respect will death be a blessing to us now, that it has not always been to other members of the body. We answer, the difference is that we shall not sleep, but we will be instantly invested with our heavenly--spiritual bodies, being changed in a moment dropping all that is human and earthly and being clothed upon with our heavenly condition.  [p.R304]

THE 1878 "APOLOGY"
We'll take Russell's stated view of 1878 first. Russell explains it in a supplement to the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1879. This was especially addressed to the former readers of Barbour's paper.
In this supplement Russell's goal is to explain the breakup with Barbour "rather suddenly" as he calls it. He says he was awakened to Second Advent preaching in 1869, through Jonas Wendell, but didn't convert to his teaching about the "burning of the world" in 1873. And he wasn't convinced of that 1873 the prediction either (and he knew that Barbour, another Second Adventist, had been preaching that same 1873 date).
But then came 1876. (A year we see Russell beginning to write time predictions for George Storrs' journal, The Bible Examiner.) Russell says that up until this year he ignored the time predictions, having thought them unworthy. But he was already convinced that Jesus' advent would be in two stages: (1) the church/Bride/saints would be "withdrawn/changed/translated" (raptured) well "before (2) there would be an open manifestation to the world."
In 1876, after examining the "time proofs" with Barbour and Paton, Russell says he became convinced of the truth of these proofs. The 1874 date for Christ's coming still held, in other words, but it must have been invisible as Barbour, Paton, B W Keith were saying. Since 1874 was now a "proven fact" in Russell's mind, he was convinced that the next step, their change from physical to spiritual bodies, must be 1878. And there was less than two years to get the word out.
Br. B[arbour] and I talked over various methods of promulgating these truths and finally decided to travel and preach them wherever men and women would hear, and to thus spend (D.V.) the remainder of the harvest, which we then supposed was three and a half years, and would close in 1878. While I was arranging my affairs, brother B. returned to Rochester to prepare for publication of the "Three Worlds." (We found during the Philadelphia meetings that such a book was necessary to furnish hearers with chapter and verse for what was claimed). . . We, Bros. Barbour, Paton and myself, traveled, lectured, etc., for some months, when it seemed advisable to us all that a paper should go continuously to those who were hearing, thus keeping alive and watering seed sown. This seemed good to us all, and while brother Paton and I continued lecturing, brother B. went to Rochester and fitted up our office, type, etc., for which I furnished the money.
Russell then begins to make an issue of the many problems he had with Barbour. He mentions that as of July 1878, the publication of "The Three Worlds" in magazine/tract format had paper dropped Russell's name and now only mentioned Barbour. He mentions that he doesn't know where the money went from selling the old printing setup. He mentions that he sent Barbour money several times without keeping track either on paper or mentally, and that he also "presumably" replaced $100 that Barbour once lost from his vest pocket. All told, Russell thinks it was $300 or $400 he sent. He also complains that Barbour considered a $660 joint bank account, which Russell made for convenience of all three of them, to have been a gift to Barbour's paper (The Herald). There are so many numerous complaints about Barbour's style, his patronizing attitude, his mishandling of money, misfiling of subscriber names. Russell complains that Barbour ran down the bank account when the Herald had also profited from about  $260 worth of the sales "The Three Worlds," hymn books, etc. Russell says that it's true that Barbour did almost all the work for Herald, but that he was also making his own living from the Herald, albeit living frugally. Barbour had publicly called "young" Russell "immodest" in trying to give his own name a higher place in the Herald. Russell prints a response letter from himself to Barbour where he offers to buy Barbour out and take over the Herald, or to sell his own interest in the paper and to start his own paper. This letter, dated May 22, 1879 in the supplement just a few weeks before Russell starts Zion's Watch Tower on July 1, 1879, which he began with the mailing list of the Herald (along with having arranged to take over the subscription list of Rice's paper, due to Rice's failing health.
Responding to Barbour's accusation that young Russell was immodest and had learned all the wonderful doctrines and chronology from Barbour himself, Russell very ably defends the fact that these truths (except maybe the specific interpretation of the chronology) go back to Joseph Seiss, George Storrs, Henry Dunn, and others. And some of this was written in the 1850's:
At the time the above was written Bro. Barbour was entirely uninterested in these matters, a gold miner in Australia, and even since his return to the United States, and his interest in the second coming of Christ, his preaching and teaching has, until quite recently, opposed rather than favored these doctrines.
So, I think a lot of this will seem petty today, but that's the point. Amidst all the bickering one can lose sight of the fact that there was also a serious doctrinal difference about the exact nature of the "Substitution" doctrine.
It's the only time when Russell goes into so much detail about when and how he promoted 1878, and yet it says nothing about the biggest problem with the 1878 doctrine: That It failed to happen as Russell predicted.

Be that as it may, I apologize for implying that our Librarian is a lush.

@JW Insiderthank you for all the references to quotes and photos of quotes. A lot of work there. I think you deserve to pour yourself a drink now!

if you can pry the bottle from the fingers of @The Librarian.

@JW Insiderthank you for all the references to quotes and photos of quotes. A lot of work there. I think you deserve to pour yourself a drink now!

Russell's references to apologies and the topic of apologies
In the last few days, I have at least skimmed and mostly re-read every article in the WT that referred to one of Barbour's and Russell's chronology and dates. I have done the same with almost every paragraph in his books, and most of his Sermons. But I have also "cheated" by using a single text-searchable file containing every article of every Watch Tower written under Russell's supervision. (1879-1916). I have another one for his books. I made use of it to search for every form of the word apology, apologized, apologies, regret(s), regretted, error(s), err(ed)(ing), mistake(s)(n), (a)shame(d), wrong(s)(ly), stumble(s)(d), revise(s)(d), retract(ion)(s)(ed), etc., etc., etc.
This exercise surprised me in that some of those word groups (like, "mistake*") are used over 1,000 times, which could give someone the wrong impression that "mistakes" were the primary subject of the magazine.
It also helped that I still have my notebooks that I kept from work I did at Bethel on the topic of Russell's chronology and other doctrines. And I usually re-read parts of Russell's original sources before making any comment about Russell on the forum, so that much of the information I have been looking at had already been reviewed in the last couple of years. (But that's not saying much for a 64-year-old memory of someone who also tends to rush, and skim and skip through any number of subjects in a day.)
When Russell used any of those forms or synonyms for "apology" it was usually about others. Of course, there also a few apologies for not answering letters sooner, or a delay in publishing a promised tract, article, or book. But literally hundreds of cases are in the published letters to Russell where the writer apologizes for not doing more, not being able send more money, or for having doubted Russell on a specific topic, or "uncharitable thoughts" toward Russell, or having once rejected his books and teachings. Similarly, Russell often quoted other religious leaders who apologized for incorrect views, or not being able to defend their views very well. There are so many of these, that someone (else) could create a kind of psychological study, I'm sure.
And several other types of exceptions were in the context that God's true servants don't have to apologize, because they are workmen with nothing to be ashamed of.  There are a surprising number of phrases against apologies which say something like:
God doesn't have to apologize and neither do his ambassadors, his true servants . . . [WT p.R921] This is meat in due season for the household of faith and I won't apologize for it. "We need offer no apology for the interest which we feel in this grand subject, which is the center upon which all the testimony of divine grace, through all the holy prophets, is focused. Rather do they need to apologize who, knowing that the second coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead hold the most important places in the Scriptures." [WT p.R2359, repeated on p.R2973] Russell also gave more experiences than I had remembered where others had slandered him or disagreed with his handling of a matter. In several of these Russell added, in his (and their) defense, that the person later apologized to him. Russell also accused more than one person of slander and asked for an apology.
But to the point, Russell many times correctly published that any Christian who had said or done anything wrong should always apologize to the person wronged, at least in private. This is consistent throughout his writings from 1879 to 1916. Here's an example published from one of the first issues in 1879:
"I wonder who among those who are making this new application, and say they have as much confidence in it as in any part of the application, will be honorable enough to confess as publicly as the former application was made that they were mistaken? "We thought that was light, we thought the Lord led us into it, but we were mistaken, and it was all darkness." Certainly if one position is light the other must be darkness. Does the Lord lead his people in opposite directions? Would it not be wise to be less dogmatic, and less severe with those who cannot see as we do? We may all safely learn a lesson from this sad affair. Those who have advanced light can afford to be patient." [WT, October 1879 p.R40]
[In the above case the article is about how others should apologize. The article below is the general correct counsel for all.]
"We understand that it is the Lord's will respecting us that we should carefully scrutinize our thoughts, words and actions. If we find that we have injured another with our tongue or in any manner, we should go to that person, and to any to whom we have spoken, and make it right, make proper apologies, putting a penalty upon ourselves --a penalty that we shall not forget. If the penalty requires considerable humility, so much the better. If we neglect to punish ourselves, this would show that we are not in the proper condition; and the best thing the Lord could do for us would be to give us a severe chastisement." WT, p. R5519

So now we can look more closely at those dates which Russell himself had promoted a specific future expectations, and which were not fulfilled. So, if there were any apologies for jumping ahead of Jehovah's timeline, or inadvertently misleading others, we might expect to find an apology attached shortly only after any of the following dates: 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915.
1878
[p.124] But we did expect translation . . . And as we journey on a little further, deliverance may come any time between this and the end of the “harvest,” in 1878.  . . .  [p.143]With this message the “the mystery of God will be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” And from August, 1840, to the spring of 1878, or 37 and a-half years, will consummate this part of the work. Then look out for “angry nations,” “and the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest reward thy servants the prophets, and the saints . . . . [The Three Worlds, written by Barbour in 1876-77, and financially promoted by Russell beginning in 1877.]
The year A.D. 1878 . . .clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present spiritual invisible Lord -- the time of his taking to himself his great power to reign. [The Time is at Hand (1889), SiS, v.3, p.239]
If the contention of his [Russell's] opponents concerning chronology is right, then . . . the tenure of office of Israel's kings must be changed in order to agree with some historians who were agents of Satan. Such a change would put out of joint all our chronology, and destroy the value of the dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, and 1918. [WT, 5/1/1922, p.139.]
1878 was also the year identified for the "first resurrection" (3.5 years after October 1874), which later changed to 1918 (3.5 years after October 1914). The brackets around the term "[from 1878]" in the next reference are in the original:
"...blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth [from 1878] ; ... they rest from their labors [from the toil and weariness of Labor], but their works follow with them." They shall not asleep, but they shall be changed instantaneously from the human to a glorious spiritual body.-Revelation 14:13, 1 Corinthians 15: 51, 52. [1878 bracketed in the original, WT 1922, p.207.
This date (1878) was therefore kept as prophetically significant by Russell until his death and was referenced by Rutherford as correct even in the 1920's. The expectations for this date were the catalyst that influenced Russell to sell many of his business interests (the year prior) to help finance the publishing of Barbour's work that explained those important expectations for 1878, as the "end of the harvest," and the "end of the gospel age." When these expectations failed, Barbour would again run out of money, and Russell struck out on his own with Zion's Watch Tower in July 1879.
Among all the things Russell said about 1878, I see no record of any specific apology by Russell for helping to create and promote the expectation that Christians would see their "change" from physical bodies to glorious spiritual bodies during the spring of 1878. Russell had promoted that date in publishing "The Three Worlds" even though he didn't write it personally.
The WT publications today, still indicate that Russell and his associates taught that they would receive their heavenly reward in 1878:
*** jv [Proclaimers book] chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King. They also thought they would be given their heavenly reward at that time. When that did not occur, they concluded that since Jesus’ anointed followers were to share with him in the Kingdom, the resurrection to spirit life of those already sleeping in death began then. It was also reasoned that the end of God’s special favor to natural Israel down to 36 C.E. might point to 1881 as the time when the special opportunity to become part of spiritual Israel would close.
Although Russell didn't write it, Russell published an article by contributor, J.H.Paton that did present a kind of apology about the mistaken promotion of the 1878 date. This will be the topic of one of the next posts. Russell himself, wrote about the expectations for 1878 in the 1879 supplement to the first issue of the Watch Tower.
Before getting to the details of that, I noticed some interesting things about Russell's many references to apologies.

I'd first like to begin with BroRando's statement from that post linked above.
In reality Russell did think 1914 would be an end date. He predicted for many years that the year 1914 would finally see would be the "end " of the day of vengeance, etc. He had stated that point many times. In fact, he indicated that it would be the "end of the world" but not in the sense that many religions understood this. He made sure that he clarified that it would not be the so-called "burning" of the world that many expected. Even well after 1914 (and Russell) passed, Rutherford would call 1914, "the end of Satan's system."
Throughout most of his writings, Russell taught that 1914 would be the farthest limit of man's rule, and that 1914 would see the "end of the time of trouble, not the beginning" of it. But about a decade before 1914, he started to teach that the 40-year harvest work from 1874 to 1914 should go on without much interference by this time of trouble, so the time of trouble was moved from pre-October-1914 to post-October-1914. It was therefore supposed to begin in October 1914 and go on for several months, and he indicated that it would likely finish by the end of the calendar year 1915 (later changed to 1916) in a time of chaos when no more earthly governments would be in power. (Except for a Jewish based government in Palestine that would have Jehovah's blessing.)
However, there were a few months between November 1913 and July 1914 when Russell admitted that he was questioning his own expectations about 1914, and he even suggested that perhaps things could just go on for another century, and he wondered what people might think of all these predictions "100 years from now" (which would be 2014). Another time he mentioned what things might still be like if the time of trouble went on for 120 years (which would bring one to 2034).
A review of what Russell stated after the failure of all the 1914 expectations should make it clear that Russell did not really think anything specific was supposed to happen in either 2014 or 2034. Russell gave no specific significance to those periods except to make the point that he no longer had as much confidence in the 1914 date. In late 1913 and early 1914 Russell suggested that there quite probably just wasn't enough time for all these preliminary expectations to come true in the remaining few months before October 1914. He spoke about pushing the date to 1915 or even 1916, and if it didn't happen at all, wondered what things might be like a century or more from now.
Those statements should be some of the ones we look at with respect to Russell's response to failed dates and failed expectations, since Russell was already bringing up the clear possibility of their failure as early as November 15, 1913. In that context, however, Russell made it very clear that, even if 1914 failed to come true, that he would feel no reason to apologize. In fact, he happily reported about how people would still be putting just as much faith in himself (Russell) as ever, and mentioned that, even if 1914 failed, he still expected people to be reading his books with interest in 2014. 
After expressing his doubts about 1914 in the November 15, 1913 Watchtower, Russell presented this letter from someone who was responding to those doubts (in the January 15, 1914 Watchtower):
“…we passed a resolution assuring you of our steadfast faith in you and your leadings. We got the thought from reading the Nov. 15th WATCH TOWER, the article on “What Course Should We Take?” that you had almost decided that the things we have been expecting in 1914 would not come to pass on time–since you said it is possible, but not probable. Now, dear Brother, if these things do not come to pass until 2014, instead of 1914, our faith in you will be as great as it ever has been….”
Another letter about Russell's doubts was published along with Russell's answer to it in the July 1, 1914 issue. The question was about whether the WTS will continue to publish and distribute Russell's books if October 1914 failed. It even questioned whether it was right to distribute them in the midst of Russell's doubts:
How shall we do respecting the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES after October, 1914? Will the Society continue to publish them? Will the Colporteurs and others continue to circulate them? Is it right to circulate them now, since you have some doubt respecting the full accomplishment of all expected by or before October, 1914?
Russell responded as follows:
It is our thought that these books will be on sale and read for years in the future . . . . That will be an interesting matter a hundred years from now [2014]; and if he can figure or reason better, he will still be interested in what we have presented.

Note: An entire 30-page topic about "The disgusting thing that causes desolation" was recently deleted. The topic contained hundreds of posts, and they were from most of the usual participants here. I messaged the Librarian about it and he said he didn't know anything about how or why it got deleted, but would look into it. It's possible that the person who starts a thread has the ability to delete it, which is something else he'll look into.
In that topic there were several posts concerning Charles Taze Russell brought up initially by @BroRando and commented on by @Thinking, @Srecko Sostar, @Arauna, @TrueTomHarley, @Anna, KF, Pudgy, PWfT, and others.
There were several comments I wanted to respond to, especially the idea first brought up by @BroRando that C.T.Russell (early in 1914) spoke about some kind of fulfillment in 2034, which I believe is simply not true. And I will explain in this topic.
When @BroRando brought up Russell's date references, @Thinking responded to him that she remembered reading where Russell had apologized for trying to rush Jehovah's timetable with man's timetable, or words to that effect. To that I responded that I had not remembered an apology like that. @Thinking responded that I have made many false and misleading statements about Russell. If this is true, I would like to correct those errors. Since @Thinking has not yet offered any specifics about any of those statements of mine, and because I was asked by @Thinking to look through Russell's statements myself, I have agreed to follow up on this idea.
Another point was brought up by @TrueTomHarley which partially responds to @Thinking and her point about Russell's apology. It was one example of several times when Russell was refreshingly non-dogmatic about the chronology. It was from the January 1, 1908 Watch Tower where Russell says "We are not prophesying, we are merely giving our surmises." It also highlighted the statement: "We do not even aver that there are no mistakes in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology." Of course, there were other times when Russell sounded much more sure and dogmatic, but there are enough statements on each side to give a much better picture of Russell's overall attitude toward dates, predictions, and his response when expectations failed.  I believe we are able to "reconcile" both the dogmatic and the non-dogmatic in a fair way towards Russell himself. We have to consider both Russell's personal perspective, the historical perspective of the times, and Russell's own changes and growth and influences through the period. It may help us not to give too much weight to statements on either end of the spectrum.
In any case, I'm all for giving Russell the benefit of the doubt on the question of "dogmatism," but from what I remember, some of the Russell's statements which are sometimes utilized to defend Russell's supposedly apologetic nature are quite different from what I would call an apology. Again, I can explain the results of an exhaustive search. (By exhaustive, I wish I meant comprehensive, but I only mean that I'm exhausted from so much reading.)
@BroRando had commented about how Russell made some supposedly significant comments about chronology in the year 1914, even suggesting that Russell proposed we add 120 years to 1914 which would bring us to 2034. 2034 is a date considered very significant by @BroRando. It appears to me that too much significance is still being given to Russell's dates, and judging by other comments, too much focus on the overall continuing relevance of Russell, even claiming that his work prophetically fulfilled the work of Elijah and/or John the Baptist. However, I've done a lot more reviewing of Russell's views and I'll share much of what I found because I think it answers all three of the major points I wanted to respond to:
1. Did Russell really think anything prophetically significant might happen in 2014 or 2034? 2. DId Russell apologize for stepping ahead of God's timetable with his personal views? 3. Can we get a more balanced view of Russell's attitude and response toward dates and expectations?