The intimidating language used in the proclaimed “channel” of God, the Watch Tower, the insinuations of ambition, pride, and disloyalty to Christ it directed at any who did not want to take the same presumptuous course, doubtless influenced the majority to ‘follow the leader’ as he made admittedly asinine claims. Many, however, found they could not continue to support such an irresponsible course and the organization experienced a major loss in adherents after 1925.5
How do publications of the organization depict the 1925 situation? Typical is the statement in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses on page 146 which attributed the problem, not to the organization that published the information, but to “the brothers” who read it, saying:
Does a review of the published statements in the Watch Tower, as found in the preceding pages of this book, in any way justify this shifting of responsibility onto the “brothers” for having developed such high hopes and seeing those hopes dashed?
The 1980 Yearbook (published the same year that Rutherford’s private remark was recounted to the headquarters family by Frederick Franz) similarly gave this slant to the matter.
It tells of Judge Rutherford’s visiting Switzerland in May of 1926 for a convention and his participation in a question meeting in which this interchange took place:
Everyone has the right to express opinions. But men who claim to be God’s spokesmen on earth surely do not have the right to express mere opinions while claiming that what they say is backed up by God’s own Word and should be accepted as such. When statements are spread around the globe as God’s message for mankind, as spiritual “food in due season,” those publishing them are certainly neither “faithful” nor “discreet” if they irresponsibly express fallacious opinions, argue tenaciously for them, belittle any who disagree or, worse, question their loyalty and humility before God.
In 1930, the house called Beth-Sarim was constructed by the organization in San Diego, California. Of this, the book The New World, written by Fred Franz, states:
As shown in an earlier chapter, it was in 1941, just sixteen years after 1925, at a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, that the organization’s head, President Rutherford, again was assuring young children that very soon the faithful men and women of Bible times would return. They would direct the young people in their selection of marriage mates, making it advisable for them to postpone marriage until such time. The Watchtower describing the event then made its comment about the book Children, there released, as, “the Lord’s provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon.”
Approximately three hundred months later, in 1966, a new date came to the fore: 1975.
1Isaiah 5:20
21 John 1:5.
3Watch Tower, June 15, 1922, p. 187
4Watch Tower, June 15, 1922, p. 187.
5Among these was Alvin Franz, my father’s brother and the youngest of the four Franz brothers.
6A few years after the book The New World was published (1942), Beth-Sarim was sold. At a 1950 assembly in Yankee Stadium, New York City, Fred Franz gave a talk in which the predicted return of the “princes” before Armageddon was officially abandoned, replaced with the view that the Society’s appointees in the congregations already filled that princely role.
9
1975: ‘THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR GOD TO ACT’
It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority
— Acts 1:7 New International Version.
DURING the second half of Rutherford’s presidency most of the older time prophecies so strenuously argued for in the first half were gradually dropped or relocated.
The start of the “last days” was moved up from 1799 to 1914.
The 1874 presence of Christ was also moved up to 1914 (as had already been done in 1922 with the 1878 official start of Christ’s active Kingdom rule).
The beginning of the resurrection was moved from 1878 to 1918.
For a time it was even claimed that 1914 had indeed brought the “end of the world” in the sense that God had ‘legally’ terminated the worldly nations’ lease of power on the earth. This, too, was dropped and the “end” in that sense is now held to be future.
All of the things claimed being invisible; the acceptance of them obviously depended entirely upon one’s faith in the interpretations offered. After one session in which these time prophecies and changes came up for discussion, Governing Body member Bill Jackson smilingly said to me, “We used to say, you just take the date from this shoulder and put it on the other shoulder.”
It was not until after Rutherford’s death in 1942 that a change was made regarding the year 606 B.C.E. as the starting point for the 2,520 years. Strangely, the fact that 2,520 years from 606 B.C.E. actually leads to 1915 C.E., and not 1914 C.E., was not acknowledged or dealt with for over 60 years.
Then, quietly, the starting point was moved back one year to 607 B.C.E., allowing for the retention of the year 1914 C.E. as the ending point for the 2,520 years. No historical evidence had come forward to indicate that the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred a year earlier than believed. The organization’s desire to retain 1914 as a marked date pointed to by them for so many years (something they had not done with 1915) dictated moving Jerusalem’s destruction back one year, a simple thing to do—on paper.
By the mid-1940s it had been decided that the chronology used during Russell’s and Rutherford’s presidencies was off some 100 years as regards the count of time back to Adam’s creation. In 1966, the organization said that, instead of coming in 1874 as previously taught, the end of six thousand years of human history would arrive in 1975.
This was published in the summer of 1966 in a book written by Fred Franz, titled Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God. In its first chapter, the book drew upon the Jubilee arrangement, which had also featured prominently in the predictions relating to 1925, and it argued (as had also been done back then) in favor of belief in six “days” of a thousand years each, during which mankind was to experience imperfection, to be followed by a seventh “day” of a thousand years in which perfection would be restored in a grand Jubilee of liberation from slavery to sin, sickness and death. The book said on pages 28 and 29:
What would be the significance of this? The book goes on to make this application of the points developed:
Had the organization said “flat out” that 1975 would mark the start of the millennium? No. But the above paragraph was the climax to which all of the involved, carefully constructed argumentation of that chapter had been building.
No outright, unqualified prediction was made about 1975. But the writer had been willing to declare it to be “appropriate” and “most fitting on God’s part” if God would start the millennium at that particular time. It would seem reasonable that for an imperfect man to say what is or what is not “fitting” for the Almighty God to do would call for quite a measure of certainty, surely not the mere ‘expression of an opinion.’ Discretion would require, rather, would demand that. Even stronger is the subsequent statement that “it would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the ‘Lord of the sabbath,’ to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man’s existence,” which seventh millennium had already been stated as due to begin in 1975.
Once again, the Watch Tower’s recent history book, Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom had an opportunity to demonstrate the objectivity and candor its foreword promises. In a very brief presentation of the matter, it said this (on page 104), focusing on the 1966 convention at which Fred Franz presented the new book which introduced the information about 1975:
Typically, the material quotes the one cautionary statement made at this time. It acknowledges that “other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable.”1 Approximately two-thirds of the present organizational membership has entered since 1975 and therefore did not have the
experience of knowing what followed. They have no knowledge of the extent and intensity of the emphasis given to the date of 1975 and the significance attached to it. But the members of the Governing Body do know this. At least some of those on the Writing Committee must have read and approved what appears in the 1993 history book. They had to have known what an incomplete and watered down picture it offers. What actually happened?
That same year of 1966, the October 8 issue of Awake!, the companion magazine to the Watchtower, carried an article titled “How Much Longer Will It Be?” and under the subheading “6,000 Years Completed in 1975,” it too reasoned that the millennium would be the last 1000 years of a 7000-year rest day of God. It went on to say (pages 19, 20):
The May 1, 1968, Watchtower is cited in the Society’s 1993 history book as an example of caution given on the subject. In actuality, it helped continue this stimulation of anticipation. Using much the same argument as the Awake! article last mentioned, it then said (pages 272, 273):
The paragraphs above appeared in columns bordering each side of a large chart of dates, beginning with the year 4026 B.C.E, listed as the date for the “Creation of Adam (in early autumn).” The chart ended in this way:
In that context, how “cautionary” would be the effect of references to “the immediate future,” to “a few years at most,” and the “certainty” of these bringing the fulfillment of the final parts of last-days prophecies? What rational, normal thinking person would view this as having any other intent than that of exciting expectations and hopes centered around a date, 1975?
In an article titled “What Will the 1970s Bring?” the October 8, 1968, Awake! again emphasized the shortness of the remaining time, saying at the start (page 13):
Later, drawing on the year 1975 as the close of six thousand years of human history, the article said (page 14):
Again and again the Watch Tower publications quoted statements made by people of prominence or “experts” in any field who made some reference to 1975, for example, the statement made in 1960 by former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who said:
I know enough of what is going on to assure you that, in 15 years from today [hence, by 1975], this world is going to be too dangerous to live in.
The book Famine—1975!, published in 1967 by two food experts, was quoted repeatedly, particularly these statements, in many ways reminiscent of Russell’s predictions regarding 1914:
By 1975 a disaster of unprecedented magnitude will face the world. Famines, greater than any in history, will ravage the undeveloped nations.
I forecast a specific date, 1975, when the new crisis will be upon us in all its awesome importance.
By 1975 civil disorder, anarchy, military dictatorships, runaway inflation, transportation breakdowns and chaotic unrest will be the order of the day in many of the hungry nations.
Three years after the original focusing on 1975 in the book Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, the author, Fred Franz, wrote another publication titled The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years.2 If anything, the language in it was even more definite and specific than in the previous publication. Released in 1969, it contained these statements on pages 25, 26:
The argumentation here is quite clear and direct: As the sabbath was the seventh period following six periods of toil, so the thousand-year reign of Christ would be a sabbatical seventh millennium following those six millenniums of toil and suffering. The presentation is in no sense indefinite or ambiguous.
Even as it had been determined what would be “appropriate” and “fitting” for God to do, so also a requirement is now set out for Jesus Christ. For him to be what he says he will be, ‘Lord of the sabbath day,’ then his reign “would have to be” the seventh millennium in a series of millenniums. Human reasoning imposes this requirement upon God’s Son. Six thousand years would end in 1975; Christ’s rule, according to the argument, “would have to be the seventh” period of a thousand years following the previous six. The “faithful and discreet slave” had, in effect, outlined the program he expected his Master to adhere to if he was to be true to his own word.
Though the writing is more polished, the expressions more refined, this material in essence is remarkably like that set forth in Judge Rutherford’s booklet Millions Now Living Will Never Die, in which he admittedly made foolish claims. Aside from the specific date being publicized, it was as if the clock had now been turned back about a half a century to the pre-1925 days. The difference was that the things said then were now being said of 1975.3
When the 1970s arrived, the buildup of expectation kept on. The October 8, 1971, Awake!, spoke yet again of six periods of toil and labor followed by a seventh (sabbath) period of rest and then presented the following chart:
All this steady flow of information was clearly designed to foment and build up hope, anticipation. It was not designed to calm or defuse a spirit of excited expectation. True, most statements were accompanied by some qualifying statement to the effect that ‘we are not saying positively’ or are not ‘pointing to a specific date,’ and that ‘we do not know the day and the hour.’ But it must be remembered that the organization was not a novice in this field. Its whole history from its very inception was one of building up people’s hope in certain dates only to have those dates pass with the hope unrealized. In past cases the publications of the Society subsequently sought to place the responsibility for any disillusionment on the receivers, not the givers, of the information, as inclined to expect too much. Surely, then, the responsible men of the organization should have realized the danger, realized what human nature is, realized how easily great hopes can be excited.
Yet, while carefully avoiding any explicit prediction that a specific date would see the start of the millennium, those responsible men approved the use of the phrases, “within relatively few years,” “the immediate future,” “within a few years at most,” “only a few years, at most,” “the final few years,” all used in the Watchtower and Awake! magazines with reference to the beginning of the millennial reign and all in a context that included the date 1975. Do such words mean anything? Or were they used loosely, carelessly? Are people’s hopes and plans and feelings something to be toyed with? To fail to be concerned about those factors would be both irresponsible and insensitive. Yet the Watchtower of August 15, 1968, even implied that one should be careful about putting too much weight on Jesus Christ’s own cautionary words.
How could a “faithful and discreet slave” possibly say this—in effect, say that, “True, my master said thus and so, but don’t make too much of that; to the contrary, realize that what I am telling you should be the guiding force in your life”?
Some of the most direct statements came from the Brooklyn Service Department which produces a monthly paper called “Kingdom Ministry,” a paper which goes only to Witnesses and not to the public. The March, 1968, issue of the U.S. edition urged getting into full-time preaching activity (“pioneer service”) saying:
The May, 1974, issue of Kingdom Ministry, having referred to the “short time left,” said:
Quite a number of Witnesses did just that. Some sold their businesses, gave up jobs, sold homes, farms and moved with their wives and children to other areas to ‘serve where the need was greater,’ counting on having sufficient funds to carry them through 1975.
Others, including some older persons, cashed in insurance policies or other valuable certificates. Some put off surgical operations in the hope that the millennium’s entrance would eliminate the need for these.
When 1975 passed and their funds ran out or their health worsened seriously, they now had to try to cope with the hard realities and rebuild as best they could.
What was the thinking within the Governing Body during this time?
Some of the older men on the Body had personally experienced the failed expectations of 1914, 1925, as well as the hopes excited in the early 1940s. The majority, from my observation, took a ‘wait and see’ attitude. They we
re reluctant to call for restraint. Big increases were taking place. Consider the record of baptisms for the period from 1960 on up to 1975:
From 1960 up until 1966, the rate of increase had diminished to a near standstill. But following 1966, when 1975 was highlighted, there came a phenomenal period of growth, as the chart reveals.
During the years 1971 to 1974 while I was serving on the Governing Body I do not recall hearing any strong expressions of concern from Body members about the excited expectations that had been generated. I would not pretend that I did not initially feel stirred myself in 1966 when the book Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God came out with its glowing picture of the nearness of a millennial jubilee. Nor would I claim to have had no part whatsoever in the early part of the campaign to focus attention on the target date of 1975. But each passing year from 1966 on made the idea seem more and more unreal. The more I read the Scriptures the more the whole concept seemed out of line; it did not square with the statements of Jesus Christ himself, statements such as:
Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of Man is coming.
Crisis of Conscience Page 24