I was researching something else for another forum and happened to come across this info on DocBob's great site:
"It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated."
"Here the governing body avoids the use of the first person, presumably in an effort to also avoid any responsibility for the buildup of expectations regarding 1975. Of course "it is to be regretted," but by whom? I am sure that those who sold their houses or businesses in order to spend the last few months of this system in the pioneer work regretted it. So, probably, did those who held their children back from going to school in the fall of 1975 and those who did not have needed medical or dental work done, or those who did not bother with retirement plans because the end was so near. The question is, did the governing body truly regret it? Their statement here does not say whether they did or not. If this were a real apology there would be no question.
The way this sentence is worded, one might think that it was the fault of the "latter statements". After all, it was they that "overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to the buildup of the expectation already initiated".
If we removed all of the responsibility-dodging language, paragraph 5 might read something like this:
5 In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led us, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With our publication of the book Life Everlasting - In the Freedom of the Sons of God, we of the governing body made comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence. In doing so, we aroused considerable expectation regarding the year 1975. We of the governing body made statements then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, we also published other statements that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. We of the governing body sincerely regret that we apparently overshadowed the cautionary statements with these latter ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation far beyond what was appropriate or scriptural.
In paragraph 6 the tone becomes even less apologetic and far more accusatory.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint."
Here the governing body moves from just avoiding the responsibility to putting it on those who were disappointed when nothing happened in 1975. In saying that it is those who were disappointed that need to "adjust their viewpoint", they are laying the blame squarely on them. It is their viewpoint that needs adjusting, not that of the governing body that raised their expectations for a decade."
Thanks, DocBob!
hugs,
Annie