Marvin,
My “two cents” on this topic.
I have wondered about the legal aspects of this issue myself. It seems to me that the Society doesn’t necessarily have a problem admitting mistakes in the distant past. The best example that I can think of is that almost every publication we put out for internal consumption, it seems, talks about how Jehovah “judged his organization” in the years leading up to 1919. It sure seems that the Society clearly admits that errors were made during that period. But, of course, all involved are long gone from the earthly scene.
For example, an entire chapter is devoted to this period, and the fight for control over the Society, in the Proclaimers book. However, the events in Bethel in the late-1970’s and early-1980’s are given only very brief mention, without any specifics. From a historical perspective, it could be argued that these events--culminating in the dismissal, and later disfellowshipping, of an active member of the Governing Body--were as significant as anything in the Rutherford era.
To be fair, with respect to the 1975 issue, some fairly straightforward admissions of error are made in the Proclaimers book. Examples:
jv 104 8 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)
At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). (bold mine)
and:
jv 632-3 28 Testing and Sifting From Within
Later on, during the years from 1935 through 1944, a review of the overall framework of Bible chronology revealed that a poor translation of Acts 13:19, 20 in the King James Version, along with certain other factors, had thrown off the chronology by over a century. This later led to the idea—sometimes stated as a possibility, sometimes more firmly—that since the seventh millennium of human history would begin in 1975, events associated with the beginning of Christ’s Millennial Reign might start to take place then. (bold mine)
However, it must also be remembered that these statements were not published until 18 years after the fact.
And this is where I feel the Society falls short in setting the example for their own flock. It is as if any apology almost needs to be forced out through pure weight of embarrassment, and is only then given briefly, somewhat grudgingly, and couched in defensive terms (“yes, some statements were inadvisable, but we also said . . .). How does that compare with Saul’s response when confronted by the prophet Samuel? (1 Sa 15:17-29)
If elders, husbands, wives, parents, yes all Christians, adopt such as their policy for apologizing, what kind of organization will we have?
