I don't quite understand Grissom's line of thinking on this, but let me clarify the issue I'm brining up:
1914 is explained to death...prophecy from Daniel, "appointed times of the nations", 2520 years counted from 607 and so forth. They haven't fallen short in giving us "evidence" as to 1914.
But with the matter of the scriptural FDS, it's being inspected, approved, and appointed by Jesus, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO "EVIDENCE" GIVEN! They just say that it happened. Wait, says who? I could go to my co-workers and say, "Hey just so you know, the boss said I'm in charge now and that you'll have to do what I say and anybody that tries to go to him instead of me will get fired." But that wouldn't be an actually appointment, it would be usurping.
In a religion where so-called "evidence" stacks on top of more "evidence", why is there just an assumption that the governing body in Brooklyn was approved by Jesus? Now I'm not saying that they are probably the "evil slave" because the one characteristic that Jesus provides for us at Matthew 24 is that the evil slave would claim that Jehovah's day would be "delaying".