What's the big deal about this? There already many statements in the publications showing their commitment to the 1914 doctrine.
1983 Australia Gov. Body member Lyod Barry promises NO change to 1914!
by Witness 007 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
VM44
Any promises made by Lloyd Barry are null and void.
-
brinjen
I think a few people here are missing the point of this thread. The point is a GB member promised the 1914 doctrine wouldn't change. A man made that promise. Don't they claim they're directed by Jehovah? What about the comparisons between themselves and the bible writers who often didn't understand what it is was they were writing as they were acting entirely out of Jehovah's guidance? The two kinda clash don't they?
-
Witness 007
After Raymond Franz blasted the Governing Body with the paper an Elder wrote refuting 1914 in 1979 {I would love to have been in that room!} It's interesting that after this assault, by 1983 Loyd felt he had to defend and re-assure the Brothers that the doctrine was not being trashed......yet. That's the point. (1980 was a huge turning point for J.W's thanks to Raymond...or could have been!}
-
Jeremy C
I hate to be so contrarian on this matter, but I don’t see why this is anything noteworthy. When someone states that they have no intention of carrying out something; this a far different than if they had promised not to carry something out.
I’m sure that in 1983 the Governing Body felt that the end was just around the corner. But, as time went forward, reality caught up with them. The composition of the GB also changed slightly in the 1990s. They responded to reality by doing what they do best: pulling the new light rabbit out of their hat. This has been their m.o. for over a century.
There was nothing in print or stated unequivocally that they would not make any changes to the 1914 / this generation doctrine. It seems like some over-eager people are looking for a controversy where none exists.
-
Witness 007
There has never been a Watchtower to my knowlege that promised the Faithful Slave would not change the 1914 doctrine formula....they did continue to print belief in it...but this is saying: "I PROMISE WE WON'T CHANGE IT." That's what blew me away.
-
Jeremy C
There has never been a Watchtower to my knowlege that promised the Faithful Slave would not change the 1914 doctrine formula....they did continue to print belief in it...but this is saying: "I PROMISE WE WON'T CHANGE IT." That's what blew me away.
Continuing to print and state the belief in a doctrine is not a promise to retain that doctrine permanently without change. The Watchtower organization has never operated this way. Loyal Watchtower Witnesses do not even believe that. One of the basic tenants of this movement is "progressive revelation", and "new light". JWs actually expect this from their Governing Body. It excites them and gives them assurance that Jehovah’s chariot is on the move.
For decades, the Watchtower printed and taught that the "cut off" date for the selection of the 144,000 was 1935. They continued to support their belief in this. Just because they promoted a belief in it without any indication of future change; did not mean that they promised there would never be any change. The Watchtower has never promised not to change anything.
On another note, individual GB members have sometimes expressed their personal opinions about matters independently of the collective GB. What they may say to various people in private conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. Ray Franz noted in Crisis of Conscience that individual body members often had opinions that went contrary to the collective body.
-
VM44
It was the Creator's promise that the 1914 generation would not pass away before the new order of lasting peace and true security would be set in place on the earth.
So how COULD they change 1914?
-
CunningMan
Raymond Franz also mentioned in Crisis of Conscience that Lloyd Barry insisted on keeping the 1914 doctrine as it was.
-
sir82
What exactly is the "1914 doctrine"?
Most of the posts above seem to assume that it is the old "the generation of Matthew 24:34 consists of people who were alive in 1914, and that generation will not die before Armageddon comes".
Isn't it possible that what was meant by Barry was the "doctrine" that 1914 marked the invisible presence of Jesus in heaven? There would never be any need to change that - how can you prove or disprove that something invisible happened in heaven?
Sounds to me like making a mountain out of a molehill - I suspect that he was referring to the "invisble presence in 1914" doctrine, not the "generation of 1914" doctrine. They're not the same thing.