When did the "tag team" generation start?

by DT 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DT

  Was it 1914? That seems to be the impression that most people are getting from the recent change in understanding. However, the recent Watchtower article seems to contain some contradictions. Here is a quote:

  "For example, consider our understanding of those who make up "this generation" mentioned by Jesus. (Read Matthew 24:32-34.) To what generation did Jesus refer? The article "Christ's Presence-What Does It Mean to You?" explained that Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to his disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus' anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning-that Jesus "is near at the doors.""

  This makes it sound like the generation also refers to the first century anointed. It doesn't mention the anointed that lived during the other centuries, but I assume they would also be included. This doesn't seem to fit with what follows:

  "14 What does this explanation mean to us? Although we cannot measure the exact length of "this generation," we do well to keep in mind several things about the word "generation": It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus' words about "this generation"? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. The fulfillment of the various features of the sign clearly indicate that the tribulation must be near."

  Now they bring in 1914. So which is it? Are they purposely being vague to accommodate future revisions? Could they be thinking about discarding the 1914 teaching now that their current understanding hints that it might be just the anointed since Jesus, without reference to a certain date.

  I also wonder if this is officially a new understanding, with the governing body passing it with a two thirds majority. Or could it be viewed as a clarification of the existing understanding? Perhaps a governing body member just influenced the writing committee to express the way he understood the current doctrine. I recall that a governing body member was promoting this idea of the tag team generation in some of his talks, prior to this article coming out. I know it was discussed here, but I can't recall who it was.

  I welcome your comments.
• 

  agonus

  You know what we should do?

  We should start a mass letter-writing campaign to the WT to put IN WRITING in their responses, EXACTLY what the hell the "generation" REALLY means. Then we could compare responses and we'd have something (hopefully) that would stick legally. That way when our poor loved ones can't make head or tails of this nonsense, we could show them our letter and say, "Here's the official position, straight from the horse's mouth". Do you think it would work?
• 

  agonus

  Notice the weasel words, "We cannot measure the exact length" of a generation. Therefore, a "generation" could be the old standby, 70-80 years, or it could be literally a matter of a few decades, even a few years! So if "the generation" of current "anointed" overlaps the lives of the "anointed" who saw "the sign" in 1914, according to the above elastic definition, it could be as soon as tomorrow, or it could be as far off as (1914 + 80 + 80 =) 2074.

  My guess is that more than a few JWs will do the mental calculations and realize they're just too damned tired to make it that far. Expect the number of partakers to rise, more lifers to cool off, more young ones to wake up to the BS they're being served, and more of those who stay in to put off pioneering for college.
• 

  Sapphy

  Good points DT, I'd missed the vagueness around 1914.

  "...He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones..."

  We've gone from Jesus returned invisibly to the sign began to be evident?

  Evidently, it is reasonable to conclude there could possibly be a weakening of emphasis on 1914.

  I've always wondered why the GB didn't just give in to historical evidence around 607 and shift 1914 to 1934 and tie the start of the last days to Hitler.
• 

  WTWizard

  This is CHEATING!

  I never heard of any definition of a "generation" that allows two different generations to tag team. Jesus said "By no means will THIS generation pass away". And "This" does not mean "the next". Nor did Jesus explain that a "generation" is defined by having people's lives intersect at the very end--as those born in 1914 dying off in 2034, and those born in 2034 intersecting the original generation.

  Now, to me this is blatantly cheating. What they have done is to have given themselves until around the year 2154 to finish. And, at the rate they are going, they want people to waste whole lifetimes in field circus. Now, suppose someone is born in 2010. From infancy, this person is going to be hounded by the urgency of the message. All the while, nothing happens. This person is going to die without ever knowing anything but the fake emergency. That person's whole life has been wasted.

  I hope people see this and walk right out. And I hope those left reason that they have at least until 2154, and possibly much longer. Hopefully, this is going to be the Short Cut...to a Deep Cut in field circus hours.
• 

  Simon Morley

  Me, my dad, my son and grandaughter make up FOUR Generations not one, yet every one of us overlap - but we are not a single generation - never will be. Even if the gb stretched a symbolic familial generation that would only be from my sons' birth to my granduaghters birth, which normally is no more thah 20 - 40 years (my case 28). Nowhere in contempory or exant (1st cent) etymolgy is a generation defined as having more than one component.

  It is of interest that the writers of this drivel have opted not to use their fondness for quoting definitions or secular authorities. Generation comes from the latin word generare meaning to beget. I have yet to find a definition that covers anything but - animate or inanimate.
• 

  Leolaia

  I've always wondered why the GB didn't just give in to historical evidence around 607 and shift 1914 to 1934 and tie the start of the last days to Hitler.

  Hitler has a heck of a lot more cultural resonance in contemporary culture than Kaiser Wilhelm, so a 1934 date is something people today can relate to on that level. Giving up 1914 means giving up the 1918-1919 mythology, and that is how the Society claims it has theocratic authority over the lives of JWs....I don't think they want to give that up and changing the date would suggest that the Society was not "God's organization" at a time it claimed that it was. And WWI, while receded from the public consciousness, was not a minor skirmish, and the war did lead to the League of Nations, so altering the interpretation of Revelation 12 (which since 1925 has fixed the "war in heaven" to 1914) would have implications on the doctrine on the United Nations, and a number of other related things. OTOH 1934 fits really well with the doctrine of the great crowd being gathered starting in 1935.

  Was there a thread where scans of this article were posted? I missed it if it was already posted.
• 

  DT

  Thanks for your comments.

  We should start a mass letter-writing campaign to the WT to put IN WRITING in their responses, EXACTLY what the hell the "generation" REALLY means.

  I think it would be great to get them to commit to what they mean, rather than to just be vague and later selectively quote themselves to indicate they believed something for longer than they really did. I may call the headquarters to try to get some kind of definitive statement.

  I think this portion is interesting.

  To what generation did Jesus refer? The article "Christ's Presence-What Does It Mean to You?" explained that Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to his disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit.

  So they are claiming that the first century Christians are included in that generation. However, they are also claiming it refers to two later groups of anointed Christians whose lives overlap. It's not just a twinity generation. They are actually teaching a three generations in one trinity generation.

  Jesus' anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning-that Jesus "is near at the doors."

  This is crazy. They believe in two fulfilments of that sign and are claiming that the same generation observes both of them. However, they make no mention of the anointed that supposedly existed during the centuries between these two fulfilments. This raises at least two bizarre possibilities. One is that the sign was continuous from Jesus' day to the present. This would help explain the particularly unpleasant middle ages, but it wouldn't make our current time period stand out. There would be no reason why this sign couldn't continue for another two thousand years or more.

  Another possibility is that there are two fulfillments of that sign, like they believe, and that the generation was discontinuous. It didn't pass away after the first fulfillment. It just somehow mysteriously disappeared until there could be a second fulfillment of the sign and the generation could get another shot at not passing away.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  There's no way this is just a single GB member's clarity thoughts on the 2008 doctrine of the "Anointed Generation." This is a two-thirds majority doctrine. The only secret about that, to me, is whether the last changes were stepping stones to this- removing the 1935 doctrine for the anointed and the switching of the generation to the anointed in 2008.

  I choose to believe that they knew they were heading to this 2010 overlap doctrine a few years ago, but knew it was too goofy to express all at once. They prepared people for it by bringing the doctrine around in a few steps.

  I've always wondered why the GB didn't just give in to historical evidence around 607 and shift 1914 to 1934 and tie the start of the last days to Hitler.

  I think the GB decided in the 1970's to continue using old quotes that say "We were right all along, but we are more right now." They had some major problems with that by overstating 1975 was the end, but that was caculated to grow the organization into a mega-corporation and it paid off. But they continued to reinvent their past and say that Russell was right, they got people to overlook 1925 and expanded their view that they were always right. They had too much invested in their view, both 1914 and 1919. They just couldn't get a majority vote on a way to change both of those. They only get enough votes when they have to change the doctrine.

  This goofy "twofer" generation thing kind of sort of almost makes it look like they have been right all along, just needing more clarity. I think, if given the chance, it's important to mock the "tag team" doctrine. The best way, applying Steve Hassan's RELEASING THE BONDS, is to ask the JW that wants to talk and pressure us to go back, "Explain this overlap generation and how Jesus could have meant two generations in one."
• 

  thetrueone

  The WTS has intensional and deliberately puts words into Jesus mouth as was spoken and written in the bible.

  Its an devious attempt to hold on to power and the authority of which they have acquired.

  One of the most questioned and asked probably directly to the GB is the Generation doctrine that has changed as of recently.

  For any thinking JWS that absorbs this " NEW LIGHT " it will only stir up again division and doubt among the members.

  It all will come down to how much a typical JWS bullshit are they willing to swallow.