OK - I have done as much research on this subject as I think I can - both on the internet and the Watchtower library. There was a "follow-up" to the issue in the June 1, 1997 QUESTIONS FROM THE READERS (as noted by another post here). It starts by saying "That Discussion in The Watchtower (Nov. 1, 1995 as noted above) offered no change at all in our fundamental teaching about 1914". If people are talking about the age issue as to what constitutes a generation - which undoubtedly has been redefined, the article states: "It must be acknowledged that we have not always taken Jesus' words in that sense". What we are talking about here is the fact the WTBTS once estimated that someone should have been a certain age upon seeing 1914, and that a generation was typically 70 to 80 years. As I have stated in my earlier comments, the WTBTS has changed ONLY that someone could have been any age in 1914 (even born that date), and that some remaining "anointed" need to be alive to see the "conclusion of this system". My grandfather, who happens to have been born in 1914 is currently 94. Unless the WTBTS makes a further change, this is the "status quo". There may be another '75 issue around the corner, but as for now, I have not seen anything from the WTBTS literature which would indicate a "fundamental" change in the 1914/generation teaching. In fact, I am shocked that they have not made a change being there are only a couple years left where the connection of 1914 can be made with "generation". Does anyone have something I have overlooked?
johnnyc
JoinedPosts by johnnyc
-
36
1914 & Generation What change?
by johnnyc ini have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact wtbts changed their viewpoint on generation and its relevance to 1914. there was just an article out in the wt (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the wtbts still expects the generation who were around in 1914 to physically see the conclusion of this system and the visible second coming of jesus here on earth.
the wtbts did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what i have seen) said that generation could pass away altogether.
sincerely i ask: if anyone has that information i would love to see it.
-
-
-
36
1914 & Generation What change?
by johnnyc ini have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact wtbts changed their viewpoint on generation and its relevance to 1914. there was just an article out in the wt (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the wtbts still expects the generation who were around in 1914 to physically see the conclusion of this system and the visible second coming of jesus here on earth.
the wtbts did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what i have seen) said that generation could pass away altogether.
sincerely i ask: if anyone has that information i would love to see it.
-
-
johnnyc
Wow - I have to say that I thought there was some "BIG" revelation I must have missed or something on this generation thing. I've read everything you guys have given me to read so far, and I still don't see where the WTBTS changed their viewpoint of "generation". Either you guys are all going around convincing yourselves of a fact that doesn't exist, or I have yet to see what people are talking about concerning this "change of definition". Like I said, there was recently an article that held steadfast to the fact the generation who where present in 1914 will be around to see "the conclusion of this system of things". It is obvious that the WTBTS has made changes in the age a person would be in 1914 to be considered part of that group, but lastly they settled upon being born of that time. Truthfully, when I read this article, I was amazed that they were holding fast to a date which is right around the corner from the whole 1914 date being proven incorrect. If there is a certain article that someone thinks is out there by the WTBTS that says something different, I would like to know....and I sincerely mean that.
-
36
1914 & Generation What change?
by johnnyc ini have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact wtbts changed their viewpoint on generation and its relevance to 1914. there was just an article out in the wt (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the wtbts still expects the generation who were around in 1914 to physically see the conclusion of this system and the visible second coming of jesus here on earth.
the wtbts did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what i have seen) said that generation could pass away altogether.
sincerely i ask: if anyone has that information i would love to see it.
-
-
johnnyc
Yes, I have seen that - but that is hardly a policy change. I agree it is odd, but I am looking for hard "this is the what we think now" sort of information. I am willing to read between the lines a bit, but it should be clear information. I'm currently looking through '95 stuff now, but so far nothing. Some guidance to where I should be looking would help. Thanks.
-
36
1914 & Generation What change?
by johnnyc ini have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact wtbts changed their viewpoint on generation and its relevance to 1914. there was just an article out in the wt (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the wtbts still expects the generation who were around in 1914 to physically see the conclusion of this system and the visible second coming of jesus here on earth.
the wtbts did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what i have seen) said that generation could pass away altogether.
sincerely i ask: if anyone has that information i would love to see it.
-
-
johnnyc
I have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact WTBTS changed their viewpoint on “generation” and its relevance to 1914. There was just an article out in the WT (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the WTBTS still expects the “generation” who were around in 1914 to physically see the “conclusion of this system” and the visible second coming of Jesus here on earth. The WTBTS did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what I have seen) said that “generation” could pass away altogether. Sincerely I ask: if anyone has that information I would love to see it. I would then fully agree with the statements concerning the fact that not many Witnesses know a change was made.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the term “Governing Body” came into place due to the reference made about the group who “governed” the affairs of the WTBTS/IBS Corporation as corporate officers. When Russell was around, even though he had a board of officers (ie President, VP, Treasurer, etc – things a corporation needs to have legally), he ran the WTBTS/IBS probably more like a dictatorship. It wasn’t until Rutherford passed away that the “Governing Body” got its real authority to make decisions. In reality, once that occurred, many of the beliefs and viewpoints Russell and Rutherford had were changed. Some, like 1914, were kept.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
To Mouthy: I am sorry to hear of your bad experience. It is very unfortunate when a religious belief is at the root of a family being torn apart, especially since everything Jesus stood for was about love and uniting under his tutelage. Concerning the belief that 1914 AD is the date by which Christ was enthroned upon his heavenly sovereignty to rule over his kingdom, that is a very difficult study. To be certain, it was not a date by which Pastor Russell set upon steadfastly from the beginning of its inception - nor were the assurances given of its perceived fulfillment realized according to plan. I think it could be argued that the post designation of an “invisible” coming (in place of the perceived actual physical coming) could be called “convenient”, and the events of the time which JW’s use to support the date’s authenticity “less than obvious”. What I think about the date’s accuracy is not the defining question though. The real question would be: “Do I think Russell (and now the governing body of the Watchtower) has the authority, and by extension insight from God, to reveal such things to me?”. You state that your disbelief in 1914 is the reason you were “kicked out”. I would ask the question, why were you there if you didn’t believe the GB had authority and insight into 1914? In the book “Crisis of Conscience”, I am amazed that Raymond Franz had pinpointed precise issues (1914 being atop the list) he had with the WT organizational teachings, while basically admitting most other beliefs (which set JW’s apart) were viewed by him as being correct. In truth, the basic question and answer people should deal with is about authority, since everything else flows from that point (in my opinion). I am currently working on my personal answer to that aforementioned question...which has brought me here.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
I’ve read virtually all there is to read on the UN issue, and I even emailed the UN directly for their response – to which I got their standard reply. I then went back to read a great deal of info the WTBTS has said about the UN over the years. Even though the society claims the UN is part of the “wild beast”, and states over and over that the UN is not the source of true peace and security, I cannot see reference to the UN being a “wicked” organization. Quite the contrary, I’ve found references in the WT literature praising some of the work the UN does for humanitarian purposes. Additionally, the adage: “the enemy of your enemy is your friend” could be applied to the UN/WT relationship based on the fact the UN is a champion of worldwide efforts to combat religious intolerance among countries who otherwise would limit those freedoms. Going further, the relationship the WT had with the UN was limited to what I would refer to as a “library card”. Granted, that library card came with conditions, which links the WTBTS to membership duties and requirements. Personally, I think the WTBTS made the wrong choice in terminating the relationship, and they should have embraced the idea of participating with the UN on certain global conflicts over religious freedoms. I would say a large percentage of JW’s have knowledge about all this, and most I have talked to haven’t expressed major concern over the idea of that relationship.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
I appreciate some of your comments. It becomes easy to differentiate the balanced viewpoints from the “radical” one…and I am not talking about only those who have somewhat agreed with me. I appreciate some of the posts from people who don’t agree with me, yet didn’t resort to some sort of quip intended on downgrading me. To the people who have raised the issue – “that isn’t me”, I can only say that I am speaking to the majority, and there are always “exceptions to the rule”. I hope to start other posts to consider specific matters. Maybe this will bring out the best sort of discussions.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
Deep hatred for something often leads to irrational behavior, and unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints. It can have the same blinding effect you claim the Watchtower places upon its members, making the criticism thereof hypocritical. Who would I consider more reasonable - a Islamic radical or Catholic crusader? In discussing a subject matter, like…uh, say “Who should control Jerusalem?”... how could I take seriously either one to give me a fair, balanced viewpoint? My point to this posting was simply state that many discussions are based upon frivolous statements coming from an extremist point of view. Obviously, everyone has a right to participate in such – as I do in pointing it out. I realize I might sound arrogant in expressing my feelings on the matter, but to give you some of my background: I am a 32 year old architect living in the Northwest. I was raised in the “truth” from very dedicated JW parents, and married a dedicated wife (full-time pioneer). I stopped being an active JW about 8 years ago, and I go to a meeting every 4 months or so. About 2 years ago I started an active search for “God”, only to be very disappointed in what I found out there, and have been disillusioned with certain realizations I had about the subject matter altogether. I’ve since been looking all over for information, and truthfully have been considering going back to being a JW (though have not acted upon it) based on not finding anything better out there. My wife is now pregnant, and this has hastened my desire to settle upon something. My visit to this site was based upon my deep inner desire to find a “smoking gun” on why I shouldn’t be a JW – yet most of what I have read so far seems to be rantings of an extreme position. It would be nice if there were some threads of discussion based upon serious matters, with reasonable views….understanding that “reasonable” is a relative term.
-
71
Criticism worthy of your time
by johnnyc inas i read posts throughout this site, i became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as i did), and responding to.
dont get me wrong, some of what i read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, i find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the wtbts.
i can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point.
-
-
johnnyc
As I read posts throughout this site, I became amazed at some of the criticism people have actually spent time creating, reading (as I did), and responding to. Don’t get me wrong, some of what I read are good issues that seem worthy (to me) of discussion, but to be honest, I find that 90% of the posts are based on ridiculous petty topics that are obviously tied to a sense of deep hatred of the WTBTS. I can appreciate that some of the people who leave such post, and have this hatred, are taking their time to discuss such things as part of a therapeutic process to combat the fact they spent a large portion of their life dedicated to an organization they feel abandoned them at some point. Perhaps when it was felt they needed this organization the most. Others have another reason, but the fact remains the basis for some of these posts reflect a deep sense abhorrence to anything bearing the name Watchtower. The beliefs many of you held as sacred, and worthy of spending countless hours spreading to other people, are now the focus of your malcontent. Now, you spend a lot of time working against the very thing you once promoted. The very thing you thought you would never do. The very thing you spoke out against. The very thing you detested. Go ahead – ease your pain. John-Paul