If you all weren't here complaining about how meetings are getting shorter, there would be a thread about how JW's aren't adjusting to the times in keeping the same rigorous schedule. I guess all those here prefer the intense weekly meetings that JW's had....? I think not. I also get a kick out of those people who talk about the good-ole days when they were in the truth. In reality, there were apostates then who felt the same way you do now, and the only thing that is different is your current perspective based upon your existing association with JWs. There are JW's today who will not be in the future and who will look back on today with great affection.
johnnyc
JoinedPosts by johnnyc
-
31
Where did it all go wrong?
by THE GLADIATOR inbeing a jehovahs witness is getting easier with each worldly year that passes.
time is not getting shorter but meetings are, along with assemblies.
in my day the closing prayer lasted longer than the whole modern assembly.
-
-
-
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
OOMPA: One sentence you are saying there are not "replacements", but then you say there are - which one is it? Of course I don't keep up with everything the WTBTS says - as I am currently not a JW. I can only study after the fact. My terminology used for replacements is based upon the idea of "replacing" members previously selected. Whereas that probably is not a big number, there are some who say they are replacements, and such is evident upon their age. Btw...you are obsessed with spankings...maybe you are the one who needs one.
-
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
TD: I can see the point you are making, and it is logical to question the things that occurred. I personally cannot think of a good reason things happened the way they did from the late 1800's to the late 1930's. Between the issues Russell had in the beginning with his associates to Rutherford massively changing doctrine developed by Russell, it is very convoluted - and as everyone knows, the Rutherford days were less than admirable. That being said, could there be a case made to the fact the WTBTS ended up pleasing God in some way (after those days) so as to be counted worthy of receiving his spirit and direction henceforth? That question is the only reason I have contemplated sicking around the WTBTS, yet I worry that my attitude on the matter might conflict with the idea JW's have of "true dedicated worship". Can a good JW believe the days of Russell and Rutherford (more Rutherford) were not fully backed by Holy Spirit? Perhaps my feelings on that matter defines my position with the WTBTS...?
-
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
odie67: I think what you are referencing is that the GB is no longer the same as the corporate "body" (ie President, VP, Treasurer etc), and the reason for this is that the GB members are getting too old to carry those responsibilities. Unless I am wrong, I don't think anyone other than an anointed person could be on the GB, since it is believed only the "John Class" has the direct ability to receive holy spirit for use in that manner. Even though most anointed are old, there are some who are younger based upon the idea certain people have been "replaced". So, there would be no need to have anyone else other than an anointed person on the GB - as there are plenty of people to chose from. I think you will even see that last year's anointed count (people who partook at Memorial) actually went up - which is very much surprising. In writing this, I see there is somewhat a bit of a discrepancy as to why they wouldn't keep the corporate body filled with anointed persons if they have the younger people to fill it (as it would seem) - so that is a bit odd. Perhaps they don't think all the people who partake are actually anointed????
-
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
Here I am - I haven't forgotten you. OOMPA: See, I say the same thing back to you, why aren't you reading what it is saying!!! The issue surrounding "generation" is very much part of the fundamental teaching of 1914, and what it represents. In fact, the whole point of the initial Watchtower (Nov) article was to deal with that very issue, and the follow-up "Questions from the Readers" is based upon clarification of that very article. BUT HERE IS THE REAL QUESTION: Is there anything other than these two articles which would indicate the major policy shift so many people say was their basis for leaving the WTBTS??? If so, that is just too weird....as you cannot get an affirmative "change in policy" statement based on these articles. There is even a couple new articles in the WT saying that the generation would need to be based upon "anointed" Christians - not just anyone alive in 1914. So, even if you guys are right about the change in "generation" happening in Nov. '95 (not saying you are), then it would really be confusing as to why they changed back to their original teachings. Right now the "status quo" from the WTBTS is: The generation of anointed Christians alive in 1914 will witness the conclusion of this system. All in all, this is similar to the teaching they had from the start, with the two exceptions: (1) The age someone would be in 1914 to qualify as that "generation", and (2) that the "generation" is limited to anointed Christians. In closing, I would assume that something more definitive would have been presented here if it existed. I asked 10 current baptized publishers (including 2 elders, 2 MS, and 3 full time pioneers) what their understanding was on "generation", only to find they did not feel any change in "generation" occurred (other than the specifics of 1 and 2 noted above).
-
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
oompa: What you are saying is simply not the case. The full question was: "The Watchtower of November 1, 1995, focused on what Jesus said about this generation, as we read at Matthew 24:34. Does this mean that there is some question about whether God's Kingdom was set up in heaven in 1914?" The question clearly includes the issue about "this generation", making the answer applicable, as the teaching concerning 1914 and "generation" go very much hand in hand. The article even goes on to talk more specifically about the "generation" issue and the fact they had incorrectly viewed it as "70 or 80" years before. There is no question that they changed their viewpoint on how long a generation would be....but only to the fact it could be virtually someone born in the year 1914 and not limited to this age group. I will do some more reading, but like I have said many times on this thread, does someone have anything clear that would support the claim the WTBTS made a MAJOR change here? Making the change to basically the fact someone could be older does not seem all that major to me.
-
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
Honestly, I am doing a bunch of research on that date now. Since Russell was wrong about so many other things, especially over dates, I do have a hard time with any date he/they came up with. I do have some things which pull me in the other direction on this issue, but the study is so complex - and I am in the middle of it. There is incredible complexity with just setting upon a calender format to use as a basis for Daniel's prophesy to be calculated. I'll let you know what I think when I am done though...(if you want).
-
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
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?
-
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.