1914 & “Generation” – What change?

by johnnyc 36 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Jewel

  This is all pretty interesting. I've been out (pretty much) since I married (an "Unbeliever"!!) in 1984. Since I was out there supposedly preaching about "this generation not passing away" in the 70's (and I remember someone from the stage saying the "age of understanding" was 13) I know this was not even questioned at the time. **To be clear, we were going out in the Field Service all through the 70's and early 80's telling people that Jesus became the king in heaven in 1914, there were all kinds of global "signs" to that effect and that the generation that "saw" those signs would not die before the Great Tribulation. "Seeing" the signs at that time meant old enough to know something cosmic was happening and that was defined as being "about 13". **

  I've since asked my mother (still in) a couple of times about this because it seemed to me that anybody in their early teens in 1914 would be gone. First she told me that the "understanding" on this had changed so it could include anybody ALIVE in 1914-including newborns. More recently she told me that the "definition of generation" had been changed. Her explanation was a little vague-I could tell she was uncomfortable. Though she's a diehard, she's smart enough that this stuff makes her nervous. I didn't pursue the topic at the time, but thanks to all of you I think I understand the new definition. No wonder she was uncomfortable...
• 

  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).
• 

  oompa

  Johnny, you really need to make more meetings, and pay close attention. You also need to find smarter more attentive elders to ask questions to. No one can appently help you unless you take the time to read, research, and help yourself.

  As far as this new annointed only are the generation teaching...it is sooooo flawed. When Jesus was speaking to his disciples and said to THEM "this generation" and they somehow knew, according to Sundays lesson that he was referreing to their generation (and somehow only their annointed generation) then WTF would he not have said "YOUR generation will by no means pass away????" And how stupid it is to say it is somehow ONLY them....like are they the only people going to be alive at the time???? Who is supposed to be alive at the same time to be destroyed??? The "wicked generation" which just happens to be living at the same frikkin time as "their exclusive annointed generation."

  I believe history repeats itself, and history of WT proves they have not had clue about the accuracy of most teachings for over a hundred years....very few teachings have NOT changed. They STILL change because they dont have a frikkin clue. And the will continue to change because they dont have a frikkin clue.

  I'm done with Johnny.....anybody else.....and he reallyd does need a spank.........................oompa
• 

  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????
• 

  oompa

  Johnny: there are some who are younger based upon the idea certain people have been "replaced".

  Johnboy you really dont stay current with WT teachings....last spring, April or May I believe in the questions from readers it was explained that "replacements" are not replacements at all. They are still being called up enmasse! No more does WT teach that all were sealed in 1935 and that only replacements are needed for unfaithful annointed...and the article even says that number would have had to be super small. You can probably find the threads here and scan of the article by searching 1935 on the search feature..........geeze..........oompa
• 

  Liberty

  Hi johnnyc,

  I think you may be confused by the fact that the Watch Tower Society is way too dishonest to admit outright that they were totally wrong about understanding what the Generation is and issued false man-made opinions passed off as the "True inspired words of God" to millions of followers who are not allowed to dispute them.

  They pulled the same stunt with 1975. In 1976 you CAN'T find an honest policy change statement to the effect that "WE, the LEADERSHIP of the Watch Tower Society stated our faulty opinions and conjectures about 1975 falsly represented by us as God inspired facts and now admit we were totally wrong about 1975 or any End Times predictions we pulled out of our asses. Sorry for screwing up your lives, so please don't listen to us because we are idiots." You will never see it clearly stated this way. They would loose their authority and control of the membership if they admitted that they know even less than your average Bible reader about "God's Divine Plan". Policy changes and weak admissions forced by clear events that don't add up or don't come true are always hidden in tricky and confusing language and or buck passing so that there is no clear revelation of the monument to falsehood that the Watch Tower is.

  Their entire claim to fame and authority derives from them being "God's only true spirit inspired channel on earth today" if they start admitting honestly that they don't have a clue when it comes to understanding the Bible they cease to be authoritative leaders installed by God and become just another group of men with opinions.

  It is really as simple as that.
• 

  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.