The generation changed is explained in the June 15'th WT!

by life is to short 135 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  If you take this change in teaching with the general tone of the Watchtower of late, there is a real sense of the Governing Body seeking legitimacy. The new generation teaching acts is sort of a passing of the baton, from the former group to the new.

  I suppose I could see the old guard telling stories of how 40 to 35 years ago, they were really enjoying all the buzz and excitement. The younger members of the GB salivating at the thought of the end being so imminent. "Can we get that feeling back?" asks one.

  "It would have to be done without naming the year, but it I think so."

  "Good. That might help us retain the older JW's. Maybe they will leave their estates to us if the end is really really close this time."

  "Okay, we have a couple of things in the works. One is comparing the last days to the last days before the flood and saying the limit is 120 years. But 2034 is a ways off still. There's also this wild idea about the overlap of the generation that we were working on. That one could be put in place right away."

  "Alright, let's vote on both of them. You all take a week to see what scriptures we could use or even more important, what old light we can quote to show that we were already leaning toward one of them by spirit-direction."
• 

  agonus

  the current crop of geriatric thugs has poor old Barr by his shriveled testicles and they're brazenly demonstrating their power by having the poor senile bastard spout their crap... i doubt he even has a clue what the hell's going on
• 

  misocup

  Here's what I think they mean.

  The generation that discerned 1914, spanned 30 years. Say at age 14 you could discern, that would make those born after you by 20 years, still belonged to your generation. That would make those born up to 1930 still eligible to be considered "this generation" by the WTS previous "this generation" standard.

  This accounts for the distinction of older and younger members of "this generation", and places the youngest members at age 80.

  It buys them maybe 10 years?
• 

  misocup
• 

  misocup

  Bloody hell I wish I'd read what I just wrote before I posted it.

  I meant to say:

  Or to put it another way

  "This generation" now means those born between 1900 and 1930 approximately. There is no longer the (unwritten?) rule about those of "this generation" who survive Armageddon, having to have discerned 1914. They only have to belong to (be contemporaries of) those who did discern 1914.

  The GB just slid the 30 year definition of a generation from about 1884 to 1914, to about 1900 to 1930.

  Now you just have to belong to the same generation that discerned 1914. Still contemporaries.

  It could take them 30 years past 1914, depending on if they want to drop the discerning idea altogether.
• 

  palmtree67

  miso,

  they will drop the discerning idea altogether..........30 years from now.

  Mark my words.
• 

  orangefatcat

  it has been awhile since being in the forum, first of let me say I am disappointed in the language being used in this thread, has Simon lowered his policy on language vulgarity? Just wondering.

  Now to the subject at hand. When our family became JW's in the early 60ties there were many things changing in the organization then, one of which was the understanding of the Resurrection. I can't count the number of times the GB have changed their understanding of the resurrection. Are they any further ahead on this subject? No not particularly. Same old stuff just disguised differently.

  That being said lets discuss this generational change. I think we are pretty much in agreement that their( GB's explanation )is totally bizarre. Then what else is new. When we see them every few years changing the understanding of a doctrine they have developed a finesse like that fly that landed on your nose and they could snatch off your face before you even realized it was there in the first place. That is how quick fast and sneaky they are. They try and change the leopard's spots but they can not. They remain the same. Trying to change the understanding of the generation to fit into your box or container is like shoving a square peg into a round hole, it just won't work even if you force it still will not work. OVERLAPPING I must admit that is pretty impressive, and to have what over 6 million people puppets believe it. That is pretty good statistically. That is if everyone of them believes it. That is the question. Just how many witnesses given the chance to break free right this moment with no strings attached like no disfellowshipping just how many would leave.

  I dare to guess more then half of them. Their the WTS's greater strengths is in the third world lands and in Asia but I believe you would find in the north American continent UK and Australia peoples would leave in droves.

  of course these are merely my own opinions and are not meant to hurt or insult anyone.

  your friendly

  orange fatcat

  Terry.

  
• 

  mindmelda

  I don't know about how guidelines are enforced here, but many of the people commenting here no longer claim to be Christian, so holding them to Christian standards of language or demeanor on that basis would be rather difficult.

  Also, this is apparently not a forum only for ex Witnesses who have converted to Christian religions, although there are some here. From what I've noticed, most of the individuals here don't claim any particular religion or beliefs now.

  I myself don't have a problem with language that some might consider "vulgar" about bodily functions and the like, but I dislike offending people who do. Asking for nicer language would have to be done on another basis than religion for many here, I'm afraid. Maybe just social convention?
• 

  Truthexplorer

  Orangefatcat

  it has been awhile since being in the forum, first of let me say I am disappointed in the language being used in this thread, has Simon lowered his policy on language vulgarity? Just wondering.

  Amen to that.

  When I see someones post with a expletives, I just skip thode posts. Gods standards dont change. I find it sad that some who were once (perhaps still are) JW'S or those who once had a deep love for Gods word have to resort to using expletives.

  I am glad that it has been pointed out which magazine, the 'new light' about this generation is discussed as someone originally said it was the April issue? At least I can go back to the wife and show her this time.

  Also, I just dicovered though freeminds that Russell wasnt the first president of the WT society. Now that was a revelation. Apparantly it was William Henry Conley.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Conley

  Sorry for going of on a tangent a bit.

  TE
• 

  undercover

  If you're gonna impose stricter standards on "vulgarity" then this thread will have to disappear because the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are more vulgar than any word that I can use or invent.

  Therefore I stand by my earlier posts that were loaded with vulgar words as I describe a most vulgar group of men that has personally affected my life.