Statistics are Confusing--Memorial Attendance 1914-1935

by blondie 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Satanus


    That was pretty good, but i think w a little more effort and paying attention to development of material in an orderly way, that you could have put all of that spiritual swill into one sentence, for is not a flash of light in the singular state, and so would it not be fitting to make a statement in a singular sentence as well, for the....etc etc


  • MacHislopp

    Hello Blondie,

    thanks for the figures.

    The book "Jehovah's witnesses in the divine purpose " has:

    (page 50) Memorial attendance - incomplete - for the year 1915 ....15,430

    (page 73) " " " for the year 1918......21,274

    (page 73) " "-according to a partial report - without all foreign

    lands included, attendance figures were for the Memorial April 13th ,1919

    a total of 17,961. " The book then adds:" becomes evident that far less

    than 4,000 had ceased to associate with their former faithful associates.(x)

    (x) Footnote w. 1917 p.157; w. 1919 p. 151 .-

    I do hope that this will be useful.

    Thanks for your excellent subjects and comments.


    James Charles MacHislopp

  • MacHislopp

    Hello Blondie,

    it's me again. Here are some more figures:

    From the book "Jehovah's witnesses in the divine purpose"

    (page 110) Report of the attendance at the annual celebration of

    the Lord's evening meal:

    YEAR 1922 ........................32,661 partecipating;

    YEAR 1923.........................42,000 " ;

    YEAR 1924........................ 62,696 " ;

    YEAR 1925........................90,434 " (g)

    (g) Footnote : w 1922pp. 200,201; w01923 p.218; w1924 p. 242; w 1925 p.263.-

    These total attendance figures earth-wide do not count in groups of less than

    20 celebrators of the Lord' s evening meal, excepting some foreign reports. "

    I'm sure that these too will be of help.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  • blondie

    Thanks all for your comments, especially Nathan's tip on the fact that counting partakers did not start until 1935. What a dropoff from 1925 to 1928. I wonder if all those had to be replaced by 1935?


  • No Apologies
    No Apologies


    Where did you find the numbers for 1928 on? You must have really dug through the CD-ROM. I am guessing that they were not all in the same article.

    I have not installed the 2001 Library yet. I hear it is quite different. Guess I will have to check it out.

Share this