Thankyou Greven

by freein89 2 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  freein89

  Your simple statement clarifying the "generation of 1914" disaster was helpful. I had read the scan of the actual explanation per the WBTS and I just could not wrap my brain around it. The wording was so vague that I just could not figure out what the point was. I suppose it was deliberate to make the wording vague so as not to make an actual statement that could be refuted (or are they just stupid). Or perhaps if the wording was convoluted enough the Society was hoping it would never have to take it back and make up a new one.

  But I do have one question. Did the WBTS officially deem the subject new light, or did they try to say that it was meant that way the whole time?
• 

  greven

  Well this is a nice surprise!

  You are referring to this post right?

  I suppose it was deliberate to make the wording vague so as not to make an actual statement that could be refuted (or are they just stupid). Or perhaps if the wording was convoluted enough the Society was hoping it would never have to take it back and make up a new one.

  It is a combination of both I guess. It was so confusing many witnesses don't even know about it until you point it out. It was not announced with trumpets blazing as new light. It is a bit sneaky and brought like a refinement of terms instead of the abolishment of an entire doctrine.

  But I do have one question. Did the WBTS officially deem the subject new light, or did they try to say that it was meant that way the whole time?

  From the start on they used 'this generation' as a promise that armageddon would be arriving soon. Russell gathered it to be around 30 years. They had to update this around 1944 ofcourse (1914+30).

  Then they defined it as being the average age of man being 70 or 80 years ending in 1984 and 1994. There was some excitement in 1984 but nothing happened. 1994 nothing happened as well so they had to redefine it again. Defining a generation of more then 80 years would be plain silly. So they invented this strange cop-out that anybody that knows what happened in 1914 belongs to 'this generation' stretching it limitless.

  On a side note: they played around even more claiming at first one had to be at least 15 years of age at 1914 to belong to the generation, then it became 10 years and later 0 years. I do not have the references now but can provide them if you wish...or maybe another poster has them at hand...

  Greven
• 

  freein89

  Greven,

  I just found your reply, that sort of clears things up! When I left, the generation had to be around 14 or 15 in 1914, old enough for the age of reason is how they put it, if I remember correctly. Sounds like you are saying they were claiming to be redefining rather than tossing out the generation thing.

  A few years after I left, I found a magazine in the laundromat, can't remember if it was a Watchtower or Awake. But it contained a retraction of sorts in small print in the very back of the magazine, saying that the Watchtower never claimed to be inspired. A short time later I saw an elder who had been a close friend and he actually spoke to me. I questioned him about the retraction, which by now had been a couple of months old, he had no idea what I was talking about, his embarrassment and confusion were palpable. He had not read the magazine and here I was quoting it to him. I wish he had read the damn magazine, because I wanted to know what he thought! He said he would check into it, but of course I never heard from him again.

  Why did the society feel the need to print that? Tell me what you think.

  Deb