The Reason Why the Society Changed the Meaning of "Generation"...again

by Olin Moyles Ghost 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  OTWO and others: The idea that 2008 was part of a gradual shift to the 2010 doctrine is another reasonable explanation. Personally, I view the GB as being reactionary as opposed to having some kind of master plan for future doctrinal refinements. Perhaps 2010 is the result of a hybrid of our two theories...something like this:

  • In 2007 or earlier, some GB members come up with the "overlapping anointed" generation doctrine and present it to the body.
  • The proponents of the overlapping generation can't get a 2/3 majority to agree to the generational overlap, but the body compromises and agrees to change the generation to the anointed.
  • After the 2008 article comes out, the GB hears that the friends are interpreting it to mean that The End isn't as close as they thought.
  • The GB doesn't like this, so they huddle up and the "overlapping anointed" proponents convince some of the other GB to support their position on the grounds that it would mitigate the decreased sense of urgency among the JWs.
  • Result: 2010 "overlapping anointed" doctrine.

  Leo: I agree that the 1995 change would/should have had the same effect. That's why I expressed my surprise at the reaction (among JWs and on this board) to the 2008 change as follows:

  In a way, I was surprised about the hoopla that surrounded it. As far as I'm concerned, there's no practical difference between the 2008 and 1995 doctrines--in both cases, 1914 is irrelevant and there's no limit to the length of the Last Days. To this day, I'm not sure why the 2008 generation change had this effect--I recall seeing lots of discussion on JWD around that time, and for the life of me, I never understood how the 2008 new light made one iota of difference in the date for The End.
• 

  LongHairGal

  The 1995 generation teaching did it for me. That got my feet pointed towards the door. Even though I knew they were running out of time with their 1914 teaching, I still felt like I got sucker-punched. I was also insulted that they just 'slipped it into' the article. Hey, maybe they were hoping nobody would notice. They hoped the gullible people there would just nod their heads in agreement and not think about it.

  Now, a couple of generation changes later, it seems beyond ridiculous to me. Being a 'fader' I was not aware of the change in 2008. I can't imagine what it must be like now for somebody explaining this at a door.

  I think they are getting desperate and must be embarrassed to some degree. They want to keep more members from defecting from the religion and/or stop those still there from questioning and ridiculing the whole thing. They are hooked on respect and adulation and are threatened that they will be viewed in a ridiculous light and have lost credibility.
• 

  Backspacer

  I remember when things changed in 1995 and could not wrap my head around what they were trying to tell us. Going back now and reading it, it still makes no sense. It wasn't "deeper" it was just contrived. It didn't make sense because it didn't make any sense!

  Of more impact to me was the followup article about the sheep and the goats. We were no longer part of the separating work. I had been taught from the beginning that that is what we were doing. It made the rejections so much easier to take. Now we were just supposed to go out and preach and pass out bible literature? No thank you. Still wouldn't go back even if they flip flopped on this one. It just made the light go on in so many other doctrines. Oh the lies and misleadings. For what?