ComfortMyPeople

Lately I've been too busy to post anything. But these last ideas put forward by JWI fit so well with what I've been thinking for years that I wish to express my totally agree. I hope that those on charge, have the humility to recognize their mistakes and the courage to explain it openly, no matter what happens and whoever falls, however sad it may be. The truth can not, it should not be covered more time. The servant must be prudent, true, but first he must be faithful.

I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc.
As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below:
Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book.
I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities.
By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
 
Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)
So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.
Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act. Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling

Lately I've been too busy to post anything. But these last ideas put forward by JWI fit so well with what I've been thinking for years that I wish to express my totally agree. I hope that those on charge, have the humility to recognize their mistakes and the courage to explain it openly, no matter what happens and whoever falls, however sad it may be. The truth can not, it should not be covered more time. The servant must be prudent, true, but first he must be faithful.

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

We know the reason why some portion of the "times and seasons" in the Hebrew Scriptures were "released" from "his own jurisdiction." You mentioned it when you quoted 1 Peter 1:10-11. It pointed to the time when Jesus would appear, suffer, be glorified, and therefore the time of salvation.
would be available through the suffering of Christ, and the glory that would follow.
Therefore, Christians KNEW that they were currently in the day of salvation:
(Romans 13:11-13) 11 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime,. . .
(2 Corinthians 6:1, 2) 6 Working together with him, we also urge you not to accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose. 2 For he says: “In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you.” Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation.
(Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.
From this point on (after Jesus had been given ALL authority in heaven and on earth - Matt 28:18), they trusted that Jehovah had the future times and seasons in his own jurisdiction, and only needed to know that they should keep always on the watch precisely because they could not know the times and seasons. That's why keeping on the watch was always about conduct and faith and never about trying to look into chronology.
As you are probably aware, the problem isn't just with the need to create a two-lifespan generation, but everything about the 1914 theory is problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand and already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the parousia would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, any translation except NWT in this case) The synteleia (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.) I'll move this point to a new thread, because it appears that it could easily create off-topic discussions.
 

I hope I don't get in trouble for this off topic remark but...back in WW 2 fighter pilots use to bring balls of aluminum foil with them. When they went into the enemy territory they would throw them out of the cockpit window. The reason for this was to mask the identity of his plane since the radar at that time could not tell the difference between a plane a flock of birds or aluminum foil. Therefore by illustration Satan has thrown out thousands of religions calling themselves "Christian" and yet only a handful of other sects of other religions. So Satan knows the true religion is one of Christianity's faiths since he is trying to hide it like a needle in a haystack. There are over 2,000 sects of Christianity but how many different Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are there?   Something to think about.

I don't align myself to a group of men. I seek a valid Christian brotherhood. I can't speak for why others choose the faiths they choose. But I can share my faith. If it is attractive to them, they will seek to learn more. Many people, especially Catholics from your examples, are Catholics because that's how they were raised. But Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses remind them through the process of going out publicly from door to door that there are other options out there, should they seek a change. Some find that attraction through better doctrine, and some through finding a loving Christian brotherhood that excels their current experience.
I personally think that JWs are doing the better job in setting the example of managing a worldwide public ministry. But, as you probably know, I would also welcome an adjustment to three or four non-major doctrines. I don't consider them major, although since one of them is our set of chronology doctrines, some JWs might. Even though I don't think they are critical, Jehovah knows that people will always be curious to see if there is some bit of calculating, in-depth research that might reveal the secrets of the ages. But I also know that Witnesses are not "stuck" on these doctrines. We've made terrible, stupid mistakes, and even promoted some false prophecies over these doctrines in the past, but as soon as they are proved false, they are dismissed. In general our belief in a "revealed" end-times chronology is intended to bolster activity and urgency and watchfulness. Perhaps it works for some people. I think it's the wrong motivation, but I don't know that any other motivation would work better for most of us. 
Also, I'm not one of those Witnesses who judges the members of others religions as deserving of death at Armageddon. I fully expect that it's more likely that all "religion" as organizations will break down during the Great Tribulation. But the ways in which an organization would remain united under such conditions will favor those individuals who came out of organizations that prepared and anticipated the troubles in some way.

I have thought about these additional questions that were resolved by Jesus' faithfulness until death:
1) Satan could have made the allegation that the first and direct creation of Jehovah would not be faithful and would do the same as he did if under pressure, which made this a "universal" issue.... in heaven and earth.
2) Satan could make the allegation that Adam and he himself were not created "perfect" as Jehovah said they were!
Jesus proved that Adam was perfectly made because Jesus came down to earth as a man (like Adam), was put under greater temptations and stress than Adam,  and remained faithful to Jehovah until death.  His concience was fully functional- knowing right from wrong- and he followed Jehovahs directions perfectly and did not bow to any selfish desires.
By coming down to earth with less power than an angel - having been an angel before- Jesus proved that Satan could have remained faithful to Jehovah .... and hence, Jesus provided the legal basis for the destruction of Satan and any other angel who rebelled against Jehovah as well as humans who followed their deceitful way of thinking and the shifting of blame. False accusations were now proven to be false and provided a legal guarantee for Jehovah's future actions.
Do you not love the cohesion and logic  in the Bible !

This is a follow-up because I remember I never tried to address a very good question you had about the fig tree under another topic:
(Matthew 24:32-34) . . .“Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.
This was right after Jesus had reached the main point of his answer. Again, Jesus had been asked for a sign of his visitation (parousia) which to them meant, essentially, "the end of the world" and the ushering in of the Kingdom. The first words out of Jesus were "Don't be fooled" because there are a lot of things you might think of as signs (wars, rumors of wars, etc.) but this is not a sign of the end. ("but the end is not yet"). The most direct answer, then, to the disciples' question is the verse where Jesus tells them what the true sign really is: "THE SIGN of the Son of man in heaven" that is immediately preceded by "signs" in the sun, moon and stars:
(Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
The order of each of these statements is probably not as important as we have made them out to be in the past. We used to split up Matthew 24 into three parts and claim that certain parts meant the generation of 70, certain parts meant the generation of 1914, and certain parts meant both. This is proven to be untrue and untenable by the accounts in Mark and Luke, which is probably part of the reason for the change in the Insight book already shown above.
But after Jesus makes statements about what the sign is NOT, and then makes the above statements about what the sign IS, Jesus also provides a summary conclusion, a kind of moral of what they should now learn from the answer he gave, and what this means in a practical way. It seems that Jesus' conclusion also makes a good answer to the initial question of the disciples. Note:
QUESTION:
(Matthew 24:3) 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”
SUMMARY ANSWER:
(Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
And then Jesus gave some more illustrations and examples about how the disciples should prove themselves faithful and discreet under those circumstances.
Working backward from that "summary" answer Jesus gave, his audience would come to the same conclusion about why wars, famine, earthquakes, etc, were NOT part of the sign they asked for.
At any rate, I think this is the best context in which to understand why Jesus would say what he said about the "fig tree." It seems that Jesus is saying this as another way to answer to their question about how to determine the "sign" that all these things will happen. But it's now in the context of how they would ask the question in the context of the full answer that Jesus has given them. So "all these things" could very well include the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilence, and of course, finally, the fearful signs in the heavens. All these things will be looked at over this "season" that they are in, and they would want to know which of them is a real sign, and which isn't. So Jesus has given them a way to understand the "season" they are in -- the generation living between right then and the final destruction of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish worship. These things would take place, but it didn't mean "the end" that they were asking about (his parousia/visitation) would occur immediately.
That is the idea that Luke gives when you read Jesus' answer in Luke 21. Look especially at 21:10.
There are other possibilities, of course, but this way of looking at it does not conflict so much with the current understanding in the Watchtower, where the main difference is that for the "1914 generation" the "parousia" is started at that time. But Jesus answered the question to the disciples about when the parousia would be visited upon the stones of the Temple grounds in Jerusalem. It seems reasonable that Jesus answered that question for them. In fact, the disciples, called that prediction about the Temple stones coming down as "these things." To them, THAT was the "parousia." The judgment visitation, the visible manifestation from the heavens that would be the same as the sun and moon no longer giving their light, and the stars falling. But Jesus said there was no sign that could help them prepare for that, because it would come as a thief. However, he did let them know they were in the season, and that when all things up to and including the fearful signs in the heavens occurred, that they should know that Jesus was near.

The "signs of the times" are EXACTLY the same in both contexts.
But as you already know, I still read that portion of Matthew 24 in the same way that Charles Taze Russell and dozens of other Bible commentators have read it: That Jesus was asked for a sign of the end times, and he told them not to be fooled by things like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, because all these things would happen just as they always have. He said not to be fooled because these types of "signs" were not going to help them understand the time of his visitation (parousia). It would come as unexpectedly as a thief in the night, and a thief doesn't give a sign of his coming.
The part that Russell ignored was that Jesus also said that no one should say that Jesus had already returned, but that you just can't see him, because when he returns, his parousia will be as visible and as suddenly unexpected as lightning that shines from one horizon all the way to the other.
This is why Jesus built up to the point where he said, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken. "THEN THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in heaven."
 

I thought it might be useful to note the differences in the printed version of the Insight article, and the recently updated online version of the Insight article. Words from the original Insight article that are no longer included in the updated version are highlighted in bold/red. Words added only to the updated version are highlighted in bold/blue :
*** it-1 p. 918 Generation ***  [Printed version]
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies.
...
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.
The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined in Matthew chapter 24, Mark chapter 13, and Luke chapter 21.
*** it-1 p. 918 Generation *** [with online changes]
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies.
...
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. So his comment about “this generation” logically had an application down to 70 C.E. However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence.—Mt 24.
 
The primary correction being made here is very vague about the definition of "generation" because the Insight book was already being written at a time when the doctrine was in flux.
The actual reason for the correction is that this portion of Matthew 24 was temporarily seen as ONLY applying to a future generation, not the generation that Jesus was speaking to, which was a generation that would see the fulfillment in 37 years. Note that both articles are the same in the beginning portion, quoted below, that was left out at the point where the ellipses were placed in the quotes above:
When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.
What the original was saying was that although the context of Matthew 24 speaks of "this generation" twice, once in Matthew 23:36 and once in Matthew 24:34, they mean something different in both cases, so you have to look at the context. The printed version of the Insight book is saying that only Matthew 23:36 refers to the 37-year generation of Jesus' day ending in 70 C.E., but when Jesus says almost the same thing again in Matthew 24:34, then this time he is referring only to the future "1914" generation. Note where the words "however" and "also" are added and omitted in the two versions.
In the updated online version, Insight is now saying that Jesus was simultaneously referring to both historical contexts at the same time: 70 C.E. which saw the end of the Jewish system of things,  and ALSO the generation that sees the end of the entire system of things at the end of his parousia. 
The value of this updated point is that we now have the backing of the Watch Tower publications to show that Jesus used the same word for both contexts. Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.
For example, it seemed that Jesus had told that generation that they (or at least many of them) would experience the tribulation upon Jerusalem in their own lifetime because the end would come upon that generation. Now if it had taken 140 years instead of 37, then we might rightly look for an interpretation of "generation" that could be stretched somehow to two lifetimes. But if the end of the Jewish system really had come in 173 C.E. (instead of 70) and we knew that Jesus was referring to a two-lifetime generation, then what right would we have to claim that Jesus could ONLY be referring to a 40 to 70 year generation in the case of the "1914 generation"? If another religion was teaching such an inconsistency, we would obviously deride them for their lack of ability in "handling the word of truth aright." (2 Tim 2:15)

@Eoin Joyce quoted one of the first real hints of the overlapping generation doctrine from the Feb 15, 2008 WT (above).
Above, I also quoted a WT QFR that mentioned overlapping generations from the Sept. 1, 1952 WT, and it showed why overlapping generations do not effect the length of the generation Jesus spoke about.
After the 2008 article, there was also a more recent mention of the some of the same points repeated in the April 15, 2010 WT, and this 2010 article was the first to explicitly create a generation that is defined by the overlap of two specific groups: One group saw the start of an event, and another group could not have seen the start of that event, but would see the start of a different event, not more than two lifespans from the first event:
*** w10 4/15 pp. 10-11 pars. 13-14 Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose ***
13 Third, holy spirit is at work in bringing Bible truths to light. (Prov. 4:18) This magazine has long been used by “the faithful and discreet slave” as the primary channel for dispensing increased light. (Matt. 24:45) For example, consider our understanding of those who make up “this generation” mentioned by Jesus. (Read Matthew 24:32-34.) To what generation did Jesus refer? The article “Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You?” explained that Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to his disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus’ anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning—that Jesus “is near at the doors.”
14 What does this explanation mean to us? Although we cannot measure the exact length of “this generation,” we do well to keep in mind several things about the word “generation”: It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about “this generation”? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. The fulfillment of the various features of the sign clearly indicates that the tribulation must be near. By maintaining your sense of urgency and keeping on the watch, you show that you are keeping up with advancing light and following the leadings of holy spirit.—Mark 13:37.
I included the paragraph that drops plenty of hints that this new idea is evidence of holy spirit at work, and that it represents the light of Bible truth, and that the source is the "faithful and discreet slave." This introduction stands together with the explanation in paragraph 14 that we don't know the length, that it "usually" refers to a given description, and that Jesus "evidently" refers to a version of what it "usually" refers to. The only points that are given with "sureness" are these:
The generation had a beginning It will have an end The fulfillment of various features of the sign indicates that the tribulation must be near Note that it isn't by believing in a potential 'two-lifespan' generation that we are keeping up with advancing light and the leadings of holy spirit, but only explcitly by maintaining a sense of urgency, and keeping on the watch. As Christians we would do this with or without the two-lifespan generation, based on other scriptures, for example:
(2 Timothy 4:1, 2) . . .: 2 Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times. . .
(Ephesians 5:15, 16) 15 So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons, 16 making the best use of your time, because the days are wicked.
(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah. . .
 

I think a careful reading actually does lead to the idea that the Watchtower is now promoting the entire doctrine as Bible "truth."
Of course there is a lot of "hyperbole" and "hypobole" in this introduction. It was not "some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 that did not come about; for most of them, it was ALL OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT 1914 that did not come about. If they are referring to the entire group of faithful anointed ones (by their own count) who were actively serving God, then no one could say, per the Watch Tower publications that "most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution" or that "most --if not all--of those anointed" faithfully completed their earthly course. In fact most of them left the Watch Tower organization, and many were pushed out on purpose by Rutherford, either actively or through doctrinal error. (Doctrines that he promoted, but which we now consider to be in error.)
This is also hyperbole, because none of them readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year, because they continued to discern that Christ's presence was in 1874, and this they discerned even into the 1920's and 1930's, when the doctrine was partially changed. Officially, they kept discerning that Christ's presence had begun in 1874, right up until about 1943. Note this from the book, God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years -- Has Approached:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
55In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
The Watchtower in the 1940's admits very explicitly that they did NOT discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. None of them did.
Therefore, there are conflicting points here about how they did not understand most of what happened in 1914, and then claiming, at the same time, that they readily discerned what happened in 1914. Taken together, it might be highlighting the more important point that, in spite of a wrong understanding, at least some continued to maintain their integrity and continue to be watchful about Christ's presence. This might also color the lens by which some interpret the importance of the urgency and integrity as opposed to the acceptance of the specific current doctrine itself -- then or now.

Jehovah created predation as well as prey with defenses against predators. Predators using poison then to kill their prey is really a reflection of Jehovah's endearing engineering.  Also, Genesis 1:30 does not teach that all animals were created as herbivorous, as that is a common misunderstanding. Additionally, God did not alter the fauna after Adam's sin or after the Deluge to function within a predator-prey dichotomy--as there are no scriptures stating that, and which could even be seen as a contradiction of Jehovah resting from creation. 

As I come from Africa I have often thought about it.  Some animals were created to "clean" up after others such as eating carrion.... to keep the earth fresh and clean ..... and animals will still be dying in areas where humans are not around. (Adam and Eve knew what death was because animals were/ and will/ always die when their life force runs out.)
Many animals provide a useful service....  We may have areas set aside as animal sanctuaries where animals roam free but do not harm humans when they see them. .... or animals may only catch other animals and not touch humans.......Before the flood, the fear of man was not in animals.... Jehovah put it there after the flood.  Genesis 9:2 " 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; "  This was the time when Jehovah gave them permission to eat animal flesh... so animals would fear for their lives as they knew they would be hunted.
As 1Cor 13 says : 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.  We cannot really understand these things now.
All I do know is that some of these paleontologists are not very smart - one can see they have not lived with animals because they do not seem to have observed anything. Take the T-Rex... it's eyes are on the side of its head.  Plant eaters usually have their eyes on the side of their head.  Predators on the other hand have their eyes looking forward so they can focus on the prey.
I also have seen that most predatory animals are taught by their parents how to hunt.... the perfect killer skill is not natural.  There are only a few species which are natural born killers.
Plant eaters tend to herd in numbers....... and they have found groups of footprints (T-rex) in North and south America.....  The large teeth are no surprise...... think how large the plants were during the time when the earth was a green house (when the earth still had its canopy)....
So all things are speculative - I guess we will have to wait and see.

One of Satan's cunning (and most successful) machinations is to attack our faith in a way we don't expect. We shouldn't be so focused on the obstacles outside, that we stumble over what may be right in front of us on the inside. And it's not that we don't have plenty of scriptural examples in the Hebrew scriptures or even warnings in the Greek scriptures (that some may feel uncomfortable to apply within the Christian congregation).                
Acts 20:29,30: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."
2 Tim. 3:13: "But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
There is NO level within our organization where such individuals have not been manifest. (Publishers; MSs; Elders; Bodies of Elders; Circuit Overseers; missionaries; branch overseers... even members of the Governing Body.) And it's not just apostates we are referring to here. There are other forms of corruption too, sometimes orchestrated by groups of individuals in authority to cover up wickedness. Sometimes because of the level of authority they have, they can get away with these things for years or decades... (1 Tim. 5:24)
So what are we to do? Cast a suspicious eye towards our brothers and sisters - in authority or otherwise? That is certainly not what God's Word suggests when giving us these warnings. And in fact, we can't always recognize these men until they reveal themselves by their words or actions. Even when we do recognize something is very wrong, we may not be in a position to do much about it except to "blow the whistle." But even then, if you are exposing men who have authority (or even have "friends in high places"), you may experience threats or worse types of "blowback,"  even though you may feel - and in fact are - being obedient to Jehovah's divine direction and that of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. It is times like these, when you have done what Jehovah has asked of you, that you leave matters in his hands and continue in YOUR faithful course as a dedicated servant of Jehovah - regardless of the choices other people make. 
What we don't do is have a suspicious eye toward our brotherhood as a whole or even decisions we may not understand or agree with when we don't have all the facts. We need to have faith and trust that Jehovah is not only aware of the situation (and the suffering it may cause), but will at the right time deal with it, while he helps us to endure these "hard to understand" tests of our faith and even machinations of the Devil designed to destroy our relationship with Jehovah. 
 
 
 

This type of situation has always resulted in double-think (a form of NON-thinking) or, as the psychologists say, a form of "cognitive dissonance."
*** w76 12/1 p. 712 Insight on the News ***
What Makes a Good Citizen?
● A Danish family was recently denied Canadian citizenship by the Federal Court of Appeal. Yet Mr. Justice George Addy of the court wrote that “both Appellants impressed me as being good, honest people with a deep religious faith which they translate into action in their daily lives. They are members of the movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Both he and his wife are apparently strong believers in the work ethic and have never taken advantage of the social benefits provided for in our society. . . . Their children are exceptionally clean-cut and alert and the family from all appearances is a model one.”
Then why the denial of citizenship by this very judge? “The single obstacle to a grant of citizenship,” writes Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario law faculty, was the fact that, in taking the oath of allegiance, they would not agree to participate in any war effort.
The very person who wrote this knew that in his own "Oath of Allegiance" he had promised to participate in the defense of the constitution from all enemies, both foreign, and domestic. His wife took almost the identical citizenship oath referred to in the article.
Saluting the flag is just a preamble to the more serious "pledge of allegiance" that adults will be asked to sign or affirm if they are changing citizenship or will travel outside the country. The same person who wrote this also has claimed (to others) that he is finally withdrawing himself from defending the Watchtower's position on blood, after a quarter-century of not personally believing what he was famous for strongly defending. (For that matter, Ray Franz also claims that he defended the 1914 chronology for several years after discovering it was not Biblically supported, while researching the Chronology article in the Aid Book.)
In an almost related story, I've read (never confirmed) that the reason the Society changed their views against vaccinations was because several brothers needed to travel to other countries, and vaccinations were required for travel.

Another subject that seems to fan the flames.
Malawi Congress Party card? Purchase seeming to endorse the Banda personality-cult dictatorship with all it's trimmings. Can't see any difference with the "Heil Hitler" salute myself. I see it as an act of worship. Violates Jehovah's law.
Mexican military service cartilla? Corrupt system where mid-ranking officials impose "unofficial tax" to endorse marching participation certification. Common and generally tolerated (not approved) practice, along with other similar "unofficial" charges for Government administrative services. Document does not exempt from military service at time of war, but allows for obtaining other legal documentation such as driving and travel permits. Show me an incorrupt government. Make your choice. Accept the consequence. It's up to you. Conscience matter for me.
Oath of allegience to US? Can't see why GB members are singled out? Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this oath taken by anyone getting a US passport or becoming a US citizen? There should be 1000's of photos here. Seems to be an affirmation to uphold US values? Seems to reflect the spirit of Rom 13:7. Even constitutional rights are reflected in the wording of the oath. We are not suggesting that JWs can't take oaths are we? (another thread for that please, although that topic would seem dead in the water.) It's up to you. Conscience matter for me.
Has anyone considered the comparative consequences of action in connection with these issues?
That might indicate something in connection with their importance to a Christian.
 

.
.
It is the old classic "You are damned if you do... and damned if you don't."
If I take personal responsibility according to the dictates of my conscience and am wrong, Wrong WRONG ... I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
I PERSONALLY HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR RUINING MY LIFE.
If I follow the advice of ANYONE , oh...say... a Governing Body of some religious organization, and they are wrong Wrong WRONG ...  AGAIN, I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
THEY PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING MY LIFE !
.... and they NEVER, EVER .... even apologize.
 
.
 
 

So here's what Raymond Franz said [summarized with excerpts]:
This will probably take three or four postings [edited: it took six] so let's consider this PART 1 of 4 [edited: PART 1 of 6].
p. 144-5: RF says the info from Mexico was startling, disquieting and in stark contrast to the organizational position adopted toward Malawi. RF then describes Malawi persecution related to the purchase of a "party card" and says the vast majority of JWs in Malawi held firm to the position that buying the "party card" was a violation of Christian neutrality, even at great personal cost, and in a few cases, even the loss of their life.
[edited to add p.146 does not appear in any way to imply that R.Franz equated the situation in Malawi with that of Mexico. This page sets up the idea that politics often becomes corrupt, but not everything related to politics is always bad. RF appears to be setting up the possibility that, to some individual consciences, for certain aspects of politics, Romans 13 can apply, speaking of the political state as "God's servant" or "minister." {Paul found value in his "citizenship" of the corrupt Roman state.} This sets up the idea that there may have been more room for individual conscience with respect to purchasing the one-state party card, and less room for individual conscience with respect to the idea of giving bribes to lie about having met the requirements of military service.]
p.145-9: RF says that, while his own thinking is still not dogmatic on this point, individual JWs might find reason to question their conscience about whether the purchase of the party card for a one-party state was not the same as accepting that they were obedient citizens of the state, rather than it being considered "an act of worship" comparable to early Christians offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor, for example. If that were the case they may have considered Scriptures including Romans 13:7, Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 5:41, and Romans 14:1-3,23. RF mentions that the subject of "alternative service" came up regularly to the GB, and at this time in the light of the Malawi persecution, statements were mostly on the side of absolutely no hint of compromise. Quoting mostly memos submitted by GB members, RF included the following on p.148-9:
We want no grey areas, we want to know exactly where we stand as non-compromising Christians.8 [Lloyd Barry] . . . doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is . . . a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one’s obligation to Caesar’s war machine. . . . A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly.9 [Karl Klein]  For one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a “deal” with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God.10 [Fred Franz / William Jackson] . . .  We should have a united stand all over the world. We should be decisive in this matter. . . . If we were to allow the brothers this latitude we would have problems. . . . the brothers need to have their consciences educated.”12 [Ted Jaracz] . . .  Those who accept this substitute service are taking the easy way out.14 [Fred Franz]
RF says these strong positions were all taken by persons very aware of the situation in Mexico, especially because RF presented the documents himself as part of the discussion on military "alternative service." The following was included from material that had been sent by the Mexican Branch Committee [posted without comment which will be added in next post]:
 
 
 

I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."
I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.
So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.
With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.
I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.
So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

Thank  you !  ;-)

Trinity This... Trinity that... John said this.. John said that .. blahahahahaaa ...
If you want to know what the Apostle John knew and said in Revelation it's VERY simple... in LESS than  the FIRST 11 words!
In vision he saw BOTH God and Jesus in Heaven, and they were not  joined at the hip !
Be a sport ... look it up ..... Revelation 1:1 .... shows that GOD and Jesus are NOT the same. They at this time are BOTH in Heaven, and  GOD... IS NOT JESUS.
AAAAnd ... Revelation 1:1 is SOooo easy to remember.

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Berean Study Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

Berean Literal Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified it through having sent His angel to His servant, John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Heart English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

New American Standard 1977
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Jubilee Bible 2000
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John,

King James 2000 Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:

American King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Darby Bible Translation
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.

World English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Young's Literal Translation
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
.
 

As I've also stated before, there is no "total" control. There is a measure of control, and many feel it strongly, and many don't feel it at all. Some who feel it strongly, appreciate it. Some don't. Some who don't feel controlled in the least, may actually be the most "controlled." I think, too, whether we are uncomfortable with it, is probably a matter of who we feel to be in control. If we have trust that Jehovah is in overall control, no matter what the current situation in our congregation is, then we are likely to feel good about that kind of control. If we give too much credit (aka, blame) to the human leadership, then we are likely to feel less appreciative of certain kinds of control. Where control is discipline, most of us realize that 'whom Jehovah loves he disciplines' and  11  True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful;* yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11)
Some measure of control can therefore be a good thing. This assumes that we have humbly accepted human leadership, and are willing to be obedient to those who take the lead. It's not a good example, but I know a regular pioneer who believes in evolution. She has admitted it to my daughter and another JW friend, who are her best friends. (It was also obvious from schoolwork they did in high school together.) ...[edited to remove second example]...
I also think that the organization has changed significantly (for the better) since the time, about 35 years ago, when persons on the Governing Body even recommended that beliefs we keep to ourselves should also be grounds for disfellowshipping. One member of the Governing Body recommended that Bethelites stop doing "deep Bible study," and a cleaned-up version of his words make it into the Watchtower around the same time. At a meeting of Bethel elders, the same GB member even suggested that everyone take a "loyalty oath."
This was a time when some people might remember "total control" but it doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't mean there won't be a controlling elder here and there who always pushes a judicial committee to agree with him, and who always gets his way. There are many cases of injustice, and some never get appealed because they basically just create an atmosphere of toxicity that an offended person might not want to go back to. I'm pretty sure we all know of Witnesses who have moved from one congregation to another due to feeling an atmosphere of toxicity or they say "there was no love" in their previous congregation. I think it usually refers to a bad experience that colors their entire view of a congregation, even if others in the same congregation feel plenty of love. For some, an experience can clearly color their entire view of the entire organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
But I think that plenty of the complaints are actually carry-overs from ex-JWs who lived through the experience of a few decades ago, or just happened to be treated in this way more recently. I think that they hold onto their anger against the Witnesses due to the shunning practice, which they are sure they do not deserve. The basic issue is the loss of the love of family and relatives when a person feels that they can't associate any more. This is a much different experience than those who are disfellowshipped for a breach of conduct and know that it is only to help them get back into the congregation with a clean slate.