JW Insider

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Now (with respect) don't you overstep either. This refers to " the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".

There's absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in these times and seasons, as long as we try to avoid (with difficulty on occasion) the snare of second guessing Jehovahs timetable.

What else could it be? I think it's almost 100% about trying to second-guess Jehovah's timetable. Closely related to this is the element of pride and hubris in wanting to claim we KNOW something about what Jehovah says is only in his authority to know.

Historically, if one looks carefully at the wording used by the most famous (and/or infamous) end-times Bible chronology promoters of the 19th century (including Miller, Barbour, Russell), then it's easy to see that, to them, this was mostly about who really qualified to be the "faithful and wise servant" (or "faithful and discreet slave"). Even the practice of Miller, but especially Barbour and Russell, to plagiarize the work of others before them without giving credit is a part of this goal to gain a following of persons who would recognize them personally as the ones who were faithful and wise, not "foolish virgins."

The typical style of mock humility among such "scholarly gentlemen" of the 19th century couldn't allow for them to just claim outright that they were "that faithful and wise servant" so they had to let others claim it for them, while they accepted the title. In the meantime, they would call their opinions about chronology as "food at the proper time" and claim that those who stopped accepting their chronology were the "foolish virgins." Finally, of course, after dropping enough hints, people would address them as "the faithful and wise servant" or often just "that servant."

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

I will first state that I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but am a Bible Student as was Russell. Russell was never a member of the JW organization, and that organization did not exist while he was alive; indeed, he preached against such authoritarianism.

Hope you will feel welcome to make comments here. There is a lot of misinformation about Russell and sometimes it feels like a losing battle to try to correct the more obvious errors.

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

I do believe, however, that God did make use of Brother Russell to restore many truths from the Bible that had been distorted by man's dogma, and thus Satan has influenced many to produce a lot of false accusations against Brother Russell that would discourage others from reading what he wrote, except perhaps to find something that may be distorted to bring forth some kind of accusation against him.

As you know, that's pretty much what JWs believe, although there are now only a few of Russell's core teachings that are still accepted. Most Bible Students that I know of appear to hold onto the majority of his teachings. Witnesses give Russell the benefit of the doubt when accusations are raised against him, and most of these claims against him turn out to be without any merit. (I must add, however, that some accusations appear to have been dismissed on the say-so of Joseph Rutherford, and we may have given him too much credit.) 

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

Russell's study of God's Witness in Egypt in connection with the Bible had nothing to do with such occultism.

True. Although Rutherford finally tied this teaching about the Great Pyramid to "Satan."

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

Also contrary to the false accusations, Russell did not teach that "the pyramids in Egypt are divine omens." Russell's interest was in one pyramid, the Great Pyramid. His only interest in the other pyramids was to show their inferiority and differences between them and the Great Pyramid. Nowhere does Russell make reference to the Great Pyramid as some kind of divine omen, although he did believe that the Great Pyramid contains corroborations of the Bible, even as the fact that Egypt's and Israel's existence in this day are also corroborations of the Bible. I also believe that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt, for I cannot ignore the abundance of evidence that supports this conclusion.

I agree with your first point, and even made the same point earlier. But I have not seen any abundance of evidence that shows that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt. If you have some time, I'd be happy to join a conversation on that topic.

13 hours ago, PeterR said:

You probably are aware that many students of the Bible have reached identical (or very similar) conclusions based on an unhindered reading of God's Word.

Yes. Just about everything I've presented here about Matthew 24 (Mark 13 and Luke 21) actually came from various brothers in the Writing Department at Brooklyn Bethel between 1976 and 1982. On my own, I would not have thought about accepting the word of a Bible commentary. At least 4, probably 5, members of the Governing Body held similar views, doubting or rejecting 1914, and at least one more, including a member of the Governing Body that I worked with, held a different view of the "generation." One of his ideas was rejected outright ("the 1957 generation"), and one was finally accepted several years after he began promoting it (the generation of the anointed).  I know that a lot of people think of these variations in belief as a wicked form of apostasy, but that's primarily because of a current hierarchical system that isn't transparent about their own discussions and beliefs.

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

we have already defined one generation as really being two generations that overlap... two, yet one ...uh ... so ... as the time runs out  having ALREADY established this principle ... we can make a THIRD generation overlap, and it STILL be one

Hmmmm. The first generation could be the generation of fathers who saw 1914, then the generation of their sons who lived long enough to see the spirit-anointed organization work through a governing body in the 1970's. And as long as the spirit-anointed governing body are alive on earth, we are still in the one generation.

So we have the Generation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit-Anointed, and the three are ONE Generation. It has a certain "ring" to it!

2 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

What I do not grasp is how anyone can align themselves to a group or group of men who's foundation is based upon incorrect teachings of doctrine. Its like saying that the Baha’i faith, if they are good people then the foundation of their beliefs will come around. Is Mormons are just good people, then after a while their doctrines will just fall into place? Catholics too? See my point.

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.

7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I'm sorry but I just cannot accept this part of your post in all honesty. In an essence you're saying "just go along and be a good person, nevermind if the foundation of your beliefs are all outta whack, it'll work itself out." 

The doctrines of a belief is the foundations of that said belief. You even eluded to this in a different post. 

I think you have the essence pretty much correct. What sort of persons we ought to be is a much higher priority than our exact doctrinal beliefs. Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah. We also believe that billions who have lived and died in the past in every religion on earth will be resurrected to an opportunity to live forever. But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 

Here's how good doctrine ("healthful teaching") will follow. Our love of God makes us want to know more about him. We would expect him to have made himself known without excess difficulty. As Paul says in Romans:

(Romans 10:6-8) 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching.

So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ." Sufficient accuracy of doctrine will follow from our love of God. In trying to imitate our God, we will be motivated to do good for others.

Thus spreads Christianity!

7 hours ago, Anna said:

If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

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.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

My thoughts too. But then how do the "signs of the times" fit in? If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

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."

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm only going to quote the Insight article on the subject which says of Jesus:

"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."

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 :

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)

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)

Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.

I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.

The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.

On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

There are illogical dissections going one. For example:

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

most of them left the Watch Tower organization,

 Who are "them"? How do we know that those disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then were actually anointed at all? Maybe only those proving loyal in the face of trials were genuine in the first place.

It was easy to anticipate that you might judge them all as having never been genuinely anointed. This is why I said it was "by their own count" and "per the Watch Tower publications."

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

Also, think about what you are saying. Many of those "disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then" were disputing and leaving because of false doctrines being promoted by Rutherford and the Watch Tower. The 1917 dispute was about men wrestling over who should have dictatorial power and the promotion of a book "The Finished Mystery" where the majority of its content is now understood to be false doctrines. The first promotions of the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford was the false doctrine (actually a false prophecy) that millions then living would never die because the proofs that the end would come in 1925 were even better than the proofs of 1914 and that Bible Students had more evidence that the end would come in 1925 than Noah had evidence that Jehovah would cause a flood upon mankind. Do you think that all true anointed Christians would be expected to merely put up with these attitudes and false doctrines and false prophecies? Using the Watch Tower's biblical definition of apostasy, ultimately, Rutherford himself apostasized from the Bible Students movements which he had taken part in promoting. We consider Rutherford's apostasy in this case to be a good thing!

Remember that the congregations themselves were responsible for rooting out error. There was no hint in the Bible that they were to wait upon a central body to root it out for them. Note what Jesus tells John:

(Revelation 2:2) 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.

(Revelation 2:6) 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate.

(Revelation 2:14) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, who taught Baʹlak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. . .

(Revelation 2:15) . . .In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.

(Revelation 2:20) . . .“‘Nevertheless, I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves . . .

(Revelation 2:24-26) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching, those who did not get to know the so-called “deep things of Satan”: I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come. 26 And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,

etc., etc.

If any of these anointed Christians were serious about their obligations as congregations under the leadership of Christ Jesus, they should have been expected to dispute the same false doctrines, false prophecies, and political idolatry, that the Watch Tower admits had been the cause of so much stumbling. Later, especially around 1927 to 1930, Rutherford went so far as to equate some of the teachings of Russell with the teachings of Satan.

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.

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.)

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.

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.

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

This is evidently only so because evidently the previous thought was wrong because most of the 1914 generation, as previously interpreted, are dead.

Yes. However, as something is put out there, it soon becomes the way "we understand" it. Note paragraph 15 from the 2014 Watchtower, quoted above. This is the "editorial we" of the writer of this particular article, or is a statement of unity by the Governing Body and/or "editorial board," or it's a statement of what we as Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

To keep a more complete set of references for this topic, we also have the Jan 15, 2014 WT:

*** w14 1/15 pp. 30-31 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY
14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.
15 In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.

And, as was already mentioned Brother Splane, in the September 2015 JW Broadcasting talk, provided a chart. Then this same chart was referenced just a few months later by a later JW Broadcasting speaker, Brother Kenneth Flodin, who said that it was "masterfully explained" by Brother Splane and that he did such a "beautiful job" that he wasn't going to attempt to repeat it, so he just replayed the video of Splane, and then called it a "very clear explanation."

1 minute ago, Anna said:

I think we should explore this one a little further

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

whether belief in the current "overlapping generation" doctrine was optional, or perhaps less important than other doctrines

In a post within 3 minutes of yours, I noticed that the 2010 original WT on this teaching appears to carefully delineate what items are definite and what items are not. It's from this type of writing that I assume you derived the idea that it was, in effect, "optional."

I'm glad that The Librarian moved the "generation" posts from the unrelated topic over to this topic. It was clear that on this topic, the questions remain unsettled to some and unsettling to others.

In addition to the posts that have already been moved over from that other topic, questions came up about whether belief in the current "overlapping generation" doctrine was optional, or perhaps less important than other doctrines. Perhaps it is not a topic that we promote to new persons but have them consider it when they are better prepared for it. Another question (mine) was whether we should get involved in discussions of chronology at all.

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

But please all carry on, it's an interesting discussion, although already discussed elsewhere on this forum.

OK.

As was already pointed out, we have always known that a generation can include overlapping contemporaries, but these contemporaries belong to another generation. The Watchtower has said that "three or even four generations" may overlap at the same time. So the overlapping explanation is not about how to define a single "generation that will not pass away." My own issue with the current explanation has more to do with the disrespect it shows to Jesus, in trying to twist up the meaning of language so much that we have inadvertently tried to present him as some kind of trickster.

*** w52 9/1 pp. 542-543 Questions From Readers ***
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?—G. P., Liberia.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: “The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years.” But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster’s first-quoted definition, “the average lifetime of man.” Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping. (Ps. 78:4; 145:4) Before the Noachian flood the life span was hundreds of years. Down through the centuries since, it has varied, and even now is different in different countries. The Bible does speak of a man’s days as being threescore and ten or fourscore years; but it assigns no specific number of years to a generation.—Ps. 90:10.
Even if it did, we could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation. There are hundreds of millions of persons living now that were living in 1914, and many millions of these persons could yet live a score or more years. Just when the lives of the majority of them will be cut short by Armageddon we cannot say.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting quote in 2008 WT 15 Feb:

"The word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event. For example, Exodus 1:6 tells us: “Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.” Joseph and his brothers varied in age, but they shared a common experience during the same time period. Included in “that generation” were some of Joseph’s brothers who were born before him. Some of these outlived Joseph. (Gen. 50:24) Others of “that generation,” such as Benjamin, were born after Joseph was born and may have lived on after he died.
  So when the term “generation” is used with reference to people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated except that it does have an end and would not be excessively long. Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”—2 Tim. 3:1; Matt. 24:36."

Is that difficult to grasp? Is there something wrong with me because I think I understand what this says?

This is not difficult to grasp at all. But I do think there is something wrong with thinking that this says the same thing as the current publications are saying. It may have been a "trial balloon" for the current doctrine, but it's very different from the current doctrine.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

 I find it infinitly easier to understand compared to this attempt : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlapping_generations_model

That is a very sensible explanation of the economics-related overlapping generations model. Note that it is plural as it ought to be. Quoting, the article, with extra highlighting, it states:

Quote

Wikipedia: ". . . it is the natural framework to study the allocation of resources across the different generations."

The Watchtower "model" is the singular, and very non-sensical "overlapping generation" model. The difference one little "s" can make is important. Note that in Spanish "esposa" means wife, but "esposas" means handcuffs.  For most people, that's quite an important difference.

28 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Still banging on about the "generation" here are we? Well, nothing wrong with that (Acts 1:6), as long as we don't fall out over it.

Actually, Acts 1:7 says there is something wrong with us banging on about the generation. It says it's none of our concern. It's not in our domain. Knowledge of the times and seasons does not belong to us. It belongs to the Father alone. Anyone who tries is overstepping their authority.

(Acts 1:7) . . .” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction [NWT fn: "authority"].

This is why Paul could say that we don't need anything written to us about chronology:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1) Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

This certainly offers a rather crass view of the priorities. It makes it seem like the primary focus is on money. But it should not be overlooked that the contributions to the worldwide work are also designed to be providing the initial funds to set up Kingdom Halls in places that can't afford to build their own. Then the contributions in those congregations with new Kingdom Halls will pay back the cost through their own contributions at the rate that they can afford it. If and when the confiscation of properties in Russia is considered legally irreversible, the funds to the worldwide work can be used to help them rebuild when and if their situation changes. In the meantime, their excess contributions can be redistributed to places where Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls are built legally.

In our current suburban congregations, we are considered to be in a wealthier area, so the push is to build in areas of prime real estate value. In just a few years, we have sold off two halls, as soon as they were paid for, and the new bigger hall was built in a fancier area, with more congregations paying for it through maximized contributions. Any other halls in this area that are already paid for become prime targets for selling off and being replaced with bigger and better ones. There are two problems with this. One is that the hall must be set for the size of the largest congregation (of four that meet here) with room for a bit of expansion, so this means that the other three congregations meeting here fill up only 30 to 50% of the seats. The other problem is that we have created an environment where more people think that the idea is to keep all of us maximizing our contributions to pay for a hall that is much bigger and fancier than anyone would have thought reasonable. (This also makes it look as though the primary goal is to keep "feeding" the contribution boxes even though the profit on the last two "flipped" Kingdom Halls was enough to pay for most of the single, new hall where congregations from those last two halls now meet.)

Reminds me of a street sweeping vehicle that nicked the front of my car while I was waiting in a legal parking spot. I hadn't paid for the meter because I was waiting in the car. The street cleaner was actually doing the other side of the street, which was not legal on alternate days for the specific purpose of street cleaning, and he was going around an illegally parked car when he hit my car. He looked back at the car, saw the damage, a long scrape and a loosened fender that made a loud pop when it loosened, and he just went on driving, not knowing I was waiting in the driver's seat. So I ran out of the car and chased him down at the corner and told him what he did. I saw a policeman who spoke to the street cleaner and then rushed up to my car to give me a ticket. I asked him why, and he said he it was his job to "protect the street cleaner." I thought that was extremely honest, although very stupid. Later, I got out of the ticket but paid for the damage repair myself, as it was less than my deductible. Could have got the money back from the city, I suppose, but that would have been an unnecessary headache.

1 hour ago, Jim Seward said:

Viewed this way, predation then contributes to the overall "peace among animals."

I think it was Russell who said that 99% of animals either die by violence or starvation. Of course, I think it was Bertrand Russell, not Charles Taze.

Growing up, I was always taught that our honesty, integrity, conduct, and acts of goodness and kindness were just as much as "witness" as going from door to door. Not that I didn't like going from door-to-door.

At 5 years old, I loved going from door to door, and my mother says I always wanted to keep the house to house records where we would mark down each address, where literature was placed, who was not at home (or suspected to be home but hiding), who was busy, etc. At about 10 years old, I became a bit wary of going from door to door in case I met kids I knew from school, but at about 15, I started to like it again, especially if I met people I knew. By the time I was 16 I had already quit high school to pioneer, and after a couple years of pioneering, I had so many Bible Studies (students) that I had little time left for the door-to-door work, and I missed it again, especially in the city college/university territory and nearby rural "need-greater" territory.

But through all of this, I think the growth of new congregations was based, not so much on the door-to-door work, but on the reputation we had among ourselves for being a happy, loving people who conducted ourselves with honesty and integrity. When someone was out of a job, another Witness would hire them, or help them to get something where he or she also worked. When a Witness started a small business, he hired Witnesses almost exclusively. We all pitched in when a brother or sister had storm damage to their home, or if someone had an emergency, or if a new family moved into the territory. When I look back now and remember who was related to whom, I realize that 90% of the growth in our congregations was from relatives of a core number of families who had been there from 1964, when we first moved into the initial congregation of that territory.

I say all this, not to discourage or minimize the house-to-house work. I think that in some ways, our reputation that is due to the house-to-house work is very valuable, even if no one ever became a Witness through that activity. It defines a purpose and ties us to an idea about the first-century congregation, even if the first-century Christians never actually used this exact method themselves.

So, with that said, I'm wondering if it's possible for the preaching work, the witnessing work, to be just as effective, or possibly more effective, if at least half our time was spent doing good for the neighborhoods and communities we live in. We would no doubt focus especially on those related to us in the faith, fellow Witnesses, but we would not limit it to that. In Hebrews 10:24,25 it says that we should not forsake gathering together at meetings to encourage one another to show love through good works. Perhaps we should even expect elders to make announcements about which specific good works we could join in together.

It's also an idea for compliance with the Russian authorities that would not conflict with our obedience to God. I have wondered how it would change our preaching work if we never preached to anyone that the Russian Orthodox Church was part of Babylon the Great and that all those who have a good heart will desire to join the Witnesses in order to avoid destruction when that church is destroyed along with the rest of this system. The attraction to join the Witnesses would have to be based entirely on positive role modeling rather than fear of destruction. This doesn't mean that we would avoid explaining our beliefs when those related parts of the Bible came up. But that could not be a part of the primary attraction to join the Witnesses, according to the expected Russian regulations on preaching.

Personally, I think that if the Watch Tower Society was willing to tell the Belgian authorities that we had changed our stance on blood, and disfellowshipping/shunning and to tell the Mexican branch to dispense with the "worship" portions of the meetings in Mexico for 50 years -- when the Watch Tower forbid the use of songs, and prayers at the meetings and forbid the use of the Bible in the door-to-door work -- then it would be just as possible to carry on the Russian work with a shift in focus. No one would change their core beliefs, they would just focus on good works, including the support of their own Witness families and friends first, and good works for the community, second. When persons are attracted to what binds Witnesses together, it would still be love for God and love for neighbor, and the rest of the beliefs would be much more palatable to those who would join us.