JW Insider

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!"
It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon?
For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points.
It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?
Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. 
Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests.
I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow.
Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.
I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!"
It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon?
For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points.
It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?
Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. 
Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests.
I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow.
Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.
I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

I did notice that you were quoted and referenced, albeit, anonymously in B.W.Schulz and R.M.de Vienne. Perhaps there is a future in collaborations.

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow.
Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty.
I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

$2.00 per word to quote me. Book sales have hit a lull.

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!"
It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon?
For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points.
It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?
Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. 
Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests.
I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!"
It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon?
For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points.
It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?
Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. 
Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests.
I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

When I am captain of the dodge ball team, choosing up players, my first choice will be Joseph. Just look at his stats:
“From the time [Potiphar] appointed him over his house and in charge of all that was his, Jehovah kept blessing the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph, and Jehovah’s blessing came to be on all that he had in the house and in the field. He eventually left everything that was his in Joseph’s care, and he gave no thought to anything except the food he was eating.” (Genesis 39:5-6)
“So the chief officer of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners in the prison, and everything that they were doing there, he was the one having it done. The chief officer of the prison was looking after absolutely nothing that was in Joseph’s care, for Jehovah was with Joseph and Jehovah made whatever he did successful.” (Genesis 39:22-23) 
“Pharaoh further said to Joseph: “I am Pharaoh, but without your authorization, no man may do a single thing in all the land of Egypt.” ...The people began to cry to Pharaoh for bread. Then Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians: “Go to Joseph, and do whatever he tells you.” ...People of all the earth came to Egypt to buy from Joseph, because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth.” (Genesis 41:44, 55-57)
The bolded words say it all. He was a really good player. Were he on my team, he would soon be doing it all. We wouldn’t have to suffer being smashed with a ball and tagged out—that hurts!—we would voluntarily tag ourselves out and sit on the sidelines drinking Gatorade while he singlehandedly won the game.
He had dreams, too. Cool dreams. Not the type of dreams that I have, like how I  am sitting in the stands and suddenly remember that I have the next talk, only I have forgotten to wear my pants this day, and—come to think of it—the talk itself had slipped my mind so I haven’t prepared, but I might possibly be able to ad lib my way through—still, it would have been better had I remembered my pants...
No. Joseph’s dreams were about the rise and fall of peoples. At first, they got him into trouble, but later in life they got him out of trouble and landed him in some hotshot jobs, like being savior of the earth. (41:57)
He wasn’t full of himself, though. After interpreting Pharoah’s dream about how seven years of plenty will be followed by seven years of want, he says: “So now let Pharaoh look for a man who is discreet and wise and place him over the land of Egypt.” He doesn’t add—after he had just interpreted the dream that no one else could!—“Ahem...and I’m your man.” But it goes that way anyhow because he just interpreted the dream that no one else could. Isn’t there some verse somewhere about how it is better for other people to praise you than it is to jump the gun and do it yourself? 
“Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; Others, and not your own lips.” (Proverbs 27:2)
I like too how he always showed interest in others. Here he is in a prison hole greeting his mates with: “Why are your faces gloomy today?” (40:7) Turns out that they were gloomy because they’d each had a dream that they couldn’t figure out, and so Joseph did it for them. It ended up springing him from the hoosegow—so it couldn’t have been too much a waste of time for him to show fellow-feeling. 
Genesis 41:46 is relevant, too: “Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt” [to be granted his new role as administrator]. 30—same as was David when he began to rule and Jesus when he began his ministry.
Now, as it turns out, I was married on my thirtieth birthday. When elders sneak up the way they do trying to make it hot for me with my birthday cake, I always turn the table on them and send them away frustrated by pointing out that it is an anniversary cake. However, this fact of a significant phase of my life starting at 30 like with other worthies—it indicates that I am a hotshot. I am someone to be listened to and it distresses me that nobody is.
I throw in this personal revelation on account of a recent comment from Kos, upset that the GB should be “discouraging the ‘other sheep’ to ask the anointed about anything that conserns their anointing or if they could have any ‘new light.’”
 
To me, this says it all, not only for him, but for others in his spot. The longing to instruct and to be recognized as an instructor is palpable. And when they are NOT so recognized—since all you would have to do to be so recognized is to partake of the emblems, and there is no way to separate the crazies from the real anointed, and so I can’t imagine any real anointed making a fuss over it, since it is mostly a token of a future assignment—whoa! you should hear them carry on!
Well, me too! I want to be listened to, but nobody is. With all the blogging I have done for 15 years, I ought to be an in-house theologian by now. Not just me, but also @JW Insider. He should be in-house theologian for all his posts—and even (God help us) @James Thomas Rook Jr.. None of us are recognized. We all want to be. The organization isn’t enthralled with bloggers and maybe this post serves to remind why. Sure, I’m loyal now—but what if I park on the lawn and the elders tell me not to and I point out that I live in America so I can do anything I want and I decide to settle the score with them on my own blog—well, what then? If a brother goes bad at Bethel, they simply yank him and throw in another, but what will they do when I go bad? No wonder blogging doesn’t do it for them.
Now—whereas Kos and his contemporaries complain non-stop that their enlightenment is not recognized, do I? (much?) No. Does JWI? Not at all. Does JTR? Even though he lodges more complaints than most people take breaths, he does not complain about that! So I offer our excellent example to these frustrated anointed who want so badly for the flock to listen to them. You would think they would go out and find their own flock, but no! they want to filch sheep from the present Witness congregation.
 
 
 
 

I think the end could come in the next 2 minutes, before I finish writing this post. And the current chaos would certainly fit the kind of end times we expect. It also shows us just how fast things can go from typically bad to extraordinarily bad. How even the best of intentions can quickly send us to "Hades in a hand-basket." 
But these signs, which we definitely see, are not supposed to be used to support a supposed Bible chronology. The Bible appears to tell us that in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Whenever any humans have done that, it always has ended in failure, embarrassment, and it brings reproach on those who "go there."

All I can do is give you my opinion on this, and hope you don't take it too harshly and think it's somehow about you. A lot of us (Witnesses) have been forced into a corner on this one, hoping that we can find a way to express the doctrine in a convincing way. My father is 88, and has been an elder for 50 years and a congregation servant / presiding overseer for another 15 years prior to that. I don't think there was ever a Watchtower doctrine that he didn't try to defend to the very best of his ability. My father said he believed that this new generation theory made sense and he would defend it just as he had defended all the previous generation theories for the past 80-some years. 
But I finally asked him to explain it, and he laughed, and knew immediately that it was not possible. Instead he explained how the brothers were doing the best they can because there has to be an explanation if this system goes beyond 2034. (He believes that 2034 would be the last possible year that the OLD theory about "generation" could still make sense Biblically.) He also bases this idea on the Noah "generation."
My mother took a shot at it, and when she realized that she could not make a sensible rationale to defend the theory, she also ended up saying that it will probably still happen within the time period of 120 years from 1914, but that this "overlapping" explanation was just the closest way to allow for that without actually putting the date 2034 out there. She is one of those who believes, "let the reader use discernment" when reading the Watchtower's last mention of the 120 years before the new "generation" theory was given:
*** w03 12/15 p. 15 pars. 6-7 Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency ***
In Noah’s day, Jehovah declared: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring “the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.”—Genesis 6:17.
7 Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance, and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival. “After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld,” says the apostle Paul, “[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.” (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in “the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? “He that does the will of God remains forever,” states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah’s will with a keen sense of urgency.
BTW, my grandmother-in-law just died at 105 on Saturday. She would have been 106 in a couple of months. We had a small memorial service with a family gathering. No Zoom. A cremation was already done. She was not anointed, but was born in 1914 just before the Great War. She survived the Spanish Influenza and apparently would have survived this most recent pale imitation, except that an intestinal blockage got her instead. She lived right up to the end with perfect teeth, perfect hearing, perfect eyesight, and a better memory than most anyone I ever knew. She always joked that she was a freak of nature. But I bring this up because a Witness mentioned the supposed 120 year limit on a human lifespan. And, of course, if she had been anointed, would she have qualified the first group of the overlapping generation to include persons who were born in 2020?
*** kr chap. 1 pp. 11-12 par. 18 “Let Your Kingdom Come” ***
The generation consists of two overlapping groups of anointed ones—the first is made up of anointed ones who saw the beginning of the fulfillment of the sign in 1914 and the second, anointed ones who for a time were contemporaries of the first group. At least some of those in the second group will live to see the beginning of the coming tribulation. The two groups form one generation because their lives as anointed Christians overlapped for a time.
Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”—Matt. 24:8.
Of course, my father knows I have taken a different approach on matters related to chronology, but he still believes as most Witnesses do about 1914. As you know, I'm happy with the fact that Jesus is invisibly present and that he is now King of his Kingdom, and that we are in the last days, and that Jehovah and Jesus are building up a Christian congregation as a Witness for God's name, and who represent Jehovah's view of matters in a dying world, and who take responsibility to preach the good news while there is yet time. I believe that we do the best at imitating the first century congregations to the extent possible in the twenty-first century.
So to me, it makes little difference in today's congregational setting whether some think that all of these things only became relevant after 1914. We are where we are today, and it's the same for me as it is for my fellow brothers and sisters. There is no quarrel about it.
But that doesn't change my opinion. I think that we should stop embarrassing ourselves about these matters. It's one thing to believe that 1914 is right because a war started that year and a bad earthquake hit in 1906 (San Fran, CA) and then 1920 (China), and a pandemic hit in 1918. These are all close enough to make people wonder, and sincere people can't help but wonder about whether these fulfill prophecies.
So here's that opinion that I apologized for in advance because I thought it might sound too harsh. What is embarrassing is that any humble child could see through any analogous misuse of language. If you promise a child an ice cream today, and fail to deliver, you can't convince the child that tomorrow is the same as today because tomorrow overlaps with today at midnight. Why not just humbly admit that you thought you could do it today but you made a mistake? Just tell the child that you didn't know, you thought it would happen, you are sorry, and that you will do your best tomorrow. Trying to change the definition of today, so that it includes tomorrow is dishonest.
We have quite simply used a false definition of "generation." This is not honest. It brings shame and reproach on Jehovah's name and on the organization and brotherhood that we love. It is clearly a stretching of the definition beyond what is legitimately possible, and is apparently done so out of presumptuousness and haughtiness, which is always easier than humbly admitting that we just don't know. It is also based on a feeling that rank-and-file Witnesses can't be trusted to keep urgently busy and alert unless someone is reminding them of how close the end might be.
And, last but not least, it may also be a temporary work-around to avoid putting the date 2034 out there as a last possible solution to keep 1914 viable. This has been implied by several Witnesses, including my mother, and probably my father too. If this 2034 thinking is still on the mind of any in the GB, then if the end doesn't come prior to 2034, I don't think anyone in the GB would even begin to consider readjusting the 1914 date until after 2034. There is definitely a danger of 2034 becoming another 1975. What's worse is that increased activity and urgency leading up to 2034 could result in relieving some of the Society's financial difficulties, and therefore be seen as having Jehovah's blessing, creating another vicious cycle of "boom and bust." Just like 1975.

I think the end could come in the next 2 minutes, before I finish writing this post. And the current chaos would certainly fit the kind of end times we expect. It also shows us just how fast things can go from typically bad to extraordinarily bad. How even the best of intentions can quickly send us to "Hades in a hand-basket." 
But these signs, which we definitely see, are not supposed to be used to support a supposed Bible chronology. The Bible appears to tell us that in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Whenever any humans have done that, it always has ended in failure, embarrassment, and it brings reproach on those who "go there."

All I can do is give you my opinion on this, and hope you don't take it too harshly and think it's somehow about you. A lot of us (Witnesses) have been forced into a corner on this one, hoping that we can find a way to express the doctrine in a convincing way. My father is 88, and has been an elder for 50 years and a congregation servant / presiding overseer for another 15 years prior to that. I don't think there was ever a Watchtower doctrine that he didn't try to defend to the very best of his ability. My father said he believed that this new generation theory made sense and he would defend it just as he had defended all the previous generation theories for the past 80-some years. 
But I finally asked him to explain it, and he laughed, and knew immediately that it was not possible. Instead he explained how the brothers were doing the best they can because there has to be an explanation if this system goes beyond 2034. (He believes that 2034 would be the last possible year that the OLD theory about "generation" could still make sense Biblically.) He also bases this idea on the Noah "generation."
My mother took a shot at it, and when she realized that she could not make a sensible rationale to defend the theory, she also ended up saying that it will probably still happen within the time period of 120 years from 1914, but that this "overlapping" explanation was just the closest way to allow for that without actually putting the date 2034 out there. She is one of those who believes, "let the reader use discernment" when reading the Watchtower's last mention of the 120 years before the new "generation" theory was given:
*** w03 12/15 p. 15 pars. 6-7 Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency ***
In Noah’s day, Jehovah declared: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring “the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.”—Genesis 6:17.
7 Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance, and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival. “After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld,” says the apostle Paul, “[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.” (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in “the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? “He that does the will of God remains forever,” states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah’s will with a keen sense of urgency.
BTW, my grandmother-in-law just died at 105 on Saturday. She would have been 106 in a couple of months. We had a small memorial service with a family gathering. No Zoom. A cremation was already done. She was not anointed, but was born in 1914 just before the Great War. She survived the Spanish Influenza and apparently would have survived this most recent pale imitation, except that an intestinal blockage got her instead. She lived right up to the end with perfect teeth, perfect hearing, perfect eyesight, and a better memory than most anyone I ever knew. She always joked that she was a freak of nature. But I bring this up because a Witness mentioned the supposed 120 year limit on a human lifespan. And, of course, if she had been anointed, would she have qualified the first group of the overlapping generation to include persons who were born in 2020?
*** kr chap. 1 pp. 11-12 par. 18 “Let Your Kingdom Come” ***
The generation consists of two overlapping groups of anointed ones—the first is made up of anointed ones who saw the beginning of the fulfillment of the sign in 1914 and the second, anointed ones who for a time were contemporaries of the first group. At least some of those in the second group will live to see the beginning of the coming tribulation. The two groups form one generation because their lives as anointed Christians overlapped for a time.
Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”—Matt. 24:8.
Of course, my father knows I have taken a different approach on matters related to chronology, but he still believes as most Witnesses do about 1914. As you know, I'm happy with the fact that Jesus is invisibly present and that he is now King of his Kingdom, and that we are in the last days, and that Jehovah and Jesus are building up a Christian congregation as a Witness for God's name, and who represent Jehovah's view of matters in a dying world, and who take responsibility to preach the good news while there is yet time. I believe that we do the best at imitating the first century congregations to the extent possible in the twenty-first century.
So to me, it makes little difference in today's congregational setting whether some think that all of these things only became relevant after 1914. We are where we are today, and it's the same for me as it is for my fellow brothers and sisters. There is no quarrel about it.
But that doesn't change my opinion. I think that we should stop embarrassing ourselves about these matters. It's one thing to believe that 1914 is right because a war started that year and a bad earthquake hit in 1906 (San Fran, CA) and then 1920 (China), and a pandemic hit in 1918. These are all close enough to make people wonder, and sincere people can't help but wonder about whether these fulfill prophecies.
So here's that opinion that I apologized for in advance because I thought it might sound too harsh. What is embarrassing is that any humble child could see through any analogous misuse of language. If you promise a child an ice cream today, and fail to deliver, you can't convince the child that tomorrow is the same as today because tomorrow overlaps with today at midnight. Why not just humbly admit that you thought you could do it today but you made a mistake? Just tell the child that you didn't know, you thought it would happen, you are sorry, and that you will do your best tomorrow. Trying to change the definition of today, so that it includes tomorrow is dishonest.
We have quite simply used a false definition of "generation." This is not honest. It brings shame and reproach on Jehovah's name and on the organization and brotherhood that we love. It is clearly a stretching of the definition beyond what is legitimately possible, and is apparently done so out of presumptuousness and haughtiness, which is always easier than humbly admitting that we just don't know. It is also based on a feeling that rank-and-file Witnesses can't be trusted to keep urgently busy and alert unless someone is reminding them of how close the end might be.
And, last but not least, it may also be a temporary work-around to avoid putting the date 2034 out there as a last possible solution to keep 1914 viable. This has been implied by several Witnesses, including my mother, and probably my father too. If this 2034 thinking is still on the mind of any in the GB, then if the end doesn't come prior to 2034, I don't think anyone in the GB would even begin to consider readjusting the 1914 date until after 2034. There is definitely a danger of 2034 becoming another 1975. What's worse is that increased activity and urgency leading up to 2034 could result in relieving some of the Society's financial difficulties, and therefore be seen as having Jehovah's blessing, creating another vicious cycle of "boom and bust." Just like 1975.

My Dad stood ever apart from religion, including mine, but he used this expression frequently to describe world conditions. And he didn’t say “hades.”

I see, Space Merchant,  that you feel very strongly about that ....

You better start applying for a visa then and see how easy it is to get one.... Imagine 8 million people applying for visas all at once because like a Waco-cult they recon they have to be at a specific place together. 
It need not be a literal place...... but you are stuck on that idea ... because it is your own idea.  Many people do not see it as a literal wilderness.

Even prophecies that were already fulfilled reflect principles that concern our time. Those principles are about Jehovah's ability to protect and save his people. They are about trust in Jehovah, and trust in his ultimate power over his enemies, over other governments, and his trust in Christ Jesus to accomplish his purpose through the Kingdom. The time elements were concerned with the original prophecy, but still provide lessons for our time. They show that Jehovah has a timetable, and that no matter how impatient we humans become, we can trust that time and history are still in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not our own.
So it's not that I am "scared to be wrong" but scared to call Jesus a liar. Jesus said the times and seasons were none of our business. He said that the end would come as a surprise this time, even if in times past Jehovah had declared his doings in advance to his servants the prophets. But even with this idea that Jehovah will always declare his purposes in advance, he did not promise to give the time element.
Also, even if some time elements were used in Revelation that SEEM to refer to a future time period prior to the END, this doesn't mean that Jesus was wrong. They could have been used as time elements referring to things that already happened in the past, even in the first century. And they also could be symbols that pointed the reader back to the original scriptural context, just like mentioning a past Bible character like Moses or Elijah. The 1,260 days in Revelation 12 might be an excellent example of this:
In Revelation 12, for example, I think it can refer (initially) to the fact that Christ's Kingdom came out of Israel. Israel had been protected up to this point to produce the promised seed. Israel had been pictured as God's woman several times, and had even been pictured as the sun, moon and 12 stars (Genesis 37:9), alluding to a part of the Bible that introduces how Jehovah kept Israel protected even when in Egypt without a land of its own. Israel is and was protected from God's enemies for the purpose of looking forward to the birth of this Kingdom. So the reference to 1,260 is a reference to Jehovah's ability to provide and protect this Kingdom through the ages, just as he protected it from attack by Satan when Jesus was born, when Jewish enemies of Jesus wanted to get rid of him, when Roman authorities killed him, when both parties continued to try to silence the apostles. And Jesus even gave instructions that would save the citizens of that Kingdom from the most significant tribulation that had ever come upon the Jewish religion in 70 C.E.
So why the reference to the 1,260 days? I think it should have reminded Christians of another period of 1,260 days where a woman was protected through Jehovah's provisions. James spoke of it in his letter (as does Luke 4:25):
(James 5:17, NLT) Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years!
(Luke 4:25) “Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land.
I suspect that the original Jewish-Christians were much more familiar with the "OT" than most of us are today with even the "NT." So some of these symbols in Revelation produce a kind of mental index to the "OT" where they were already acquainted with the lessons. Readers and hearers of Revelation would know that the original spoke of a woman who was fed for 1,260 days in the midst of this famine. And they would also remember how Jehovah's prophets were also cared for during the famine.
The "lesson" of the 1,260 is already there as a reference to the original context. I'm not sure that it is all that important that Jesus ministry could have also been about 1,260 days. Or that from the time the Jewish-Christians should have left Jerusalem to the time Jerusalem was destroyed was also a period of about 1,260 days. The real lesson was the protection that the "New Israel" or "New Jerusalem" would expect in spite of the fear of extinction by persecution, for example. And this lesson had already been proven in the resurrection of Jesus in spite of Satan's attack. Or the survival of Jesus in spite of Herod's (Satan-inspired) attack. Or the survival of the Jewish-Christian congregation in spite of the Roman attack on Jerusalem.

Not exactly different in the way you imply. Although you are definitely right that the meaning is different. Paul quoted from the LXX translation, which may or may not be more accurate than more modern Hebrew manuscripts of Exodus. The NLT (New Living Translation) has a footnote that explains it. It's really just the difference in saying I will show my power "to you" or show my power "in you." The difference can be made by changing only one letter in Hebrew.
(Exodus 9:16, NLT) But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power[fn] and to spread my fame throughout the earth.
The footnote says the following:
9:16 Greek version reads to display my power in you; compare Rom 9:17.

So right!  It is the same as people that call Jehovah a dictator because he desires exclusive devotion and obedience. 
But I can give the answer to that and Mr Kosonen will again ignore what I say and go on with his theories.  So if he is really interested in the logical and the truthful answer, I want to give him a project to think about:  what is needed for all people on earth to be united and live in harmony and peace!
Please write down a list of things you think will be needed to bring this about...... then we can talk further.  Let the philosopher or prophet in Mr Kosonen come out!

Frankly, this is a rationale and line of thinking I would expect Satan the Devil to accuse God of. There can be no question that Jehovah is a loving God who is interested in the welfare of his creation. After all, look what he has done and provided for us - including his own son. He didn't owe us anything. As sinners, all of us were already under the sentence of death. It was an underserved kindness and gracious gift from God that any of us could have a salvation we could never merit/achieve on our own. They idea of Jehovah's name being sanctified and made holy has much broader implications than your assertion of "egotism" suggests. An illustration: Let's say, you have all your money - the money you hope to retire on as well as the inheritance for your children tied up in a bank. Like many people you may want to invest that money with a financial advisor. You hear the guy is the best guy to invest with, but also hear some disturbing accusations: that he is a liar; that he has stolen the life savings of others and is even a money-launderer for the mob and has to go to court to face those accusations. Would you hand him all your money? Not unless you had an intimate knowledge of the man and knew all the facts. But most people would have questions and likely not put their trust in that advisor until the court action was settled. Until the verdict was established for all to see as to whether the charges are true or not. Whether his reputation can stand scrutiny. Once it is established that all the accusations are slanderous lies, you would feel comfortable investing then and only then, wouldn't you? 
In a similar way, there are many beautiful blessings Jehovah has in store for all creation in harmony with his purpose for them. But Satan has raised some troubling accusations. That God is a liar who can't be trusted. That he withholds good things from his children and later, that humans don't need him and would do better on their own, that he is a cruel God that tortures people forever in hellfire... Added to the facts is that some of those closest to him have also turned against him including perfect men and angels. So who would want to serve a sovereign with those accusations in place, even if the promises for the future were wonderful? Promises wouldn't be so wonderful if he couldn't carry them out or he was a liar as charged. These issues have universal and everlasting implications. So it shouldn't be so hard to accept that the sanctification of Jehovah's name is necessary for everything else to take place. All good things we can benefit from, hinge on our love and trust in him. That we recognize that he knows what is best for us and has the right to decide, on a universal level, for all eternity, to make those decisions. Not only because he is the creator. Not only because he has shown his love for us at great cost to himself. But also because of who he is as a person. Those types of issues simply don't go away and can't be solved only by man's salvation. Spirit creatures are involved too. His reputation is intrinsically linked to his will and good purposes in behalf of mankind and yes, all living creatures - even those dead in the ground. Selfishly thinking that we are most important is the way a baby thinks, not a mature spiritual man. However, trusting that Jehovah as a loving father will do anything and become anything that is necessary to rescue his children from certain death is tied up with who we believe he is - his reputation. Hence, the sanctification of his name is of such importance as Jesus himself showed in his model prayer. It's not a question of "either-or." One is directly related to the other.
 

That's a stretch of logic. No one is saying that all DFs are done correctly, but you can't say that a mistake is done on purpose just because it turned out to be wrong. A teacher can mark a student wrong for spelling potato as potatoe, but that doesn't mean the teacher made the mistake on purpose. Disfellowshipping is not "killing." That's just another mistake, too. Jehovah sees the heart no matter what mistakes are made on earth.

Usually a good idea. And always a good idea in principle. But we don't need to make a law out of every principle, or we would be just like the Pharisees.
Imagine a case of incestuous rape in a culture where the rape victim will not likely ever be hired for a job, or will not be considered as a potential marriage partner, etc.

To the extent that they were not convinced in their own mind, then yes, they were potentially going against their own conscience.
But in their Bible-based training, how many elders actually question the blood doctrine, for example, as if it is man-made? I think that almost all elders are convinced in their own mind that this comes directly from Jehovah because it's found in Acts 15 & 21. If someone were to tell an elder that organ transplants were no different than blood transfusions because you can never get rid of every bit of the whole blood in a muscle or organ then it would be just as easy to convince the elders on these grounds, too.
But I agree that elders have acted on "knowledge" that seemed true at the time, but turned out to be "false knowledge." And there is too much reliance on the "probability" that heaven has already agreed with the GB about those things elders will judge. The idea that Jesus gave about things bound or loosed in heaven does seem to be an acceptance that the Christian congregation will need to make decisions requiring some to have authority over others. Like telling a person that he must make changes before he is welcome back in a congregation that meets in someone's home, or telling the same person that he can meet with Christians at the "synagogue" in town, but that others will be asked not to voluntarily interact with him until he makes those changes. This will require "authority" of some over others. And what if that authority must be exercised over a fellow elder?
(1 Timothy 5:19-21) . . .Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.
Jesus is saying that some can be chosen to have such rights over others, which implies organizational authority. (Selecting elders, who act as "older men" acted in OT times, as judges.) But Jesus is also saying that his invisible presence with them will be available. This assumes a prayerful, humble attitude that treats the words of Jesus and the "mind of Christ" as if he were physically present.
This will keep such judgements from becoming too arbitrary, or based on false knowledge that is only correct for a specific time frame and then becomes obsolete. Those particular "short-lived" ideas appear to have been started by individuals in the organization who were given their position due to charisma, bombastic personalities, or the appearance of great individual wisdom. No one would dare go against them. It was not a case of two or three gathered in Jesus' name, but a personality cult around a single person. Rutherford recognized the personality cult around Russell, but very few bothered to point out the personality cult around Rutherford and F.W.Franz. If these men had been humble enough to consult with others over their biggest decisions, there would have been fewer of these "frames" you mentioned. But this is the "bane" of every organization. Paul spoke of the same to the Corinthians, who wanted to follow their special superfine apostles. Men from James seemed to have been too willing to take the side of James on an important issue, so Paul spoke to the Galatians about how they were accepting improper authority from these so-called "pillars of Jerusalem" even though these pillars never imparted anything new to Paul himself.
A well-balanced Governing Body of experienced older men can serve the congregations very well, and there SHOULD be a lot of trust in what they decide is important. When it comes to imitating their judgements, we should follow their lead depending on how well their conduct turns out. (Their "conduct" would include how their past judgments have turned out, including those temporary "frames.".) But there are limits, as you pointed out. We carry our own load, and stand on our own before the judgement seat of God. Elders have their own responsibility to pay attention to their teachings. They could harm the flock because the flock expects to be able to follow.
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) . . .. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
(Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.