JW Insider

I worked as a reporter and then as a public relations officer for a few large organizations - sitting in on all the board meetings etc. to publicize the companies' strategy.  
I speak from a worldly perspective - a business perspective.  I would not keep redundant workers if my business suffered. Companies do not exist to be a gravy train - but people expect the JW organization to be NICE and IN-efficient -  just because it is a spiritual organization?  They expect the organization to keep on "supporting certain individuals" even if their job has become obsolete?..... With money that other witnesses pay for furthering the preaching work?  What makes this individual so special that he gets supported for life but thousands of other volunteers in the field have to work hard and do their preaching without assistance from the GB. Everyone knows when they enter Bethel that it may be for a long time or a short time but their tenure is not assured.... it is volunteer work after all.  They can leave any time.....
Personal vendettas and these kind of things have no place in the organization. We are not different to other people - the same as everyone else.  The only difference is that one cannot remain a Witness without Jehovah's spirit.  So, if for some reason you have neglected your relationship with Jehovah it will show in a bad attitude! ....especially towards others.....  You start beating on brothers.  I know of very few brothers and sisters who have not had reason to complain...about some perceived unfairness...by someone.... because this world is not perfect and not all brothers act as they should..... but most forgive and get on with the work and keep the unity.  Other people turn nasty and pamper their victimhood! Like an obstructive child!

After about 1995, I have had no first-hand knowledge about their travel arrangements. Up until then, there was a lot of first-class travel in the 1970s through the mid-1990s, but it was always said to be "gifted" and did not come through the general donations to the worldwide work. Also, it depended completely on where they were going, and if a congregation or wealthy brother sponsored the travel. There were some supposed scandals in the mid 1990's too of GB taking expensive "luxury" vacations, but these were "gifted."
I traveled with Brother Schroeder to Europe and he flew first-class while I took Freddy Laker to London for $99. But I also took first-class trains and hovercraft between many destinations: London-Paris-Madrid-Barcelona-Rome-Corfu-Athens-Milan-Innsbruck-Berne-Wiesbaden-Hamburg and Brother Schroeder almost always had a small plane flight or even a car arranged between some of these same locations. Not a private plane, although this happens in Australia and Alaska and parts of Africa in places where private planes (not private jets) are more practical than cars.

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

The way I understand the "Thread Rules" is that if the person who STARTED the thread wants it to stay pristine, then it is inappropriate to violate those wishes and wander afield with comments. Also,  we did experiment with making things "formal" but it was very cumbersome, so the Librarian agreed that it could be a 'free for all mud fight" and if necessary, he or JWI, who have administrator status, would split the tangled thread and move parts to new headers, as needed.
Since I started this thread, apparently I get to indicate my preferences ... and as most know, I LIKE a free association, who knows where the conversation goes, from your nose to your toes kinda brawl.
I am not sensitive, and take no offense, even if deliberate and malicious, under the working theory that vitriol is YOUR problem, and watching you have a stroke is entertaining, and the Librarian and many here know this.
So, carry on troops, and follow IDEAS, wherever they might go!

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.

Or dropped out for many of them. Of course, that doesn't count as much because several still got into some colleges that were hard to get into, which implies either family money or privileged educational opportunities during "high school" which are often the equivalent of American college credits. And Malcolm X says he read Rutherford's books and listened to him on the radio, so obviously he didn't need to go to college.

Do they have Milk Duds in the vending machines?

I myself was taken into the back hall a few times and was given a swipe or 10 on the rear end for not sitting still. I have witnessed children as young as 2 years old being spanked right there in front of everyone to sit still. Spanking is not child abuse, but there are reasons to spank, and spanking a child to sit still through a 2 hour boring meeting geared towards adults is not one of them for sure. Parents who are willing to do this are more than likely dishing out more sever punishment at home where no one can see.

Ever notice that demon possessed objects are always discovered by Sisters from stuff at a yard sale?
They are NEVER discovered by men buying a used car at a car auction sale.
I mean ... if you buy a used car and it has no demons, just stop making the payments ... and it will get  ... *coff* .... repossessed!

I have been in contact with a couple research coordinators at the British Museum and one has already met with me twice in person this week. I meet another one tomorrow. I have been working from a list of questions, some of which are common questions from religious circles, and some of which are a little more specific to the interest of JWs. It's not that any one person can answer the questions but I can get good leads on recent, ongoing and upcoming research projects. I have found that when I want to contact someone who is working on a project that being able to say I spoke to so-and-so at the BM (or similar place) is an excellent way to start out.
My list of questions have included the following topics and research areas. In some of the topics I have dozens of specific questions already on my list. The general topics below might remind anyone of their own questions they might have always wanted to ask someone.
The earliest evidence of the use of a cross among Christians. Any Christian and Christian-related iconography prior to 200 C.E. Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Greek research on chronology from about 750 to 400-ish B.C.E. Habitation/Population evidence of Israel/Judea/Palestine from 740 to 605 to 589 to 539 to 518 B.C.E. etc. Questions related to identities of rulers mentioned in Daniel Questions about the date of the death of Herod the Great Questions about the identification of the Pharaohs who interacted with Israelites Linguistic "crossover" from Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew in religious subjects (priesthood, circumcision, temple-related artifacts) Religion of the Canaanite-related people before and during the Israelite conquest Dead Sea Scrolls as they relate to Second Temple period, and Essene, early Pharisee, and early Christian traditions  
(I am here for more than a week, staying across from Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park -- also here for a wedding.)
 

This "News" was absolutely true, not fake.
But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society  had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico.
When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read.
So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.

Excellent point. When I worked in the Art Department at Bethel I first realized that "food at the proper time" for English readers was at about two months earlier than Spanish readers and between 6 and 8 months earlier than the average audience for other languages. For some of the books, the delay could be several years.

Thank you! Duh, why didn't I just think of doing that! I know, I must have thought you needed some work to do

That's the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, of course, which is also the primary picture under the Wikipedia article: "History of the Catholic Church in Mexico." The relationship of the Catholic Church has gone through strained periods in Mexico (also in Spain, of course where some parallels occurred.) There were many years when the Catholic Church could not own property, but they had this idea that their "civic associations" such as Catholic schools could be owned by the Church. (I have read that this was one of the ways they fought legally for privileged exceptions.) Even this caused problems. But it seems a reasonable guess that the Watch Tower got the idea from the Catholic Church that declaring yourself a civic association instead of a religion was a good way to be able to own property, as I think Catholics had done with their schools. The Wikipedia article starts out as follows:
The history of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico dates from the period of the Spanish conquest (1519–21) and has continued as an institution in Mexico into the twenty-first century. Catholicism is one of the two major legacies from the Spanish colonial era, the other being Spanish as the nation's language. The Catholic Church was a privileged institution until the mid nineteenth century. It was the sole permissible Church in the colonial era and into the early Mexican Republic, following independence in 1821. At some point in the twentieth century, Eastern Catholic jurisdictions were established in Mexico,[citation needed] but Roman Catholicism remains the largest religious group. In the mid-nineteenth century the liberal La Reforma brought major changes in church-state relations. The Mexican state challenged the Catholic Church's role in education in Mexico, property ownership, birth, marriage, and death records, in anticlerical laws. Many of these were incorporated into the Constitution of 1857, restricting the Church's corporate ownership of property and other limitations. President Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911) pursued a policy of conciliation with the Catholic Church, keeping the liberal anticlerical articles of the constitution in force, but in practice allowing greater freedom of action for the Catholic Church.[1] With Díaz's ouster in 1911 and the decade-long conflict of the Mexican Revolution, the victorious Constitutionalist faction led by Venustiano Carranza wrote the new Constitution of 1917 that strengthened the anticlerical measures in the liberal Constitution of 1857. With the presidency of Northern, anticlerical, revolutionary general Plutarco Elías Calles (1924–28), the State's enforcement of the anticlerical articles of Constitution of 1917 provoked a major crisis in Mexico with violence in a number of regions of Mexico. The Cristero Rebellion (1926–29) was resolved, with the aid of diplomacy of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ending the violence, but the anticlerical articles of the constitution remained. President Manuel Avila Camacho (1940–1946) came to office declaring "I am a [Catholic] believer," (soy creyente) and Church-State relations improved though without constitutional changes. A major change came in 1992, with the presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). In a sweeping program of reform to "modernize Mexico" that he outlined in his 1988 inaugural address, his government pushed through revisions in the Mexican Constitution, explicitly including a new legal framework that restored the Catholic Church's juridical personality.[2][3][4][5][6] The majority of Mexicans in the twenty-first century identify themselves as being Catholic, but the growth of other religious groups such as Protestant evangelicals, Mormons, as well secularism is consistent with trends elsewhere in Latin America. The 1992 federal Act on Religious Associations and Public Worship (Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público), known in English as the Religious Associations Act or (RAA), has affected all religious groups in Mexico.[7]

Of course, Jesus never said anything about these things happening either in greater, more terrifying, or more "concentrated measure." So even if earthquakes, for example, really had started to happen in "concentrated measure" in 1914 (they didn't!) this would still have nothing to do with the sign of Matthew 24. All Jesus said was that great earthquakes, for example, would happen and therefore not to be misled by them, because these are not signs that the end is imminent. ("Do not be misled . . . the end is not yet!").
Of course, what you are talking about would still be the common reasoning, even if we somehow found a way to restart the generation with the start of the Governing Body around 1972, or the apostasy in 1980, or AIDS, or cart witnessing, or the re-assignment of the Governing Body as "guardians of doctrine" around 2000, or even some brand new unexpected event in 2018.
So I brought up the point about the sign in Matthew 24 to propose that we would still be wrong to try to find new reasons to claim that earthquakes and wars were somehow more "concentrated" after a new starting date -- even if they WERE!

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this:
(Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23:
(Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation."
But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false.
He says:
But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'"
Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory:
Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6:
But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6  that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how:
He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

...then they must must have spent the last ten years in a coma... [or something to that effect]
Of course, this could have slightly more effect if we hadn't been saying almost exactly the same thing for the last 138 years and counting.

The current plan is to have only 6 more public issues of the Watchtower between now and the of 2019, and then reprint those 6 issues as needed starting in 2020.
*** w59 5/1 p. 285 Sharing the Good News by Contributing Personally ***
BACK in August, 1879, this magazine said: “‘Zion’s Watch Tower’ has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support. When He who says: ‘All the gold and silver of the mountains are mine,’ fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication.” The Society did not suspend publication, and The Watchtower has never missed an issue. Why? Because during the nearly eighty years since The Watchtower stated this policy of reliance upon Jehovah God, the Society has not deviated from it. How about today? Does the Society still maintain this position? Even in the early years, the "Watchtower" magazine went from monthly to twice monthly and back a couple of times. Many of the articles were exact reprints of previous articles, and sometimes the entire magazine was merely a reprint of earlier articles. In spite of the claim above that no issue was missed entire monthly issues were missed several times, sometimes replaced with another tract or book. In August 1881 there was no regular issue, and the September issue was a special issue on the Advent. The reason for not being prepared for the end of 1881 seems obvious, since Russell thought he would have already undergone the "change" -- the "rapture" -- by October 1881. Early ssues that were missed (as regular new issues) included:
August 1881 November 1881 February 1882 November 1882 May 1884 August 1885 November 1886, December 1886, January 1887 November 1888 "Millennial Dawn" Volume 1 was sent as a replacement for three missing issues from November 1886, December 1886 and January 1887. The announcement was made in the February 1887 "Tower":
. . . we sent a paper bound edition of Millennial Dawn, Vol. I, as representing three numbers of the TOWER, November and December, '86, and January, '87. [page 1, reprint p. 897] In 1892 it was announced that the Tower would now be twice monthly, and go from 16 large pages to 28 pages. There was no new issue for April 15, however. And the June 1 and 15 were combined, etc. etc.
All that trivia is just to show that we've gone through things like this before. Increase in size, decrease in size. Increase in regularity, decrease in regularity, and a lot of reprinted articles, which appears to be the plan again.

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this:
(Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23:
(Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation."
But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false.
He says:
But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'"
Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory:
Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6:
But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6  that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how:
He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

And the evil scheme was all fulfilled with an extra slot at the Kingdom Hall, about a foot from the other slot!!!
I swear this is nothing but jealousy. I mean, what's it to Shiwiii?  If Jehovah's Witnesses flood the coffers in response to very little prodding, what does he care? Can it be anything more than - alright, I am projecting now, as JTR would say, but you would have to be obtuse not to do it - an intense dislike for the message Jehovah's Witnesses preach, and so a trumped up charge that they are somehow doing it underhandedly, crying crocodile tears with a feigned concern for ones so 'deceived'? All the evidence indicates Witnesses are quite satisfied and don't feel deceived at all. I don't. It is every other interest eternally trying to get in my pocket that I must watch closely for chicanery. The more respected they are, the greater the concern.
No Witness would ever make such a charge. They look around and see donated funds being put to good use. They know the GB and ranking Bethelites live in dormitories - nice dormitories, to be sure, but dormitories nonetheless. If they travel, they run up no hotel or restaurant bills. They amass no retirement plans, so should they leave Bethel, their means are very simple (and those who bitch about money collection also bitch about THAT!!!). Nobody makes a dime in salary. There has barely been any concern ever other than newbie @JW Insiderlosing his wallet to a BA deadbeat. And Brother Knorr tried to warn him that could happen, but he was too starry-eyed to pay attention.

...then they must must have spent the last ten years in a coma... [or something to that effect]
Of course, this could have slightly more effect if we hadn't been saying almost exactly the same thing for the last 138 years and counting.

If @JW Insider didn't have to keep messing with 607 BCE, they probably wouldn't have to rewrite anything!

The context was use of the Internet. What he said was: "Be careful on the Internet...I don't know how many times we have to tell you, be careful!...We're just warning you. That's all we can do is admonish . . ..Stick with what we have authorised; you will be safe. You want to go out there? It's at your spiritual risk."
A person who claims to be an apostate has put up just a short snippet here as if it is something more nefarious, but keep it in context and notice that it doesn't say, "you will be saved."
 

Then, assuming she accepted the proposal, the brothers asked them to become disengaged (Form S-78) and to become re-engaged anywhere outside of Warwick, since the Governing Body also meets in Warwick and does not want anything related to the Branch location area to become idolized, either. Then they decided on a 50-mile radius, which would also include the old Brooklyn Bethel, because, well, you just can't be too careful. For engagement services, they are now providing a special bus that runs from Warwick to the old Burnt-Over Disctrict of New York, where it all began. An announcement comes over the loudspeaker of the bus when the 50-mile radius has been reached, and engagements are allowed again.
 
[edited to add: I just received a note from someone who couldn't tell if I was joking, so I thought I'd better add this explanation to the post. Yes, I'm joking.]

Then, assuming she accepted the proposal, the brothers asked them to become disengaged (Form S-78) and to become re-engaged anywhere outside of Warwick, since the Governing Body also meets in Warwick and does not want anything related to the Branch location area to become idolized, either. Then they decided on a 50-mile radius, which would also include the old Brooklyn Bethel, because, well, you just can't be too careful. For engagement services, they are now providing a special bus that runs from Warwick to the old Burnt-Over Disctrict of New York, where it all began. An announcement comes over the loudspeaker of the bus when the 50-mile radius has been reached, and engagements are allowed again.
 
[edited to add: I just received a note from someone who couldn't tell if I was joking, so I thought I'd better add this explanation to the post. Yes, I'm joking.]