JW Insider

I know it's off the topic, but the "algorithm" 🙃 just picked up something interesting about this particular spelling of "G-d" which was also a feature of several of the same accounts mentioned earlier. "Allen Smith" "Billy the Kid" "Dmitar" etc.
In fact, it was also used by one of your most cleverly named accounts, in my opinion. It was one that you used just after the "Billy The Kid" account, and I thought it was a clever renaming, remaining in the same genre of account names:
@Patiently waiting for Truth had already pointed out McNelly's relationship to "Billy the Kid" since Leander H McNelly was from the same time in American "Old West" history, and from the same part of the United States, just one state over from where Billy the Kid was also active. McNelly was also famous for gunfights.
Of course, since Leander McNelly was a famous Texas Ranger, it might be of interest to note that the name "Walter Prescott" is also a two-thirds of the name of the author of "The Texas Rangers," a book that includes discussions about Leander H McNelly.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/texasrangers.htm

A lot of modern Jewish writing uses this spelling. Dmitar quoted from several such sources that used that spelling just in the last couple of months. Very few others have ever mentioned it or made use of this spelling.

This also sounds like a typical plan for administrators running a discussion forum.
Nothing personal, but that verse also reminded me of someone, so I looked up the phrase "none Christian" [in quotes] in the Search tool on this site. Whenever I've done that in the past, it used to return a long list of posts from about 20+ different accounts. They were always from names like: Dmitar, NoisySrecko, BillyTheKid, AllenSmith, etc., that I could easily recognize as the same person using 20+ different accounts.
Today, I tried it again, and something about the Search tool has changed. Today, it only returned four posts from only two accounts: WalterPrescott and Dmitar. Strange, right?

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

Probably so. But not without consequences. The book ‘Secular Faith’ (Mark Smith) reassures its secular audience that religion comes around to secular trends. It may take a bit longer, but it happens. And that is the goal of such policies as this in Denmark. 
He examines five contentious issues in America’s past (slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, woman’s rights) and concludes modern church members have more in common with contemporary atheists than they do with their own church counterparts of long ago. In the absence of firmness, spiritual values erode.
Thus far, the ECHR has declined to reinterpret religious interpretations of scriptural text. If you tax-exempt one faith, you must tax-exempt them all. (You don’t have to tax-exempt any of them.)
With the Ukraine war raging, they may even remind the Danish governments that invading troops are drawn from virtually every background of religious belief and secular disbelief except Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that perhaps if the latter were forced to accommodate dissenting views that might not be. They would learn to ‘modernize’—look to secular direction rather than ecclesiastical direciton, and thus in time be talked into anything by the ‘king,’ who can always mold the consciousness of his citizenry.

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

1. Mass
2. Black Mass
You have presented no evidence to stand on…. roughly the equivalent of stating that the horse Mr. Ed lives on Mars. Two more False assumptions…. Unless you can provide HARD actual real EVIDENCE.
3. Yes, they do pass the Emblems. Christ’s sacrifice extends to all people of faith, no matter how they fail. That is the whole point.
I attended disfellowshipped for four years, and passed the Emblems, just like anyone else. 

Yes - I am happy you survived it all!  A good example to us all.  (Pity that some accusers on this forum had a problem with the org... but could not survive the problem).  Consequently, they lost their chance to serve Jehovah forever! 
I do think women must man-up.  At work there are rules about discrimination but even then , it is hard to stand up against it in the world (human resources departments.) It seems it can also be hard when there is some sort of discrimination against a fellow believer. In this case we must not let it pass because Jehovah's organization must be better than the world. When brothers act like a clique, then the congregation can suffer... and unfortunately it takes the GB a while to discover this.  That is why we should act according to conscience - when we see something wrong. No-one is above the council of Jehovah. 
Last year we had an elder twice snub a sister while she was answering (she did not speak English very well and the brother wanted her to finish her long, insecure answer). I sent my group overseer a phone message:  Why has the elders not appointed someone to help her to prepare a shorter answer so she does not get snubbed in this ghastly way?  ... something to that effect.   There was an apology and she was helped.   I do not like my brothers or sisters treated openly in a disrespectful way.  In a nice way I will say something. 
I asked the same elder, by phone,  why some elders preach the vaccine more than the kingdom. I had a shepherd call from the CO.... I think it was to sass me out but I retained a good attitude - But if one stands for righteousness, truth and kindness - it must be there at all times.  I will NEVER put a question like this in public where a brother can lose face but I will ask questions in private. 
I really feel one must be open and kind - speak the truth at all times - and be who you are. Do not tolerate disrespect to the weak and weary. There are many vulnerable people amongst Jehovah's people. I have learnt to handle disrespect regarding myself quite well and answer with kind openness (I had to learn it).  I do not care to lose face... it is not important.  Believe me women often encounter this - no matter how high the position (in the world and org) but I do not take it to heart too much. BUT always ask questions if things are wrong - with respect. As a woman I must still be submissive so as not to be branded a Jezebel. I am very aware of being respectful and submissive. 
So far I have survived - and my faith has had its bad times and the good.  I just hope Jehovah gives me courage to act according to my conscience - whether in front of brothers or the worldly courts.

There is…nobody should be beaten..not spiritually  or emotionally….but it does and has happened and if anyone says that not true then they are either lying or have genuinely never seen it or experienced it….beleive it or not but there really are some good congs who don’t ..and there are some appalling ones who do….
We are not door mats..tho many things can be excused as normal common human responses and we need to forgive or just not take notice of some things…as many many times I have experienced such forgiveness also from my brothers and sister.
Yet there are things that at times one must stand up like David did when facing Goliath…and it’s not pleasant…it’s not nice…and blood symbolically speaking may be shed…even doing it the right way ..the theocratic way…this will still happen.
1) You take your complaint and  lie it before the Court  of the God of Justice first…number one thing to do…
2) Make sure your written formal letters is addressed to Elders Co then the Branch and the GB…apparently then those who it is addressed are forced to read it. Write your letter well and only once…as Jehovah has it in his Justice  court.
3) Be respectful and not a smart….but be blunt and to the point…and do not skirt any emotional trauma…right from the heart…use only a few scriptures…( very important as they don’t have time to read novels ) lay it all out on the ground…the truth and even the ugly parts..and personal faults as well.
Give it directly to your CO…they then must then Handle it theocratically..keep a copy….then muster up your strength to go back to those meetings …DONT…DONT EVER Let them chase YOU away from amongst Gods people…YOU FIGHT your spiritual fight..just as you had to when in the world.
Give up any hope of ever hearing again from your letter….it will never happen….no apology…as if it was never written.
This is hard to take…but don’t let those guilty change your Personality…fight your own inclination to become resentful and bitter ..it took me two years and at times I still battle it.
Consider Joesph and  his battle In getting justice..8-10 yrs his cries went un heard..are you any better than him..I know I’m not.
one has to learn a new humility as Joesph did…unfair treatment…down right server injustice with blatant lies involved…lack of loyalty and a trusted friendship ruined…some dont like to hear this but it happens in the truth as well…
My experience took the greatest toll as a mother….and yes I’m still a bit cynical which I hate…as I was never like that before…it’s hard…but with Jehovah’s help it’s doeable….and most of the brothers and sisters are loving and kind …some are not..and I dont mix with them…my motto is..if you don’t build me up but tear me down stay the h…..away from me…and yes I slip back into the bitterness at times…it’s a hard fight they put on you…and then  Jehovah reminds me of my considerable errors..and I am shamed and humbled.
Did I  get justice…sort off… not what I wanted….elders were removed…( it took two long years ) three years latter a assembly the last talk was given by a bethel brother and it was absolutely scathing on the elders and those in positions of authority….he got the cat of nine tails out on them and beat them over and over……I was stunned.and had tears running down my face…..and at times I felt for them…I watched them as they sat thru that…..I don’t feel sorry for them anymore as you never get an apology….you never get  …do you want to talk over a coffee……you get grunts when you humbly say hello to the….well I tried all that lovey dovey stuff and it didnt work so I don t waste my time with them anymore…..even Jesus say you have to repent to be forgiven…
If you have been wronged and I’m talking severely wronged….after the shock wears off ….TAKE YOU STAND….and then leave it and try to let it go…or put it on the back burner or find another cong and move.
As to Bro Morris’s 111….he’s not my favourite speaker …but In Fairness he didn’t laugh over one’s dying his little laugh or smirk was the match acted like a little unexpected firecracker before it blew out….fairs fair…
I loved Dan Sydlick…..but he wasnt perfect…a little on the chauvinistic side…he gave great talks but one talk he introduced himself saying he never had children …but he’s got a wife…and I guess that’s like having a child…..I remembered I   cried out ..whoooooah..and so did the audience…you could hear them..but he was a genuinely warm loving brother and we easily forgot his blunder…not sure if his wife did tho…lol….. …
Just don’t let them make you angry and resentful….then Satan has got what he wants..Jehovah will deal with all of us eventually ….and kindness may even be shown to these ones….so don’t be a victim…be a soldier  of a Christ and stand up to the serious  wrongs…with out hatred and remember Jehovah know the full story.
Our whole cong changed but it too, two years of facing those men…I don’t call them brothers…I wouldn’t even look at them when they had their parts…and blocked my ears at their voices ….and read my Bible…I got anxiety at these times…my heart beat faster…and I felt sickly…it was like torture..and I would silently say to Jehovah in a heated voice,,,this isn’t fair, how much longer do you expect me to last!!!!
The truth is I really wanted to get up and smash them one….should I have been a brother…I would have been prepared for jail time and disfellowshippement  over that,….such was the pain and mental torture…but I had to not behave as I wanted and act before Jehovah in a judicial matter…
I don’t know what it was like in the 1950s….do tell more …
 

It was me. “Change the air on TTH robot tires” sent me into a rage.
I’m not exactly sure what it means, but I didn’t want to miss any possible cause for offense. I worked the phones all evening. Don’t even try to get on social media platforms—I’ve banned you from all of them, even ones you’ve never heard of. Even Elon Musk agrees. You’re lucky the military didn’t descend upon your home.
”Aren’t you furious?” I said to Dimitar over the phone when I read the insult directed his way. “Nah,” he replied, “life is too short [even shorter if the words for him mean anything] You should be more mellow, TrueTom. Chill—like I do.”

And of course, Christendom has Easter eggs, chocolate rabbits, dyed baby chickens, sugar coated marshmallow animals, and lots of sacramental wine!

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

O.K.
let’s see ….
In the last two posts, Dmitar had 4-1/2 screens full of words, and JW Insider had 5-1/2 screens full of words.
According to the human nature of probabilities, JW Insider WINS!
ta-da!

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.
That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
15 In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
16 All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.
'...most, if not all..."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.
This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:
*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.
After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.
"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."
I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.
In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”
So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

I recently had someone try to undermine this is a completely novel way, by claiming that WWI was nothing unique, that many wars in history could be classified as “world wars.” He pointed to a published book to that effect. Remember, he told me, WWI was initially called the Great War, and was only renamed later. 
Yeah, when there proved to be a sequel, I replied. That would have been the perfect time to rename it World War VII if there was anything to this theory of yours. I swear, let Jehovah’s Witnesses take a stand on anything and a cottage industry of retro-scholars arises to torpedo it.
 

There is no doubt that 1914 marked a very important point of change in history. I have seen ex-JWs and non-JWs try to deny this, just because it probably embarrasses them that the Watchtower Society has been able to hold onto the significance of the 1914 date for so long.
However, the book that Dmitar mentioned is actually an excellent book that uses the expression "generation of 1914" in the same manner that Jesus appears to have used the expression "this generation" (that is, the generation of 33 CE). Technically, Jesus could have meant all the people who were contemporaries meaning all the very old people, middle-aged people, young men, and small children who were alive when Jesus called them "this generation." But obviously the very old did NOT live to see the great tribulation of those days when Jerusalem was surrounded by encamped armies. 70 was a long and fortunate lifespan, and the average in those days (not including childbirth deaths) was likely only to about age 40. That generation that saw all those things occur by Rome in 66-70, had to live at least another 33 to 37 years.
But Robert Wohl in the book focuses on the age of 5 young middle-class elites  in 5 Western countries of Europe, and he follows the ideas and experiences that these 5 men (born in 1880's and 1890's) would have witnessed especially from about 1914 up until the post-war years of the 1940's. In the book he reminds us that people had spoken of the "sacrificed generation" of the men of 1885. And that various schools had spoken of the "social generation," and the "scientific generation" at various points in the late 1800's.
That is the common use of the expressions like "generation of Jesus' day" "generation of the apostles" "generation of Joseph and his brothers" "generation of 1914" "generation of my grandfather" "generation of my great-grandfather" "generation of my children".
Of course there are other technical definitions of generation but the default, we would expect, is always the common meaning unless otherwise specified. Robert Wohl gives us the common meaning, the default meaning. If we think we should apply Robert Wohl's understanding and use of the term "generation of 1914" it's the same as saying that the Watchtower got it wrong.
To be fair, I wanted to add that Wohl holds that the common meaning of generation, of which there may be about "three in a century," is not binding on the extended significance and impact of that generation on following generations. That's no doubt why he chose the title because that generation of 1914 still has relevant meaning even for today. But that type of impact can go on forever and is clearly a completely different use than the one that the Watchtower uses. The Watchtower has specifically stated that it is about a limited and specific demarcation of time, quite different from when Jesus used expressions like "who will save you from this wicked generation."

There is no doubt that 1914 marked a very important point of change in history. I have seen ex-JWs and non-JWs try to deny this, just because it probably embarrasses them that the Watchtower Society has been able to hold onto the significance of the 1914 date for so long.
However, the book that Dmitar mentioned is actually an excellent book that uses the expression "generation of 1914" in the same manner that Jesus appears to have used the expression "this generation" (that is, the generation of 33 CE). Technically, Jesus could have meant all the people who were contemporaries meaning all the very old people, middle-aged people, young men, and small children who were alive when Jesus called them "this generation." But obviously the very old did NOT live to see the great tribulation of those days when Jerusalem was surrounded by encamped armies. 70 was a long and fortunate lifespan, and the average in those days (not including childbirth deaths) was likely only to about age 40. That generation that saw all those things occur by Rome in 66-70, had to live at least another 33 to 37 years.
But Robert Wohl in the book focuses on the age of 5 young middle-class elites  in 5 Western countries of Europe, and he follows the ideas and experiences that these 5 men (born in 1880's and 1890's) would have witnessed especially from about 1914 up until the post-war years of the 1940's. In the book he reminds us that people had spoken of the "sacrificed generation" of the men of 1885. And that various schools had spoken of the "social generation," and the "scientific generation" at various points in the late 1800's.
That is the common use of the expressions like "generation of Jesus' day" "generation of the apostles" "generation of Joseph and his brothers" "generation of 1914" "generation of my grandfather" "generation of my great-grandfather" "generation of my children".
Of course there are other technical definitions of generation but the default, we would expect, is always the common meaning unless otherwise specified. Robert Wohl gives us the common meaning, the default meaning. If we think we should apply Robert Wohl's understanding and use of the term "generation of 1914" it's the same as saying that the Watchtower got it wrong.
To be fair, I wanted to add that Wohl holds that the common meaning of generation, of which there may be about "three in a century," is not binding on the extended significance and impact of that generation on following generations. That's no doubt why he chose the title because that generation of 1914 still has relevant meaning even for today. But that type of impact can go on forever and is clearly a completely different use than the one that the Watchtower uses. The Watchtower has specifically stated that it is about a limited and specific demarcation of time, quite different from when Jesus used expressions like "who will save you from this wicked generation."

Now that would be great for a weekend trip in a 4x4 vehicle. And I bet he has some interesting stories he could tell.