Anna

I think the society is trying to word it as "contemporaries".....two groups of people, one group old, the other group younger and both groups having experienced the signs of the times.....or on this case experienced Br. Franz being alive (as an example). At least I think that's how it is 🤔 In any case, if explaining this requires mental gymnastics, then it's a bit fishy in my opinion....

Good question.
As you know, page 20 of the Kingdom Rules book shows an illustration of the Bible Students preaching, with the caption "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence"
And then page 50, par 5 it says "As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy.  However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878..."
It's like two different people wrote chapter 2 and chapter 5 of the book. It's confusing....
 

Good question.
As you know, page 20 of the Kingdom Rules book shows an illustration of the Bible Students preaching, with the caption "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence"
And then page 50, par 5 it says "As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy.  However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878..."
It's like two different people wrote chapter 2 and chapter 5 of the book. It's confusing....
 

I think the society is trying to word it as "contemporaries".....two groups of people, one group old, the other group younger and both groups having experienced the signs of the times.....or on this case experienced Br. Franz being alive (as an example). At least I think that's how it is 🤔 In any case, if explaining this requires mental gymnastics, then it's a bit fishy in my opinion....

I wonder if they are going to get rid of the idea that the first group "readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in 1914." I expect that the new phrasing will become simply "they were alive to see the sign of Christ's presence in 1914."
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth.
It took until 1943 to get rid of the idea that Jesus' presence had started in 1874. So how could anyone in the first group readily "discern" the sign of Christ's presence in 1914?
Of course, there really were contemporary (overlapping) generations in 1914, just as there were contemporary (overlapping) generations who were alive when Jesus spoke of "this generation" in 33 CE. In Jesus' day, they were the generation of grandparents, the generation of parents and the generation of children, all alive together in 33 CE. Therefore, if we're honest, then, it would have been the generation of grandparents, parents, and children alive in 1914 who made up those contemporary (overlapping) generations in 1914. That means that any anointed persons born after 33 CE were NOT, strictly speaking, contemporaries with those who heard Jesus talk about the generation. And anyone born in 1915 or later was NOT, strictly speaking, a contemporary of those anointed who were alive in 1914.
I'm also wondering why they set up a rule restricting it to anointed only. Was it only anointed persons who heard about Jesus prophecy in 33 CE, and who survived until 70 CE to see that he was right? And, for an example, let's say that Jerusalem hadn't been burned by Rome until say around 150 CE, when all those actual contemporaries alive in 33 CE were long dead. Would we be defending Jesus' words with the idea that the apostle John must have grown old and died around the year 100 CE, but some babies who never met John were born just before he died, and those "babies" lived as contemporaries of John and were still alive in 150 CE?
Maybe, we would. But I think it's more likely that someone would think about the 120 year "generation" of Noah's day, and would take note that 33 to 150 CE is just under 120 years. 😉

I think the society is trying to word it as "contemporaries".....two groups of people, one group old, the other group younger and both groups having experienced the signs of the times.....or on this case experienced Br. Franz being alive (as an example). At least I think that's how it is 🤔 In any case, if explaining this requires mental gymnastics, then it's a bit fishy in my opinion....

You tried, but really this is comparing apples to oranges. When a group that shares a hobby gets together for a few hours or couple of days, sure it's all fun. But the real test comes when you remove that hobby, and that group has to get on with each other with love in normal day to day problems, despite cultural and personality differences, and not only that, but do this over months and years. Try that with your car enthusiasts. Loving cars, is not going to make you into a loving person.

 
Or it's never a problem if there isn't a problem.

Patiently is confused about Rando (who is not NoisySrecko/BillyTheKid) . . .
And BroRando is confused about Patiently who is not "Witness" or "Pearl."

JFR was probably not even including those who were already Bible Students (proto-JWs) to be numbered in those millions. ALL of the Bible Students were included in the 144,000 going to heaven, but in those days the persons we now identify as "the great crowd of other sheep" were also anointed and going to heaven. In fact, all Christians were going to heaven according Bible Student teaching of that time. This meant all Christians who were not Bible Students were anointed and also going to heaven.
But the scriptures taught that all who go to heaven must die first:
(1 Corinthians 15:35-37) . . .Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?” 36 You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but just a bare grain, whether of wheat or of some other kind of seed;
That verse would have especially applied to the "seed," the 144,000, and to repeat, ALL of the (few thousand) Bible Students in 1920 were considered to be a part of that 144,000. And Jesus along with the rest of 144,000 were "The Christ." Jesus was the head of the Christ, and the 144,000 were also "The Christ" (the rest of Christ's body).  
The Christ consists of Jesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitutes the church.   -- "Millions Now  Living Will Never Die, p.76

Since the Bible Students were in the 144,000 and considered to be "The Christ," they were also part of the propitiatory sacrifice, and would have especially fulfilled the verse about how it is reserved for men to die once for all time.
(Hebrews 9:26-28) . . .Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this to receive a judgment, 28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin, and he will be seen by those earnestly looking for him for their salvation.
But at that time it was believed that the great crowd would also die at Armageddon which can still be found on jw.org:
*** w66 2/15 p. 118 par. 13 Identifying the Present-Day Beneficiaries ***
In 1930, the book Light, in two volumes, gave a verse-for-verse commentary on the book of Revelation, but it still applied the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9-17 (AV) to a spirit-begotten class of professed Christians who, after a martyr’s death at Armageddon, would each “get life as a spirit creature,” but secondary to the Bride of Christ. -- https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1966124?q="a+martyr's+death+at+Armageddon"&p=doc
The issues that come into play are about how many non-Christians were expected to be saved through Armageddon. Russell had given his opinion that only a very few would be "slaughtered" and that the vast majority of mankind living would accept the government that came to the fore after Armageddon (and Rutherford had not yet adjusted this view). In fact, as late as 1928, Rutherford could claim that he had not changed "a jot or tittle" from Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures."
But I think he was already hedging his bet on the number who would be saved through Armageddon. He said that "hundreds of thousands" of those alive in NYC in 1920 would never die. Look closely at the wording of the 1920 advertisement in the New York World newspaper below, and here on jw.org: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2020/1920-One-Hundred-Years-Ago/

NYC had a population of 5.6 million at the time. But smaller cities, a tenth as large, like Pittsburgh (pop 588,000) could only be conclusively proven to see "tens of thousands" never die.

Under Knorr/Franz, the expectation changed from what appears to be at least 5% to 10% surviving, down to about 0.1% surviving. (99.9% of the world population to be slaughtered, as FWF put it.)
*** w55 11/1 p. 648 Using Wisely the Reduced Time Left ***
or in trying to perpetuate this old system of things is wasted, and that is what more than 99.9 per cent of this earth’s population are doing.
*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***
THE ARMAGEDDON FORCES . . . On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That includes all the governments of the world together with their supporters, the commercial, religious and social institutions. Even the professedly Christian organizations? Yes, because all such that are friends of the world are making themselves enemies of God.—1 John 5:19; Jas. 4:4.
That number apparently came from the fact that the number of Witnesses compared to the rest of the population was also about 0.1% therefore 99.9% non-Witnesses. Today, if you include all Memorial attendees, the number begins to approach 0.3%. So maybe only 99.7%?

Of course! I completely forgot about that!

I think similar to you, that Rutherford may have meant people who were not yet Bible Students could be saved. At that time, as you know, there were no "Jehovah’s Witnesses", only Bible students associated with Russel and Co, Rutherford and Co, IBSA and WT. I think it must have been kind of ambiguous and not clear cut as it is today. Keep in mind Jesus' words about the criterion for salvation. In any case, I am sure Rutherfords intention for using those words was to bring a positive message of hope to everyone (to those not associated) because that was the purpose of the preaching campaign, to bring good news to people, as Jesus said would happen. Of course he was off with the timing, and shouldn't have put an actual time frame on it like he did. But he was so sure...

I think similar to you, that Rutherford may have meant people who were not yet Bible Students could be saved. At that time, as you know, there were no "Jehovah’s Witnesses", only Bible students associated with Russel and Co, Rutherford and Co, IBSA and WT. I think it must have been kind of ambiguous and not clear cut as it is today. Keep in mind Jesus' words about the criterion for salvation. In any case, I am sure Rutherfords intention for using those words was to bring a positive message of hope to everyone (to those not associated) because that was the purpose of the preaching campaign, to bring good news to people, as Jesus said would happen. Of course he was off with the timing, and shouldn't have put an actual time frame on it like he did. But he was so sure...

So what is the answer? I just browsed very quickly through the thread, I may have missed it...
I was always under the impression that he was predicting exactly what he said, that millions living at the time he wrote those words, would never die. You already mentioned that he believed 1925 would be the year when mankind would be blessed and vengeance brought upon the wicked (and the ancient worthies would be resurrected and live in San Diego). 
I guess I will go and look at the 100 years ago article and see what I come up with....
Ok, I read the article
 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2021607
but I can't figure out what you are hinting at...🤔

I think similar to you, that Rutherford may have meant people who were not yet Bible Students could be saved. At that time, as you know, there were no "Jehovah’s Witnesses", only Bible students associated with Russel and Co, Rutherford and Co, IBSA and WT. I think it must have been kind of ambiguous and not clear cut as it is today. Keep in mind Jesus' words about the criterion for salvation. In any case, I am sure Rutherfords intention for using those words was to bring a positive message of hope to everyone (to those not associated) because that was the purpose of the preaching campaign, to bring good news to people, as Jesus said would happen. Of course he was off with the timing, and shouldn't have put an actual time frame on it like he did. But he was so sure...

I think that you are right, and that even and "Srecko" and "Patiently" already have a good idea, too. When I said that most of the brothers and sisters don't really know what JFR meant, I was referring to those don't have much interest and those who don't go to the trouble to look up things for themselves.
I really didn't think this was anything you didn't know already. Besides, the question has already been discussed previously on the forum. I didn't mean to come across like I was "teasing" or "irritated" but you gave me the impression that you had some information that you already knew must have been true, but you wanted a Witness to admit to it, so that you could use it to somehow prove that JWs are false prophets, or at least blame the GB. You've done this many times already. It just seemed silly that you would go to a time 100 years ago to somehow prove what we are now.
Also, I was truly interested in what other Witnesses thought, and I was glad that a few others weighed in. I didn't expect you to be so impatient, Patiently.

So what is the answer? I just browsed very quickly through the thread, I may have missed it...
I was always under the impression that he was predicting exactly what he said, that millions living at the time he wrote those words, would never die. You already mentioned that he believed 1925 would be the year when mankind would be blessed and vengeance brought upon the wicked (and the ancient worthies would be resurrected and live in San Diego). 
I guess I will go and look at the 100 years ago article and see what I come up with....
Ok, I read the article
 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2021607
but I can't figure out what you are hinting at...🤔

So what is the answer? I just browsed very quickly through the thread, I may have missed it...
I was always under the impression that he was predicting exactly what he said, that millions living at the time he wrote those words, would never die. You already mentioned that he believed 1925 would be the year when mankind would be blessed and vengeance brought upon the wicked (and the ancient worthies would be resurrected and live in San Diego). 
I guess I will go and look at the 100 years ago article and see what I come up with....
Ok, I read the article
 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2021607
but I can't figure out what you are hinting at...🤔

Ask him if a hint is to be found in the contemporary dexter ad: “We dye for the millions now living who will never dye.”

I just glanced at what was said above. It seems it is a much created fluffy storm in a tea cup  - about nothing! 
If I were living in 1919 or in 1935,  and finally understood the scriptures which indicated that a people will live through Armageddon: such as Revelation 20: 1 -3,  Revelation 7 (great crowd).... would you not write a book and articles with a advertising heading such as " Millions now living may never die!". 
If you suddenly understood that some people will live through Armageddon?  Yes, I would. I can imagine that because I can put myself in their place! Besides, I wrote for a newspaper when reporters could still be called reporters! 
As I have said before on this forum is that people leave out historical context and look back at history with all the knowledge of 2021!    Hindsight is 20/20 vision. .....
You remind me of these people who are pulling down statues of kings because they had a black page-boy - with 2021 vision he is now classified as a full blown racist!..... and worthy to be written out of history! 
People get realistic! We all know that one needs to believe in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus whether you go to heaven or live through Armageddon here on earth. 
This whole mud throwing title and the rhetoric  is just an artificially created storm in a tea cup.
 

I think Patiently Sitting on his Hands could find a scandal in a Witness phone directory.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

Further about the situation with Zalkin.
From one website:
"He Zalkin) also has four years of redacted documents locked in a filing cabinet in his office. The judge’s protective order prevents him from saying how many documents he received or describing what they reveal about child abuse in Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations.
“It’s very frustrating to have seen what I’ve seen and to know what is going on in this institution and this organization,” he said. “It’s very frustrating when I’ve got a gag in my mouth. It’s pretty hard. We’re trying our best to expose this truth, and they’re doing everything they can to interfere with that effort, to block that effort.”
Who put the gag in his mouth? The judge.
And if you don't mind me saying, what has he seen, as he claims? And what does he know about the "institution"? In reality he knows nothing, only what he has heard or seen written down.  He is just saying words that will impress lay people, people who don't know much about JWs or the law. He himself knows, as a lawyer, he could never divulge information in these documents. He would lose his license immediately.

Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example.

Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion.

If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period.

In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be.
In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party.

The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. 
 
 
 
 
The law forbids him to use it.  
I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.

If I'm not mistaken, sharing some information, especially when it pertains to privileged and private information is not legal. I'm not even talking about sharing information about a perpetrator, I'm talking about the victim/survivor. Zalkin is sitting on a pile (he says about 100) of cases given to him by the org. which he is not allowed to use or make public by law. They are locked up in his safe. 
Also, I do not think the existence of such documentation/records has ever been denied.
 

Further about the situation with Zalkin.
From one website:
"He Zalkin) also has four years of redacted documents locked in a filing cabinet in his office. The judge’s protective order prevents him from saying how many documents he received or describing what they reveal about child abuse in Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations.
“It’s very frustrating to have seen what I’ve seen and to know what is going on in this institution and this organization,” he said. “It’s very frustrating when I’ve got a gag in my mouth. It’s pretty hard. We’re trying our best to expose this truth, and they’re doing everything they can to interfere with that effort, to block that effort.”
Who put the gag in his mouth? The judge.
And if you don't mind me saying, what has he seen, as he claims? And what does he know about the "institution"? In reality he knows nothing, only what he has heard or seen written down.  He is just saying words that will impress lay people, people who don't know much about JWs or the law. He himself knows, as a lawyer, he could never divulge information in these documents. He would lose his license immediately.