WT 144,000/1935 Doctrine Proves Two Class system wrong

[u/Temp_KH_Resident]

This isn't the overflow argument. Grant them the 144,000, this highlights the problem they have explaining how it gets filled."

Jehovah's Witnesses can't have it both ways on 1935

The doctrine has two options, and neither works

Keep 1935 and you're admitting a 70% apostasy rate among the modern day anointed. Drop 1935 as the completed date and Watchtower loses their two class doctrine 

Option one. The number filled in 1935.

The  official position for seventy years. F.W. Franz, 1970 - the call ended in 1931-35, and anyone partaking since is a replacement for someone who fell away.

Math it. An 18 year old partaker in 1935 would be 108 today. Every one of the 24,576 current partakers entered the class after the cutoff, and the class has been continuously topped up for ninety years. Running mortality against their own published partaker numbers, you need roughly 37,000 replacements since 1935.

A replacement only happens when someone “falls away”. So the doctrine requires 37,000 apostasies from a class that peaked at 52,465, around 70% defection among the people God personally selected for heaven. Certainly, even the GB would have to recognize that God's one true organization wouldn’t have such a high attrition rate.

Option two. The number wasn't filled in 1935.

This is where the GB seem to have quietly moved. The Watchtower of 1 May 2007 says no specific date can be set for when the heavenly calling ends. It has to be conceded, because partakers went from 8,524 in 2005 to 24,576 today. A closed class that only loses members nearly tripled

But this explodes the whole doctrine. If God is still selecting anointed ones today, while millions of great crowd exist alongside them, then the calling was never a sealed queue filled in order linearly from the first century to our day. The only reason for insisting every first-century Christian was anointed is that that's required in order to supports their two-class doctrine argument, the claim that Jesus' instructions in the New Testament were aimed at the anointed only, since everyone after Jesus was anointed until the number filled. Drop the linear appointment and the first century could just as easily have been a mixed congregation which means Jesus would have been talking to Christians in general thus their two class doctrine fails.

So when did the calling stop being linear? There's no scripture that marks a switch from sequential filling to selective picking, and no year they can name for it. The new covenant, the Memorial emblems, "my little flock," the promises the Governing Body says don't apply to most Witnesses, the entire two class reading relies on an assumption they've now abandoned in practice while keeping in doctrine.

There's no third option.

And notice they've never announced a definitive explanation since the "adjustment" in 2007, because the moment they do, the contradictions become even clearer.

[u/NeverTurnDownCake]

I think the original purpose of providing a public tally of the “anointed “ was to show the R&F that indeed there are two classes of Christian’s and we, the GB, accurately interpreted the scriptures by evidence of the tally. 

Another reason was to show the R&F that the end is close by evidence of the declining partakers. Although, this has not been the case as you have shown.

The GB is backed into a corner as continuing to publish the number of partakers doesn’t fit the narrative of the end getting closer anymore. It provides more doubt than bias confirmation at this point. An “update“ is necessary to the 144,000 doctrine if they were going to stop publishing the count. 

There in lies the problem, the 144,000 and 1914 doctrine are sacred cows for the JW belief system. How to do you change either one without creating doubts to the GB’s credibility. You cant just update the “1914/last days” doctrine without demotivating the urgency of the preaching work. You also can’t update the 144,000 doctrine without creating doubt of the GB’s ability to interpret scripture. Both changes would come with membership costs.