...trying to track down the JW core doctrines

by jgnat 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Elsewhere

  Elsewhere,

  your post suggests that statements implying lack of absolute certainty are to be disregarded or not given any weight as to one's position.

  True, it is nice to firmly take a position on a matter from time to time, but more often it is simply arrogant and foolish to pretend to have all of the answers or to know to an absolutely certainty.

  I realize that in our cynical world, words like "probably" are viewed as meaning the negative but that is contrary to their actual meaning. (I know first hand because when the Elders asked me during my JC if I would "go to the Elders" with future (serious sins) that when I answered "probably" that it wasn't good enough.)

  This is especially true with regard to future conduct or developments. The Society isn't to be chastised simply because it tends to qualify its statements, it is to be commended.

  You can bet that it was all of those unqualified "certainties" and absolute statements that were made in the past, that got it in trouble, which are the source of present derision and criticism and which are the ones usually cited by opposers as evidence of its own haughtiness.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  Perhaps I will agree in the future, but it seems as though I most likely won't.
• 

  garybuss

  There are actually two rules to follow to be a Jehovah's Witness.
  Rule #1. Treat the Governing Body as if they are never wrong.
  Rule #2. If the Governing Body is ever wrong, see rule #1.
  
  
• 

  jgnat

  I hear what you are saying, Elsewhere, but my initial search was to answer the question, "What makes a JW essentially JW"? What belief, if discarded, would make them not a JW anymore? These are the kinds of questions that summoned the Nicene Council to answer the question, "What makes a Christian essentially Christian"? The JW's discard the trinity, but I wondered what they replaced the orthodox description with. I was looking for an equivalent.

  I like Narkissos' highlighting. That is the closest equivalent to the Nicene statement of faith I've ever seen. Of course, they've couched their answer there as well.

  Which means that AlanF is right. The only doctrine that CANNOT be challenged is "Obey the FDS."

  Garybuss, lol, very well summarized.
• 

  Honesty

  Everything they teach is based on pure speculation.

  For example:

  607 BCE

  1914 CE

  1919 CE

  The FDS doctrine
• 

  Justin

  The idea that obeying the FDS is the basic requirement for JWs is true as far as it goes, but it must be balanced with the thought that there are, historically, certain beliefs which have characterized JWs. One way to determine what those beliefs are is to ask what has not changed since the time of Russell. There have always been what have been called the three denials - denial of the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and hell-fire. To a JW it is just as important to deny certain beliefs as it is to affirm others. There has been a belief in Armageddon (though, as has been pointed out, the nature of Armageddon has changed). There has been a belief in the restoration of mankind to an Edenic earth. Then there are the two salvations (or hopes) - the heavenly and the earthly, and 144,000 has always been understood as the literal number of the heavenly class. The proclamation of God's kingdom has been very important (though the details of such "good news" have changed). These and other beliefs JWs share with Bible Students.

  To distinguish JWs from Bible Students, we can ask what has not changed since the time of Rutherford. Answer: such matters as the importance of using the name JEHOVAH, the thought that God's people are primarily witnesses for Jehovah rather than for Christ, the belief that God deals with people through an organization and that organization must be run theocratically.

  While it is true that any of these beliefs could theoretically be changed by the FDS, an historian would not be satisfied simply to say that belief in the FDS is the distinguishing mark of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  jgnat

  Thank you Justin for your perspective. Again, it is hard to nail down the JW's to their positive beliefs. They are mostly defined by what, as you call it, the three denials. I have one question:

  Then there are the two salvations (or hopes) - the heavenly and the earthly

  I thought before 1918 (or, about 1936 when they retroactively changed the doctrine), they believed that all Bible Students had the heavenly hope, the anointing, and Jesus' promises. I mean, wasn't that the impetus to share the Good News before that final day in 1918?

  It always seemed to me the WTBTS had to create the "two hopes" to at least give those early preachers a bone. There had to be SOME distinguishing feature that set their efforts apart.
• 

  jstalin

  You can bet that it was all of those unqualified "certainties" and absolute statements that were made in the past, that got it in trouble, which are the source of present derision and criticism and which are the ones usually cited by opposers as evidence of its own haughtiness.

  LOL - reminds me of an old saying - "when in doubt, mumble." I thought the FDS was the inspired mouth of god... apparently god doesn't have very good judgement.
• 

  jgnat

  Jstalin, that comment brings to mind a recent conversation I had with my dad, after hours. He sounds a lot different when he's already removed his teeth.
• 

  Justin

  jgnat . . . You'll notice I used two terms - "two salvations" which Bible Students still use today - and "two hopes" - the current JW designation. This is because, during Russell's lifetime, while the Bible Students themselves claimed the heavenly hope, they believed that mankind in general would, after Armageddon, be offered the earthly hope (some, having survived Armageddon without becoming Bible Students, and others being resurrected). But during Rutherford's presidency, the earthly prospects were held out specifically to what has become known as the "great crowd" - the majority of JWs who do not profess the heavenly hope. So it has become an earthly hope in the sense that there are people now alive who expect this to become their destiny. Rutherford also changed the meaning of Armageddon to be, not simply the dissolution of the old order, but the everlasting destruction of those outside the organization (even though previous generations are still expected to return in the resurrection). Because the two salvations idea is still held to in a modified form, there is both continuity and discontinuity with Russell.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  And all this to avoid HELL