Defeating 'New Light' doctrine... How?

AlmostAtheist

It does little good to point a JW to changing doctrines, since they expect it. They get all giddy when 'New Light' shines on them and they get a clearer understanding of the Bible. Even if it is actually a return to what was previously declared 'old light', they still suck it down and smile.

How do you defeat that? Is there some sort of reasoning or scripture that gets around it?

I can't see asking them, "Does 'truth' change?" Because obviously the real truth doesn't, but they admit they don't have the real truth. They have the truth as it is understood today by the FDS. Since the FDS is the most enlightened group in the world, anything they say must represent the cutting edge of truth, even if it's technically false, right?

Even outright disproving a currently-held doctrine won't do it, since they will just tell you that if Jehovah cares about that particular point, he'll shine a little 'new light' on it and clear it up in his own due time. We must "wait on Jehovah". (Give the guy a break, he's old.)

I read over the 4th chapter of Proverbs where they justify this 'new light' doctrine and while it seems to be describing the life of an individual as he comes to know wisdom better, I can see someone applying it to a group of individuals. I don't immediately see this as a misapplication of the verse. (By all means correct me if you disagree)

Do you think this doctrine and the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" doctrine are basically one and the same? (I'm starting to think that they are)

Your thoughts?

Dave

blondie

What about flipflop doctrines

Superior authorities

1879-1929 secular authorities

1929-1962 God and Jesus

1962-now secular authorities

Organ transplants

to 1967 conscience matter

1967-1980 DF offense

1980-now conscience matter

Resurrection of people killed at Sodom and Gomorrah

(quite a few changes, been in and out of Gehenna several times)

Scream if raped, etc.

hamsterbait

Russell said

"NEW LIGHT NEVER CONTRADICTS OLD LIGHT" it enhances it and builds upon it as a foundation.

Is it any wonder that Rutherford had the plates for the old literature smashed so they could not be reprinted for proper scrutiny?

The articles on "tacking" and the jews in the wilderness going back and forth in circles just don't cut the mustard.

I think if you can show that some "new light " was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts, or a downright lie, an honest hearted one (ie Somebody ready to climb over the Berlin Wall) would admit it and change.

After all the new light that alowed them to join the UN for a library ticket, is now old light - and they lied to cover it up.

HB

Gopher

One of the most egregious doctrine changes was the 1995 "new light" regarding the "GENERATION".

I grew up in a JW family and was taught that there would be some people who were at an "age of understanding" in the year 1914 who would personally witness the beginning of Armageddon during their lifetime here on earth. During the 1980's, I then heard that those of the "1914 generation" didn't have to be at an age of understanding in the year 1914, but they merely had to be alive.

Then in 1995 the WT told us that the 'generation' really wasn't a period of time, but it was the whole world of people outside Jehovah's organization who would die at Armageddon (whenever it would come).

Will anyone associated with JW's ever admit they taught a LIE (or even, "something not the truth") prior to 1995?

If they cannot admit that, then their cling on this 'new light' (in reality a confusing pattern of blinking lights) is too strong for reason.

AlmostAtheist

I grew up in a JW family and was taught that there would be some people who were at an "age of understanding" in the year 1914 who would personally witness the beginning of Armageddon during their lifetime here on earth. During the 1980's, I then heard that those of the "1914 generation" didn't have to be at an age of understanding in the year 1914, but they merely had to be alive.

Then in 1995 the WT told us that the 'generation' really wasn't a period of time, but it was the whole world of people outside Jehovah's organization who would die at Armageddon (whenever it would come).

I lived through that whole generation mess, too. But I was also one of those "hungry for 'New Light'" types, so when it changed, I happily took it. I was disappointed, of course, but I saw it as a truth that had always been there, we just hadn't discovered it yet. Far from angry, I was grateful to the FDS for providing the ever-improving truth to me. ("The New & Improved 'Truth'! Now with 15% less falsehood!")

Changing doctrines -- even conflicting doctrines -- don't violate the JW's view of New Light, do they? From their standpoint, the old generation view was found to be incorrect, and it was adjusted. ("Adjusted" is a much more pleasing-to-the-eye word than "abandoned". They only call VERY old light "abandoned", such as pyramids and stuff.)

How do they react when they try to tell other religions that they are wrong, and the other religions pulls the 'New Light' crap on them? What would a JW say to a Catholic that says, "Sure, we have some stuff wrong. But God will fix that in his due time. Surely your church has some things wrong, wouldn't you agree?"

Dave

Maryjane

I agree with Gopher's statement:

"Will anyone associated with JW's ever admit they taught a LIE (or even, "something not the truth") prior to 1995? If they cannot admit that, then their cling on this 'new light' (in reality a confusing pattern of blinking lights) is too strong for reason."

For many JW's the psychological defense mechanisms are too strong for any bit of reason to penetrate. I think for a JW to really be "honest" and admit that the Society has been WRONG and uses "new light" and "wait on Jehovah" to hide their wrongs, that JW has to already be looking for a loophole. For instance, about 4 years after my baptism, I became weary of all the meetings, field service, magazines, Kingdom Ministries, etc. I really had panic attack as my entire life revolved around religion. I still kept up with it because at the time I believed it to be "the truth" but was secretly hoping they were wrong about somethings and I could find a loophole to get out. The desire to be free has to be there. If they are happy being slaves of the WTB&TS or find it too painful to even consider being wrong, they won't listen to any contrary information.

Ingenuous

Changing doctrines is not a reflection of New Light ™ being shown along a path. Changing doctrines is a reflection of changing paths completely in the hopes the light is better on the new one.

Think for a second how an honest person would deal with a situation where they were literally looking for something and the light was literally getting brighter.

An honest person would say:

(Little bit of light:) "Hey, I see something. I don't know what it is or how far away it is. I can't tell if it's safe or dangerous, but there's something there."

(Light a little brighter:) "OK, whatever it is is so tall by so wide. Still can't see it well, but it looks to be this many feet away."

(Light all the way on:) "Hey, I can see exactly what it is now and can give you all the details."

Someone once said a watchman on a tower wouldn't be very good if he wasn't extra cautious by sounding a false alarm when he wasn't sure what was coming, in the interests of protecting a town. But that isn't how a watchman (or, at least, a good one) does his job. (And how many false alarms is he supposed to sound before he gets fired?)

Watchman: "Hey, there's something out there. I can't tell what it is, but I can see something is going on."

A little while later: "OK, I still can't tell what it is, but it's headed this way and it's big."

Even later: "It's close enough to see it now. Call the army, it's a band of invaders!" or "Don't worry, it's just a stampede of elephants."

But that's not how it works with "new light" in the Org because the one on the path is neither "discreet" nor honest and humble. Additional knowledge doesn't contradict older knowledge unless what's passed off as "older knowledge" is really supposition, conjecture, or just plain fiction. If the path of the righteous gets lighter and lighter, there is only progressive and more detailed knowledge about what has been taught previously. Completely changing the teaching means you decided you were on the wrong path and didn't like what you saw.

Ingenuous

BTW, I think Proverbs 4:18 has absolutely nothing to do with a progressive revelation of new doctrine from God. I think it has everything to do with the general beneficial nature of wisdom. (vss. 11,12)

hamsterbait

Reading the "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church" - yeah, I thought about it - they also teach progressive revelation of God's will.

The WTS digs through books still available after 1, 500 years saying that "this book of 1335 contradicts that published in 605 and what is worse the Catholic Church of 1965 debunked both." ERGO they cannot be the true church because they contradict themselves.

At least the RC does not block access to its old books.

Yet in the space of less than four months, mutually contradictory WT articles on the the Alpha and Omega were published (Blondie will help me here). " We are still the truth."

men of Sodom - yaddah yaddah yaddah. But we are "still the truth."

Vaccinations transplants hemoglobin generations sheepand goats - all contradicting in less than 90 years: "WEARESTILLTHETRUTH".

Yeah keep on shoutin' it.

The internet will drown them out.

HB

ColdRedRain

I usually just ast the JW to think of it objectivley (Which takes a huge stretch for them to do). I ask them to ask themselves "What would you think if the RCC or the Scientologists had similar doctrinal changes, what would you think about their religion".

That's when they know they've been beaten.

Defeating 'New Light' doctrine... How?

Share this