From the 1996 Watchtower article quotation Blondie posted. "...they would have waited on Jehovah to clarify these matters, which he did in his due time."
How does the writer of this article know that Jehovah clairfied the matter? From what source did he get that information? How does he know it was not instead, MEN, not Jehovah, who changed the written position of the organization?
The write makes no proof that Jehovah took the action of clarification, and so is guilty of the Fallacy of Presumption.
From the website: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
Fallacies of Presumption
Unwarranted Assumptions
The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. Again, we'll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon which it is based.
This is done over and over in Watchtower publications, attributing something to the actions of Jehovah without proof, as if saying it is the only proof needed, when in reality it is only wishful thinking on the writer's part.
--VM44