Latest WT study article - preparation for upcoming new light?

by truth_about_the_truth 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  truth_about_the_truth

  The latest WT study article seemed like an article to prep the masses for 'new light' to be revealed in the very near future.

  I have never seen an article like this one where they summarized their 'flashes of light' in their history in this manner and bombarded the minds with the need to accept all and any change within the org.

  It could be for the purpose of getting the rank and file to accept a pretty big change or a series of big changes very soon.

  What do you think? What do you think it'll be?
• 

  Jourles

  Would you mind providing a few quotes of the article? Or could you paraphrase a few items?

  You'll have to pardon me as I haven't been keeping up on WT speak lately for the last few years.
• 

  ackack

  The conductor made a point of emphasizing how new light is always revealed at assemblies, and we need to be there.

  ackack
• 

  Severus

  See, you have not been listening at the conventions, have you?

  District Convention 2004 Saturday (4:15) Walking in the Path of Increasing Light:
  
  Hear the talk here.
• 

  blondie

  Was the 1914 generation revealed at a convention? Hinted at maybe, but I think the 5/1/95 and 11/1/95 WT articles was the first real complete development of it; just the confusing "to-te" articles in 1994. What do some of you remember?
• 

  truth_about_the_truth

  Jourles,

  Here is the article. Courtesy of blondie:

  Comments You Will Not Hear at the 4-2-06 WT Study (Increasing Light)
• 

  lucky

  I definitely remember the 1914 generation "new light" being at a convention, before it was in the watchtower. I can remember sitting stunned in my seat at the convention and thinking "ok, this is it, I'm out" (when I was 11 or 12, I had decided that if the society ever changed its tune on that teaching, it was my sign that it was not the truth) while everyone around me didn't even seem to think it was that big a deal.
• 

  greendawn

  Whatever they bring up it will be straw for the ignorant and naive masses of the bottom pile JWs who can't tell the difference between an erroneous idea that was discarded and a sound basic idea that was further developed. The FDS are trying to make a virtue out of a vice.
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  Basically, they was about how they once had Christmas, now they don't , they once allowed smoking, now they don't, etc. They forgot to mention how they once thought the end would come in 1975 now they don't and how they once thought the end would come 70-80 years after 1914, and now they don't, etc.

  They are free to change things around as they wish, or when they can no longer support a doctrine that "Jehovah" has been giving them all these years (these things are from Jehovah, remember?), but now makes no sense.

  What's funny is they complain that scientists and doctors make assumptions based on current evidence but when they find it's not right they make changes. They ridicule this when a scientist, doctor or psychologist does it, but when they do it, it's completely ok. Then, it's just a normal course of development. One guy said, "I didn't know what I know now at 16 years old, and it's the same for the WTS, they didn't know then what they know now." I'd like to turn that reasoning back on them the next time I hear an idiot laughing about Dr. Spock. How pathetic.
• 

  willyloman

  I have never seen an article like this one where they summarized their 'flashes of light' in their history in this manner and bombarded the minds with the need to accept all and any change within the org.

  Those who've been around as long as I have can remember the occasional summary of new light changes in the past, so it's not necessarily a new thing.

  I couldn't help notice in the latest summary that they left out the 180-degrees-flip-flop on the "generation" teaching, which in my view is one of the more signfiicant flashes of "new light" in their short history. Makes you wonder why they'd be so selective as to leave out something of that magnitude. It's a bit like a conservative magazine listing the top films of 2005 and not mentioning Brokeback Mountain because of the content.