Time for a new great schism, apostasy, falling away, dissension?

by Awakened07 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Awakened07

  "Nineteen fourteen - nineteen schmorsteen" ?

  We've had some threads about this, but it seems the general consensus is that they cannot change the 1914 date - it is what the entire organization rests it's doctrine on.

  But why do we say that, really? They've after all done it before. At one time (and for many, many years), the years 1799 and 1874 were pivotal dates to the Bible Students. Now, very few active JWs have even heard of those years as being anything special.

  November 1, 1922 Watch Tower said:

  "Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable. [.....] Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith?"

  (note that this was written after Jesus Christ had appointed them in 1919, so this should be correct...)

  And what about 1925, when the 'ancient worthies' (Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Job, Enoch, etc.) were supposed to be resurrected, walk the earth and people could talk to them etc. Ask active JWs about that today, and 1)"Never heard of it." and 2)"Apostate lies." would probably be the most common replies.

  Today, you can't find other than very vague references to this in the recent publications, and when it is mentioned, it's mentioned as if it was only suggestions; stating of opinions, when in fact it was taught as coming from God, as directed by his holy spirit.

  So - what if they "did a Watchtower" again in our day, and simply changed the 1914 date altogether, to now be a whole other, later year (or simply "erased it")? Sure - they would lose a lot of people in the process, but those still left would feel even more special, and would feel even more so that the end is very, very near. Their spirits would be lifted (at least for a time), they would be more closely knit together, would contribute more, etc. After a relatively short time, 1914 would become 'old light', and not something to take notice of. In fact, it would be "something apostates would lie about". "Read only the latest publications".

  What do you think? What with the new Watchtower and other changes - and the fact that we're getting closer to 100 years after 1914 - do you see this as a possibility? Won't they have to change something like this eventually?

  Or have they in effect already done so, but in a more sneaky and subtle way?
• 

  compound complex

  Greetings Awakened,

  Not an answer per se, but thanks for that quotation from the November 1922 WT and your reasoning upon it, viz, 'it must be true' as Christ appointed the FDS in 1919. I'm going to copy it out and show a few people whom I've already told about the "true," earlier dates.

  Thanks for this,

  CoCo
• 

  drew sagan

  They changed it during times when they had less members & less pressure and criticism from the outside world including ex-members.
  
  Also remember that when Rutherford changed many of Russells teachings many thousands of people did leave the movement. The WTS would be really risking a lot if they made to big of a change in their religion.
• 

  AuldSoul

  CoCo,

  I highly recommend getting a copy of the actual Watchtower page in which this information appeared. Even a cropped screenshot image would be better than just showing the reference and text. While JWs are content with the WTS showing only the quoted text from "reputable sources" or (at best) citing the publication name in which the original appeared, they freely hold doubters to an excessively high standard of proof.

  Just FYI, it always makes a more lasting impression when you can show them a copy of the article itself.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  compound complex

  Greetings Auld Soul:

  An excellent suggestion! Given the ease with which some our dear posters "intervene" on genuine WT literature [they make it look so real!], I can understand true-believers being skeptical.

  Thanks for the sound advice!

  Sincerely,

  CoCo
• 

  Nick!

  Hi Awakened,

  just to confirm your assumptions where you say

  .................

  And what about 1925, when the 'ancient worthies' (Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Job, Enoch, etc.) were supposed to be resurrected, walk the earth and people could talk to them etc. Ask active JWs about that today, and 1)"Never heard of it." and 2)"Apostate lies." would probably be the most common replies.

  ..................

  When I first read that, I was really under a choc myself, although I had been a JW for over 50 years, with almost 30 years of devoted services as an elder.

  But then I checked with my father (he is over 90 now), and guess what .... not only he confirmed it, he told me that personally at each assembly the bros were going around in the hall looking for people with strange beard, because they were told that these oldies would be resurected during one of the congress ....

  UNBELIVEABLE but true. How could they be so dum (my father now of course regognizes it and laughs about it, but not then ...)

  Nick!
• 

  Awakened07

  Thanks Nick!, and I agree with AuldSoul in that if possible, the original articles should be produced. Even today, I'm a little "cautious" of reading and posting quotes from ancient Watchtower literature, because I've been so indoctrinated that it may have been manipulated by 'apostates'. That is the mind of an active JW. They will not trust it unless you can show them an actual, original print. Well, this is true for some, at least.
• 

  yknot

  Wow, great find!

  My little JW brain is beginning to feel the growing pains again..........but growth is GOOD

  Thank you !

  Y
• 

  fresia

  I think they found out awhile back that is was all wrong, but decided to play the BS game until the end, rather than be honest with the flock. What really gets me is this lack of faith they have in those b/s that are in it because they love Jehovah, how blatantly egotistical of the GB to assume everyone is there because of them. There are some very in tune people that do know the bible in the congregations, not meaning so called spiritually mature elders either, most elders these days are organiztional mature or in the know, and will defend the org even when scriptual evidence says different.
  I don't think they can play the game to much longer, and to say 1914 is wrong will be the end of the WTBTS but not nessesarily the end of the Jehovah's Witness. I believe there is a differnece, and may be a good thing if they do have a change on 1914 so many want it to seal the end of the evil slave.
• 

  Gopher

  My honest opinion -- if the JW's keep focus on a date they will still use 1914. Their chronology based on 607 BCE and the 7 times points to it. Their organizational history around 1919 relies on it.

  If they get rid of 1914, they'll not use any dates any longer. They'll just use the "signs of the times" to try to prove the end is near.

  See -- if Christendom can proclaim that the Kingdom started in the year 33, why can't JW's say it started in 1914? The difference is there but not really that important to 21st century believers.

  The WTS could say "the time of the end" started in 1914, and that it is "just a little while longer" till the end -- at least in the eyes of Jehovah (who can apparently wait a very LONG time).

  I say for the JW's their time of the end will continue to start in 1914, they'll just massage/rearrange other ideas to make that date less important.