January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

by t33ap80c 82 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I really appreciate this thread. But, I always appreciated the idea that sometime around 1919 the Lord looked down and saw the Bible Students, and said, "those guys are really trying. I'm going to put them in charge!" That got me around the difficulties with that old "false teaching" thing.

  I tend to agree with Watson. But if that were the case, then the Governing Body that
  approved the Proclaimers Book and much of the doctrinal changes along the way
  simply could have said, "We were still very much wrong back then, but we were
  trying. We were willing to be shown where we needed to learn and humbly admit
  our mistakes." Instead, they say they were the only ones providing spiritual truths
  back then. "We were never wrong, but we are more right today." That's what I hear now.
• 

  garybuss

  Hi Don,
  
  You wrote, "Fortunately the change doesn't have any effect on the point I make in the book."
  
  I know the 1933 article doesn't affect your book and my point is the Society seems to have been teaching the invisible return in1874 and in 1914 within the same 10 year span from 1933 till 1943. Does this appear to be the case to you?
  
  I'd find that interesting all on it's own.
  
  Lots was happening in the Society from 1933 till 1943. The great tribulation was on pause, the anointed were sealed, the great crowd was labeled, WWII was starting and Rutherford died. Quite a few of the current beliefs were designed during that time-frame. Confusion about when Christ returned during this time period would make other beliefs designed during that time period the product of that confusion.
• 

  lesterd

  Thought: If; as the scriptures say; no one knows the day or the hour of his presence, and he comes as a thief in the night...then those presidents would not have known or sensed his presence, and only after Christ’s taking heavenly power would it be apparent. That hasn’t happened yet either.

  .
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi Oompa,

  You correctly pointed out that the Society’s teaching is that Jesus’ "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed long before 1919 in 33 C.E. in the upper room at Pentecost."

  This is why in the book I went out of my way not to say that Jesus appointed the Society as his "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919 in fulfillment of Matthew 24:47.

  Rather that he simply acknowledged that they were his "slave" because they had (supposedly) been so faithful and discreet about what they had been teaching that he gave them the appointment mentioned in verse 47. And so that appointment was not to be his "slave" but the giving of his "slave" the authority "over all his belongings."

  I doubt that most Witnesses notice this distinction. I wonder if even the men of the Governing Body clearly see what they are saying on this matter.

  I know I didn’t. It was one of those things that I couldn’t quite grasp but accepted it anyway because, "After all, the Society is God’s organization." That illusionary concept kept me captive for 20 years.

  Don
• 

  VoidEater

  Not that I can contribute anything to this erudite and fascinating discussion - it's the kind of thing my Dad would really "get" and enjoy, but sadly he is wrapped in the torment of wanting to be in so bad that he'll kill himself to try to believe - but...

  The obvious answer they would give to the glaring "test failure" is that clearly the truth of when Christ came was not ready to be known!

  This "yeah we were wrong - but it's because God wanted us to be wrong, because the world wasn't ready yet - the food was not yet cool enough to be served" argument has been a ready weapon against questioners in my family for years. "We were wrong because it wasn't the proper time for the food yet".

  Sheesh! At this rate, all we really need to do is wait long enough for a new menu to be prepared, and we might get anything we want!
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi VoidEater

  About your dad you said, "Sadly he is wrapped in the torment of wanting to be in so bad that he'll kill himself to try to believe."

  That reminds me of the elder to told me, "I would rather go to my grave being deceived then to find out that the Society isn’t who they say they are."

  How can such people be reached?

  Here is a paraphrased version of something Paul explained to Timothy about how to go about helping someone (especially members of one's own family) get the sense of what has happened to them:

  Paraphrase of 2 Timothy 2:23-26

  ‘You do not need to fight your father, but you need to be gentle towards him, instructing him with mildness as perhaps God may give him repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of the truth about the Watchtower Society and he may come back to his proper senses.’

  On page 121 of "Captives of a Concept" reasons this way:

  "Although it is good to have evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses need to know (like that found in Chapter 3) and to be able to present it in a mild and gentle way, whether or not they will be able to get the sense of it ultimately depends on what God does. Notice that it isn’t the evidence that will lead them to an accurate knowledge of the truth about their religion. It is God giving them repentance that will do it.

  "And according to what Paul said previously, it appears that God only gives it to those who 'accept the love of the truth.' – 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11

  "It is not possible to force anyone to accept that kind of love or to change a Witness who isn’t ready to face the truth into one who is. But it may be possible to help some kinds of Witnesses notice some of the interesting things their Proclaimers book is willing to tell them, and then leave it up to God to enable them to get the sense of what it all means.

  Footnote: "It would be nice if there was a way to help Witnesses want to face the truth about their religion. But their wanting to do so can only come from within themselves. Their need to know the truth must outweigh their fear of knowing it. But for those who do become ready to face the truth, the Internet has made it relatively easy for them to discover the truth. – See Chapter 18, "The Internet – The Watchtower’s Worst Nightmare," p. 112 . "

  I find that if I can keep these things in mind I don't find myself saying "S heesh!" so often.

  Don
• 

  t33ap80c

  HI Gary ,

  You suggested that "The Society seems to have been teaching the invisible return in1874 and in 1914 within the same 10 year span from 1933 till 1943."

  I wonder...

  If TD is reading this, Have you seen anything in the literature between 1933 and 1943 about 1914 or 1874? If so, what was Rutherford saying?

  Don
• 

  M.J.

  The disciples inquired of Jesus what would be the
  evidence of his return, knowing that they would be
  unable to see him with natural eyes. To this question
  he replied that the evidence of his return, and the
  beginning of the exercise of his power, would be
  marked by a world war, in which nation would rise
  against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and that
  this would be followed by famines and pestilence in
  the earth, and great distress of nations with perplexity
  amongst the people. (Matt. 24: 1-12; Luke 21:21-
  25) The facts that have come to pass show that 1914
  marked the time when the Lord Jesus took his power
  and was sent forth by Jehovah to rule. That marked
  the end of the waiting period and the beginning of the
  exercise of his regal authority.raPs. 110: 1, 2; 2: 6;
  l{ev. 11 : 16-18.
  
  --1934 Yearbook, p. 24.
  
  
  A ’trumpet’ signifies that the execution of divine
  authority is taking place. It means the King has begun
  his reign, and with Christ Jesus that reign bcgau
  m 1914, when Jehovah sent him forth to rule.
  
  --1934 Yearbook, p. 60.
  
  
  I haven't read TD's analysis yet (although I plan to) but it's my impression from going over the text of the yearbooks from 1933-1942, that 1914 was connected with Christ ascendancy to the throne, but not explicitly identified as the beginning of his "presence".
• 

  M.J.

  Ok, just saw TD's reference.
  
  It's interesting. The word "presence" and "1914" don't seem to be connected in the literature until the 40s.
  
  1874 is scarcely mentioned after 1933.
  
  I wonder if they had not completely discarded the notion of some sort of "presence" occurring in 1874?
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi M.J.,

  NOTE: I finished this post before I saW your last post. _________________________

  At the end of your post you said, "It's my impression from going over the text of the yearbooks from 1933-1942, that 1914 was connected with Christ ascendancy to the throne, but not explicitly identified as the beginning of his ‘presence’."

  On page 37 of TD’s PDF is a photo copy of page 362 of the December 1, 1933 Watchtower. Here is what Rutherford said…

  "The year 1914, therefore, marks the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of glory."

  Since "invisible presence" is the Society’s version of everyone else’s "second coming" then it looks like Rutherford did in fact associate 1914 with the beginning of Jesus’ "presence."

  What do you think?

  Don