Surge in "anointed ones"

by dozy 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Another thing that doesn't add up:

  Let's suppose that the number surges to 30,000 or so over the next few years. There follows a flurry of articles talking about "genuine anointed" and death and destruction awaiting those who "partake unworthily", etc.

  OK, so, if large numbers, or perhaps the majority of those who partake at the Memorial aren't "genuine anointed", how are you supposed to tell who is & isn't "genuine"?

  The "genuine" ones are the "Faithful & Discreet Slave" class, right? They're the ones supplying the "spiritual food", right? So how are we supposed to know if the yahoos in Brooklyn are "genuine" or not? Just based on "tradition"? They've been "anointed" for a relatively long time, so we should accept them?

  Fine and dandy, but what happens 20 years out? The current GB are either dead or senile, and there have been numerous new members added. Same question - now there are 50 or 60,000 who have been partaking for a decade or more, and the WT keeps railing on about "fakers" - so why should a JW accept that the latest GB addition is "genuine"? After all, the WT would have been saying for decades that most of the "anointeds" are "not genuine" - whoever they pick, the odds are against his being "genuine", right?

  Are they really that short-sighted?

  Or do they hold the R&F in such low esteem, that they figure they can get away with anything now? Is overconfidence making them sloppy?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Are they really that short-sighted?

  Have you considered that maybe they really do believe Armageddon is coming soon and don't foresee that problem arising?

  A lot of their "short-sighted" actions make sense if we allow for the idea that they genuinely believe the stories they spin. Not a popular view on this board I know but there you have it.

  In the long run I don't think they can call new anointed ones liars or nut cases. They will need to come up with a new doctrinal explanation. I can't imagine what but luckily that's their problem not mine.

  Slim
• 

  The Scotsman

  It is a real tricky scenario.

  The number of partakers increased by 3.8% in 2007. (8758 to 9105)

  This increase is faster than the rest of the org, which was 3.1%

  The current situation is totally unsustainable - unless a further doctrinal change is made.

  The youtube video below sums it it up very well.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2n4zr-nQSM
• 

  DT

  I suspect that they may have this planned out for decades into the future. In several years they may say something like we can't be absolutely certain whether the 144,000 is a literal number or just symbolic of a minority of Christians. Then several years after that, they may use stronger language. It's a good way to distract dubs from the nonarrival of Armageddon. When more dubs start claiming the heavenly hope, it might even give them reason to increase their enthusiasm and zeal for the kingdom busywork. The overworked elders might start to think of their reward as being a king and priest in heaven, rather than just a prince on earth.
• 

  sacolton

  Let's see ... do I want to stay on Paradise Earth and clean-up corpses and do hard labor for 1,000 years or GO TO HEAVEN! WOOHOO!

  Not hard to figure out why this is happening.

  - sacolton
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Have you considered that maybe they really do believe Armageddon is coming soon and don't foresee that problem arising?

  I have considered that. If they really truly believed the end was "right around the corner" then they would
  not have changed the definition of "this generation." They changed it (twice) in 15 years because they
  panicked. There are still babies around from 1914. They will be around for another 10 years or so.
  Why did Jehovah move them toward the 1995 change? Why did he move them to the 2008 change?
  The first one could have been to encourage some on the fence to remain in the flock, but why did Jehovah
  move them to the WRONG understanding to correct their WRONG understanding, just to correct it
  again 15 years later?

  They do not believe it is imminent.
• 

  Mickey mouse

  They believe it's coming. Whether they believe it's imminent is another question. I think like most JW's they put it 5-10 years off. That way it never arrives. It's like the pub with the "Free beer tomorrow" sign in the window.
• 

  joelbear69

  They will stop publishing the number, perhaps as early as this year. There are two or three new anointed in my old congregation. These new annointed are my age or older. Only one annointed from my youth is still alive, Norma Swarlow. I only knew about 5 during the time I was a witness, other than those I knew at Bethel. All the ones I knew from Bethel are dead except for two. I think Barr and Jazcak. I can't remember for sure. Anyway, they will quit publishing the number or publish a fake number. They have no one auditing them on these procedures.
• 

  dozy

  I also think that they will stop publishing the number - especially if it jumps up sharply.

  The WTBTS has for years been arguing that one of the signs that we are nearing the end of the system is the diminishing number of anointed ones. They stopped saying that a couple of years ago. So they don't actually need to publish a figure any more.

  Lets say the number for 2008 is 12,000 (you heard it here first , folks) - it would be very tempting to simply not include it in the report on the (unspoken) basis that it has no credibility. There is a precedent for this - individual country numbers of partakers used to be published in the KM but were quietly dropped in the late 80's.

  The WTBTS wouldn't explain - they don't do explanations. Most JWs wouldn't pay any attention. If anything , an intangible unpublished number adds to the mystique. A obvious follow-up would be to stop collating the numbers at all by not requiring them on slips from secretaries.
• 

  daniel-p

  They won't stop publishing the number--they'll just enact stricter counting methods for the elders to follow. For example, how many partakers are "well known" in the congregation? In other words, I think they'll start counting only those who are vouched for by the elders. I know, this backtracks on their policy of "don't ask" when someone partakes, but I think this is a policy soon to be overlooked.