Last time at my bible study we talked about how critical a christian should be towards his/her religion, in what situations one should set his/her own doubts aside (like abraham, the israelities in the desert) and when one should stand up and leave (like a catholic who does not understand the trinity). It was quite an interesting conversation. He brought up Romans 13:1-7 himself (the change in 'higher authorities') and i bit my tongue and did not mention the change in 1962 he knew of was actually a change BACK to a prior teaching. I said i read all the new magazines and brought up the generation change.
I said i didnt really understand the new definition, and it very much bothered me that the WT will have long articles on Canooes in canada and then a new doctrine will be introduced in a few sentences without really making it clear WHY the new definition is better and more correct than the last one. i said i would expect a new doctrine to be 'front page' news and i thought it was really exiting something new had been discovered about the bible just a few years after the past two changes!
He then said that there had been more articles on the generation change that explained it better, and i speculated again if the change had been made due to some complicated argument, or 'just because' (i didnt really offer an alternative explanation because i couldnt come up with one). There was a change in the conversation at this point. He said something to the effect that 'the current definition is not really set in stone, it is just abest guess.' and thats why some if it change sometimes - much of the doctrines are just interpolations and 'best guesses', but this does not mean they change core doctrine like jesus died for our sins.
He then continued and said that often when he read the revelation book, there would be images and so on (he specifically mentioned the trumpets) that was applied in ways that he didnt really think was very convincing (implied he didnt think they was right).
aha
I brought up how the date intervals in daniels prophecy was applied to district conventions and articles in the WT noone ever read and he said that, well, sometimes things may not be entirely correct even though no new articles has come out about it. I then made a bit of a bold move:
I said i was very happy he said that and it really put a lot of stuff in a new light to me. I then said that right after i initially studied the WT i ran into the walsh trial (i described it more throughtoutly) and initially thought it was apostate propaganda untill i found the actual court transcript. I then quoted Covingtons testimony to the best of my abilities and i said that really stumbled me the VP of the WT had said they had made false prophecies under oath and those who didnt follow the false prophecies was worthy of death. (i said it in more than one sentence).
Judging by his expression it has been a while since the walsh trial has been part of the curriculum at the book study!
He then said that ofcourse he was wrong, he could not believe he said that (i wrote down the walsh trial for him and said i think he should check it out and find the actual court transcript and not believe what i told him), etc.
I said that i was very happy he said that because i really couldnt believe it myself either and it had surpriced me very much when i initially read it. He then talked a bit about how some older members would believe everything very liltterally and sweep away any problems and defend any position like all was equally true and defencible.
We talked about how the world has changed since then, etc. I said i would not judge eg. the merrits of evolution on what darwin wrote 100 years ago and pretty much all he wrote except his field work is quite outdated today. However, if i had been one of jehovahs witnesses in 1954 and had heard Covington say that, i think that should have put on warning lamps. He agreed to this and that it would have been okay for a person who had heard this to leave.
I then followed up by saying that ofcourse when thousands of people write things during the years, some wrong things will be written once in a while and i would not personally be very interested in this under other circumstances. However, the way i understood it all, the FDS class was choosen in 1918 for what they said at that time (we had just read it in a book) (he agreed to this) and therefore, since i have to accept their explanation, i thought i should study their things. I said that when someone like mr. Covington made such a statement under oath and repeated it he did not do so in a vacuum, he did so because he must really have been under that impression because of something he had read, and it was precicely such a historical study of the WT where i thought the most inexplainable things was.
I backtracked again and said i was very happy he had made the statements before, ie. things said was just best guesses, and that really put it in a new light. I offered that perhaps the 1950 statements was not so relevant because it was not current light nor a 1918 truth relevant to the selection and i would have to think about that - i hope this grasping of straws was evident for him when i did it. Much more could have been said but i wanted th conversation to end in a positive way.
As a side note - at the last study he said that perhaps the story of Abraham and isaak should not be taken litteral - ie he was not on the mountain with a knife.
I thought it was a very interesting conversation and very different from our first encounters. My initial hope for our meetings was that we both would have a greater understanding of each other, and he would say the GB is not inerrent in their current teachings. I realized now that he never really thought that - guess i am the closed-minded one!
The comment about the mindset of an 'older' generation of JW's puzzled me the most and also filled me with the most hope. I doubt a 1980 style crackdown would work today, and so if there is a hope for peacefull reform amongst many of the RF i think it would have more chance for sucess today than previously.