It is true Rutherford was fond of saying prophecy is not fully understood until after its fulfullment, but the Watchtower Society had racked up a significant track record of failure by that time, so it was a convenient statement to make. If prophetic success consists of finding rationalisations for predictions that fail then it's a pretty low standard of success.
How Prophecy Succeeds: Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation
by slimboyfat 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
NeonMadman
The only thing, quietlyleaving, is that the paragraph you cite is rather disingenuous. It almost gives the impression that their prophecies haven't really failed, but that some sort of progression is ongoing, maybe just not exactly according to their calculations. Of the cited dates, at least 1914, 1918 and 1975 were specifically cited as either certain or likely dates for the same event: Armageddon. While 1925 was aimed more directly at the resurrection of the "ancient worthies," this, too was expected as an immediate precursor of Armageddon. So it's not really true in any sense that "these dates are not successive attempts to predict the same event that failed to materialize: they signify different points in a complex end-time calendar."
-
Leolaia
I can understand what point he is trying to make, that interpretation of prophecy is very often restrospective than oriented to predicting the future. The biblical examples are well drawn, and certainly at this point in time most of the retained Watchtower interpretation of prophecy is oriented to past events (e.g. the "composite sign" of 1914 and the "coming" of Christ in 1914, the fall of Babylon the Great and the captivity of 1918, the chosing of the organization in 1919, the trumpet blasts of the 1920s, the rise of the United Nations as the "Beast" of Revelation, etc.). But much of this is less motivated to explain the past than it is to legitimize the present, such as the authority of institutional structures governing Jehovah's Witnesses in the here and now. This motive was also in play in Rutherford's alteration of the original "divine plan" eschatology of the Bible Student movement, as it served to break from the past and grant legitimacy to his group vis-a-vis other post-Russellite groups competing with the Watchtower Society. Another element of this is the idea that if we were on the right track in the past in understanding the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, then what we claim now is reliable.
I don't think one can sidestep the plain fact that Jehovah's Witnesses and their religious forebears have indeed turned to prophecy to forecast the future. Sometimes this was done in dogmatic terms, and sometimes the predictions were made in potential or probablistic terms. But these were done nonetheless. And the social function of such predictions, again, is on the here and now. The final phase of Watchtower history covered by the article discusses the "generation" teaching, and this is an excellent example of what I am talking about. The claim that Armageddon WILL come without doubt before the generation of 1914 passes away is indeed a forecast of the future. But the motive is not foreseeing the future for its own sake but in shaping the lives of people in the present. Thus we have the claims in the 1969 Awake! that it is pointless to pursue any career that this system has to offer because it will be gone before the youth will grow old or even fulfill a career. This discourages a lifestyle that doesn't put "theocratic goals" (i.e. pioneering for the Watchtower Society) first. Prophetic claims about both the past and about the future have a similar orientation towards the present.
-
TD
As has been shown, these dates are not successive attempts to predict the same event that failed to materialize: they signify different points in a complex end-time calendar.
That is pure manure
Easily the single most important event in JW theology is the end of man's rule and the full restoration of Jehovah's sovereignty as expressed through the millennial reign of the King, Christ Jesus. Preceding this event is the removal of all earthly governments from their positions of authority
This was hoped for in 1914. It was hoped for in 1920. It was hoped for in 1925 It was hoped for in 1975. It was hoped for before those that saw 1914 passed away and it is still hoped for today.
1914, 1920 1925 were explicitly predicted to be years when those events would occur.
Statements about 1975 were not as explicit, but dogmatic statements were still made. For example, the honesty of Jesus Christ was directly tied to that expectation. The October 15, 1969 issue of The Watchtower stated:
"In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums (Matt. 12:8, AV) Thus it would be a sabbatic reign." (p. 623)
At a time when it was explicitly taught that Eve had been created in the same year as Adam (4026 B.C.) there was no wiggle room here. (cf. The Watchtower May 1, 1968 p. 271; Awake! October 8, 1968 p. 14; Aid To Bible Understanding p. 538)
Since it was Jesus himself who had said that he was Lord of the Sabbath the truthfulness of Jesus' own statement was thus tied to the chronology which held that 1975 was the end of the sixth millennium.
Those dates were most certainly successive attempts to predict the same event.
-
notverylikely
Leolia....that was an interesting read and totally would have made more sense if i weren't slightly drunk.
-
quietlyleaving
Neonmadman
The only thing, quietlyleaving, is that the paragraph you cite is rather disingenuous. It almost gives the impression that their prophecies haven't really failed, but that some sort of progression is ongoing, maybe just not exactly according to their calculations. Of the cited dates, at least 1914, 1918 and 1975 were specifically cited as either certain or likely dates for the same event: Armageddon. While 1925 was aimed more directly at the resurrection of the "ancient worthies," this, too was expected as an immediate precursor of Armageddon. So it's not really true in any sense that "these dates are not successive attempts to predict the same event that failed to materialize: they signify different points in a complex end-time calendar."
okay I've gone back and reread the article in more detail and note the following that support Chryssides argument and conclusions - that Jehovahs witness prophecy plays a meaning producing role rather than a predictive role. And in so doing should not be seen largely as a group that prophesies and gets it wrong most of the time.
Firstly Chryssides clearly tells us he is adopting a theological interrogation rather than a sociological one. I think this is an important distinction to be made as it sets the scene for being an insiders' view of Jehovahs Witnesses - that is to say he takes a perspective that accounts for faith, spirituality and experience - ie meaning making.
from page 2 of the article
Much of the work done on the Jehovah’s Witnesses has been sociological.
As Richard Crompton observes, “theological understanding of the Watch
Tower movement still lags far behind sociological understanding” (Crompton
1996, 9), and if we are to understand how the Watch Tower Society’s
views on prophecy have developed in the course of its history, it is necessary to understand their theological thinking.then Chryssides argues that Fetsinger's conclusions (that prophetic groups continue with their dissonance provided they have the social support of their group) do not apply to Jehovahs Witnesses as they are quite different from the group Fetsinger studied - i.e that the Watchtower society are a large complex organization rather than a small "eccentric" group (p3). I guess we could argue against this from an insiders' perspective. Zygmunt (mentioned by Chryssides on page 3) taking a sociological view would agree with us in that he is quite certain that Jehovahs Witnesses form their own reality to assimilate dissonance.
Nest Chryssides looks at the role of prohets in biblical times and says the JWs would concur with the following definition of a prophet (p. 4). He also quotes from the insight book to support his argument.
Gerald T. Sheppard and
William E. herbrechtsmeier, writing in the Encyclopedia of Religion, notes
that the function of the prophet was that of a social critic, whose task was
“to maintain and to reform religious tradition” (1985, 10).If we see the main thrust of Chryssides argument as seeing Jehovahs witnesses as fulfilling a role as described above and if we take on board that Chryssides does not deny that Jehovahs witnesses do at times try to incorporate predictive elements in their role as prophet, then I think Chryssides theological perspective is quite convincing - that prophecy, witness style, does succeed.
edit: I really enjoyed reading Zygmunt's article and this can be found here if you have access.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2776152
If you don't have access I wouldn't advise buying it as it much too expensive. Zygmunt takes a sociological perspective. He notes that each time a "prophecy" failed large numbers of witnesses left the organisation. Those who remained assimilated their dissonance to form their own reality. This perspective agrees with Fetsinger's take on prophetic groups and their failed prophecies
-
DaCheech
an elder doing a talk 10 years ago in my congo said: "it's not true what apostates say, the society never said anything about 1975 being the "end""
-
quietlyleaving
Zygmunt's article can also be found in this book that jgnat draws attention to
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/196802/1/Expecting-Armageddon-book-review