2010 partakers.... lets bet! (page 2)

james_woods

I think it is very amusing that they have trapped themselves into this embarassment over the increasing numbers of partakers by their own ritualistic infatuation with keeping and publishing numbers.

Nothing in the Bible indicates anything about why this count should be taken and published, but they have insisted on it so long now that it will be a major issue if they quit releasing the number.

BTW - my bet is that they start to diminish the reported number (no matter how many actually partake) by "secret special instructions to the elders" on exactly who and how many to count - rather than just quit printing the numbers.

respectful_observer

....I'd say there is a 75% chance they pull the plug on the number this year...

I'm leading a little more toward 50/50 myself! But if they do publish it this year, it will be one of the last times. They either won't offer any published explanantion, or they'll address it word-of-mouth through DO/CO's-- that because none of us can judge the validity of another's partaking, publishing the number really only encourages needless (and potentially harmful) speculation.

respectful_observer

I don't remember seeing any published explanation when they stopped publishing the monthly Service Report specifics in the KMs (unless I missed it). I would expect a similar approach with this.

james_woods

I don't remember seeing any published explanation when they stopped publishing the monthly Service Report specifics in the KMs (unless I missed it). I would expect a similar approach with this.

You may very well be right - they seem so much more arrogant toward their ordinary members now than when I left in the 1970s.

bottleofwater

What if we're all slowly turning back to all being anointed? ;-)

Mad Sweeney

I've changed my mind since the earlier thread. I thought there would be no end to the increase. Now I think the number reported by the Borg will be less than the previous year's. It galled them to go above 10k and I can't see them accepting an 11k+ number. I don't know how many actually partook in March, 12,000 or more maybe? But I just can't see them releasing that number without any explanatory noo lite.

Therefore they have two options: make up a number and publish it or don't publish partaker numbers at all.

St George of England

If the number goes up again, they have some explaining to do.

If the number comes down, we will all know that the results have been fixed.

Rock & hard place?

George

slimboyfat

Personally I don't know why the GB don't just lie about the number of partakers. Couldn't they just ignore the actual count and make the number go down gradually? Who would ever know? The way they publish the increasing numbers, embarrassing as they are for their teaching about the anointed decreasing... it almost makes you think they actually believe what they teach. Wouldn't a pure cynic simply change the figures to suit themselves?

LostGeneration

Not reporting the number any more kills two birds with one stone. They simply say "jehovah knows who is really anointed" and thus the number problem goes away. It also lets them cling to their precious 144k doctrine for as long as they want, and they have to have that for their to be a "faithful slave"

2010 partakers.... lets bet!

Share this