Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses - wikipedia

by Band on the Run 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Band on the Run

  I read this article last night. It was confusing. The parade of dates long before I was born 1790, 1876, 1914, a whole profusio of them with backtracking and sorry excuses was mind boggling, even for one raised a Witness. I appreciated the concise statements of what is convuluted. If I had ever known this material, I never would have worried about 1975. My mom told me about some of these dates and the ruin they brought to individual believers. Seeing it in wikipedia was a different experience.

  Jeffro and BlackCab fight off the minions of WT robots. They see no need to repeat the history of false dates and evolution of doctrine. There is a dispute as to whether the article should only mention current doctrine. When you read Roman Catholic wikipedia history articles, you see the main defining debates that faced the church. The differences among Church Fathers is highlighted, not demoted.

  I commend the Talk pages especially. My dream would be to hear of the struggles and patience of those who believe in an objective point of view. There are pretty vicious debates about qualifiers and minor grammatical issues. It stands in equipoise. Penton's book was cited as the most respected academic source. Ray Franz' use as a source (three sources out of many, many more) is also debated. The disputes never die. Is wikipedia field service?

  It is hard to tell editors motivations. They certainly know their material. Altho my understanding is improved, if anyone asked me today was was/is WT eschatology, I could not tell you. It gives me a headache.
• 

  fugue

  I just started looking at the Talk section. This jumped out at me:

  I added the neutrality tag to this article because I noticed several statements sourced by Crisis of Conscienceand other books by ex-member Raymond Franz. He is not a reliable source, at least not in the way he is being used here, as his books deal entirely with attacks on the religion. Source these statements with official Watchtower information or historical records or remove them. --Iron Chef (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  You can almost be assured that Iron Chef has not bothered to read a single word from either of Ray Franz's TWO books (not "other books"... he only wrote Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom.) Instead, Iron Chef (who I'm guessing is a diligent little jdub) has been told that Ray Franz's books are "entirely attacks on the religion." That's quite a mischaracterization.

  Also, if he HAD in fact looked at Crisis of Conscience, he would know that the book is FULL of "official Watchtower information and historical records."

  Silly dub.
• 

  james_woods

  Once again, we see that most things you read on Wiki have been distorted by the biased contributors.
• 

  Nickolas

  I could not bring myself to read it all the way through. There is only so much incredulity I can bear. What I read seems to be a fairly well represented presentation of things, as much as it could be subtitled "Anatomy of a Delusion".
• 

  Band on the Run

  The detail is what struck me. I had no idea their prophecies went back to such momentous dates as 1790. I have no clue what was so special about 1787. It might link to them to the Great Awakening. The pyramid belief was sheer lunacy. This may not be an apropros comment but I read many biographies of the American Founders. Presently I am reading Richard Norton Smith's book on george Washington. He quotes copiously from private correspondence when "old-fashioned, nontechnical people" would let their hair down. In all my reading, I have yet to come across anything remotely resembling this pyramid business.

  The article may be too long. Franzy may be an incorrect source for wikipedia. Wikipedia has countless rules about sources. He wasn't relied upon for any main statement b/c the WT statements are so damning. In a very well sourced article, mention of Franz was de minimus and incidental.

  The article clarified the Second Adventists for me and Russell's relationship with Nelson Barbour. I suppose I read all this info here. The article stunned me. The arrogance of the prophets, continually failing and coming up with silly excuses for failure. I wish Witnesses who stayed true during those years of rapid changing chronology were interviewed. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to believe? Humans are sheep.

  Their science was a hoax. I was raised not to focus on the past. Just not to take the present as seriously as other Witnesses. 1975 terrorized me. My mom just laughed that 1975 would be true. There is a tension in the article between Witnesses and apostates, clear in the Talk pages. As far as I know, the info is truthful and fairly objective. Given the tone of a wikiipedia article, I found it veered towards an apostate slant. But how could an objective article do otherwise.

  I wonder here how many people understand the current eschatology. It has changed massively since my day and I am one generation. The torture involved in justifying these crazy ideas.

  Russell was nuts. I see nothing praise worthy. Maybe he was not as autocratic was Rutherford but Russell was strange. I find the Bible I can read and understand at face level challenging enough. The pyramid stuff is akin to my assigning Beatles lyrics Biblical meaning. --Manson did it. I can understand a relatively large, dominant organization that overreaches keeping adherents. How does a sketchy group such as Russell's continue? Of course, little of Russell is still taught.

  I wonder if Witnesses are told that wikipedia is an apostate site. The Witnesses who argue there are not numb skulls, which is creepy, too.
• 

  Rob Crompton

  BotR, What was interesting about the end of the 18th century was the French Revolution, especially when General Berthier entered Rome, desposed the Pope and initiated the Repulic of Italy.

  To lots of folk this looked like a resounding confirmation of a prediction madenearly a century before by the writer Robert Fleming. In 1701, Flemin wrote, based on his interpreation of the prophecies of Daniel:

  "We may justly supose that the French monarchy, after it has scorched others, will itself consume by doing so - it's fire...towards the end of this century. I cannotbut hope that some new mortification of thechief supporters of the Antichrist will then happen; and perhaps the French monarchy may begin to be considerably humbled about that time." (Fleming. Quoted in Jonsson's Gentile Times p140)

  Not suprisingly events at the end of the 18th century seemed to be a resounding confirmation of Fleming's approach to the date setting interpretation of prophecy. Lots offolk tried tobuild on Fleming's work but nobody ever came close to such an apparent success. As the 19th century progressed, Fleming's approach was gradually abandoned by the Protestant mainstream until it became at last the preserve of the sectarian fringe. C. T. Russell was the last to build a reasonable coherent system along the lines established during the century. When his system fell apart it was left to people who simply hadn't a clue about what Russell and his precursors had been doing, to attempt to patch things up. They failed miserably but their legacy still rumbles on.

  Rob Crompton http://storytellersbible.blogspot.com
• 

  mP

  @rob

  many ppl dont realise jusgt how much the word changed about napoleons time. the common person was beginning to get rights, education and many things we take for granted after being virtual serfs or slaves. the world was turned upsidevdown then.
• 

  Nickolas

  The article may be too long. Franzy may be an incorrect source for wikipedia. Wikipedia has countless rules about sources. He wasn't relied upon for any main statement b/c the WT statements are so damning. In a very well sourced article, mention of Franz was de minimus and incidental.

  I've read only Crisis. The other book holds out no interest. From someone standing outside Christian faith or any other faith for that matter I judged Franz' story credible. WT statements about Franz are so damning because his testimony is so damning. How else are the GB to react? Then they simply declare Mr. Franz personna non grata and his writing verbotten and poison the mind of every Jehovah's Witness just a little bit more, to the extent that an honest, wonderful man is demonised. As powerful as Franz' testimony is, however, it is not needed. There is so very much physical evidence out there it is devastating to the Watchtower, if only its adherents could put their cognitive dissonance aside for awhile.
• 

  Band on the Run

  It is my belief it was an honest discussion about what a credible source for an encyclopedia is. No one was calling Franz a liar, just that he was biased. As though Witnesses are not biased. I thought it was an academic discussion. Wikipedia has a lot of rules concerning sources. I am not an avid wiki editor so I don't know the rules.

  I would think that Franz's "bias" could simply be remedied by a phrase that he is a prominent critic of the Wt and was a Governing Body member.

  My personal experience reading Franz was sheer delight that someone actually said that the Emperor Had No Clothes. No one who left before seemed that well-placed and knowledgeable not just of doctrine, but of personality and internal politics. Parts that surprised me I showed my mom, who grew up in the JWs when they were quite small. Our family went back to Russell. She backed up all Franz' claims that surprised me and often added detail. They were not things that would arise in a n ormal, casual conversation. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Franz was truthful to the nth degree. What I found even remarkable was his even tone and lack of rage. My life was marred far less than his and yet I am here on this forum, motivated by rage.

  What strikes me is that wikipedia will be the primary source of info for most people. A daily battle must be fought concerning the editing of the article. I expect there are many articles with many editors competing for their view. The actual mechanics are unclear to me. If I were more knowledgeable about the Witnesses in terms of facts and scholarship, rather than rage, becoming a wikipedia editor guarding the integrity of the article seems like a great mission. Certain names repeat and repeat in all the Witness Talk pages. It reminds me very much of an election. If people don't become active, we might see a full WT explanation as the truth.

  When I first came here, pizza topping, illegal aliens, and extraterroristials seemed bogus to post about. Yet I have done so. It just seems like a higher calling to me. Sorry-this was a Get out the Vote (Edit) speech.
• 

  watson

  I'm glad this caught your attention Band. You make some good points. Very informative.