July 15th Study Edition Is Up.. (page 7)

DATA-DOG

Excellent point Lisabobeesa!

I thought the same thing. They never really believed in an FDS class from 33 CE onward themselves! If they did, then they would know who these persons are, and would have gladly sought out their advice, just like the supposed " Governing Body " of the Christian era! Since the slave " class " was a bunch of filler and bullarky to begin with, the GB were waiting for the chance to refine this " truth." What better time to do some refining than the age of rising numbers of the conscious class/partakers?

The GB predicted that the diminishing number of partakers was a sure sign that the end was close! Uh-oh!!! Now what?! The GB=the FDS, of course! Throw in some hate speech about partakers being mental. If that doesn't work just come out and say it, " Partaking is forbidden!" In other words, " WE ARE THE BOSS OF YOU!"

Of course had any of us said there was no FDS class 2 years ago ( Heck, 2 months before the nu-light last year) , we would have been harboring private beliefs and could not have been in good standing among Jehovah's people. If we had insisted on teaching this " nu-light " before it's time then we could have been removed as apostates for spreading gangrenous talk, just like Korah.

sd-7

Hmm, let me see...4 out 7 directors "rebelled". Isn't that we in the real world call a majority?

Yeah. They're unintentionally implying that Rutherford alone was approved by God to run the show.

From the lovely links on cedar's analysis about this statement, I started reading the real history. Seems those four directors voted to give Rutherford full control as President. Then, once they saw he was going to be a tyrant, they wanted to repeal the bylaws and restore the sharing of authority amongst the members of the board. They didn't even want him to stop being President of the Society, they just wanted to go back to what the gameplan was based on C.T. Russell's will, which was for the 7-member board of directors to make decisions together. Rutherford used his legal knowledge to have it declared that they weren't legally members of the board of directors at all, then gave them the boot and put his own people on the board so he'd have no one who would challenge him on anything.

The Society claims that these four board members became followers of one Paul S.L. Johnson, a guy in the U.K. who had some delusions of grandeur and started his own movement, but the board members themselves say that's not true at all and that Johnson's issues with the Society were quite separate and started well after the board members' conflict with Rutherford.

Either way, to portray this very human, legal conflict as Jesus cleansing his people is to present a decidedly fraudulent account of the actual history. Based on Rutherford's works after he had full control, it is self-evident that Jesus either wasn't cleansing the organization at all, or he really needs to place another order for S.O.S., Brillo pads, and/or bleach.

--sd-7

rocketman

After reading the four study articles, plus the blurb on the new GB member (who, by the way, was baptised after many of the 'Other Sheep' were and is younger than many of them). it's my thinking that this series will end up having an effect similar to the November 1995 series of study articles about the "generation" of Matthew 24:34.

This could be a 'last straw' article, much like that one was for a lot of JWs. The implications of these articles are staggering - that, once again, this religion can simply change long-held teachings whenever they deem necessary.

breakfast of champions

this one is a biggie say goodbye to 1914 and move up all the big stuff to an unkown future time

Yup. Haven't thrown it out the window, but are (really have been) dismantling it from the inside, and eventually with a POOF! it will have been of no consequence at to all the NextGen Witnesses.

But boy, are they heavy on the timeslines and footnotes! It's as if they believe "If we put some timelines and footnotes into this article, it has to be true!" Evidently, this is not the case [1]

[1] This is not the case as illustrated in the below timeline [2]

[2] Adam and Eve==>Noah==>Jesus==>CT Russel==>Governing Body==>United Nations==>Wild Beast==>Daleks==>Image of Daleks==>Jimmy Hoffa==>Armageddon==>Bruce Willis==>Peace and Security==>Downton Abbey==>Abbey Road==>Roger Waters==>Sputnik. . . .

sir82

rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead.

That's so sublimely diabolical, you just have to laugh!

"the decision"

Who made that decision? How and when was it made? How was it communicated? What was the process that led to this decision?

All questions completely ignored.

Oh, by the way, it couldn't have been "the faithful and discreet slave" who made tha "decision" since, as per the new understanding, they didn't even exist yet!

breakfast of champions

This could be a 'last straw' article, much like that one was for a lot of JWs.

I think that this article could have been a last straw article for my one BIL. . . but I'll also tell you why it probably won't be.

He had it already with the Overlapping Generation thing - a load of crap, they don't know what they're talking about. Now, both he and I were members of the "Rvelation Book Generation", the group of kids/young adults who endured that shit over and over for close to two decades

And now it's all WORTHLESS.

Why it probably won't be his proverbial last straw? Daughter is gungho, ready to graduate HS and pioneer; congregation is friendly; wife is pioneering; he's been a MS for about three years; <=== you all know.

Will be interested to know what he thinks.

rocketman

Actually, this might set the table for eventually moving the "generation" of Matthew 24:34 to a time yet future.

If the events of Matthew 24:29-51 are yet future, then why not the generation, which is included in those verses? Indeed, this would harken back to the "Sputnik" understanding that was documented by Raymond Franz, which was an interpretation espoused by three members (not including Franz) of the Governing Body while Franz was on the body.

I'm not saying they'll back-date it to Sputnik (1957), but that the basic premise is similar - the Sputnik idea came from the notion that Matthew 24:29-51. The concept of the "generation" verse being among those in a 'third part' of Matthew 24 (as well as Mark 13 and Luke 21) was what precipitated the Sputnik idea.

So I'm wondering if their understanding of the "generation" of Matthew 24:34 will be changed the generation, whether of the anointed or just of mankind in general, that will be alive and witness the future events postulated in this article.

Of course, with their new 'overlapping' generation understanding, they have already created an "out" to some extent. Hence they may not really need to update their "generation" understanding.

steve2

Two reactions to the predictable special pleading in the July 15th Watchtower:

First, if the Adventists could 'rationally' and respectably shift the disturbing focus from their failed date, 1844, to more enlightened work elsewhere, the Watchtower will find the shift from 1914 a breeze. I should imagine the Watchtower studies for those weeks will generate more zzzzzzzzzzzzs than brain activity.
Second, if per chance there is a Christ who actually uttered the words the Watchtower periodically scrambles, re-scrambles and then tries to unscramble, I can only imagine him thinking, " Who'd have thought my simple parables uttered in the warmth of the moment could have become so changably complicated and reduced to hilarious speculation about 1919?"

sd-7

p. 15, par. 3: "Then, rather than giving the food to the people directly, Jesus distributes it 'to the disciples, the disciples in turn to the crowds.'"

Well, that's certainly not setting up anything! Subtle. It's also a little condescending--who are you to think Jesus would actually give you anything directly, after all? John 14:24: "If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him." What a distinctly different relationship Jesus seems to offer to the individual from what the Society is clearly implying. But I'm jumping ahead again...

--sd-7