I think they can abandon anything that CTR taught, including 1914. It might take them a while to figure it out, but they will do it. Some more dubs have to shed their mortal coils first. We all know that nu-light does not come decades in advance, but only when time runs out on current light, or in response to legal dilemas and to quell uprisings of new partakers.
Can somebody explain the changes I read in the WT??
by diana netherton 43 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
I think they can abandon anything that CTR taught, including 1914. It might take them a while to figure it out, but they will do it
---
A common WT tactic is to simply quit talking about it.
Then they'll slowly slip little tidbits of information into various articles making some changes. It is barely perceptible to most JWs.
After this process takes place over time, usually years, and the desired verbiage has been assimilated by JWs about the change, the WT will then introduce an article directly stating the change.
The language by then will be so familiar that 99% of JWs will say, "this is not new- we've always believed this".
-
Steve_C
Nice synopsis. Marked.
-
Calebs Airplane
Diana... here's the gist of it...
In the early 80's, Raymond Franz exposed many lies printed in WT literature. Many One of the major lies was that all of the annointed worldwide were somehow communicating progressive Nu-Lite to the Governing Body. The Governing Body would then process this Nu-Lite and have it printed. Raymond discovered this to be completely false after he became a member of the Governing Body. He quickly learned that the GB did NOT even care to know who was of the annointed unless it was a brother who happened to be a CO or DO. But even if they did know and acknowledge some of the annointed, they would accept any input from them either.
So as part of "damage control" they are sinking this teaching in murky waters using an ambiguous play of words that most witnesses will not understand or even care to understand...
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Terry:
If you study the history of the 2nd Adventist movement you will discover a couple of astounding things.
1.The Adventists came up with the crazy ideas first and Fred Franz copied them
2.The same errors were made by the Adventists
---
If a person simply reads the "Proclaimers" book, you'll see that when Russell started the WT he was essentially an Adventist ! As you said, he copied the Adventist's same mistakes, most notably their hopelessly flawed end times dates and chronologies pointing to 1874, then to 1914. Russell was no different than his contemporaries- he cherry-picked what he liked from other religions, Re: doctrines, then created his own customized religion.
I believe this is primarily why the WT is distancing themselves from its early history surrounding Russell. Rutherford is next on the chopping block, as his doctrines were even kookier than Russell's.
-
DesirousOfChange
Then they'll slowly slip little tidbits of information into various articles making some changes. It is barely perceptible to most JWs.
That's because very very few JWs even bother to read the literature! You know that's true!
Most have no idea what their own religion teaches.
Doc
-
moshe
The brothers will do the bobblehead rountine in the KH WT study- all will be well in Kingdom Hall land.
-
wallsofjericho
A common WT tactic is to simply quit talking about it. Then they'll slowly slip little tidbits of information into various articles making some changes. It is barely perceptible to most JWs. After this process takes place over time, usually years, and the desired verbiage has been assimilated by JWs about the change, the WT will then introduce an article directly stating the change.
This almost seemed to be what was occuring for a few years but then 1914 started making a comeback after the Gods Love book.
I wonder if they were avoiding 1914 "too much" and felt the need to dip back into it.
The July 15 does not avoid 1914 but spends little time focusing on it. It's almost a side point to the "beginning of the harvest". This seemed to be the emphasis. I wouldnt't be surprised if we begin hearing a new phraseology around 1914 and that is "The beginning of the harvest"
This will take the emphaisis off the actual year and place it on the "event" in the overall timeline. 1914 will just be another dot along the chronology and not the focus of it.
IMHO
-
NVR2L8
Thank you all for bringing out all that info in one thread.
-
*lost*
excellent
gosh, it's all so transparent now. listening to you all stating the facts.
