11/1/02 WT: Why Should I Apologize?"

by Room 215 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Room 215

  Aa usual, the boys in Bethel prove their aptitude in the ``Do as I Say But Not as I Do'' department. They eloquently laud the virtues of open-mindedness, humility and freedom of speech, as long as it applies to others. This issue's covering article is but another in a long series of example.

  Why Should I Apologize? They ask us... why should they? Well, for starters try this prescription

  ``Our flawed doctrinal understanding clouded the plain gospel of Jesus Christ and led to a variety of wrong conclusions and unscriptural practices. We have much to repent of and apologize for.''

  ``We were judgmental and self-righteous--condemning other Christians, calling them `so-called Christians' and labelinbg `deceived' and `instruments of Satan.'''

  ``We imposed on our members a works-oriented approach to Christian living. We requred adherence to burdensome regulations of the Old Testament code. We exercised a strongly legalistic approach to church government. Our former old covenant approach fostered attitudes of exclusism and superiority rather than the new covenant teaching of brotherhood and unity.''

  ``We overemphasized predictive prophecy and prophetic speculation, minimizing the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. These teachings and practices are a source of supreme regret. We are painfully mindful of the heartache and suffering that has resuted from them."

  ``We've been wrong. There was never an intent to mislead anyne. We were so focused on what we believed we were doing for God that we didn't recognize that path was not the Biblical one.''

  ``As we look back, we ask ourselves how we could have beeen so wrong. Our hearts go out to all whom our teachigns have misled in the Scriptures. We don't minimize your spiritual disorientation and confusion. We earnestly desire your understanding and forgiveness.''

  ``We make no attempt to cover up the doctrinal and scriptural errors of our past. It is not our intention to merely paper over the cracks. We are looking our history squarely in the face and confronting the faults and sins we find. They will always be a part of our hisotry, serving as a perpetual reminder of the dangers of legalism.""

  --- editors of The Plain Truth magazine, March/April 1988 issue.

  What's the likelihood of seeing something like this in the columns of the Watchtower?
• 

  ozziepost

  A big fat ZERO.
• 

  Lady Lee

  probably zero to none

  The last time a JW was at my door (an elder) I asked that when this issue came out if they could bring me a copy. He told me that he didn't have one about apologizing. I told him it wasn't out yet but would be coming. He wanted to know how I knew that

  The internet I said

  I just love this place. We know what they are getting before they do
• 

  Dizzy Cat

  I used to read the Plain Truth two years before I studied with JWs. I always found the magazine far more reasonable and straight forward.

  When I started my studies with a respected (hardcore) JW elder, he pointed out that the books I had ordered through the Plain Truth were Satan's words. He was only happy when I had consented to throw them away. I distinctly remember the look on his face when I asked him an honest question based upon the explanations of Bible based prophecy that the Plain truth taught at that time. He was really unwilling to discuss the teaching and simply drew my attention to WTBTS publications. I wish now, with hindsight, that I had been firmer and demanded a well rounded debate.

  Tsk .... inexperience and wanting to believe "something" led me down many a twisted pathway!
• 

  onacruse

  Why apologize when you're right?

  mwwwwuuuuaaaaaahahahaha

  Craig
• 

  Room 215

  Dizzy Cat,

  I quite agree with your feelings about Plain Truth magazine. It seemed to me that they were a lot more reasonable and than the JWs and had a social conscience, a contstructive way of coming to terms with being Christiants yet integral to human society at large.

  It also seemed to me that durng their years of publication, the PT and the WT seemed to be holding to some sort of a tacit ``mutual disarmament'' agreement... neither seemed willing to criticize the other, withich in the WT;'s case was remarkable, given its propensity for bashing other faiths.
• 

  Roddy

  Room215 >> It also seemed to me that durng their years of publication, the PT and the WT seemed to be holding to some sort of a tacit ``mutual disarmament'' agreement... neither seemed willing to criticize the other, withich in the WT;'s case was remarkable, given its propensity for bashing other faiths.<<

  I thought the founder of the Worldwide Church of God was an early JW, or at the very least, a Russellite breakaway who didn't want anything to do with Rutherford or was forced out by Rutherford. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  Anyway, if so, then that would make sense. After all, I don't read the WTS taking shots at Russelite organizations and groups. First of all, it would encourage interest - it wasn't until the Internet that I learned that Russelite groups existed. You'd think at how the WTS discribed them as they all fell away during the Rutherford term in office that they all died in a black hole somewhere. Secondly, they know where the early WTS skeletons are buried. One shot from the WTS and you can expect they will respond with a retaliatory informational bombshell. And, let's face it, information - even embarrassing information - is powerful!
• 

  NeonMadman

  I thought the founder of the Worldwide Church of God was an early JW, or at the very least, a Russellite breakaway who didn't want anything to do with Rutherford or was forced out by Rutherford. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  No, he wasn't. Herbert W. Armstrong was a breakaway from the Church of God, Seventh Day, which was a sabbatarian offshoot of the Millerite movement of the 1800's. Thus, the WCG and the JW's had common roots early on, but the branches had diverged well before Pastor Russell came along. In an article reprinted online at http://home.sprynet.com/~pabco/no_jehov.htm, Armstrong explains that he never was a JW, although he admits to reading some of their literature.

  In its heyday, the WCG was every bit as much a high-control cult as are the JW's, and some of the offshoot groups that have remained relatively faithful to Armstrong's teachings still are (though some have managed to retain the theology without the cultishness). Armstrong was a classic cult leader, who proclaimed himself "God's Apostle," demanded absolute obedience, and lived very luxuriously while his followers scraped to make a living while paying him as much as 30% of their incomes. Armstrong's son, Garner Ted, still preaches his father's doctrines (though his group is not particularly high-control), and has a website at http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/