PERPLEXITY A.I. analyzes the Watchtower Organization

by Terry 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  I like to at least TRY to stay current with developments in Artificial Intelligence rather than get stuck
  with first impressions and knee-jerk snap judgments that circulate among the public who really don't
  invest any in-depth analysis in forming their views.
  With that having been stated, I turn to Perplexity A.I.
  Perplexity AI's strength lies in its ability to serve as a powerful research companion, delivering comprehensive and up-to-date information across a wide range of topics.135 Its advanced NLP capabilities, real-time information gathering, and versatility make it a valuable tool for researchers, writers, recruiters, and professionals in various fields.
  _______________
  I asked Perplexity to give an in-depth overview and analysis of the Watchtower, it's GB, and its problems.
  Here are the results:
  ____________
  

  Answer

  Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine

  Evolution of doctrinal beliefs since 1879

  More

  Origination

  Doctrines have evolved since The Watchtower magazine began in 1879, initially based on Charles Taze Russell's interpretations.

  Leadership Changes

  Doctrinal developments have been influenced and altered by Russell's successors Joseph Rutherford and Nathan Knorr.

  Governing Body's Role

  Since 1976, changes have been made at closed meetings of the Governing Body, considered as God's progressive revelations.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have undergone significant doctrinal changes and upheavals over the years, which have raised concerns and criticisms from various quarters.

  Frequent Doctrinal Overhauls

  The Witnesses' doctrines have been revised and overhauled repeatedly since the group's inception. Major doctrinal shifts have occurred under different presidencies, often discarding or altering previously held beliefs.13 This pattern of frequent doctrinal changes and reversals has been criticized as inconsistent and undermining the group's claim to divine guidance and progressive revelation.3

  Governing Body Turnover

  The Governing Body, which dictates all doctrines and policies for Jehovah's Witnesses, has seen regular turnover in its membership over the decades.2 This constant change in leadership has contributed to the doctrinal instability and shifts in teachings and practices.

  Shift from Specificity to Generality

  There has been a noticeable trend in recent years where the Witnesses' publications and teachings have become more general and vague, moving away from specific predictions and interpretations.2 This shift could be an attempt to avoid the scrutiny and criticism that often followed failed predictions or doctrinal reversals in the past.

  Child Abuse Lawsuits and Financial Strain

  The organization has faced numerous lawsuits and legal battles related to its handling of child abuse cases, which has strained its financial resources.2 This has led to a reversal of the long-standing policy against directly soliciting donations from members, a practice that was previously considered a violation of biblical principles.2

  Forecast and Potential Trends

  Based on these upheavals and changes, some potential trends and forecasts can be identified:

  1. Continued Doctrinal Instability: The pattern of frequent doctrinal overhauls and reversals is likely to continue, as the Governing Body seeks to adapt and respond to internal and external pressures.3
  2. Erosion of Credibility: The constant doctrinal shifts and reversals may further erode the group's credibility and claims of divine guidance, potentially leading to more members questioning or leaving the organization.3
  3. Financial Challenges: The ongoing legal battles and financial strain may necessitate further changes in policies and practices, including increased emphasis on soliciting donations from members.2
  4. Centralization of Power: To maintain control and unity, the Governing Body may tighten its grip and centralize power even further, limiting dissent and independent thinking among members.2
  5. Adaptation and Rebranding: In an effort to address criticisms and maintain relevance, the organization may attempt to rebrand itself or adapt its practices and public image, while preserving core beliefs and power structures.2

  It is important to note that these forecasts are based on observed patterns and trends, and the actual future developments within the organization may vary. However, the ongoing upheavals and challenges faced by Jehovah's Witnesses suggest that significant changes and adaptations are likely in the years to come.123

  Share

  Rewrite

  Identify the number one problem JW leaders have which needs to be addressed, discussed, and handled most immediately.

  Sources

  The challenges of treating Jehovah's witnesses

  

  medicalprotection

  ·

  1

  Jehovah's Witnesses - Apologetics - North American Mission Board

  

  namb

  ·

  2

  Why Jehovah's Witnesses Can't Drop the 1914 Doctrine : r/exjw - Reddit

  

  reddit

  ·

  3

  

  

  View 2 more

  Answer

  

  Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

  Issues and controversies surrounding the religious movement

  More

  Criticism sources

  Mainstream Christianity, medical community, former members, and commentators

  Key accusations

  Doctrinal inconsistencies, failed predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of ex-members, autocratic leadership

  Controversial practices

  Rejection of blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations, failure to report sexual abuse

  Based on the search results provided, the number one problem that Jehovah's Witnesses leaders need to address most immediately is their doctrine surrounding 1914 and its significance.

  The 1914 Doctrine and Its Centrality

  The doctrine that 1914 marked the beginning of Christ's presence and the "last days" is central to Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and identity.3 It underpins their claim to be God's sole channel on earth and the need to separate from "false religion" or "Babylon the Great."3However, this doctrine is based on flawed calculations and assumptions made by the early leaders, particularly the inclusion of a non-existent year 0 in their chronology.3 This error has been well-documented, yet the Governing Body continues to uphold and promote the 1914 doctrine.

  Inability to Abandon the Doctrine

  The Witnesses cannot easily abandon or revise the 1914 doctrine because it is inextricably linked to other core beliefs and claims, such as:

  1. The appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" (the Governing Body) in 1919 as the sole channel of God's truth.23
  2. The justification for separating from and condemning other Christian denominations as part of "Babylon the Great."3
  3. The imminent arrival of Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, which their preaching work is preparing for.4

  Discarding the 1914 doctrine would undermine the very foundation of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, its authority, and its raison d'être.3 It would likely lead to a significant loss of members and credibility.3

  Consequences of Upholding a Flawed Doctrine

  By continuing to uphold a doctrine based on demonstrably flawed calculations and assumptions, the Governing Body risks further eroding the organization's credibility and integrity.23 It perpetuates a lie and undermines their claims of divine guidance and progressive revelation.23Moreover, the unwillingness to acknowledge and correct this error exemplifies the Governing Body's authoritarian control over doctrine, suppression of dissent, and discouragement of independent thinking among members.4 This approach is detrimental to the well-being of Witnesses and contributes to the harmful effects of shunning and loss of social support for those who leave or are expelled.4Addressing and resolving the issues surrounding the 1914 doctrine is crucial for the Jehovah's Witnesses organization to maintain credibility, integrity, and the well-being of its members. However, doing so would require a fundamental shift in their power structures, claims of authority, and core beliefs, which the current leadership appears unwilling to undertake.234

  Share

  Rewrite

  
  
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Obviously™......... Perplexity A. I. has been infected by apostate thinking.
• 

  Vidiot

  Thirty or forty years ago, doubling down would have been viewed as the safe option for a True Believer leadership, as any potential errors would have been rendered moot by the (expectation of an) impending Apocalypse, and their own implied assumption of invincibility and destined victory.

  The problems arose as the decades went by without that Apocalyptic bailout, and the double-downs keep compounding.
• 

  Vidiot

  “…doing so would require a fundamental shift in their power structures, claims of authority, and core beliefs, which the current leadership appears unwilling to undertake.”

  Yes, but I think the argument could be made that they are unable to make those shifts… at least, not with any substantial long-term success.

  If they keep doubling down in the face of increasing indications that they are, in fact, wrong, they alienate more and more members with half a brain…
  

  …but…

  …dispensing with so many of those things unique to JWs threatens to do the same thing, because they were held up as proof they alone had The Truth.

  Ultimately, either option undermines any incentive to stay.
  
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  A lot of it sounds plausible, but some parts less so. It claims the Governing Body has a high turnover of members and that this causes instability. But that’s nonsense. Governing Body members hold their position for life and only a few have ever resigned or been forced out. Only Raymond Franz definitely resigned for doctrinal reasons, possibly Morris too, but we don’t know. The other two, Greenlees and Chitty, were expelled for moral reasons. In all other cases (around 30 individuals as far as I can make out) Governing Body members served until death or are current members. In no sense can this be described as a high turnover.