by slimboyfat 135 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
If it’s dropped to appease governments I think it misses the target. Governments and societies care how JWs treat ex members, not about doctrines like the 144,000.
The rationale for changing it would presumably be the fact that it’s increasingly difficult to sustain only the idea of 144,000 anointed Christians across nearly 2000 years when you have 20,000+ partaking annually and the number continues increasing.
The rationale for changing it would presumably be the fact that it’s increasingly difficult to sustain only the idea of 144,000 anointed Christians across nearly 2000 years when you have 20,000+ partaking annually and the number continues increasing.
While I agree in principle, the org really dealt with this when they said that not everyone partaking is necessarily entitled to. Admittedly, it might seem a bad idea to imply a lot of your members are deluded or even mentally unwell(!) as they hinted, but TBH it's an equally valid argument.
However, where the GB risk it - and the reason they probably won't push that opinion too far, and may well look to change the teaching altogether - is that it leaves them open to the equally valid argument that maybe not all (or any) of the GB themselves are "entitled" to claim heavenly rights either, but only think they are! After all, God is supposed to determine who they are, not the people themselves, and the "(holy) spirit bearing witness with their spirit" is not provable to anyone else anyway.
Personally, I've never had a problem with the idea of 144,000 being literal, and have always thought it likely that some - or most, maybe even all - of those "partaking" throughout the time of the JW org are simply honestly mistaken - including of course, members of the various GBs. Just because someone desperately feels and wishes something to be so, doesn't mean it is.
The teaching that the 144,000 make up a limited number who will be a "government" in the heavens who will rule with Christ seems far more reasonable and in line with the scriptures than ditching that just because lots of people on earth are partaking. That seems like "putting the cart before the horse", so to speak. It's like saying: "because a lot of people do not obey a law, let's change the law", which admittedly is the kind of stupidity humans tend to do!
Yes, I agree with all that, there are disadvantages to changing it. And it does seem like a reasonable belief to me: the perennial question WT has posed “a kingdom/government has rulers as well as subjects, doesn’t it?” seems fair, and the 144,000 a reasonable part of that “arrangement”, to use a theocratic word.
If they do make a change the reasoning could be as follows: the suggestion that some partakers are mistaken, or psychologically unbalanced, might have been conceived as a kind of stop-gap measure while numbers climbed temporarily. If numbers look like climbing indefinitely then that might be what motivates them to make a change.
As I understand it, the 1935 date was not arrived at from scripture, it was inferred because that’s when JWs themselves applied the Great Crowd to some of their own members in a novel way. Maybe the idea of the 144,000 not being literal could be conceived as a similar inference drawn from events within the modern day organisation.
Having said that, I agree with you the literal 144,000 teaching makes sense and doesn’t really need to be changed. But then, not all their changes make sense in my opinion. I don’t see the rationale for not counting time any more for example. It seems like a needless change with only downsides. Although I suspect in that case they may possibly have legal reasons for the change they are not disclosing.
But then, not all their changes make sense in my opinion. I don’t see the rationale for not counting time any more for example. It seems like a needless change with only downsides. Although I suspect in that case they may possibly have legal reasons for the change they are not disclosing.
I completely agree that not all the GB changes make sense, but I disagree that the removal of counting time was one that didn't. On the contrary, I never saw any scriptural basis for reporting time - it was just a bureaucratic exercise created by the corporate-minded. The Org always trotted out a few verses like Mark 6:30 and Acts 2:41 to support the idea, but all the verses they cite centre around experiences being shared, numbers of people being counted (eg newly baptised), etc, but never hours and times spent. The best you get is comments like "at sunset" such and such happened, "by the third hour" the disciples arrived somewhere, or they spent "many days" in this town or village, etc. AFAIK there is no basis in the gospels to support tracking hours spent by individuals on preaching, and it has created all kinds of problems that are now a legacy, like judging "spirituality" purely on numbers, and encouraging over-reporting which has now led to a lot of the problems they have with inaccurate numbers.
I think they relied for too long on the numbers coming back from the field when planning halls, literature production, and so on. That's easy to do when the numbers appear to grow and look healthy, but when you begin to see a mismatch in what's being reported with the evidence on the ground (eg: relative 'productivity' of ministry now not producing as much 'fruit') it becomes a serious problem. And then you start to see the numbers stall in many places, or even go into decline. The only way to 'cure' that (or at least remove the annual embarrassment) is to ditch the whole thing.
In all honesty, most of their recent changes I consider right, and long overdue: beards for brothers not being an issue, no more reporting time unless you have volunteered for that extra duty (by pioneering), trousers allowed for sisters, etc. Even the amendments to "disfellowshipping" make more sense than the old arrangements, although they don't go far enough.
Coming back to the 144,000 question, I suppose it is possible they could say that, while the number going to heaven to 'rule as kings and priests' may be limited compared to those 'subjects' on earth, it doesn't have to be exactly 144,000, thus the number could still be said to symbolic, without changing the overall teaching. But if they do say that, it would still seem to me to be a major fudge of the issue, and will add to the increasing realisation in the R&F that the current GB are losing their grip on the doctrine.
That point should be evident & abundantly clear,,,,the GB are losing their grip on doctrine.
Maybe they never had any grip.
I agree with comments about not reporting the number anymore. That seems like a logical way to handle it.
It leaves the problem about whether the 144000 has been filled to the imagination, without the GB having to continually quantify anything going forward.
Over time, it will become an insignificant detail - if it isn't already, only remembered by a few oldies whose opinions don't count anymore.
If Rev. 7:4 is to be taken literally, why not verses 5,6,7,8?
I think also this change can happen, with the "we just don't know" or some sort of word soup.
Like most here half my family are JW's. I'm in communication with them regularly, my sibling is up in years and has serious health issues. I think he knows the questionable issues. He's been in that secret international group that discuss all these subjects for decades. That being said, he's got his eyes on the prize during this difficult time.
The other relatives are traveling all over in groups and having a great time. I think it will be discussed in private circles, but they are content with their way of life and have no need to change it. .02
Can anyone identify the last time WT affirmed the literal 144,000 teaching in print or in broadcast?
Every Memorial.
Dagney asked why are some verses taken literally & not others??
Thats what I'd like to know & many others
Its called "" cherry picking "".
Making things to suit their own narrative.
Every Memorial.
Which is neither print nor broadcast. 😜
