1952 WT - Official Policy on Anointed

by Amazing 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jayhawk1

  Thanks Amazing, this was very helpful!
• 

  Hmmm

  Thanks as always for an interesting post, Amazing. However, I have a question/issue or two: (red text is my emphasis)

  You quoted the WT:
  

  You would have to examine yourself on this basis: “Have I dedicated my life to God through Jesus Christ to do his will forevermore? Do I have the spirit of God? Is God dealing with me? Yes, I have the evidence that God is dealing with me; he is using me in his service. He is providing for me. He is giving me a place in connection with his organization, and I am realizing many blessings, and am growing in the understanding of his Word. I have all of these indications that I have his spirit...”

  You emphasize the phrase “you would have to examine yourself on this basis.” Are you saying that you agree with the society and their criteria for determining whether one has God’s spirit? If that is the case, then wouldn’t it be fair for non-JWs to say that no JW could claim to be anointed, given that they are anointed “in connection with His organization” and “growing in the understanding of his Word”? (Certainly, those of us who have come to believe that God does not have to have a single chosen Organization, and that the WT does anything but help people grow in understanding of His Word would say so.)

  What I mean is, isn’t it rather pointless to use the society’s standards for determining anointing? Since they’re so wrong about so many things, why would we trust their reasoning on this issue?

  You continued with what I take to be your main point of the post:
  WT:
  

  Then, what is the thing that draws the line of demarcation between the two classes and puts you either on the side of the “great crowd” or puts you on the side of the anointed remnant? As you examine yourself YOU have to determnine what your hope is, because Gos is dealing with you and is CULTIVATING in you some sort of a hope.

  Amazing:
  

  Notice that the hope is CULTIVATED, thus suggesting a growth process, and NOT some instantaneous electrified zapping.

  I don’t think that’s necessarily true. You must cultivate something that was previously planted. What about Nicodemus, and the thousands who were baptized (anointed) immediately after accepting Jesus? Suppose God "planted" his spirit into you and, POOF you’re anointed! Could God not then cultivate that anointing and hope? An instantaneous anointing and a cultivated hope are not mutually exclusive.

  You later state:
  

  Note: I have no doubt that if ALL JWs read this article today, that many thousands or tens of thousands, and I would not be at all surprised if even several hundred thousand would openly profess to be anointed.

  I don’t see how you arrive at this conclusion. I assume that all JWs in 1952 did read this article, yet there was no great storm of Witnesses claiming to be anointed. What is different about today’s JWs that would make them claim anointing, that 1950’s JWs didn’t have?

  If anything, I think the article would have less impact than it did. Why? Because we’re now further away from the magical 1935 cut-off date than in 1952. I remember discussing anointing with JWs in the mid 1980s, and the possibility of any of us being anointed was not seriously considered. We were all in our mid-to-late teens at the time, and we had been raised from birth KNOWING that we were not anointed, that it was something that had ended a half-century before. I think that more people are turning away from the organization today than in the 50s (my purely subjective opinion) and they might embrace the idea of being anointed “in the Lord,” but they aren’t really JWs, are they?

  You then say:
  

  JWs who come onto this forum and try to say that they are of the JW anointed class, and know they are such because they were ZAPPED by some electrifying or sensational force, and that is how they know they are anointed, simply defy the position and teaching of their own organization.

  Well I don’t put much stock, anymore, in the position and teaching of the organization, so if someone wants to make a claim that defies the GB, I have no problem with it. You say your anointing was a slow process. Does it have to be identical for everyone else in order for you to accept it? Really, what difference does it make? Once you leave the JWs, your status as an anointed one (in the sense that JWs use the term) changes and makes the whole point moot.

  By far, the most astonishing statement you made (maybe it's old news to board veterans) was:
  

  ...Fred Franz who was never a baptized JW.

  Huh? Fred Franz was never baptized as a JW? Have I been under an apostate rock the past few years, that I’ve never heard this? The Society’s “oracle,” anointed one, and GB member who was the power behind Knorr’s throne, was never baptized? Doesn’t this go against everything the society claims about being anointed? How are they any sort of authority on a subject, when they don’t apply their own rules to themselves?

  Amazing, I hope you won’t take this as an attack. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your posts (though I missed all but a couple of the Justice postings). I must admit, however, that the entire tone of this post struck me as a personal vindication of your anointing, rather than a discussion of the subject in general.

  Sincerely,
  Hmmm

  Edited because I'm apparently unable to format text without screwing it up the first six--make that seven--times
• 

  peterstride

  Fred Franz himself admitted that he was never baptized as a JW.

  I'll look up the references and post them,

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  peterstride

  I stand corrected...from what I understand, Fred Franz did get baptized as a JW.....and here are some of the details, taken from Raymond Franz's book "In Search of Christian Freedom", page 115.

  "Initially among Bible Student's in Russel's day, no issue was made as to one's having been baptized while affiliated with one of the various Christian denominations. The only question was whether one understood the meaning of baptism and whether this was by immersion.

  (I recall my uncle, Fred Franz, when already the Watch Tower's vice president, remarking to me that if his baptism in the Presbyterian Church had been by immersion (rather than sprinkling) he would have considered it still valid.)

  That remained the case for over seven decades. As late as the July 1, 1955, Watchtower (page 412) it was stated that rebaptism was necessary only if the "previous baptism was not in symbol of a dedication" or if it was not by immersion.

  The same 1955 Watchtower (page 411) also said in part that "A Christian...cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit."

  Well, since 1985, everyone that gets baptized does so into an earthly organization, against what's stated in the bible.

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  peterstride

  Fred Franz himself admitted that he was never baptized as a JW.

  I'll look up the references and post them,

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  peterstride

  I don't know how my first eroneous statement got re-posted, after I already posted my retraction and correction.

  However, itt had kind of stuck in my mind that maybe Fred Franz hadn't been baptized by the WTS (because of his statement to his nephew, Raymond), but from what I understand, he did indeed get re-baptized.

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Hmmmm: You asked a few questions about my post. First, I don't agree with the 1952 Watchtower position or any previous or subsequent position taken by the Watch Tower Society. I wrote my comments based on what the Soceity said in relation to how I used to believe as a JW.

  The article in 1952 contained two main points that I was trying to highlight: 1.) Official Watch Tower policy is that 'anointing' is not via some kind of 'zapping', but a growth process that is cultivated; 2.) The Society leaves it up to the individual to make this determination, that is the individual must decide thier own hope. The implication is, of course, that Jehovah is responsible for this desire to cultivate the havenly hope.

  My point about many JWs reading the 1952 article today, and then deciding they are 'anointed' is this: The 1952 Watchtower article stands in 'stark contrast' to the flavor of current articles today that emphasize the 'rarity' of being anointed since 1931 (1935) and how such a 'newly' anointed one today would be older in age, many years in the organization, and likely performing well in meeting the organization's standards for service, meetings, commenting, etc. The implications today are that 'anointed' are 'zapped' in some special way, and the Watch Tower Society permits this 'undiscussed mysterious implication' to continue to float around unchecked. That is, they do not publish clarifications based on their 1952 statements as to 'how one really knows they are anointed.'

  The Society permits this scary mystery along with their harping on the 'rarity' and the nature of the individuals Jehovah would select to have a self-fulfilling affect of reducing or keeping the number of 'anointed' down.

  In my years in the organization, apart from people reporting the transgressions of others, or people seeking help when they have issues of conscience, or confessing a transgression, one of the more frequent questions to Elders has been from those wondering if they are 'anointed'. Because most JW Elders are not 'anointed' they harp on current policy and scare the beegeebers out of the JW making such inquiry. Whereas, if JW Elders were to give this modest, kindly written article from 1952 to JWs making inquiry, I cannot help but believe that many more would openly profess to be 'anointed.'

  What about your point that many JWs read the article in 1952, but did not claim to be anointed? The organization was much smaller then, so the impact would be numerically far less. Also, the 'Earthly Hope' was still relatively new in many respects. It was a new concept to many people being reached at the Door. It was new to the Society literature and how they would progressively develop this new doctrine. There was still a high proportion of 'anointed' JWs to 'Other Sheep' JWs, so choosing to be of the 'OS' was still a novelty. By the late 1960s with the push for environmentalism taking root, the 'back to the earth' Hippie movement, etc., the Earthly Hope was a big sell, and combined with Armageddon due by 1975, then this made the organization grow a lot.

  But, by the late 1970s and into the 1990s western society in general has taken far more interest in the 'mystical', the 'other spiritual' looking again to the cosmos, pondering the universe, and other dimensions for enlightenment. Much of this will spill over into JWs before they join the religion, and some who are in the religion. So, it stands to reason that with the very low numbers of 'anointed' today in contrast to the hugh number of 'OS', that the 'Anointed' appear even more mystical and intriguing. So, if the average JW read the 1952 article today, I believe that many would decide they are anointed. Or at least, a major increase in this number would not surprise me.

  Finally: The most basic reason for posting this topic was to answer the question that many ex-JWs have about the JW Anointed. It was to clarify something that would never be clarified for them by either the Society of the Elders were they still JWs. My guess is that both the Society and the local Elders have forgotten the 1952 article and simply parrot current scare tactic rhetoric.

  Amazing
• 

  Hmmm

  Hi Amazing,

  Thanks for the clarification. It looks like I did a pretty good job of misunderstanding you.

  In my years in the organization, apart from people reporting the transgressions of others, or people seeking help when they have issues of conscience, or confessing a transgression, one of the more frequent questions to Elders has been from those wondering if they are 'anointed'. Because most JW Elders are not 'anointed' they harp on current policy and scare the beegeebers out of the JW making such inquiry. Whereas, if JW Elders were to give this modest, kindly written article from 1952 to JWs making inquiry, I cannot help but believe that many more would openly profess to be 'anointed.'

  Italics mine

  Interesting. I didn't know the question was that common, and your explanation makes sense. I guess I was only looking at it from my standpoint. I and my circle of friends would have given you and the other elders no problems because we never gave any thought to our being anointed... then again, it's something that I haven't given much thought to today, either.

  I'm simply "inactive" from the JWs, but my heart has been gone for a decade, and I haven't stepped foot in a KH in probably seven or eight years. But I guess I've been wandering in a kind of fog all that time, spiritually, and haven't taken the time to research and decide just where I stand on many of these issues.

  Thanks for the response,
  Hmmm
• 

  Shane

  >>>You are setting that as your goal. It permeates your whole being. You cannot get it out of your system. It is the hope that engrosses you. Then it must be that God has aroused that hope and caused it to come to life in you, for it is NOT a natural hope for earthly man to entertain.<<<
  I think the concept of the above is Bull-con from the Witness Dogma no one knows for sure if anyone goes to heaven its all Bull-con.
  Shane