Dear Sabastious,
You made one excellent point. Watchtower doctrine is a hodge podge of things taught over the last century and a half. They're afraid of clearly stating that they've dropped some views. Notice that in the recent books on the prophecies that they dropped pages and pages of previous explanations? But they never say, "all that was crap. We know it. You know it." If they're to remain a vital religion they need a sort of Statement of Theology Secundum.
They won't do that, of course. They aren't brave enough to put issues that openly. They are reactionary.
We're witnessing a theological shift among Watchtower writers. There seems to be at least two parties. It would serve them well if they wrote their own verse by verse or chapter by chapter commentary on the bible. They would have to rethink a lot of things if they were to do a good, solid job. I doubt they'd ever do it. Fear and a very narrow view will keep them from it, that and the certainty that the end is weeks, months at most from accomplishment.
I was around for the wild 1954 speculation. Bet you never heard of that one. You're all whippersnappers! The end is always near. I consider myself a Christian, and I believe we are in the last days. I also believe it is fruitless to put too much credit in my own personal beliefs and God will do what he wants and when he wants to do it. The Watchtower has always tried to force God's hand. Today a significant number who hold some sort of authority believe the Governing Body is nearly God. For them the GB is a collective pope. If I believed something like that, I'd become a Catholic and get all the interesting and colorful things that the Mass produces.
The fact remains, on this issue the Watchtower is misrepresented on boards like this. That sort of thing turned me off for years. Back in the early 50s an ex-witness wrote an anti-watchtower book. It didn't see wide circulation and I've forgotten the title. It was reprinted in the 1970s with updates. He quoted from a more recent publication, ending a sentence in the middle with a period. It changed the whole character of the quotation. I do not find that helpful or honest. There's always someone with a mind out there who will check on what we say. I did that for decades. "Famous Apostates" from the 1950s sent out drivel in the form of little magazines, pamphlets and books. None of it was persuasive to me because it was full of stupidity, misrepresentation, or a bitter spirit that covered over any valid arguments. Schnell, Goodrich, and Reid (from Canada) were a nasty bunch who did more harm than good. We do not need to repeat their mistakes.
Watchtower doctrine - more accurately, Watchtower focus - has shifted in the last few years. Until they clean house, the spiritual paradise, a hyper-allegorical approach (essentially medieval in nature) and years of pseudo-scholarship sit in the background like a pile of stinking garbage.
