jwfacts - yeah I hear you. My JW friend was baptized in 2003. You're right, something that changed in 1995 is not an issue to her. The past changed doctrines are foggy in her mind. She'll say, "yeah I heard something happened in 1975," and that's the extent of it. No further inquiry, just focus on the "current information." If she does mention the past, it's the heroic things like the concentration camps.
InterestedOne
JoinedPosts by InterestedOne
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
InterestedOne
TD - yeah I can see how the idea of "right on schedule" would be important to salvage the date. I guess WWI wouldn't make sense if they counted the 2520 years from 587 BCE to 1934 CE. That would mean a major "woe" in the earth would have happened too soon b/c Satan wouldn't have been cast down yet.
Clarity - That is a real eye-opener about the "good news."
Here's something that adds to the confusion: TD wrote:
If you look at the quote that 3mozzies gave, you can see that the claimed basis for being selected by Jesus in 1919 was what they were teaching at the time.
In other words, when the Master returned in 1914, Jehovah's Witnesses were rewarded because among other things, they were the only ones teaching that the Master had returned.
When the Master returned in 1914 and inspected them in 1919, they were teaching that he had already returned in 1874 & continued to teach that for another 10 years until around 1930. When I asked my study conductor about it, he just blamed it on the Adventists & said this shows how Jesus corrected the JW's. I'm curious to see how the WT writers around 1930 managed to smoothly phrase the change of Jesus' return from 1874 to 1914.
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
InterestedOne
Ok. I think I'm starting to see. There are several PR problems they would have to solve. They would have to find an ingenious way to admit that 607 is incorrect without looking like complete fools because everyone was telling them they were wrong in the first place - they'd have to humbly admit that "the world" was right afterall. They would have a huge body of printed work saying 1914 over and over again that would have to be abandoned. The change would be glaring. I guess the reinterpretation of the word "generation" is a little easier to weasel around with, but a change in a very specific calculation would require re-writing volumes like Insight on the Scriptures and books like Reasoning From the Scriptures, etc. It would require quite a bit of re-tooling. For comparison, I'm curious how they got out of 1935 - which was also a specific date. My first guess is that maybe they morphed out of it - like slowly reducing the mention of it in print and then eventually abandoning it in such a way that the current literature didn't have to be re-done. Just a guess. Perhaps this is why I have seen threads where people point out the reduction in mention of 1914 as the years go by.
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
InterestedOne
Thank you all. This is helping. I can see how they need to maintain the two premises - Christ returning and choosing the FDS. However, the thing I'm not seeing is why the exact date is required. I could envision them smearing it a little bit to "early in the 20th century" to get out of the 607/587 problem and the 3-1/2 year problem. Why does the exact date bring everything crashing down?
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
InterestedOne
Their 'Good News' is not the good news in the NT. Their Good News is that Jesus stood up as King in 1914.
Couldn't they just blur it like they do with other things and say it happened some time in our day because look at the great work of JW's?
-
57
Why would abandoning 1914 mean they are not chosen by God?
by InterestedOne ini've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
-
-
InterestedOne
I've read here that if the WT admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that God did not choose them as his org. Can someone explain to me how that logically follows?
Couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the Bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by God as his only org." How does 1914 cause any problem for their authority? Can't they just say, well we have authority because we're such close Bible-followers, so righteous, holier-than-anyone-else, love Jehovah more than anyone else, etc. regardless of any date? I've heard them say, "God always had an organization. In ancient times, it was the Israelites. Likewise today, if you compare all organizations, we believe we are the ones who have the most integrity in keeping the Bible as our rule-book." Couldn't they say we don't need a specific date to support our claim of authority? Can someone explain why there would be a logical problem with this? I'm not familiar enough with the exact doctrinal mechanism that makes everything hinge on 1914 for them such that removing it would cause everything to fall apart.
-
26
Disassociation Letter
by dontplaceliterature inhave any of you who formally diassociated yourself from jehovah's witness by letter sent anything in writing to the entire congregation?
would it be considered bad form to send a letter to friends in the congregation regarding your decision and the reasons for it, before/after/simultaneously you send a letter to the boe?.
i think i would feel compelled to, out of acknowledgement that most of them would not speak to me after "the big announcement.
-
-
InterestedOne
Although I don't know what it's like to be a JW, I would probably send a letter to my friends immediately prior to sending the official disassociation letter. From a purely human standpoint, it shows that you value communication with them & value them as people. In a corporate scenario, you'd probably give your two-week's notice to your boss first & then send goodbye letters to your close co-workers. If you didn't notify your boss first, your letters could turn into gossip & he/she would wonder why you told your co-workers first & waited to notify him/her - could be bad form. In the case of JW's, you don't have any choice but to send letters to your friends first & then immediately send the official letter. If you send the official letter first, I gather your friends won't read your letters after the fact. I'd say you may have to risk possible bad form because the situation the group has created is, in my opinion, bad form to begin with.
-
7
Reading "Chronology" in Insight books - Do JW's believe in fate?
by InterestedOne ini'm at the beginning of the "chronology" section of the insight books.
in the second paragraph, it says:.
we are assured that his purposes for the future are certain of execution at the predetermined time, right down to the day and hour designated.. does that mean jw's believe in fate or predestination?.
-
-
InterestedOne
I see. So some things are predetermined and others are not? Does that mean they are saying fate is true for some things and not for others? Or do they avoid using the word fate altogether?
-
30
Is that podium thing unique to JW's? Do they build them?
by InterestedOne ini was wondering about that half-table/half-podium thing that jw's use on the platform.
is that unique to jw's & do they build them, like shakers had their own furniture?.
-
-
InterestedOne
Witness My Fury - Thank you. This helps me with a question I had asked a while back which was how to respond when my JW friend says, "What would their motivation be? They're a non-profit. No-one profits. etc." My response was simply that I would think there are ways for people to make money from a non-profit. I'm sure the podium & sound system thing is a tiny piece, but I'd be curious to know the names of the various businesses. Who is the witness-run podium company in the UK & in the US? Who is the witness-run sound company?
-
7
Reading "Chronology" in Insight books - Do JW's believe in fate?
by InterestedOne ini'm at the beginning of the "chronology" section of the insight books.
in the second paragraph, it says:.
we are assured that his purposes for the future are certain of execution at the predetermined time, right down to the day and hour designated.. does that mean jw's believe in fate or predestination?.
-
-
InterestedOne
Hey peacefulpete.
Did you mean yes to fate & no to predestination? I was putting the two in the same general category. Or, did you mean their doctrine says yes & no to the matter? I recall my JW friend saying one reason JW's don't believe in astrology, apart from their association of it with spiritism, is that they don't believe in fate. Then when I read this "Chronology" section in the Insight books, it sounded like it was expressing the idea of fate to me - that certain things are predetermined to happen ahead of time.