The March 22, 1993 Awake is a magazine that uses weasel words to try to back out of taking responsibility for making false predictions. It is a favorite amongst clever elders. Page 4 tries to explain why Russell and Rutherford should not be viewed as false prophets. It says " Jehovah's Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus' second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions 'in the name of Jehovah.' Never did they say, 'These are the words of Jehovah.'"
If the everlasting life of individual witnesses is contingent upon obeying the "faithful slave".....then does it really matter whether or not they specifically say "these are the words of Jehovah?" Isn't that assumption already implied by both the writers of the article and those reading it? Is that what it really comes down to? Jehovah is a God of tricky technicalities and clever semantics? Yet at the bottom of that very same page under the Awake masthead we read the same thing that was printed on every Awake magazine at that time. "this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away." It should be noted that at that time......the society defined a generation as 70-80 years. Therefore the belief was that those that physically saw the events of 1914 would be alive when armageddon came. Not this muddled "overlapping" shit they've put in print today.
So, in all honesty, what is the difference between saying "These are the words of Jehovah.." and "The Creator promises..?" Are they really trying to get themselves off the hook with that technicality? The fact is plain and simple. They spoke on behalf of God.......telling US what HE promises.......and they put it in writing. The fact is, the society has proudly put Jehovah's name on all their teachings. Even if they don't say "this is directly from Jehovah"…..the insinuation is that it is. If the assumption was that the teaching was completely man made…...no one would follow. The society reminds us constantly that they are Jehovah's sole channel of communication. That He only speaks through them. The July 15, 1998 Watchtower (p12) says in reference to spiritual food being provided through the faithful and discreet slave, "thus God is speaking, but are we listening?".
So the society explains that when the slave provides counsel…….it is God speaking, therefore we should listen. Yet they also try to wiggle out of responsibility for past failures by saying "Never did they say, 'these are the words of Jehovah'"? Seriously? Does that mean that JWs should wait until they start prefacing statements with "these are the words of Jehovah" before they listen? If a witness decides that he is not going to follow the latest teaching of the society and is open about his feelings and tells others about it he is subject to disfellowshipping for creating a sect. Odds are, that teaching as expressed in the literature did not start with the words, "these are the words of Jehovah". Regardless, it is understood and implied that this new teaching is from Jehovah therefore all witnesses must abide by it. Simply put, the belief of 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses is that if it comes from the faithful slave then it is coming from Jehovah. To try to wiggle out of responsibility for past false prophecies by saying "but we never said this is coming from Jehovah" is irresponsible, dishonest, and cowardly.