Posts by Leolaia

74

Why God created predators and beasts

by EndofMysteries in

while i am waiting and taking a big break to sort everything out.

i thought i would share some very cool life and scientific things that were revealed in the scriptures.

have you ever wondered why god made beasts and predators?

Leolaia

Jesus wept.

75

The Society debunked the rumored new light on the F&DS in 1973

by Leolaia in

this is the summary of the rumored new light from the 2012 annual meeting, as posted by cedars.. the faithful and discreet slave was not appointed at pentecost 33ce, meaning that there has not been a continuous line of members of the slave class on the earth down through the ages.

the slave class was only appointed for the first time by christ in 1919.the faithful and discreet slave is a small group of anointed brothers during jesus presence serving at watchtower headquarters who are directly involved in the preparing and dispensing of spiritual food.

the individual members of the governing body are not the faithful and discreet slave.

Leolaia

Really interesting discussion. It will be interesting to see what step the GB takes next. At the next annual meeting, only a few months will be remaining before 2014. ;)

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

The second missive confirming Moyle's disfellowshipping:

#62:
Zone servant Elmar McDaniel and C. H. Ellison to Olin R. Moyle, 21 March 1940: "The servants of the Milwaukee company of Jehovah's witnesses pointed out to the company servant and zone servant that it was our duty to notify O. R. Moyle that he did not have the privileges as a publisher for the Theocracy. Therefore this is notice that you will be refused all privileges such as literature and equipment assignments to territory, back calls and any others that are enjoyed by a publisher for the Theocracy."

24

The Watchtower Attempts to Eliminate Discrepancies in Authority

by Emery in

i began pondering about the reasons why this new light was made and have come to a few theories that may be plausible.

my conclusion is that the society is hell bent on eliminating the discrepancies to their authority.. .

the ancient lineage of the faithful and discreet slave - eliminated.

Leolaia

Not to mention the logical inconsistency of the master leaving (which in ancient times, essentially meant being incommunicado, a fundamental assumption underlying the parable) while claiming the GB as the sole channel of communication with God in order to receive "new light".

Indeed! Another example of how the interpretation conflicts with the basic concept of the parallel.

We're through the looking glass, people!

24

The Watchtower Attempts to Eliminate Discrepancies in Authority

by Emery in

i began pondering about the reasons why this new light was made and have come to a few theories that may be plausible.

my conclusion is that the society is hell bent on eliminating the discrepancies to their authority.. .

the ancient lineage of the faithful and discreet slave - eliminated.

Leolaia

Bobcat....That's why I am really curious to know how they are going to interpret the closely parallel Parable of the Talents, where the departure is stated explicitly, as well as the parable in the Markan Olivet discourse, which occurs in the same location in the text.

Mark 13:26-27: "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ "
Matthew 24:30-51: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so WHEN HE RETURNS. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant WILL COME on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 25:14-30: "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the MASTER OF THOSE SERVANTS CAME and settled accounts with them.The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

Notice also the Parable of the Talents: The Master goes away, and the slaves are judged as either faithful or wicked when the Master returns based on their conduct when he was away. Similarly the faithful and wise servant would not be declared as such until the Master returns (which the Society now interprets as the Great Tribulation). The Society might try to claim that because the going-away is not explicit in the other parable, it may be safely ignored. But the fact is, it is implicit. The Master is described as returning to the house to make an accounting of the servants, he is thus absent when the slave is dispensing food, or when the wicked slave is eating and drinking and mistreating the household (the same theme as "when the cat is away the mice shall play"). The Master however had to have been present in the household when the slaves were given those responsibilities. So although not explicit, there is an implicit departure of the Master that is explicit in the other two parables.

24

The Watchtower Attempts to Eliminate Discrepancies in Authority

by Emery in

i began pondering about the reasons why this new light was made and have come to a few theories that may be plausible.

my conclusion is that the society is hell bent on eliminating the discrepancies to their authority.. .

the ancient lineage of the faithful and discreet slave - eliminated.

Leolaia

Leo, maybe you can add background on the difference between the words used for the TWO separate appointments (upon leaving and upon returning).

Well the language that is used is borrowed directly from the story of Joseph in the OT-LXX (as well as in parallels in Josephus, the Testament of Joseph, and Joseph and Asenath). The plot is somewhat similar: Joseph was first appointed over Potipher's house, then over the nation. The feeding that Joseph does at the appointed time, however, occurs after his grander appointment as vizier and the statement about the servant being placed over all his belongings derives from the Potipher story, not from the later vizier story. So the parable uses OT language but develops it in its own distinctive way. The parable has first a temporary appointment over the household to manage affair's in the master's absence; the second appointment over all the master's belongings is a permanent and much broader promotion to manage all the master's properties beyond the household itself.

Technically the master appoints the FWS as "ruler over his household" when he departs (verse 45), but then appoints him as "ruler over all his goods" when he returns (verse 47) after finding that the head slave faithfully performed the assigned management of the household (i.e. feeding other domestics with meat in due season, etc).

Yeah.

The new light abandons the whole departing-returning dynamic. Or obfuscates it.

The whole idea of GB turning the FDS parable into a two-tailed prophecy justifying their existence is a conversion that needs a sleight of hand to perform (like Jesus' turning water into wine).

That's a good analogy because they want people to look at the parable from their own very specific point of view, and not notice things that would utterly contradict the interpretation, which they are silent on.

The old interpretation had Jesus appointing the F&DS in 33 C.E. because in a tangible sense Jesus left the earthly sphere (according to the JW view of Christian history). That was a major argument that Franz had made AGAINST the new understanding that the F&DS first arose after 1914. The new interpretation is proposed, but none of the old objections are mentioned (at least in the material we have). I still would love to see in what sense Jesus leaves in 1918, when they always claimed the opposite.

I think the OP hit the nail on the head. The new interpretation is not motivated in the slightest by biblical exegesis, it is motivated by the desire to resolve certain problems in the application of the parable to the Society, or rather, GB.

24

The Watchtower Attempts to Eliminate Discrepancies in Authority

by Emery in

i began pondering about the reasons why this new light was made and have come to a few theories that may be plausible.

my conclusion is that the society is hell bent on eliminating the discrepancies to their authority.. .

the ancient lineage of the faithful and discreet slave - eliminated.

Leolaia

Are they actually trying to rewrite the parable to suggest the domestics fed themselves while the master was away? It seems they're completely ignoring the parable by saying that NO ONE was feeding the domestics WHILE the master was away (from 33CE to 1919 CE), although the parable clearly says the appointed slave (FWS) was given the RESPONSIBILITY to feed the domestics WHILE the master was away, and would be rewarded for his faithful service of acting as a good custodian of the master's possessions.

That was precisely the same point I was making too. The appointment occurs when the master goes away, not when he comes back. This ongoing cleansing bit is contrary to the whole parable. When the master is away, the slave could either be faithful or wicked. If the slave is faithful when the master comes back, then the master promotes the slave over all his belongings. Fait accompli. Isn't it anymore obvious how this whole imposed '1914 parousia' and '1918 coming to the temple' thing conflicts with the basic narrative structure of the parable? The parable is simple, it isn't anything like this convoluted mess. It makes me wonder when was the last time the GB has ever read the parable.

The questions ask themselves: In what sense did Jesus leave, or go away, in 1918? (When the Society has long claimed the opposite) How the heck is the Society going to interpret the Parable of the Talents, which has exactly the same narrative structure, or are they gonna sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist? What about the evil slave? How can the Society truly claim securely to be the faithful slave when the 'return of the master' (according to the parable one's identity as the faithful or wicked slave depends on one's conduct AT THE TIME THE MASTER RETURNS, i.e. in OUR FUTURE) doesn't happen until the Great Tribulation?

The masses will probably gobble up the new 'food' but those who can think for themselves and who care about what the Bible says will find this really hard to swallow.

14

Did Charles Taze Russell invent the concept of globalization?

by slimboyfat in

i was doing a regular search for jehovah's witnesses and related terms in google scholar and i came across this weird statement in a paper about globalization:.

"the earliest written theoretical concepts of globalization were penned by an american entrepreneur-turned-minister charles taze russell.".

the footnote references a recent edition of russell's book the battle of armageddon, and that's the last the author says about the matter as what follows is a technical discussion of globalization.. .

Leolaia

Russell did not use the term "globalization", the concept is kind of there, but he was dependent on the work of Depew, whom he was quoting.

Russell used the term "corporate giants" (quite literally) but he was not the first to do so. A Google search shows scattered (maybe independent) use of the expression in the 1800s.

" And of what else, Sir, should we, as Corporate Giants, be thinking? Punch. Tell of the statues so graceful, enwreath'd all in roses and myrtle. Magog. We knows no statue but one, and that 's Peace, cause her emblem 's a turtle" (Punch, 1851), "Q (2l50) It is very difficult for me to rationalize with the people I represent that they should be burdened on a day to day business with giving handouts to the corporate giants of this world without their having some say in the decisions being..." (Canada House of Commons, 1878), " William H. Vanderbilt parried the blows of corporate giants. Mephistopheles or Apollyon, I hardly know which, was his opposing champion. The role of the philanthropist was out of question" (The Current, 1885), " thus succeed among the corporate giants and monopolies whose products they have to obtain in exchange for their own" (Farming Corporations, 1892), etc.

Russell wasn't the first.

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Olin Moyle's reply to the disfellowshipping notice:

#61
Olin R. Moyle to C. H. Ellison, 22 March 1940: "On Sunday, March 10th, you handed me a letter stating that I was not to be tolerated or permitted to answer questions or make comments at the meetings of the Milwaukee Company. You know that at no time have I said anything out of harmony with the Truth or the Society, and yet I am now to be gagged and forbidden to speak. Your letter amounts to an excommunication by order of one man, the Society's president. The Bible prescribes the correct method of excommunication (Matthew 18:15-17) but this is ignored by you and Brother Rutherford. Such action is indefensible, unjust and unScriptural. Nevertheless I do not intend to stir up any disorder and will submit to its terms. In the letter of Judge Rutherford of March 5th, apparently written to you, he states: 'You have seen Moyle's assault upon the Society.' May I ask: When and where did you see me make an assault upon the Society? Have you told Judge Rutherford that you witnessed such assault? ....

You know that during the period I have met with the Milwaukee Company I have never attacked the Society. Neither did I make such attack before coming here. The Judge apparently is trying to create the impression that my letter to him protesting against some of his wrongful acts constituted an attack upon the Society. And that is why he caused the Directors to sign their names to a statement that every paragraph except of the first of my letter was false. It may interest you to know that I have on hand another statement signed by one of those men, C. J. Woodworth, wherein he admits the truth of the major portion of my letter and attempts to justify the Judge's wrongful acts. Others of the Directors have in private conversation deplored such acts. You too have been known to express your emphatic opinion against such dictatorial acts by Judge Rutherford. I went to him direct with my protest, and as a result have been labeled a Judas, an evil servant, hounded in the Watchtower, and expelled from the organization. You and some of the Directors can make similar statements behind his back, where it is safe, and still bask in the sunlight of his favor. I am expected to apologize to the Judge for what he describes as my 'wrongful conduct'. Some of the Milwaukee brethren, although blissfully ignorant of the facts, are quite busily talking around that 'Brother Moyle ought to apologize and then everything would be all right.' They do not come to me with this advice but offer it gratuitously to those who will listen.... Because I have refused to apologize for standing by facts and truth I was thrown out of Bethel, and now with your compliance and assistance I am excommunicated from the Milwaukee Company....

In the quotation from Judge Rutherford's letter it is stated that I am not to be 'tolerated'. That needs further explanation. Will you therefore please send me answers to the following questions: Are my reports of Service activity still to be accepted and counted in with those of the Company? Will Watchtower and Consolation subscriptions secured by me be forwarded in the usual manner? Am I prohibited from securing books, booklets and service territory through the Company? Does the fact that I am not to be 'tolerated' mean that I am prohibited from attending study or service even though not participating therein?"

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

What an interesting story that sounds. I'll have to look up that case sometime.