Posts by Leolaia

91

Was the Watchtower Right?

by Christ Alone in

this question is for atheists and believers.

what teachings do you think the watchtower got right and why?

do you still think they are right about the trinity?

I think what they write about the trinity is really slanted and oversimplified. Yes, it is a post-biblical development, but belief in the deity of Christ was early and economical trinitarianism developed in the second century AD (way before the time of Constantine). The Society's discussions about the trinity are usually filled with conflations and red herrings like.....confusing the issue of the deity of Christ with the trinity (e.g. characterizing the deity of Christ as itself inherently trinitarian), considering the distinguishing of the Father and the Son as anti-trinitarian, treating subordinationism as something antithetical to trinitarianism (early conceptions of the trinity were very much subordinationist, and there is a difference between subordination in role vs. nature), regarding the trinity as a mere plurality of gods added together, etc. The omissions of fact when they discuss the early church fathers are considerable. They also present Arianism as defending Bible truth and trinitarianism as corrupted by Greek philosophy, without pointing out that Arianism drew on Greek philosophy just as much as trinitarianism.

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

All they need to do next is shunt all of Revelation 12 into the great tribulation and say that the devil's ousting and 'short period of time' occurs during the great tribulation. They can then say that Jesus has only been 'present' since 1914 per Matt 24:3 as the Lord of Malachi 3:1 who suddenly 'came' to his temple (on behalf of YHWH) to carry out his inspection and appoint the FDS to feed his domestics in 1919, not as King of God's Kingdom. To support this all they need to do is cite Matthew 28:20 where Jesus said he would be spiritually 'with' or present with his disciples until the conclusion of then system of things in 70 AD. They can thus retain all of their authority and status over JW's despite uncoupling Jesus enthronment as King from 1914.

They can uncouple Jesus' coming as King from 1914 while continuing to say that the last days began in 1914 and we have witnessed a 'composite sign' since then by simply pointing to Jesus illustration of falling leaves indicating summer is near. The wars, famines, plagues, etc, simply mean Jesus is near to coming as King, not that he is already present as King, which is of course the correct interpretation.

That's brilliant, yaddayadda. That thought never occurred to me. Such a move could solve a few problems.

The main problem with this, as I see it, is that 1914 is tightly linked with their interpretation of Daniel 4 and with 1914 as the terminus of a span of "Gentile Times". That has a direct link with both Revelation 12 and the notion of the last days starting in 1914 with the "composite sign" beginning at that date. The Society recently went all-out in defending the chronology underlying 1914, so I don't think they are going to give that up, and the justification for that chronology is their interpretation of Daniel 4, which relates the 2,520 years to both Gentile kingdoms (the Gentile Times) and God's kingdom (which replaces them). Ever since 1925, the Society has claimed that God's kingdom came into power in 1914 and that depends on both Daniel 4 and Revelation 12. Postponing the fulfillment of Revelation 12 to the Great Tribulation would remove the correspondence between the unbanding of the stump in Daniel 4 and the birth of the kingdom (and enthronement of Jesus) in Revelation 12. The casting of the Devil and his angels to the earth also gives a reason why "things are getting worse" as the composite sign began its fulfillment, starting first in 1914 with WWI. If the tree is unbanded in 1914 as the Gentile Times came to an end, then what is it that happened to God's kingdom in that year?

Should the Society go down this path, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with some explanation for this. Maybe they could say that it takes time for the tree to regrow and first there was a little shoot and that was fulfilled in the tiny organization that God turned his attention to (never mind that it was founded long before 1914), which he chose in 1919 and nurtured it until it grew into a mighty multinational great crowd of Kingdom workers, and then when the time comes, Armageddon starts in heaven, Satan and his angels are removed from heaven, and then they persecute the organization on the earth with the Great Tribulation, and then Christ Jesus as King brings forth Armageddon on the earth to wipe out opposers to his earthly organization, and then uses it to institute his rule on earth in the Millennium. How does that sound?

This would solve one potential problem: the non-correspondence between the Christ's thousand years of millennial rule, and his enthronement in 1914. The Millennium supposedly hasn't started yet, but Jesus has been ruling as King in heaven since 1914. If he has been King all this time, why hasn't the Millennium started yet? Your idea would then make the two coincide much more closely.

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

I think the apparent correction in understanding that the "arriving" in Matt 24:46 was not in 1914 but is in the future during the Great Tribulation certainly means that there has been no appointment over all of Christ's belongings yet and this in a way undermines the authority of the GB. The faithful slave has not yet passed the test (there was a March 1, 2004 Watchtower study article about this).

The Master may find the 'slave' faithful and discreet or he may find the 'slave' wicked, but as he hasn't arrived yet to make that determination, the 'slave' has no business power posturing and demanding obedient submission. After all, the position appointed is only to feed the domestics - a position of service, of caretaking, and not a position where he's the acting 'Master.'

I'm glad I'm not the only person to notice this. How could this have escaped the notice of the GB?

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

Interesting thought.

The letter was personally addressed to Rutherford, but it was no longer private after the letter was read publically to the entire Bethel family at lunch the day the Moyles were kicked out. Did it discuss any confidential matters? I don't think the lambastings were confidential or private; they were done in front of the whole Bethel family. The matters that Moyle felt were discriminatory were not private. The peer pressure concerning the drinking of alcohol was not a corporate matter. I know there weren't whistleblower laws like there are now, but when the matter came to trial in 1943, I don't think the Society's counsel made that kind of legal argument against Moyle. I'd have to check to be sure.

What Moyle was referring to in that quote was his zealous representation of the Society prior to July 1939 when he was on very good terms with Rutherford, et al., which met with Rutherford's approval.

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

Then Moyle wrote to the shareholders of the Society asking for the campaign against him in the Watchtower magazine to stop:

#54
Olin R. Moyle to the Shareholders of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., 8 Jan. 1940: "On September 1st the Watch Tower contained a notice that my services as counselor were terminated because of my alleged unfaithfulness to Kingdom interests and to the brethren. On September 24th M. A. Howlett came to Milwaukee as a Society representative and denounced me from the platform, claiming that I was stirring up division and dissension among the companies. The September 15th Watch Tower contained a statement entitled INFORMATION, signed by the Board of Directors and approved by the President, which among other things alleged that every paragraph except the first of my letter was false, and that I was going among the companies reading the letter to them and stirring up dissension and division. Early in September one LeRoy B. Jackson of Racine wrote a letter to the Society alleging that Harvey Fink and myself were going among the companies, reading my letter to Judge Rutherford, making statements concerning the same, and thereby stirring up strife and division. Jackson's letter was false and proof of its falsity was given to the Society. Nevertheless Brother Fink, in spite of many years of faithful service to the Lord and his organization, was summarily removed from office. Later two pioneers Leland and Laura Rouse were denied pioneer privileges solely because they endeavored to give the facts to the brethren in their area. The November 15th Watch Tower in its leading article 'Snares' alleges that I have assaulted the organization with evil and false words and that I was unfaithful in the handling of cases for the brethren. While all this publicity and agitation has been conducted by the Society, I have quietly attended to my own affairs. I have participated in Kingdom activities with the Milwaukee Company and have not engaged in any propaganda work against the Society in any way....

C. J. Woodworth made a great tactical error in signing his name to a letter admitting the truth of a major portion of my letter, and then later signing a statement alleging that the letter was entirely false, with the exception of the first paragraph. Woodworth thus exposed the prevarications of the entire Board of Directors. With one breath he says that Moyle told the truth, but that Judge Rutherford had the right to lambast his brethren. Then he stated that Moyle lied in everything. This would be funny if it were not so revolting to see men in responsible positions in the Lord's organization use such tactics. The claim that I have caused my letter to be publicly read and circulated among various companies is absolutely false. An honest investigation would readily prove that fact. The men who signed this statement cannot produce a single company of Jehovah's witnesses where I have caused the letter to be publicly read and circulated. The allegation of unfaithfulness in the handling of cases for the brethren is a new one incubated and brought forward since I protested against Brother Rutherford's wrongful acts....

Because I pushed these cases vigorously I have been accused by some of these judges of violating legal ethics, and have been threatened with contempt of court, and disbarment. I have on hand many letters from the Society's President in which he commends me for my zeal and earnestness in handling cases of his brethren....My letter to the President was not an act of disloyalty or of opposition. It was a protest against wrongful acts by the chief executive of the organization. The Society's President claims that I have no right to write such a letter even though it be true. Such claim is false. The course I followed was in full accord with Society policy and the Scriptures. I went to him with a private communication to show him the error of his actions. Sister Moyle and myself were the only ones seeing that letter prior to our excommunication from Bethel. The Society's president has caused it to be exhibited to a dozen times as many people as I have. Since leaving Bethel I have followed a course of action fully in harmony with Society policy. I have been misrepresented and lied about but have kept quiet and attended to my own affairs. It is strange that the Board of Directors and the President will lose their eyes and refuse to accept any evidence that I am behaving decently. It is strange that they will accept the false, libelous statement of Jackson and publish it as the truth, but refuse to accept and publish the facts. Doesn't this indicate a pernicious desire to convince all people that I'm an evil servant? Publication of the so-called INFORMATION in the October 15th Tower opened the door of many opportunities to show disloyalty. I received letters from all parts of the United States and Canada and from England inquiring about the matter. Many from opposition groups wrote in asking for a copy of the letter to Judge Rutherford. None received it, and I cite a portion of my reply to one such letter which gives evidence of my position: 'If Russell Pollack wants to see me on a legal or business matter I will be glad to see him, but frankly I am not the least interested if it is his purpose to secure my cooperation with any movement or organization not in harmony with the Watch Tower. I am still a part of the Society; not opposing it in any way, and actively working in its interests. Therefore I do not care to attend the meeting you mention or confer with any person on matters not in harmony with the Truth' ....

No amount of words could justify the upbraidings and revilings given to Bethel brethren by the Society's President. The only recourse left open was to condemn my letter as entirely false. Men who have privately admitted such acts then signed a statement which they knew to be false.... Howlett's activities in this area were pernicious and wrongful. Howlett appeared here as the Society's representative. He exploited and published the false statement of the Board of Directors. He added some false items of his own, one of them being the reason Moyle had written his letter was that 'the Judge had given Moyle a trimming and Moyle couldn't take it'. That was a lie out of whole cloth. Howlett made no honest investigation to determine facts but circulated and published falsehoods to further bring my name and reputation into disrepute. The use of the October 15th and November 15th Watch Towers for the purposes of controversy and personality are contrary to Society policy. The Watch Tower masthead carries this statement: 'It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities'. These two issues are clearly contrary to Society policy...

It looks to me as though Brother Rutherford was frightened for fear that I would publish and circulate the facts concerning his unbridled use of the tongue and therefore used the Society's facilities in a smear campaign to destroy my reputation completely so that none would believe anything I say....You have it in your hands to decide whether this campaign of hate and falsehood against myself shall continue".

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

Yes, if Moyle is to believed, and I see no reason not to, he did not circulate the letter to others.

Well, Moyle does say that he sent copies to people who wrote to him inquiring the facts. And his sister did circulate the letter to three congregations in Wisconsin. She said in her letter that she had his authorization to do so, although it is possible that he did not intend for her to distribute it in that way. Moyle did not publish the letter or give it general circulation like Walter Salter did with his letter (that is, while he was still a JW). The Golden Age published an article refuting Salter's letter point by point, but the Society never did so with Moyle's letter, probably because it wasn't widely distributed. Then Moyle became greatly concerned that he was hearing reports of the letter being circulated in places where he had never sent it, and he started hearing stories of him and Fink going to certain companies and reading the letter aloud, which Moyle denounced as lies. It is possible that once it got out, people unbeknownst to him were sending it around. The main fact that emerged in the trial was that he did not send copies of the letter prior to the publication of the 1 September 1939 Watchtower. Laura's circulation of the letter was clearly in reaction to what the magazine said about her brother.

I'm enjoying the research, but I think Moyle had the same complaints as Walter Salter had in 1937 (corruption, liquor, misappropriation of funds, lavish lifestyle in contrast to treatment of followers, hypocrisy, etc.). Likewise, unlike Franz, etc., he just didn't want to play ball and left after sending Rutherford a letter of his complaints.

The complaints are quite similar, and the Golden Age also attacked Salter's character (including hinting that he was having an affair with his secretary). But unlike Salter, Moyle did not just leave after sending the letter. He considered himself still a JW and he tried to build a new life in the Milwaukee Company of JWs. There was no reason for him to endure many months of shunning unless he really wanted to continue as a Witness. I think his situation was much more like Ray Franz in that respect (and like Moyle, Franz thought of his situation initially as reforming things that needed to be changed rather than opposing the organization).

25

Does the Gospel of Thomas support the view that Jesus used the divine name?

by slimboyfat in

most of the apocryphal gospels are dismissed by scholars as being too late to tell us anything useful about the historical jesus, but the gospel of thomas may be an exception.

when the jesus seminar (a group of around 200 scholars who study the historical jesus) debated which sayings attributed to jesus in the gospels were most likely authentic, they concluded that none of sayings in john's gospel were certainly authentic, but that three sayings in the gospel of thomas were unquestionably authentic.. this is the passage, from saying 13 in the gospel of thomas, that suggests jesus used the divine name:.

and he took him and withdrew and told him three things.

Leolaia

Here is April DeConick on the passage:

It is notable that it isn't the tetragrammaton per se but the explanation of it in Exodus 3:14 that is taken as the name. This would follow the same line of exegesis as found in Philo of Alexandria: "....the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am" (De Abrahamo, 121). This recalls the use of "I AM" in the Fourth Gospel, which Jesus applies to himself, and which provokes accusations of blasphemy and the threat of stoning. This use of 'ehyeh ' a šer 'ehyeh as the divine name instead of YHWH seems to me to be one kind of substitution or avoidance of the tetragrammaton, though here it is theologically explanatory of it. If the logion is indeed about the name of God, then it is representative of the kind of attitude about the name that took it out of everyday usage. Jesus uses the three words ('ehyeh ' a šer 'ehyeh, not YHWH) and it isn't an everyday usage, he treats it as one of the most mysterious secrets that he gives in his "secret sayings", so secret that it cannot even be spelled out in the book that bears Thomas' name. That sounds a lot to me like an avoidance of even a surrogate of the tetragrammaton. Similarly, the frequent use of the name (such as Iao) in magical texts draws on its general non-use, which accorded it greater magical power from its more secret occult status.

There is another interesting explanation of the three words that I've come across. This notes the parallel between L. 13 and L. 108, in which says: "Jesus said, 'Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person". Compare L. 13: "Jesus said, 'I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended' And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three words to him". Such a person, Jesus says, would become like him, and Jesus would "become that person". Thomas is called Didymos "the Twin" in the prologue. Could the three words be something to the effect, "You are my twin" or "I am your twin" or "You and I are one" (which would sound rather Johannine). I dunno....it's an interesting thought. And possibly blasphemous for Thomas to claim equality with God (L. 77). That would possibly connect with more developed gnostic thought: pneumatics are all equally divine and embody deity, but the realization of this takes advanced gnosis and overcoming the programming that pneumatics have received from the Demiurge (through the Law) to punish anyone who commits blasphemy.

25

Does the Gospel of Thomas support the view that Jesus used the divine name?

by slimboyfat in

most of the apocryphal gospels are dismissed by scholars as being too late to tell us anything useful about the historical jesus, but the gospel of thomas may be an exception.

when the jesus seminar (a group of around 200 scholars who study the historical jesus) debated which sayings attributed to jesus in the gospels were most likely authentic, they concluded that none of sayings in john's gospel were certainly authentic, but that three sayings in the gospel of thomas were unquestionably authentic.. this is the passage, from saying 13 in the gospel of thomas, that suggests jesus used the divine name:.

and he took him and withdrew and told him three things.

Leolaia

Yeah Jaime is a master at that. I have some comments forthcoming.

46

The New World Translation is not a translation,

by Jaime l de Aragon in

the new world translation is not a translation, is mere adaptation, to avoid paying royalties to biblical issues as, king james and other.

beware the glare of lights.

the translation they call "new world translation ... blah blah blah" is not a translation is an adaptation that have been made, it is not a translation, so we say it is anonymous, you can not know their authors and a thousand stories more, would not pay royalties for use other translations like the kjv, and other.

Leolaia

Yeah...well, "God's form" is closer to the Greek in terms of number of words, while "form of God" reflects the word order of the Greek. I guess its a trade off. :P

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

I'm glad you noticed that, frankiespeakin. Indeed that letter has imo the first signs of real questioning about the Society, though he still affirmed its authority; now he seems to consider more openly the possibility that it has become corrupt.