Did the MILLIONS Campaign Just Become a False Prophecy?

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The WTS has only been wrong on 100% of their time-related prophecies, but as Eoin has pointed out, a prophet is much more than just someone who makes time-based predictions. A prophet is also a spokesperson for revealing the will of God, past, present or future. When the WTS was claiming that the "anointed" were a prophet, and that "Jehovah's witnesses" as an organization was a prophet, they understood that carrying a warning message or proclaiming the divine will was also the task of a prophet. The WTS publications have also declared Rutherford to be a prophet personally, but not because of predictions but because he was giving a general warning message to world leaders. In fact, he was once called a prophet in the same way that some other politician who wasn't related to the WTS could also be called a prophet. So the wider sense of the word was clearly understood. Early publications of the WTS also said it was appropriate to speak of the anointed members of the 144,000 (and/or remnant) as making up the composite "prophet greater than Moses." And we are all aware, I think, of the many times that specific prophets pictured, through a system of types and antitypes, the work of Russell (Elijah) and later the work of Rutherford (Elisha) which was later transferred to the time periods that more closely matched Rutherford (Elijah) and then Knorr (Elisha). Russell was, for many years, "the man with the writer's inkhorn" (Ezekiel).

I believe that the time-related predictions might have all failed (so far) although one might give some credit to Brother Knorr for predicting that the League of Nations would rise again during or after the WWII period. But as far as revealing the divine will of God, I believe that many other Biblical truths have been promoted by the WTS (BS/JW), many of which should have the effect of "waking up" Christendom and other religions that have been lulled into inactivity and apathy toward the key message of Christianity. I think that Jehovah has no reason, therefore, to reject the "general" prophetic work. 

The thing is, the "general" prophetic work has already been done by the prophets in the Bible -- you say the WTS is a prophet in the sense of reiterating what's already been done by Jehovah thru the prophets he actually spoke thru in the Scriptures -- so there's nothing to the WTS's credit for doing what's already been done, just as millions of Christians have been doing for centuries, proclaiming what's already in the Bible.  There's no question of Jehovah rejecting what he commissioned his true prophets to do and for the WTS to claim that he's doing this only thru them is entirely wrong.

Their 100% failure in their "time-related" prophecies makes them a false prophet, one not to listen to.  If they are proclaiming what Ezekiel has already proclaimed, it would be better to listen to Ezekiel, who was actually inspired by God, then to listen to the WTS, regardless of what they have said or not said about the League of Nations.

 

[Anna]

9 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

 

Anna, an elder cannot tell you what you are supposed to believe. No man can or should. We grow our christian maturity by studying and trying to apply the scriptures in our life immitating Jesus' example. This is what makes Jehovah happy and this is what is gaining us His approval not the exact meaning of a word in a prophecy. I'm more than sure that you know all this better than me. If an understanding comes that we don't agree with or can't fully comprehend what should we do? Believe it blindly? Discard it? Oppose it? None of this! Expect Jehovah and He will clear out any doubts or incomprehensions. What did the first congregation do on the matter of circumcision or preaching to the gentiles? These things were not well received by everyone for years. ;-)

Let them worry about that. Luke 12:42-48 is very clear. If the "steward" acts in ways not ascribed to him by his appointment, WILL answer for them to the Lord.

 

PS: Wow! I realy liked that prophecy.pdf! Great find and thanks for sharing!

Thank you for your kind reminders. I appreciate it!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, HollyW said:

JWs are to believe...etc

Let me see...

Either you want everyone to believe that you fail in understanding simple language (and the difference between obedience and beeing force to do something) or you simply are interested in spreading lies just to attack people and beliefs you clearly don't understad as good as you think.

Why not be honest and reveal yourself for what you are? We both know why. John 8:44

[Anna]

On 9/26/2016 at 7:07 AM, JW Insider said:

Me, too.

 

I wasn't suggesting that it was haughtiness or self-serving just to use the slogan. (Although that could be true, too.) I was thinking that it could be an indication of haughtiness in several ways:

It's fine to try to fill in the blanks, but why is it necessary to call your current solution and claim that it is the one that is proven to be correct by all the facts and evidence. In the case of the MILLIONS campaign, we made "sure" predictions for 1925 with "incontrovertible proofs." They were claimed to be  even more sure than 1914. Now, it's fine and appropriate to share this knowledge and explain why we believe it is Biblically supported. But it seems quite different (and haughty) to claim that our explanation is the explanation, and that others need to believe it, too. This seems especially odd if we had just failed at 100% of the verifiable predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, and 1918. If the "need to finally get one right" influenced the predictions for 1925 then that is also a form of haughtiness.

There is a humble way to explain prophecy and interpretation and a haughty way. There seems to be only one reason that someone says something will happen instead of being discreet and saying that if our understanding is correct, such-and-such may happen. (You might remember that this change from "may" to "will" was exactly what happened with the Millions campaign slogan.)

But there is another way that haughtiness can enter the picture. What if we, personally, kept telling people about our résumé  but always hid or shifted away from anything embarrassing. That's wrong, but probably normal, and there is no reason to shame ourselves. But what if we also made incorrect claims about our history, admitting some things as they happened but making other things sound better than they really were? No matter what the purpose, this is dishonest, but if we keep repeating the history over and over, and focusing on the exaggerated or untrue portions, then it is likely because we want to boost our own ego. (There are about a dozen times, for example, when we have published a "false" claim about what we had predicted for the year 1914, and at least another dozen times, when we published a misleading claim.)

 

Mostly true. As you know, I find it curious that "we" find it necessary to keep "explaining" the Generation. (Actually, it really gets on my nerves. So much so that I think I will have to go to the bathroom when we are going to go over the chart in the Kingdom Book). The question is, what can we do about it? Nothing really. Well there is something, we just continue doing our part as the Praeceptor rightly reminded me, concentrate on helping other see the fundamental truths in the Bible and the comfort for the future, and let the "haughty" (it that's what they are) worry about what they've said or not said. I have to keep telling myself this.

After all we will all stand before Jehovah individually.

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, ThePraeceptor said:

Let me see...

It is easy to obey when everything is clear and we agree, but we will show that we are truly submissive if we yield even when we do not personally understand the direction provided.

Now do you see?

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Anna said:

So much so that I think I will have to go to the bathroom when we are going to go over the chart in the Kingdom Book

You are fortunate to have an easy solution. (I wouldn't take this matter to a local elder. The backlash might be harsh and unexpected.)

There was a "Bethel Elder" in my NYC congregation who got wind of my "non-conformity" on the 1914 issue and made sure I got every assignment on the subject over a several year period. He was clearly looking for slip-up. (He was dismissed from BetheI before this became a huge issue.) I was happy to take the parts because at the very least I could put more emphasis on the scriptural points made, and not say anything that was strictly incorrect from a Biblical perspective. As you probably know, I have no problem saying that Jesus is invisibly present because he obviously is . . . "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” I have no problem with admitting that Jesus was king in 1914 because he was clearly already king of kings 1,881 years prior to that, in 33 C.E. according to the Bible. I have no trouble with the fact that we are living in the last days, nor that the final day of judgment is imminent. It is nearer now than when we first became believers.

No one seems to notice or care about conformity to every detail, as long as they think you are using the right words. In the meantime, I think we need to focus on all the good things that have been published, and this is the large majority of most Watchtower publications. We can also focus on the improvements we see doctrinally. But mostly, exactly as Praeceptor said:

10 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

We grow our christian maturity by studying and trying to apply the scriptures in our life immitating Jesus' example. This is what makes Jehovah happy and this is what is gaining us His approval not the exact meaning of a word in a prophecy. I'm more than sure that you know all this better than me. If an understanding comes that we don't agree with or can't fully comprehend what should we do? Believe it blindly? Discard it? Oppose it? None of this! Expect Jehovah and He will clear out any doubts or incomprehensions. What did the first congregation do on the matter of circumcision or preaching to the gentiles? These things were not well received by everyone for years. ;-)

Of course, it's always going to be considered a sign of haughtiness and egotism and independent thinking to state your own opinion on such matters. Unless you know someone who has faced the exact same issue(s), it will not be understood that it's exactly the opposite. It's a matter of trying to be led by humility and truth, even if you can never speak openly of these ideas with people in your congregation, and even if your faith and conscience could result in negative consequences to our own reputation and position. But I don't think this means that we should purposely express our opinions or even questions in such a way that they create discord among our brothers and sisters, face-to-face. That may sound like a compromise, but I think we already have a scriptural way to "take matters to the congregation" without involving local elders.

I think that if it was a matter of a problem of conscience arising in a local matter in our local congregation, then we must go to that person using the principle at Matthew 18. (Matt 18 speaks of a "sin," but in this case it's applied not to a "sin," but to a "principle of conscience")

(Matthew 18:15-17) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

But in this case, what concerns you is not something that started in the local congregation, it's a potential issue with the overall, worldwide congregation. Therefore we should take these questions to brothers who handle such issues for the worldwide congregation using the phone lines to Brooklyn or Patterson, for example. There will be a question about whether you have spoken to your local elders and a request to do so, but you can state your concern that you can't in good conscience involve them in questions that did not originate with them. Giving them your name might result in problems, but it's been my own experience that if you are truly concerned conscientiously and you do not wish to raise local doubts or concerns unnecessarily, you will be able to speak anonymously without repercussions in your local congregation.

Forums such as this one might allow you to get things out in the open and might even help one to unburden their conscience by discharging the responsibility to be:

(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . .

 

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

the only thing you proved is someone else's opinion on how "others" felt about Russell.

Well thank you for finally admitting that I "proved" it. That was the original point.

 

[HollyW]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Actually, it really gets on my nerves. So much so that I think I will have to go to the bathroom when we are going to go over the chart in the Kingdom Book

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

There was a "Bethel Elder" in my NYC congregation who got wind of my "non-conformity" on the 1914 issue and made sure I got every assignment on the subject over a several year period. He was clearly looking for slip-up. (He was dismissed from BetheI before this became a huge issue.) I was happy to take the parts because at the very least I could put more emphasis on the scriptural points made, and not say anything that was strictly incorrect from a Biblical perspective. As you probably know, I have no problem saying that Jesus is invisibly present because he obviously is . . . "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” I have no problem with admitting that Jesus was king in 1914 because he was clearly already king of kings 1,881 years prior to that, in 33 C.E. according to the Bible. I have no trouble with the fact that we are living in the last days, nor that the final day of judgment is imminent. It is nearer now than when we first became believers.

Just curious.....do the two of you teach this to the students you are directing to the WTS Organization?

[JW Insider]

Just now, HollyW said:

Just curious.....do the two of you teach this to the students you are directing to the WTS Organization?

I do not. I merely mention that Jehovah's Witnesses have been very alert over the years to try to understand the meaning of this prophecy (Mt 24) and have suggested a variety of explanations that are  always intended to highlight the urgency of the times, and the need to be always prepared, as Jesus said. I honestly tell them that this does not mean we should focus on any one specific fulfillment but realize that the first fulfillment was evidently intended to remind us that in these last days we should always be focusing on what sort of persons we ought to be, because we do not know when the end will come. Then we read portions of 1 & 2 Thess and 1 & 2 Peter, 1 Cor, etc. There is plenty of positive correct information in the same publications that contain the "generation" interpretation.