One of three questions they asked me at my Reinstatement was (paraphrased) "What is your opinion of the Governing Body?"
I replied (paraphrased) " I would have to agree with them in the February 2017 Watchtower, that they are neither inspired of God, or infallible.".
I believe that if I had phrased that differently, all other things being equal, I would NOT have been Reinstated.
By actual test, I would agree with you, Anna.
I haven't watched it yet. Did he really say that, because that's what I've always said. Some people didn't like that though, unfortunately proving that they were kind of "worshipful" of the GB, and believed the GB were ultra special and more than anyoe else.
A Nation, even ours, that does not learn from its history, is doomed to repeat it.
We cannot learn from our history, if we do not know it accurately, and in detail.
Covering it up, or it being a taboo subject .... is why all civilizations, even ours, fail.
My suggestion would put your stupid contention to bed once and for all.
They are unlikely to report the bad personal details that you hope. They are unlikely to release the good personal details that you should ask for in order to ascertain that it is not about personal details with them—good or bad.
I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.
Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.
There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.
Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:
Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)
In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.
As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)
. . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)
So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.
I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc.
If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?
So that is your better idea, eh?
Again you miss the point of trying to solve a problem with a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Furthermore, it is painfully transparent and obvious that you do this to avoid having brought to the light of day facts that are painful for you to admit, that would be exposed by following my suggestion.
I already know the answers that you will get from my suggestion.
You do too.
We are BOTH ashamed of what we will learn as part of this exercise that would cost about $50 ... NOT the cost of a single stamp, and would require a full day to do it right.
I have already done what I suggested several times in the past, with other issues, and as I sent my little "torpedos" out into the dark, what lit up on the horizon was not what I wanted to see, either.
.... but it was IMPORTANT information.
Information based on TRUTH ... not rumors, innuendo, legends, wishful thinking, and second, third, and fourth hand accounts from unknown or unverified sources.
The question at hand was trying to get honest answers about a HIGHLY controversial aspect of our history, and the people involved, straight "from the horses mouth", INSTEAD of hearsay, which facts you consider heresy.
Your suggestion would be a meaningless exercise, just as your attempt at diversion from an obvious outcome being documented in truth and honesty is a meaningless exercise, merely a political obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation, as we have seen recently in the News.
.... merely a fantasy construct in an attempt attempt to wound reality.