Demonism and the Watchtower

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is not necessary to repeal each one. Not reiterating it is enough.

That has been true of many teachings that just get ignored long enough, and then no one has to be reminded (or surprised) that we ever taught such a thing. In the case of the Pleiades, however, this had been repeated in about 6 or 7 places, including Studies in the Scriptures (which were sold well into the 1930s) and it had been repeated in Watchtowers in the 1920s. It might have even gotten tangled up in the Photo-Drama of Creation. But remember too that back in the 1950's, the KH Library was the primary source for research, and the unwritten rule was that it was still "on the books" unless expressly changed. And it was one of those things that Rutherford had repeated in the 1920's and he had not changed during those years when he would positively "binge" on change from 1927 to 1931.

So it's true that it hadn't been mentioned for a couple of decades (unless we had "talk outlines" in the 1940's and 1950's that I don't know about.) But the real reason was scriptural. It was thought that continuing this teaching could result in a subtle idolatry or astrology:

*** w53 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***

• Hence it is useless to indulge in unprofitable speculations. Incidentally, Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the universe. Were we to think of the Pleiades as his throne we might improperly view with special veneration that cluster of stars.—Deut. 4:19; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2, 4, 6, 8

What else can we VENERATE?

Caleb and Sophia!

Caleb and Sophia!

Caleb and Sophia!

YAAAAAY!

( cues the cymbalist ...)

[Anna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's what's behind the instinct to call something "obviously rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbledygook" even if it's more true than false.

I don't want to speak for Fishing,  he is quite capable of explaining himself, but what I understood him to mean by that is not that the information you presented was rubbish - as in untrue, after all you cited references, but that the belief itself was rubbish and obviously nonsensical.

[Evacuated]

On 9/20/2017 at 8:18 AM, Gone Fishing said:

great care must be taken in the manner and context in which this is shared.

With regard to the "dirty linen" type of posting, this quote carries the nub of my point and excludes the covering over of such information. This renders your dilemna as irrelevant to my comment in that you are posing the issue of 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the old dilemma about whether we should reveal truth in response to falsehood, or just ignore it.

My counsel (as you term it) circumvents this issue. It actually has a focus on the manner in which we deal with this kind of information, not the appropriateness of  it being a matter for discussion.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

our moral standards and expectations are very high and we are expected to judge those people who leave on their own as persons who just didn't want to live up to those expectations.

I have always put a lot more store on the activity of the enemy we all face than this statement encompasses. What people "want" is not the only factor in why some Witnesses leave. Paul warned us about this at Eph.6:12: "we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places." There are actually many of such casualties as well as those who just rebel. And a good number return.

My evaluation of the information about some of Rutherford's beliefs as being "rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbeldygook" is with regard to the beliefs themselves, not the fact that they are reproduced, (or was that clear already?). These, the "pyramidology" gibberish, and other quack medical infatuations I had some knowledge of before I ever was a Witness. They factored pretty low on my interest agenda, other than engendering a mild amusement and curiosity along with "phrenology", "snake-oil", "electromagnetic devices" and the like. As years went by I came across a number of Witnesses captivated by other ideas such as "iridology", "reflexology" even "homeopathy" and the rest. None of this has served to deflect my interest in God's word, even though some whose scriptural knowledge and application I greatly respected had what could only be described as a "missionary zeal" for these rather dubious disciplines. 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are.

Common  I'm sure. But I have no desire for us to be seen as "better than we are". I think we are just great as we are! In fact I'd like to see much more made of our eccentricities, but not in the spiteful, slanderous tones of the sour, crab-apple sarcastics that abound on the internet. More like making room for a separate exhibition at Walkill entitled "Stuff We Once Believed And Some We Still Do!" along the lines of "Ripley's Believe It Or Not!" That might do a better job of diffusion anyway?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One of the most dangerous problems among many Witnesses that we can see today is the equivalence that is made between the Governing Body and Jehovah.

Some people have all the fun! I wish I could actually meet some of these weirdos! Like these:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

On this forum, several persons who have presented themselves as sincere Witnesses..........they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR 

Must admit I have seen this kind of attitude here but haven't met it in the flesh. Some people have all the fun!

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think it's important to show that we are not trying to please men

Agree entirely and I also agree with the scripture texts you quoted, with some clarification:

Ps 146:3: "Do not put your trust"......      

In men of any station to provide salvation. Obviously, trust in others based on love and respect is an essential quality for relationships to prosper.. (Compare Pro.31:11).

Luke 16:15:  "For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

Considered "exalted" in the sense of meeting the criteria of the Pharisees and scribes to whom Jesus was talking and those who were impressed by them. These money lovers and their toadies, estimating what should be viewed as "elevated" by their own corrupt standards, esteemed Jesus as worthy of a "sneering" response at this time. Jesus showed that, contrary to any distorted respect men had for these charlatans, Jehovah's "disgust" was the reality.

[JW Insider]

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't want to speak for Fishing,  he is quite capable of explaining himself, but what I understood him to mean by that is not that the information you presented was rubbish - as in untrue, after all you cited references, but that the belief itself was rubbish and obviously nonsensical.

Yes. Good point. The paragraph that GF called rubbish was both true and false. Just like the opening post in this topic way back on page 1. I wasn't sure how much of it GF knew to be true, but the primary point was about what we do when something is partly true and partly false. Our instinct is often to dismiss it all, but labelling it ALL as rubbish might not be the right way to handle it.

Looks like GF just responded. I'll go read it and see if I misunderstood.

[Anna]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The dirty laundry is already hung up for everyone to see.

 

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

of course, it's easy to show that we regularly misrepresent our past almost every time we print a book about it or make a claim about it. We do it as individual humans and we do it as an organization. It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are.

A few years ago we were visiting my husband's relatives in Pittsburgh and also went to their congregation in Allegheny. In conversation with one of the elders there about Russell, I mentioned how funny it was that he believed the great pyramid was God's witness in stone. He frowned and said "yeah....but we don't talk about that" (as in DON'T talk about it). Later on that afternoon we went to see Russell's grave site there up on the hill, and as you probably know, there is a big tombstone in the shape of a pyramid, (including the engraved names of the anointed at the time, and the "all seeing eye") even visible from the road below..... thinking about it now....well, there's a witness "in stone" right there And what's even funnier is that the elder who "chastised" me, regularly takes visitors up there....

To be fair though, the Proclaimers book and probably other newer publications do mention this unusual belief that Russell had. But usually you have to be aware of  it in the first place to go digging for it. I remember reading about Beth-Sarim, the house of the Princes that Rutherford built to receive the resurrected ancient worthies in the Proclaimers book too. But I first found out about it from, yes you've guessed it, the internet.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

To be fair though, the Proclaimers book and probably other newer publications do mention this unusual belief that Russell had.

In both the cases you mention, the GB seeks to mitigate, not propagate, fat-headed notions that the friends may have. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the universe.

If you were going to put your throne somewhere, the Pleiades is the place to be. I'd put mine there.

[TrueTomHarley]

50 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

2, 4, 6, 8

What else can we VENERATE?

Caleb and Sophia!

This is just plain dumb. When you start railing about Donald Duck or Fred Flintstone I'll know you are sincere.

[Anna]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In both the cases you mention, the GB seeks to mitigate, not propagate, fat-headed notions that the friends may have. 

Maybe. But I would expect things like this to be mentioned in a "history" book, such as the Proclaimers book, even if no one had a notion about it in the first place...

[Anna]

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you were going to put your throne somewhere, the Pleiades is the place to be. I'd put mine there.

The Mormons (what is it that I've got with the Mormon's - I seem to bring them up all the time) believe God resides on a planet and that when we die we will have our very own too! Maybe you can put your name in for Pleiades

[Anna]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

They have said that they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR than to accept the Bible where it is known to differ from the current teachings of the Governing Body.

I know who you're talking about as I saw their remark too. I would like to believe though it was made because the person lacked maturity and said it in more of a "cut my nose off to spite my face" manner. But I could be wrong. As Fishing says, some people have all the fun But not me, I have not met anyone in real life who says that, but who knows, they might be thinking it!