Jump to content
The World News Media

1975 was in the past. Are we HONEST about it TODAY?


JW Insider

Recommended Posts


  • Views 10.5k
  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods. I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among so

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on

Grey Reformer: Your entire thinking processes are contaminated by your honorable but misguided agenda. You cannot defend what is indefensible, and expect to win an argument based on reason a

Posted Images

  • Member
11 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Why is this?

Is it: Lack of confidence in leadership? Disobedience to moral requirements? Lack of desire to preach? Preference for materialistic goals? Fear of man? Expected "end" took too long? Stumbled over other's immorality? Believe apostate distortions?

Or is it: Don't believe we are in last days? Don't believe 1914CE was when time ran out for Satan? Don't believe Governing Body are spirit appointed and directed? Disillusioned over end-time teachings?  Suspicions of financial irregularity? Don't agree with "shunning" non-dependant relatives? Don't agree with prohibition on primary blood components only?

Or what?

I guess you've pretty much completed the list. I can't think of anything else....

Although I must add that some of these reasons in themselves are not enough for some to quit. There are some in the truth, and faithful, in spite of feeling some of those things on the list. And there are many who just don't even know about some of these issues....heck, many don't know why we believe in 1914. They assume it's because of WW1 and that's good enough for them. Some things are just too complicated to analyze and "make sure of", and so they remain kind of blissfully covered over. I agree, knowing about some of these things can be faith shaking. Ignorance is bliss indeed. And yet, there is so much that makes sense also. To me, at least. As an organization we are a work in progress and in the past we were made out to be...well..."almost" infallible. It is only in recent years (and perhaps due to unfulfilled interpretations) have we, as an organization, admitted that we are not always going to be right. More to the point; the Governing Body isn't always going to be right, in fact they are only "scratching the surface" (Br. Herd quote). It is a very difficult thing sometimes to trust someone who has failed you in the past. And yet this is what is being asked of us. But the good thing is we have an infallible source to fall back on, the Bible. So in my opinion, when there are scriptures that are a little ambiguous, but are interpreted in a certain way by the Slave, from past experience, should I be blamed if I find it hard to embrace this particular interpretation, and  would rather wait and see?

It is a very difficult thing. Do you think it's possible to have a good and close relationship with Jehovah, and yet be wary sometimes about what the Slave says? In the past these two things were inseparable. If you were not agreeing with the Slave, you were automatically against Jehovah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and there never has been any way to fire these charlatans, and there isn't any way to fire them today.

I wouldn't call them charlatans. I think they truly believed what they said, and if they tried to cover some failings, then that is just because they were human. There are plenty of examples in the scriptures of God's chosen ones doing this or that. The only human mentioned in the Bible that did everything perfectly was Jesus. And I wouldn't worry about firing someone, that is God's business. Also, everyone will stand in front of God and render an account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you think it's possible to have a good and close relationship with Jehovah, and yet be wary sometimes about what the Slave says?

Wary may not be completely the right reaction because it sounds a bit untrusting and tense  (wary= feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.)

Jehovah counsels us appropriately I feel. 

Apply Psalm 146:3 : "Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation."

Balance that with Ps 4:4: "Be agitated, but do not sin. Have your say in your heart, upon your bed, and keep silent"

and 1 Cor.13:4, 7: "Love.....believes all things."

Then we will be happy.  ☺️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof."

Probably not worth a debate here: 

proof
pruːf
noun
1.evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
synonyms:    evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament.

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
synonyms:    proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation

I think what I meant was that people draw a variety of conclusions from different marshallings of the same facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 9/13/2018 at 1:04 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I understand that it is being discussed at World HQ running a special issue of the Watchtower, explaining the "signs from the heavens ..." that Hurricane Florence will be picking up sharks from the Atlantic Ocean, and dumping them in front yards, back yards, and on old peoples homes.

This of course was not factual, it was a satire lampooning the fact that the Society has for a hundred years  provided 15% strong spiritual truths  mixed with 85% irrational cluelessness and false prophesies of various sorts, and clueless observations that make no sense at all, before, during, or after their proclamation ... with the stated or implied imprimatur of God's backing.

There is the saying "Once burned, twice shy!" which sums up my feelings, as after twenty times and more of being "burned" I think all rational people are ENTITLED to be "wary".

Faith is one thing.

Gullibility, is idolatry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Here are some "facts" to illustrate the point.

Sharknado 2 the Best of.mp4

When you for a HUNDRED YEARS  deliberately scare people  with mental imagry WORSE THAN THIS ... and like this truly awful  and nutty shark film,.... you go from being  a bearer of light to the world .... to a producer of  irrational horror so bad .....  it becomes both revulsive and comedic.

We have been taught to fear EVERYTHING ... and it has a price.

We banish our own people for the slightest difference in conscience ... and now the Nations are returning the favor, just as Israel was chastised by the Babylonians ... for just cause.

Everything that goes around ..... comes around.

For those in Rio Linda, these clips were NOT a documentary.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord?

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Gone Away said:

proof
1.evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

evidence
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement.

I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.)

EVIDENCE

I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.

  • b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous.

†2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs.

  • II.II That which manifests or makes evident.

3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications.

  • b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation.

†4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs.

5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.

But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof:

PROOF

Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true.

1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).

2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.

4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof.

-------------------

Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921)

  • "Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.

  1. One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree.
  2. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord.
  3. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.)

Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.

For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:

*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***

  • Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public.

In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.

Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:

Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant"
, who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us;
. . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months."
That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • La_Jungala

      La_Jungala 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,696

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • xero

      xero 2,295

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.