No, all of you Jonathan Swift fans, I'm not proposing that we start eating JW's. They probably taste terrible, anyway.
I propose that the Society extend its disfellowshipping policy, and start formally disfellowshipping "old light" expired dogmas. Instead of perpetually leaving people, both inside and outside of the JW's, wondering if this or that statement of belief in some WTBS publication that's older than last week is still operative, they could make a column in The Watchtower magazine which formally and officially disfellowships beliefs that are no longer to be believed.
The format could be:
1) A brief statement of the "old light" idea that is no longer operative.
2) An exact quote, with references, to where it was first published and most recently published (this would be the same quote, for some ideas, but two separate quotes for most).
3) The tagline, "This teaching is no longer among the official teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses."
That way, everyone would know where they stand. JW's wouldn't have to wonder, "Has that idiotic teaching this opposer is bringing up been superceded by new light? Or should I still defend it as the Truth?" Opposers could choose not to bring up disfellowshipped doctrines, to save time and energy to discuss current ones. Think of what a great feature this would be!
And just think: each and every dogma, doctrine, hypothesis, guess, and fancy notion that JW's defend to their last dying breath today, could EASILY be printed in the "Disfellowshipped Doctrines" column of next week's Watchtower!
Robert V Frazier
The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower, 1931 November 1 p.327) If you believe that, you'll believe ANYTHING!
A modest proposal
by Robert_V_Frazier 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Robert_V_Frazier
-
greendawn
This mess shows that they don't have the truth because the real truth doesn't change it is always the same. They shouldn't rush to produce doctrines which they will later have to change after they will have caused a great deal of harm to those following them.
-
looking_glass
Hmm, don't you think "truth" is relative, so it has to change. It is like saying that medicine has to stay in the medieval times because it was once believed that blood-letting would cure all ills. Truth changes, it is an evolutionary process that we grow into as our knowledge expands. There are only a handful of actualy truths, but truth does not apply to religion or medicine or politics as well as many other subjects because these matters are open to interpretation.
-
ballistic
If you read Crisis of Concience, it implies that there are certain beliefs classed as corner stone beliefs that you are not allowed to question even on the Governing Body, or be seen as apostate. This includes teachings such as 1914. The leadership have thus created a trap for themselves from which you cannot escape. How can an organisation say it is wrong to question itself? When will 1914 become so antiquated and obscure that it becomes a laughing stock?
-
Robert_V_Frazier
That's true, ballistic, they do say that about certain dogmas. But then they said exactly the same about every one of the dogmas that are now rejected as obsolete, what we non-JW's call "old light". What guarantee is there that some future incarnation of the GB won't reject one or more of the dogmas the current GB regards as sacrosanct?
There is none!
Robert V Frazier The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower, 1931 November 1 p.327) If you believe that, you'll believe ANYTHING! -
cosmic
An interesting, and amusing, proposal. But if you just don't say nothing, you can always reuse the old stuff if it becomes in vogue again. "Hey, we never said it was wrong!"
-
drew sagan
I've often wondered how you where supposed to know what all of the "light" really was. Everything remains basically hidden in these publications. Instead of publishing a Bible Commentary and then updating it ever so many years, they instead have a whole pile of "old light" and "new light" mixed into all of these magazines. From what I understand even the Daniel book has "old light" which was made "new light" in a Watchtower a few months later, but the old light is what everybody went over at the bookstudy. Unless the conductor remembered the WT article.
The truth is so refreshing, Ahhhhhhhhh....