00DAD said:
King Solomon: I think you are missing the significance of their claiming this as "New Light" from YHWH
No. There was no such claim. Read the WT article. It is just a seemingly insignificant comment in the article on 31 of the 8/15/2012 WT.
As OnTheWayOut commented on page 1 of this thread, "I doubt too many will notice that. It's actually huge. They continue to re-write their own history. Probably a preemptive strike to build up their FDS-is-only-the-Governing-Body nonsense. They need there to alway have been a GB."
Yup.
Since no one has actually READ the "new light" policy yet, there's no way to know what the details will be until it's released, and whether it'll cover such a statement in the 8/15/12 WT. We're hence limited to speculation.
HOWEVER, this kind of move was hinted at in CoC as a way to consolidate control from an individual/corporation to the GB, a move which was obviously opposed by Rutherford/Knorr, and came to a head in Knorr's day (with the Committee of Five). Per Franz, it worked for two years, until old patterns reemerged. Subsequently, the GB had plenty of time to plan for this "new light", and it'll be interesting to see how they handle the transition (which allows them to sweep the mess documented in CoC under the rug, which will work at least for what must be an extremely small minority of JWs who are aware of any of the "old history").
The GB probably figures it's never too early to lay the groundwork for such retroactive change, under the cover of being spirit-directed, and not as contradictory and damning mistakes that expose the BS. So they rewrite their history under the cover of "new light", and once again, like with Noah's Flood, they can say "God Dun It!".
Remember: in order to know the FULL BACK-STORY, A JW would have to read CoC, and that's not likely to happen since they look at apostate literature as a vampire at the sight of a cross.
I found this passage from CoC particularly relevant:
Again, there seems to be a strong parallel with those among Jehovah’s Witnesses who continue to hope, in spite of any evidence to the contrary, that some type of major reform will take place. As stated earlier, even the recent changes made seem to be simply a case of dealing with symptoms rather than the root cause of the illness or disease, which is the heavy emphasis on organizational authority and its right to dictate to human consciences and control personal thinking. As Davis puts it: “There is a possibility that the cause of the disease will be advocated as its remedy.”
Thus, each Watchtower article setting out a major change, fails to face up to the problem of the original false reasoning and misuse of Scripture that makes change necessary. Rather, it consistently seeks to cast the change in the light of evidence for putting trust in, and being submissive to, the system that gave the wrong understanding, not only gave it but insisted on it and took action against any not accepting it. In each case, as well, one sees clear and regrettable evidence that the change results, not from pure love of truth or deep devotion to Scripture or compassionate concern for people, but comes instead when the previous position has become precarious, difficult to sustain, sometimes embarrassingly so, as with regard to certain teachings relating to 1914, or, in other cases, when interests in avoiding taxation or other restrictions are at stake.13 That is why the hopes for genuine and fundamental reform, for the present at least, give evidence of being essentially wishful thinking.
