I'm talking about paragraph 15 of THIS article:
The title of the study article: "Jehovah Will Help You Deal With Life’s Uncertainties"
Accordingly, does it count as an "unexpected difficulty" when it turns out that a prophet's declaration made in the name of God does not come true? I have encountered the argument that Russell (who died in 1916) was not a prophet. I think anyone who makes predictions in God's name that will only come true in the future is a prophet. If he declares in advance that the given statement did not come from God, he is only making these statements as a bible scholar, then he is not a prophet and not guilty. He cannot mix the results of his own Bible research with the inspiration of God's "holy spirit". I quote:
"During the years leading up to 1914, Jehovah’s people had high expectations. Consider, for example, Brother A. H. Macmillan. Like many at that time, Brother Macmillan thought that he would receive his heavenly reward very soon. In a talk he gave in September 1914, he said: “This is probably the last public address I shall ever deliver.” Of course, that was not his last talk. Brother Macmillan later wrote: “Perhaps some of us had been a bit too hasty in thinking that we were going to heaven right away.”
Let's analyze this statement.
- What does "perhaps" mean? Is it not certain that this was the case? Doesn't he know? Or doesn't he remember? How can a Witness start his testimony with the word "perhaps"?
- Who are the "some of us"? At that time there was only one "theocratic leader": Russell, who died in 1916. Could it be that in 1914 such lectures could not be given by the most zealous (according to Russell)? Why do they have to be called "some of us"?
- What is "high expectation"? Was this some external phenomenon independent of them? They just found themselves in it like in a storm or a flood? Maybe Brother A. H. Macmillan wants to say that they too had to adapt to this "high expectation"? - I think it was exactly the opposite. They whipped up the "mood" to ecstasy, then "harvested" the masses of enthusiastic believers.
- Why does Brother Macmillan use such uncertain plurals? Why does he say, "some of us thought"? Why doesn't he phrase it in the way of Jesus, yes-yes, no-no? (Matthew 5:37) Why doesn't he say, "I thought so, along with the others"?
- Why doesn't he mention Russell, with whom one could not have a dissenting opinion, because if he had a dissenting opinion, he could not have lectured? Why is he trying to obscure Russell's responsibility?
This Watchtower article is a true example of spiritual conditioning. It demonstrates the art of obfuscating the facts and the desirable (or expected) spiritual attitude when even the Bible doesn't matter, biblical declarations about false prophets aren't important, nothing is important, only loyalty at all costs. More precisely: it's not loyalty that matters, but only the appearance of loyalty. The circle closes, which began with the substitution of biblical expressions like "love", "love each other" with "show love", "demonstrate love". This is such a small difference that perhaps no one notices. And behold, what a butterfly effect is the result. There was an article that said "show interest". It wasn't important to be interested, but to show interest. Don't love, but show love. That's why I think you don't have to be loyal, you have to show loyalty.