Has the WT ever specifically said in print that GB is NOT the FDS in contradiction of current position?

by Pubsinger 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pubsinger

  Great stuff!
  
• 

  pixel

  Marked. Thanks.
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  One other thing - if you have time to read the full article it's actually sorta funny in light of their current stance.  In hindsight, it reads almost like a case study in how to manipulate scripture to "force an interpretation of the parable" (right after saying there's no point in doing so).  If I remember correctly, much of the reasoning rests on the way isreal is refereed to sometimes as a single entity and sometimes as a group of individuals.  It really demonstrates that they can interpret anything anyway that they want to and they'll find backing for it somewhere in the scripture.  Of course, this isn't unique to JWs.
• 

  leaving_quietly

  That '81 article is pretty damaging to it's current position. If I ever get asked if I believe that the FDS is God's channel for communication on earth today, I will say something to the effect of: "How can I believe that when they where confused as to who the FDS even was until 98 years after Christ was enthroned! They didn't even realize when they were appointed, and what they were appointed over. How can I believe that they are God's channel if they couldn't get that on simple thing straight 100 years ago?"
  

  
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  That '81 article is pretty damaging to it's current position. If I ever get asked if I believe that the FDS is God's channel for communication on earth today, I will say something to the effect of: "How can I believe that when they where confused as to who the FDS even was until 98 years after Christ was enthroned! They didn't even realize when they were appointed, and what they were appointed over. How can I believe that they are God's channel if they couldn't get that on simple thing straight 100 years ago?"

  In my head, I've played out the possible scenario of being asked the 'apostasy question' about believing the GB is the FDS.  I think I'll start with "First, I'd like to point out that you didn't believe that until a couple years ago."  Then say something like "there's actually some pretty firm scriptural evidence that this is not the case" and pull out the '81 WT article.  Depending on the situation (i.e. if I really don't care if I'm DF'd) I might add - "this article makes it clear that anyone that insists that the GB is the FDS is an apostate!"
• 

  Vidiot

  Waste of time showing it to any JW loyalist, IMO; they'd just dismiss it as "old light".
• 

  Listener

  Thanks oneeyedJoe, that is the article I was thinking of.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi,

  I wrote the following Study prior to the 2013 amendments to the FDS, although I do include a comment on the update. I left the remainder of the Study as I originally wrote it, in order to keep the history.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/FDS_and_its_GB.pdf

  Doug
  
• 

  Magnum

  R.Jerome Harris: The WTBTS - to my knowledge - has never specifically said in print that the GB are not a part of the FDS

  I couldn't make myself read your lengthy post because your first sentence indicates you missed the point or don't comprehend it.

  Of course the org " has never specifically said in print that the GB are not a part of the FDS." That's not the question here. All my time in JWdom they taught that the GB was part of the FDS.

  current teaching: GB = FDS     old teaching: all anointed = FDS. GB are anointed, so part of FDS
  

  The OP asked whether the org has ever stated that the GB is not the FDS, contradicting its current teaching that the GB is the FDS. The answer is yes. In the past the org, in stating that the all the anointed made up the FDS, indicated that the GB was not the FDS, but part of it.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  jhine

  Succinctly put Magnum .

                Jan