Kind'a maybe sort'a TRUTH.

by Elsewhere 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Elsewhere

  The thread about the earthquakes stuck me with a thought... The WTS still claims to be "God's Visible Organization on earth". They also claim that they are "God's only channel" with the earth.

  Now they are making sweeping changes to their teachings from rock solid statements to a bunch of "kindas" "Maybes" and "Sortas". They never say anything in a firm statement. They let the R&F interpret the "it's a conscience matter" as meaning "written in stone" - anyone who is out of line will be pushed down a rung or two in the "privilege" and social latter. Yet at the same time, when another one of their "soft prophecies" fail, they say: "Oh, we never actually said that..."

  One of the more profound examples of this is the 1975 fiasco.

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  hillary_step

  Elsewhere,

  Vagueness is indeed becoming the language of the hour for the WTS at least where it is at its most sensitive, that is, anything viewed by the public.

  Behind the scenes confusion reigns. I recently asked a CO what his take was on recent events going on in Brooklyn; "damage control" and "rudderless ship" were two phrases among others that I recall.

  Note this comment from the WT April 15/2002 an appeal from Writing ( Africa - I suspect ):

  Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live (or demand others to live ) by an extensive and rigid set of do's and dont's that go beyond the teachings of the Bible.

  There are people within the WTS who know that changes are needed, this includes at least one member of the GB, but the GB refuses to move at a pace set by those they view as its enemies, the outside forces of 'evil'.

  Yesterday, a spokesman for the Catholic Church was asked why the Church was so slow to act when confronted with serious issues that needed changing within the Church ( child abuse was the case in point ). His reaction was interesting and reflects imho the same basic motivation of the GB and its few dozen henchmen.

  He said that the Church could not act on pressure from outside forces as they would then have to accept the principle that the Church can have its policy set by influences apart from God, the Pope and his advisors. This in turn would diminish the credibility of the Catholic Church and subsequently its social power. It seems that many religious bodies can see these days, that they are precariously balanced, on the top of a shaky House of Cards.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Elsewhere

  He said that the Church could not act on pressure from outside forces as they would then have to accept the principle that the Church can have its policy set by influences apart from God, the Pope and his advisors. This in turn would diminish the credibility of the Catholic Church and subsequently its social power. It seems that many religious bodies can see these days, that they are precariously balanced, on the top of a shaky House of Cards.

  In a word: Pride

  The very thing the bOrg accuses us "apostates" of. They are saying: "We will not change until we are good and ready to change." Reminds me of a child that is told to put something away and refuses until he sees fit.

  Again: Pride.

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  bluesapphire

  Reference please!
• 

  Hyghlandyr

  When you think about it, using vague statements is a brilliant strategy. It removes all responsibility from the shoulders of the one making the statement, to the person following it. It is a practice at your own risk kinda thing.

  As far as them just now going from rock solid statements to kindas, ifs and maybes. Well, I became a witness in 88, left in 95, and became an ex in dec/jan of 99/00. I remember all sorts of vagueness way way back then. We often hour hours long conversations about what certain things meant, what groups qualified, what this or that doctrine meant we could or could not do.

  Especially when it comes to morals I think even more than prophecies, does the watchtower use this kind of ploy. Often a witnesses is not told something is a disfellowshipping offense, and it is even implied in the articles, as was mentioned, that it is allowable. Then a witness is taken completely by surprise when they have the notorious 'talk in the back room' with the elders about it, or even are disfellowshipped. And the society can dip their hands in the water as Pilate. Meanwhile someone else in the congregation is doing the exact same thing and nothing is done to them.