Report on Todays special talk

by stillajwexelder 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Neo

  The WT can't even manage its own body of doctrine. They forget what they have published. The author of the talk outline and those who revised it simply forgot the 2002 change! The "increase in number of earthquakes" teaching was so harped during many decades that in the Writing Dep some people just can't remember that slight change a couple of years ago. It was included in the outline and nobody noticed. (Another explanation may be that the writer of the outline just disagrees with the new light.)

  It's such a silly and ridiculous religion.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Neo, what you say might be true. I don't think so. As mentioned, putting one word "Devastating" in front
  of the bogus data is making it true in someone's mind. Records are incomplete to prove them wrong.
  They know it's wrong but need JW's to hear that it's right.

  If you are right, then they needed to approve their own "Special Talk" outline. Meeting attenders say they
  read this point. I wonder if the outline says to read it word-for-word, I've had outlines that said that.
  There's no excuse for this nonsense. If they issue a correction, it'll be a first, so I won't hold my breathe.
• 

  skeptic1914

  Wow! Personal business kept me away from the board today. But the earthquake thing is exactly what put a wrinkle in my forehead this morning.

  Skeptic1914
• 

  Hortensia

  I can't remember all the times we thought the big A was right around the corner but I can remember some:

  Kennedy was assassinated. Oh my god, Armageddon must be near!

  Taiwan is out of the UN and the PRC is in. Oh my god, Armageddon etc.

  Nixon resigned. Oh my god, Armageddon...etc.

  The Berlin wall fell. Oh my god, etc.

  The communist government of Russia has fallen! Oh my god, etc.

  you name it, armageddon must be just around the corner!!!
• 

  free2beme

  My poor son had to attend this today, as we were out of town and my sister-in-law was watching him, oh well. He thought it was boring, like I knew he would. My sister-in-law commented that the attendence seemed less then a normal Sunday. Could it be, that the special talk is finally being seen for what it is, "A normal Sunday talk, that is not that special." I thought it was titled, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
• 

  TheOldHippie

  He said there had been a 20 fold increase in devastating earthquakes since 1914

  :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  Must have been a local twist. Here, it was mentioned briefly that there had been earthquakes of great magnitude in the 20th century, killing hundreds of thousands, and that this was partly because people continued to build and live in areas exposed to them, NOT that there had been an increase in their occurence.
• 

  jeanV

  Must have been a local twist. Here, it was mentioned briefly that there had been earthquakes of great magnitude in the 20th century, killing hundreds of thousands, and that this was partly because people continued to build and live in areas exposed to them, NOT that there had been an increase in their occurence.

  No, it was definitely in the outline, I saw it. The reference quoted is

  rsp.236LastDays

  "Therewillbegreatearthquakes"(Luke21:11)

  It is true that there were major quakes in centuries past; furthermore, with their sensitive equipment scientists now detect more than a million quakes a year. But no special instruments are needed for people to know when there is a great earthquake.

  Has there actually been a significant number of major earthquakes since 1914? With data obtained from the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, supplemented by a number of standard reference works, a tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 or more on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (U.S.) or more in property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just69years following 1914 there were 605 of such quakes. That means that, in comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914.

  I guess the speaker in your hall is aware that the above statement is not correct and decided to skip the subject
• 

  jeanV

  Outlines still allow the speaker to develop it his own way. He did that wrong. Sad that most rank and file
  (usually including the BOE) won't notice it.

  OTWO, there is a major problem with the WTBTS, they never say when something is outdated/changed. So if a speaker searches earthquakes on the WTL will still come across information that is clearly wrong but that the WTBTS never admitted to be wrong. In the specific, the point was in the outline with just RS as a reference (there were other references on earthquakes but not after the sentence that they have increased), but a speaker could still have added to it just by doing some research.

  I guess one day they will have to add to outlines just to use quoted references
• 

  dozy

  With data obtained from the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, supplemented by a number of standard reference works, a tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 or more on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (U.S.) or more in property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just 69 years following 1914 there were 605 of such quakes. That means that, in comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914.

  The NGDC database is online & searchable - http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1

  Presumably the "tabulation" was made by the WTS. The problem is that the database is , by its nature , incomplete. The first earthquake mentioned in the mainland USA is in 1600 , so the idea that there is an accurate record of even devastating earthquakes over the last 2000 years is incorrect. Also , adding damage of $5 Million+ as a criteria heavily skews the figures to modern events as even a minor earthquake in modern times in any developed land produces damage in the millions of dollars (a tornado swept through Birmingham , England recently causing $80 million of damage but it hardly would be regarded as a major catastrophe).
• 

  RedPill2006

  I guess one day they will have to add to outlines just to use quoted references

  The "spiritual food" has become a Swiss cheese......it's such a mess. Think about it. If they really had to do this, then people would notice that 70-80% of the "spiritual" "food" is not valid anymore!

  The other day a sister quoted "some interesting point" from a WT in the 70's (at the book study) and that quote was plainly outdated (i can't remember what it was, but it rang a bell in my head, i checked and it was not "new light" it was more light that you use to develop film in a dark room....

  Anyway, there are still Questions from Readers from the 60's that are considered the ONLY ANSWER to some silly question, so they are the LATEST light and still valid (we considered a few old QFR at my Regular Pioneer School). But besides that Question from Readers you would go through the rest of the magazine and find the main topic OUTDATED, the main study articles FULL OF OLD STUFF and phrases, sentences that the WT today would inmediately back off from, so you could basically only use 10% of the printed material.

  BUT. WHO knows what "parts" of old literature are still valid or not? THIS IS A COMPLETE MESS and EMBARRASSING, TOO.

  RedPill.