What is "Present Truth?"

by garyneal 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • wobble

    Chazzer Russell said this in the Feb. 1881 Zion's watchtower :

    "If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth;any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New Light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light; So is it with the light of truth;the true increase is by adding to,not by substituting one for another."

    He says it well,if as usual ,a little wordy, but of course the heirs of Russell never stuck to this, or even admit to it.



  • teel

    I think (as W.Once mentioned too) that the Society doesn't promote the "present truth" use in this way, sir82's 2nd definition. I think even in that song you heard Gary, the word is used in the context of sir82's 1st definition: "Here, not there; with us".

    I say this, because in my language those two meanings are rendered differently. If you give me the number of the song, I could look it up in my wife's songbook. I just checked the NWT online, and 2 Peter 1:12 says: "For this reason I shall be disposed always to remind YOU of these things, although YOU know [them] and are firmly set in the truth that is present [in YOU ]."

  • iknowall558

    The following is from the book - AWAKENING OF A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS by Diane Wilson. (Chapter 7 'Truth or Consequences')

    "The Society's claim that the organization represents the truth, but that the organization is also "progressive" (WT12-1-81, pp16,28), led to new meanings for 'truth': "present truth" (Rev - it's Grand Climax at Hand, 1989, p8), (WT 6-15-22, p187) and thus "past truth" and "future truth".

    I heard talks in which Jehovah's "progressive" organization was likened to a beam of light along a timeline that illuminated the truth as time went on. Thus, today's truth could become tomorrows falsehood. Anyone staying in the "old light" behind the beam (by refusing to go along with the Society's changes in doctrine), or anyone who ran ahead of the light beam (by disagreeing with the Society and deciding for oneself what the truth was), were both viewed as being "in the darkness" and would be disfellowshipped. If a witness disagreed with any aspect of the current "light", and spoke of it openly or acted upon it, that person would be expelled from the organization. If however, the light beam progressed forward tomorrow to illuminate that person's viewpoint as really being the truth after all, the elders would not make any apology to that person, nor would any effort be made to reinstate that person back into the organization.

    According to the Society's "progressive light" teaching, today's "present truth" could become tomorrow's "past truth"! In my opinion, that way of thinking negated the meaning of the word "truth". The whole "light beam" illustration did not make sense to me, especially since I knew that the Society often vacillated it's doctrines, at times returning to its former views which it had abandoned as "old light" and falsehood: thus, at times, the Society's "light beam" would seem to flash on and off, or even go backwards to illuminate the darkness it had left behind! Whether the Society changed a doctrine with a complete turn to the opposite view, and later returned to the original doctrine, then later again reversed itself, it always cited scriptural support for whatever view it held at the moment. No matter how many times the Society would change its doctrines, it forced Jehovah's Witnesses - under pain of disfellowshipping - to believe and teach its present view to be the absolute truth. The result was the some were wrong, and teaching falsehood, in order to be "right" with God.

    ..........Because the Society frequently changed many of its doctrines, often returning to views previously abandoned and then changing them back again, the situation got to the point where I had difficulty keeping straight just what the current teachings were on various doctrines. I felt angry that the Society, whose members led the organization that claimed to be God's channel, was so uncertain of what the truth actually was. It claims than no one can understand the Bible without its interpretations, but I was finding the Bible impossible to understand because of its interpretations.

  • Chalam

    Looks like a great book!



  • blondie

Share this