No way. They have nothing w/o 1914.
Is the GB setting up to dump 1914?
by karter 57 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
yknot
What is the definition of the 'Good News' as preached by Jehovah's Witnesses?
*** w81 5/1 p. 17 par. 3 If God Has an Organization, What Is It? ***
That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,” or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
-
undercover
If the householder asks: blah, blah, blah...
That's all a JW will really hear...
But seriously, like I said, if pressed they may come up with 1914...especially for your first and second 'what if' question.
The other two are easy enough to sidestep with "a study of the Bible shows shit shit shit shit..."
1914 is a core concept to cornerstone of the current JW theology, no doubt about it. Without 1914, the current belief system doesn't work...but then...it doesn't really work with it either, so what's the difference if they change it? Some people are going to believe no matter what.
And they have changed big things before. Of course they lost some people...but they gained new ones. If they were to drop 1914, they'd lose some people for sure but they would gain new ones. It's not impossible.
We're talking religious belief, not reality.
-
yknot
Just as a question - how often do they even mention this "selection" in 1919 any more?
Looking at the 2009 WTCD---
From 2000-2009, 1919 was referenced 102 times
-
OnTheWayOut
They preached 1975 right up through 1975 and only started sweating about ditching it in the last part of that campaign. They had to ditch it when they ditched it.
They preached the "1914 generation" until that generation was over 90 years old and they had to ditch it.
Sure, they floundered on the generation since 1995 but they were trying an open-ended time for Armageddon and it didn't work, so they tried to close it up. I think they did it in two steps (2008 then 2010) so as to act as if the light were actually getting brighter and to get the members to feel they have been preaching this new light for awhile, but just see it clearer now.My point is that they don't radically change until radical change is necessary. Dumping 1874 and getting hitched to 1914 happened way past 1914 and nothing they predicted happened. By the time they ditched 1874, they had to do it. They first tried to keep it alive with the "Millions-Now-Living-Will/May-Never-Die" campaign.
Expect them to build up the stupid overlap generation campaign before they dump any marriage to 1914. But I think they underestimate the power of the internet and people who will throw their own words up in the faces of members. Expect them to try avoiding major changes in the doctrine, but just twisting the old light and pretending that new light fits in with it.
-
leavingwt
so what's the difference if they change it? Some people are going to believe no matter what.
We're actually on the same page, just interpreting the potential outcomes differently.
Point of agreement: NONE of the doctrinal details matter, so long as the Lifton's Criteria for Thought Reform are present. The JWs are blind followers. The information need not make any sense or have any basis in reality.
So, for that reason, I see no reason to DROP the date. For the same reason, you see no reason to KEEP the date.
So, we're both right.
-
undercover
So, we're both right.
As usual
-
PSacramento
The date is irrelevant, as is 1919, afterall, the WT of 1919 is not even close to what the WT of 2010 is.
Nevertheless, while I don't think they can dump it per say, it will desreace in importance as "new light" askes/demands the sheep to focus on other things.
-
logic
The society won't have to do away with 1914, it is being done for them by truth seekers.
-
Gayle
1914 is undumpable as a backed up toilet. Unfixable. The WTBS may try to put the lid down on it but the Internet and facts will be forever be exposing the reality.