Undisfellowshipped quoted this statemnt from the Awake!, 4-22-1970 Issue, Pages 8-11:
"The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men."
This statement was interesting to me. The Society's publications often chastise Christendom for their ever changing doctrines and the fact that they cannot support them via any references in the Bible.
Yet the Society passes its ever changing doctrines as "new light" on the Scriptures.
Which is more honest.
#1 - We used to believe A but due to changing times and traditions we now believe in B and C and D.
or
#2 - We used to beleive in A but after further study of the Bible we believe A = B, but its still called A. Later we decided that A did not equal B and that A was A again. Then new light made us realize that A = C and that C was the anti-type of D, but its name is still A.
How is # 2 any better? How is it "worse" to say you no longer believe in a particular way because you have updated your traditions compared to constantly reinterpreting a bunch of very old Middle Eastern texts to justify your updates?