by AndersonsInfo 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Philosophically . . .
If absolute and unchangeable truth cannot be established by the scientific method. . . and be subject to rigorous testing and scrutiny in it's being established . . . how do we know where a viewpoint lies in relation to it? Or if indeed an alteration is moving closer to, or further away from, the point where absolute truth lies?
You might be able to wrap some material around that line . . .
Yes, Quandry, good points too. In the context of religious discussion, if "truth" is just "viewpoint," why bother discussing it?
Here's the entire "Zion's Day Star" advertisement. What do you think? The editor was A. D. Jones. I don't have a date.
Zion's Day Star,
AN 8 PAGE MONTHLY,
Published AT
3 3 5 F o u r t h A v e n u e , N e w Y o r k C i t y .
A.D.Jones Editor and Publisher}
PRICE, 50C PER ANNUM.
Supreme love for God; and love toward humanity
in general.
Our purpose.
ZION'S D A Y STAR
Our Life's Aim.
To elevate mankind, by assisting others to help
themselves.
is published i n the interest of truthand humanity. The object is, to promulgate that which
the E d i t o r believes to be D i v i n e l y inspired. We hold ourselves
responsible only for sentiments expressed on religious
subjects, that accord w i t h the L a w and the Testimony.
This standard i s required b y Jehovah, a n d i t s h a l l
regulate our actions, relative to articles w r i t t en by others
for the paper, and also somewhat as to selected matter.
We do not recognize arguments based on mistranslations,
interpolations, or misapplications of prophecy, no matter
by whom made, as of any value whatever for our publication.
Truth never changes. Our views of i t may, and we
h o l d ourselves i n readiness to modify previous ideas, i f
need be. Jehovah's word, a n d reason guided by love, go
hand i n hand. They are inseparable companions, and
w i l l be found together i n our w r i t i n g s . We are b y nature
i n h e r e n t l y free. We do our o w n t h i n k i n g , a n d do not hold
as sacred, unreasonable views either of God or H i s p l a n .
Not being i n bondage to any sect, creed or man, we shall
speak our honest convictions b o l d l y .
Our Creed.
I just can't get the article to copy correctly and have to leave to go to the dentist now, but I'll try again later.
Barbara
I am not familiar with Zion's Day Star, was this a Russell publication pre-Watchtower ?
it sounds like Russells pontificating magesterial style, the writer obviously struggles with the fact that he considers the bible to be inerrant truth from God, and when cold hard facts prove his exegesis wrong , he cannot deny the bible, but has to change his errant view.
It does not occur to him that his exegesis may be in error, and the bible too.
I believe it comes down to how someone's "view" is presented. If, as has been discussed above, it is a "current theory," then it can certainly be changed with greater knowledge without loss of credibility. However, if the "view" is not open to debate, if, in fact, to question the "view" is to risk public humiliation (aka disfellowshipping), then any changes cannot be justified. (IMO)
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2008/10/zions-day-star.html
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r423.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r463.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=38SYXalMLeQC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22zion's+day+star%22&source=bl&ots=wucWWQuJlG&sig=sAAl1w0lshEm4wNmN_6ZpNTdnmE&hl=en&ei=ion_TfmPAcLg0QHbsMTJAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22zion's%20day%20star%22&f=false
Here's rendered text:
Our Life's Aim.
To elevate mankind, by assisting others to help themselves. is published in the interest of truth and humanity. The object is, to promulgate that which the Editor believes to be Divinely inspired. We hold ourselves responsible only for sentiments expressed on religious subjects, that accord with the Law and the Testimony. This standard is required by Jehovah, and it shall regulate our actions, relative to articles written by others for the paper, and also somewhat as to selected matter. We do not recognize arguments based on mistranslations, interpolations, or misapplications of prophecy, no matter by whom made, as of any value whatever for our publication. Truth never changes. Our views of it may, and we hold ourselves in readiness to modify previous ideas, if need be. Jehovah's word, and reason guided by love, go hand in hand. They are inseparable companions, and will be found together in our writings. We are by nature inherently free. We do our own thinking, and do not hold as sacred, unreasonable views either of God or His plan. Not being in bondage to any sect, creed or man, we shall speak our honest convictions boldly.
Our Creed
I'm a recreational deep thinker, but I'll take a stab at it. Religious truth is quite separate from objective, scientific truth. In context the article is discussing religious truth. I think it is also safe to say that the current Watchtower Society would not subscribe to this creed.
If religious truth never changes, it would by necessity be a short list. It would have stood the test of time, creed, nationalities. That is, it would be self-evident to any religious organization and in any culture. Such truth, by it's very nature, cannot be owned by any individual or any organization.
The current WTBTS subscribes to a long list of beliefs (consider the eighty or so baptismal questions) that every new believer must follow. These are not invoilate, universal, absolute truths, but doctrine, much like the Talmud of ancient Isreal. They are changeable, malleable, depending on the time and context they are written.
This was one of my big revelations regarding WTS "truth". There is no central core of beliefs, equivalent to the Nicene Creed. One must subscribe to all current doctrines of the WTBTS, keep current in the magazines and publications, or you cease to be a Witness.
Karen Armstrong, a religious lecturer, has taken a stab at a religious universal; the golden rule.
Here's a sample from the eighty questions from the current publication, "Organized to do Jehovah's Will" (2005), one of my favorites:
Part 2 Q 9 To avoid transmitting an infectious or a potentially fatal disease to others, why should an infected person (a) not initiate public displays of affection such as hugging and kissing? (b) attend the Congregation Book Study at the Kingdom Hall if at all possible? (c) not react negatively when some choose not to invite them in to their homes? (d) Why should a person who may have been exposed to an infectious disease voluntarily choose to have a blood test before beginning a courtship? (e) Why should one having a communicable disease inform the presiding overseer before getting baptized?
I just checked an older version, "Organized to Accomplish our Ministry" (1983), and there is no baptismal question regarding infectious or potentially fatal disease.
Part 2 Q 9 By adhering to what Bible counsel will you be able to ward off temptations and pressures that would induce you to engage in any form of sexual immorality, including sexual perversion?
In social context, is there anything that happened between 1983 and 2005 that jumped infectious and potentially fatal diseases to the list? These would not be absolute truths then, would they?
Can this argument be used by religions like Watch Tower that often change the slant of their doctrinal interpretations to justify the change?
It depends on how the doctrinal interpretations are presented and to whom they are attributed.
If they're presented as views that may need changing if and when more information comes to light, that would be one thing.
If they're presented as "food in due season" not from a mere human source, but the product of active spirit direction, that would be something else entirely.
