The Makeweight Scenario - my way of explaining the increasing light doctrine

by cedars 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  wasblind

  Hello cedars,

  The WTS " claimed " that the old light came from God's word, but they changed it makin' themselves out to be a liar

  They stated

  " Bible chronology ( From God's word ) also pinpointed in advance the time when certain important events in the fulfillment of God's purpose would take place ."_________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 93 with in the definition

  They also qoute Jesus and added what they taught in the [ ] brackets

  " Truly I say to you that this generation [ that was alive when "the sign " of " the last days " began it's fullfillment ] will by no means pass away until all these things occur. _____Matt. 24:36,34.____________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 98

  The JW elder explained to me that the Reasoning book did not change it's meanin' because it still point to the " one " generation which also included the overlap.

  I told him I begged to differ, and told him the overlaps ain't " well along in years " as stated on page 239 in the reasoning book

  That statement on page 98 in the Reasoning book solidifies the lie they told in the May 15,1984 WT

  " 1914 The generation that will not pass away "

  It's a scandalous shame how they lied to those folks, and by the way, I don't see no young overlaps on the front

  cover of that May 15, 1984 WT
• 

  wasblind

  I challenge any JW apologist on this new light about the generation change

  That some claim really didn't change nothin' , Balls in your court, what ya got ?

  flat out lied to them old folk
• 

  kepler

  Cedars,

  I was sure that you were aware of the Walsh case, as probably many other correspondents here. However, when I found this material it was in very inconvenient form - a 100 megabyte PDF file, photocopies of the stenographer's typed notes. If it is not already available in a more compact form, I hope it will be someday - and I would gladly contribute what transcribed notes I already have.

  However, I do have some reservations about rationalizing the increasing light doctrine.

  In one way or another we are both making considerable concession to Society ball court rules. Using the Walsh transcripts is based on one form of concession. If anyone with knowledge of doctrine who has any criticism of it comes from inside the Society, the Society expels that individual, declares them "apostate" and directs everyone to cover their ears and close their eyes. The value of disseminated the Walsh case here and now is that the GB was public and cross examined. To a large degree they were allowed to proselytize from the witness chair, but every once in a while they slipped up - or left us all with a point to ponder. I am not sure how their more awkward testimonies can be suppressed in argument currently; maybe a future WT article or two could dispose of the problem. For now, the indoctrined might listen with one uncovered ear.

  But discussing increased light and present truth is also a concession to Society rules. It's a system of semantics which allows everyone to accept a "heads I win - tails you lose" coin flip. Sure, higher councils are wringing their hands about how seamlessly to connect their present pronouncements to a series of past ones which had painted them into corners or the clock simply ran out on them, but that is for the flock's consumption. Mr. Covington in the court records lifts the veil on this as far as I'm concerned. He was not concerned with truth or light or anything else but giving orders to his army. And if individuals did not execute the orders, in which their whole lives were considered marches, he would execute them. If for nothing else, to serve as examples. He would address the issues of revealed truth later. And ironically for a lawyer, whose career rests on successful appeal, no indication of such.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Being born in, the idea of "new light" was kind of invisible for me. I never even really gave it a second thought or even got excited about it. Its just how Jehovah did things: gradually over time, things would be revealed, don't get ahead of his chariot, yadayadayada . . .

  Here's where it fell apart for me.

  Its all seems obvious now, but I started to see a pattern: man made institutions and ideas all evolve slowly over time. That's it.

  Whether its law, religion, art, language, science - ALL of these things slowly evolve and change over time. Why?

  BECAUSE MAN MAKES ALL OF THIS SHIT UP! All of this stuff is the product of the human mind. Period.

  Not to take anything way from science, art or law, but what I'm saying is NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE OF DIVINE ORIGIN. They all follow a similar pattern. They grow and change over time. That's why "new light" is nothing new.
• 

  cedars

  Kepler

  But discussing increased light and present truth is also a concession to Society rules. It's a system of semantics which allows everyone to accept a "heads I win - tails you lose" coin flip.

  I must respectfully disagree with you there. I see nothing "concessionary" about refuting the Society's doctrines in articles such as the one above using clear and simple logic. That's precisely what the Society attempts to dissuade people from doing - reasoning things through. By publishing information such as that found above, we are encouraging and empowering people to think for themselves. Or do you think both of Ray Franz's books were a waste of paper?!!

  breakfast of champions - you're right that, however the Society tries to spin it, they are essentially covering over the fact that they change and adapt their teachings according to the times just like any human organization.

  Terry - I couldn't agree more!

  was blind - hopefully by using reasoning such as the above you can help people to understand that, regardless of how much the Society's convoluted reasoning may appeal to some individually (and I'm sure some DO buy into the overlapping generation idea) it still runs contrary to scripture for the holy spirit to have conveyed false information on the subject in the past. Really, if one thinks about it deep enough, the "increasing light" doctrine is blasphemy against the holy spirit, because it effectively accuses God's holy spirit of lying.

  Cedars
• 

  wasblind

  Yes cedars,

  and believe it or not, I had to change my first post from " make God a liar" to " themselves a liar "

  as we know, it is said that God cannot lie, so that blame fell on the society

  Hey cedars the elder that tried to explain the new light to me claimed it ain't no real change

  I couldn't bring up the fact I learned about new light online, I brought up the qoutes in

  the reasoning book with led to talkin' bout the generation change.
• 

  clarity

  Cedars ......... wow love your blog. Somehow I missed reading it before!

  Make it easier for me to find would you ..........exactly what would I type in to goggle?

  >

  To Terry .................... I'd call this CLASSIC!

  "As I've said many times, it is no great virtue to admit you shit your pants in public--everybody already knows.

  The smell of "old Light" stinks up the history of this religion"

  clarity
• 

  cedars

  wasblind - it sounds like nothing you could have said to the elder would have worked, but at least you tried your best.

  clarity - "cedars blog jw survey" in google should get you straight to the blog page. Glad you like it!

  Cedars
• 

  kepler

  Cedars,

  No, I do not think that Ray Franz's work was a waste of paper. Nor do I think that is the case with what you are doing either. In fact, I already owe you a debt from instructive posts since I have signed on.

  Perhaps what it is is an impatience on my part with a line of reasoning or not being familiar with a prevailing psychology. My psychology is that of someone who felt compelled to sit through and study many weeks the home visit arguments; studying as a means of treading water until I could figure out how to avert the impending disaster. I never found the solution.

  But then again, coming in from off the wall, maybe a perspective or two might be of use. Saying that, I can provide another analogy for what I think appears to be a problem

  Let's say we were not talking about acceptance of the role of ministry within the society or accepting the GBs guidance. Instead, let's say we were drawing up a legal contract such as a lease on a house and we were renting it from the Society's governing board for a period of ten years.

  Based on the precedent discussed, should the Society landlord exercise all sorts of modifications to the original agreement based on "increased light"? If in a primary clause an improvement ( e.g., electrification) on the house were promised within a year after the rental agreement began, would it be acceptable to agree, based on "increased light", that the improvement should be deferred for five years or perhaps delayed until "times indefinite?" If a construction team is contracted by the Society to dig a well for water to a certain depth (500 feet), should they be sued in court due to "increased light" because they desisted when they reached 1000 feet and the well was still found to be dry?

  By saying that the 500-foot agreement was based on one scriptural reading and then 1000 plus is based on another later one, would that not undermine the reputation of the governing board as diviners or field geologists?

  I presume the Society has to deal with secular institutions on terms where "increased light" is not an acceptable way to amend a contract. Why should a prophetic claim of 1925 or 1975 based on sole authority on Scripture millenia old be allowed to be modified for each new generation based on "increased light"?

  Or are we talking about the same thing?

  And then what if "increased light" brings one around full circle to where one started? Does that happen? I suppose that might be like having a student pilot yanking on the control stick unaware of the natural frequencies of the craft...
• 

  Room 215

  In theory, the "light getting brighter" concept implies that, as focus on a particular verse progresses, the explanation would progress from the more ambiguous to the more defined, or specific... in most instances ... as in the current "overlapping generation" it's quite the contrary: the older explanation is supplanted by a more vague one. ...