The Society debunked the rumored new light on the F&DS in 1973

by Leolaia 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AnnOMaly

  ... this in a way undermines the authority of the GB. The faithful slave has not yet passed the test (there was a March 1, 2004 Watchtower study article about this). The only appointment that could have happened in 1919 according to this 'new light' is that the FDS, represented since 1919 by directors/president/GB, received an appointment over the "domestics" to give them their food at the proper time, per Matt 24:45.

  My thoughts exactly, yadda yadda! The Master may find the 'slave' faithful and discreet or he may find the 'slave' wicked, but as he hasn't arrived yet to make that determination, the 'slave' has no business power posturing and demanding obedient submission. After all, the position appointed is only to feed the domestics - a position of service, of caretaking, and not a position where he's the acting 'Master.'

  It makes me wonder if a person or persons influential in the GB is/are deliberately trying to accelerate a self-destruct process for the Org. I cannot see how this Noolite™ works in their favor or how the GB can think that it might. Seems like an own goal to me.

  Leolaia - excellent analysis as usual - enjoyed reading your thoughts here.
• 

  Will Power

  Could they also be preparing the flock for the house cleaning they will do after the Conti appeal and the onslaught of more cases become more public. Kick out the evil slaves that had infiltrated their throne - the way they did Ray Franz. Its all set for a few scapegoats - even the prophecy of their presence.

  wp
• 

  AnnOMaly

  And another thing:

  With the prior interpretation, Jesus identified who the FDS class was in 1919 (well, it was actually 1927 but I'm going by the later revised history). For more than 90 years (really 80+ years), this has been spirit-directed truth - the staple food in the JW doctrinal diet.

  Now the GB is expecting the JW r&f to throw out the long-served tainted food and accept this new spiritual delicacy instead. Given that Jesus and the holy spirit do not direct God's faithful people into falsehoods, who is responsible for dishing out the former corrupted chow? Will the ones reponsible be deemed faithful and discreet when the Master comes?
• 

  stillstuckcruz

  My mind is spinning from all this "new light" and I certainly dont understand it all. But how does this affect their teaching that God only works through an organization? In "In Search of Christian Freedom" under the section F&DS, Ray Franz discussed the two-class distinction and the teaching of the continuous, uninterrupted existense of the "slave class" though the centuries. He states "It becomes apparent that the overriding concern is to authenticate -and enforce-the view that God and Christ deal with people only through an organization, and that today that organization is the one connected with the Watchtower Society".

  Of course, with this "new light" that no longer becomes the case. Do they now believe that throughout history, there was no such organization but God used only individuals(or no one?). That the organization instituted by Rutherford was the first time since the nation of Israel that God has used such an arrangement?
• 

  sir82

  If the nu-lite says that there was NO FIRST CENTURY FDS, then are they saying there was not really a FIRST CENTURY GB?

  Well of course I'm not on the GB so I can't answer definitively, but...

  It seems like you can have a GB without a FDS, but not a FDS without a GB.

  I.e., I think their answer would be "There was indeed a GB in the 1st century, but it was not yet fulfilling the special role that Jesus prophesied about. After the death of the last of the apostles, then there was no more GB. Then, in 1919, Jesus appointed this group of men as the FDS, and as such they followed the first century model and became a GB themselves."

  Dang, I'm good. I ought to see if there are any openings on the writing dept.
• 

  darth frosty

  Dang reading thess responses is sad!

  Why? it shows that only freddy franz could polish this...um log nugget of religous belief, into something slightly less offensive.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I'm probably reading far too much into this 'new light', but it makes me wonder if this is a continuation of a deliberate strategy by the Society to gradually reduce the number of things linked to 1914.

  When you look back over the last few decades, the Society has uncoupled from 1914 more and more of what Jesus said related to his coming and shunted those things into the future to apply to the great tribulation. Many years ago nearly everything was said to have occurred around 1914, including the great tribulation itself, but in recent times we have seen a reduction in those things with more shifted forward in time. This latest new light is a continuation of that trend.

  In 1995 in particular there were quite a few uncouplings from 1914. The separation of the sheep and the goats was moved forward to be fulfilled at the great tribulation, as was the throne that Jesus sits on at Matt 25:31 (but ludicrously they said it was only a throne of 'judgment' when it is obvious that this is the coronation of Jesus as King). Now they have finally corrected that glaring contradiction that the "arriving" at Matt 24:46 was said to be around 1914-19 but the "arriving" at Matt 25:31 by Jesus occurs at the outbreak of the great tribulation.

  Its pure conjecture but I can't help but wonder that due to those rather dramatic 1995 changes, there were some members of the GB who perhaps realised that the whole game was up on the idea that Jesus Christ began to rule as King in 1914, and that perhaps Jesus has only been 'present' in another sense since then, but it was too much at the time to go the whole hog and correct the remaining contradictions. Perhaps this latest version of the GB, all relatively young, seem to be keen to uncouple even more from 1914.

  All they need to do next is shunt all of Revelation 12 into the great tribulation and say that the devil's ousting and 'short period of time' occurs during the great tribulation. They can then say that Jesus has only been 'present' since 1914 per Matt 24:3 as the Lord of Malachi 3:1 who suddenly 'came' to his temple (on behalf of YHWH) to carry out his inspection and appoint the FDS to feed his domestics in 1919, not as King of God's Kingdom. To support this they can Matthew 28:20 where Jesus said he would be spiritually 'with' or present with his disciples until the conclusion of then system of things in 70 AD. They can parallel that to Jesus being spiritually 'present' since 1914 only to inspect all Christians and appoint the FDS in 1919. They can thus retain all of their authority and status over JW's despite uncoupling Jesus enthronment as King from 1914.

  They can also uncouple Jesus' coming as King from 1914 while continuing to say that the last days began in 1914 and that we have still witnessed a 'composite sign' since then by simply pointing to Jesus illustration of falling leaves indicating summer is near. The wars, famines, plagues, etc, simply mean Jesus is near to coming as King, not that he is already present as King, which is of course a much more in line with what Jesus meant.

  I not so confidently predict this is probably what they are aiming to do post-1914.

  I wish I had posted this by starting a new thread but I'm unable to copy and post on this forum using Google Chrome for some reason.

  yadda
• 

  Leolaia

  I think the apparent correction in understanding that the "arriving" in Matt 24:46 was not in 1914 but is in the future during the Great Tribulation certainly means that there has been no appointment over all of Christ's belongings yet and this in a way undermines the authority of the GB. The faithful slave has not yet passed the test (there was a March 1, 2004 Watchtower study article about this).

  The Master may find the 'slave' faithful and discreet or he may find the 'slave' wicked, but as he hasn't arrived yet to make that determination, the 'slave' has no business power posturing and demanding obedient submission. After all, the position appointed is only to feed the domestics - a position of service, of caretaking, and not a position where he's the acting 'Master.'

  I'm glad I'm not the only person to notice this. How could this have escaped the notice of the GB?
• 

  mostlydead

  Two thoughts:

  1. The first person I remember that Jesus told to do a "feeding" work was Peter. Feed my sheep. That should give some indication of when all this "food at the proper time" started being dispensed. That fact notwithstanding...

  2. ...in order to make this alleged new light even begin to work, the second highlighted paragraph in the opening post will now need to start with "Yes!" The master's going away will now have to be interpreted as the period between 1919 and whenever it is he returns.

  How they'll explain their possession of the title that the Master only gives after his arrival will be entertaining to read.
• 

  King Solomon

  The title for the possessions remains the Lord's until he returns: then he rewards the slave by transferring title of his possessions to the slave.

  47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

  So in the meantime, it actually empowers the slave more so, since its not the slave's personal property he's managing, but serving as the custodian of the master's goods.

  Maybe they're planning for a sale of assets in a few years, laying the groundwork for liquidating assets and writing very large checks on their way out the door, lol!