1975 - A weak argument?

by Christ Alone 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Christ Alone

  I posted this on an older thread, but I wanted to get an honest opinion about this from all of you.

  I think taking the 1975 approach with a JW is...weak. Was it wrong (and false prophetic) of them? Absolutely. But technically the didn't actually say "Armageddon will come by 1975". The elluded to it. The did everything BUT say it. But the fact remains, they didn't say it WOULD happen.

  I've listened to the sound clips of Sinutko before, and I thought that was pretty damning...until...I listened to his entire talk. He too made it sound probable, but not certain.

  I then read the WTs response to 1975 that said that it was unfortunate that they made the date sound probable instead of possible, like they should've.

  I'm not saying that this wasn't another false prophecy. But ever since I learned about 1975, I wanted to find a specific quote that showed that they said Armageddon WOULD happen on this date, just like they did for 1914. But it's just not there. There are a ton of statements that make the date seem probable. But nothing that states that it without a doubt would happen.

  Just sayin...
• 

  OUTLAW

  The WBT$ SpotLighted..Pointed to..Pushed people to..

  The direction of 1975..But..

  Never outright said 1975 is the year..

  

  ............................. ... OUTLAW
• 

  ziddina

  "They alluded to it. The did everything BUT say it. But the fact remains, they didn't say it WOULD happen. " OP

  Yes, by the 1960's they appeared to have "learned their lesson" about NEVER stating ANYTHING directly or in absolutes. That has generated their current coy, sly [my term, slimy] methods of stating what they actually want JWs to BELIEVE - "Wouldn't you agree that..." "Can you see why Jesus/Moses/whomever would have felt this way?" "In order to safeguard out hearts/spiritual relationship with Jehovah"...

  Bleah. They've come across as even more wimpy, mealy-mouthed and unable to take a REAL stand than before. While expecting the average Rank&File Jehovah's Witness on the street TO "take a stand" - and deal with the potential aftermath by themselves; NO support forthcoming from the organization!!
• 

  Christ Alone

  I know they referred to it alot, and what they said had the same effect on people as it would've if they had said it outright. But the fact remains, they never DID say it outright. I've read all the articles that are shown in that image. Some of them are newspaper articles that speculate on the WTs statements. But again, none of them claim that it WOULD happen in 1975. The best was Freddy Franz saying at a DC, "It could be! But we're not saying!"
• 

  Christ Alone

  I totally agree, Zid. I think 1975 is a good example to use in illustrating their false prophecies. But 1914, 1918, 1919, 1925 etc are better, imo, to focus on. At least with those dates they actually stated that the scriptures showed that the world would end on those dates.

  Perhaps it is because 1975 is the most recent specific prediction of theirs that we tend to focus on it. But the other dates are much more compelling.
• 

  OUTLAW

  The best was Freddy Franz saying at a DC, "I could be! But we're not saying!"

  Like pointing someone in the Direction of an Elevator shaft..

  With no Elevator in it..

  

  ............................ ... OUTLAW
• 

  Sauerkraut

  It may be a weak argument for most Witnesses, but when I read the articles that mentioned 1975 I felt surprised how highminded the attitude of those responsible was back then. Considering the JW mindset it was as if they had said the end would come then, they just let the minds of the publishers fill in the blanks. Judging by the effects it had on many Witnesses it worked.

  This statement is one I can't get over: “ ...This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” It's amazing how the WT leaders are arrogant and cow ardous at the same time. Far from humble. Any honest person reviewing the whole 19 75 thing should come to the conclusion that what happened then was wrong and dangerous. Despite of whether they clearly said it or not. Problem is with most Witnesses there's no such thing as a strong argument anyway.
• 

  RULES & REGULATIONS

  I was around 1975. They did not say that 1975 was the ''end'' but it was implied. Many Witnesses sold their homes and businesses to preach and pioneer. The WTS is known to use ''WEASEL WORDS'' like:

  "Some people say...''

  • "Some argue..."
  • "Contrary to many..."
  • "As opposed to most..."
  • "Research has shown..."
  • "...is widely regarded as..."
  • "...is widely considered to be..."
  • "...is thought to be..."
  • "It is believed that..."
  • "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."
  • "Some people believe..."
  • "Some feel that..."
  • "They say that..."
  • "Many people say..."
  • "It may be that..."
  • "Could it be that..."
  • "It could be argued that..."
  • "Critics/experts say that..."
  • "Some historians argue..."
  • "Considered by many..."
  • "Critics contend..."
  • "Observers say..."
  • "Fans say..."
  • "Accusations..."
  • "Apparently..."
  • "Allegedly..."
  • "Arguably..."
  • "Obviously..."
  • "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
  • "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
  • "The (mainstream) scientific community"
  • "It is claimed..."
  • "It should be noted that..."
  • "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..."
• 

  Christ Alone

  Good points, R&R. It reminds me of what Barbara Anderson has said on JWN. Most writers had very little education in writing, and even more had no experience in writing at all. Apparently, the WT has its own training for being in the writing department. Likely, they teach the writers to use these "weasel words".
• 

  Ding

  You're right that earlier predictions were proclaimed with far more certainty.

  Those of us who lived through the 1975 fiasco remember what it was really like, and the printed words don't convey the atmosphere of those days.

  A JW who refused to buy into the 1975 hype was considered spiritually weak at best and apostate at worst.

  For some reason, no matter which prophecy is involved, the "false prophets" argument doesn't seem to impact most JWs.

  Regarding his chronology, Russell printed that "They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." A follower in that day saw only "God's dates, not ours..." A JW today would see only the out he has based on the words, "we believe..."

  Rutherford said in Millions Now Living Will Never Die that we could "confidently expect" that 1925 would see the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He said that the 1925 date was more clear than the 1914 date. He had the organization build Beth Sarim to house the resurrected patriarchs.

  When confronted with all this, most JWs fail to draw the obvious conclusion that the organization is NOT God's channel of communication but rather its leaders' forum for spreading their erroneous speculations.

  Instead, they fall back on "old light," "imperfect men," and "failed expectations" caused by "zeal to see Jehovah's kingdom established." Framed this way, the false prophecies are actually made to seem like a virtue.

  Isn't it amazing how these "imperfect men" with such a history of "failed expectations" must be believed and obeyed without question? Yet it makes perfect sense to most JWs. They can't see what the fuss is all about.