A faithful and discreet slave class:
New light Watchtower magazine leaked from organization weeks ahead of general release
by cedars 211 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
sd-7
I always held the Proclaimers book in awe as a youngster, but the more I'm uncovering in my ongoing research the more I discover that
Watchtower's
version of events is almost a complete work of fiction - the type you would expect if the wrong type of people assumed power to begin with.
I didn't really hold it in awe, myself, but I did think it would equip me against 'apostates' who in my mind at the time, 'think we don't know our own history'. I figured that reading it would enlighten me on that history. Problem is just how all over the map it is--they include sort of timelines but their anecdotes are all over the place, so you have to look at a number of different pages all over the book to piece together a full story about certain events.
I was just reading the section of the Proclaimers book that discussed that whole shakeup in 1917 with Rutherford dismissing four board members. It is just amazing how dishonest that section is--at least compared to what those board members themselves had to say. I've been reading their response, that 'Light After Darkness' thing? They were saying the exact opposite, and given that it was abundantly clear that Rutherford wanted complete control, rather than sharing power with six other board members (and he changed the bylaws for that very purpose), it seems bizarre that the Proclaimers book actually accuses the other four board members of being greedy for power! And that sets it up so that anyone challenging Rutherford alone is challenging 'the organization'! It's very clear that Russell definitely did not want Rutherford to do what he did, and it's hard to imagine that it was somehow God's will for him to decide that he alone should run the show, especially if there was supposed to be a 'faithful slave class' like they claim, and not just one person.
Somehow it was considered hypocritical to the WT that those board members, who agreed to leave Bethel, didn't want Rutherford to step down as President, they just wanted him to share power with the board. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask for to me, especially considering that the Society would surely assert there was a Governing Body back then, but if Rutherford alone had all the power, then that's kind of a lie, isn't it? It seems pretty clear that the Proclaimers book accuses those board members of doing the very thing that Rutherford himself did--he wanted the power all to himself and persecuted those who disagreed with him. A common tactic of abusers, I suppose.
Of course, that said, even though to me, the Proclaimers book is outright lying about what went down back then, it would be hard to convince a JW of that. It's just interesting to finally get to see a different side of that era, and to really understand what, by Watchtower logic, Jesus himself would have observed in the process of his 'inspection'.
But...history, it is said, is often written by the victors, using the term rather loosely in this case. And since the JWs throw out anyone who dissents, there's no way to learn both sides of the story without going outside the JW box.
--sd-7
-
cedars
sd-7
It's very clear that Russell definitely did not want Rutherford to do what he did, and it's hard to imagine that it was somehow God's will for him to decide that he alone should run the show, especially if there was supposed to be a 'faithful slave class' like they claim, and not just one person.
Yes, there is a certain irony in that situation, namely that the four directors were thrown out for wanting to stick to the "governing body" arrangement envisioned by Russell and now in use (albeit in a perverted way) decades later.
their anecdotes are all over the place, so you have to look at a number of different pages all over the book to piece together a full story about certain events
Yes, I know what you mean. Come to think of it, it did frustrate me that the material wasn't in chronological order - as you would expect it to be in a history book. Perhaps this was an intentional means of confusing people.
Cedars
-
sd-7
Perhaps this was an intentional means of confusing people.
I'll bet it was. Just thinking about how the 'higher powers' understanding was presented, so you don't realize that they flip-flop-flipped on that doctrine by separating the anecdotes about the changes--that's a good example of that. Kind of thankful for some of the links and data Randy Watters posted on the Proclaimers book--that kind of helped me to realize just how all over the place it is.
Yes, there is a certain irony in that situation, namely that the four directors were thrown out for wanting to stick to the "governing body" arrangement envisioned by Russell and now in use (albeit in a perverted way) decades later.
Right. So the apostates wanted a governing body back then, and there really wasn't one, but apparently the Governing Body was part of God's will...he just didn't figure it out until the mid-70s or so? Well...I know Jesus said that he had stuff to say his disciples weren't ready to bear at the moment, but...I'm pretty sure this is not what he had in mind.
--sd-7
-
JW GoneBad
Excellent piece of work cedars!
-
-
stillin
I'm trying to wrap my head around this and walk away with some practical use of the information. My wife is still very much "in." It seems that I might pre-emptively suggest that I would not be a bit surprised if the current leadership began to distance themselves from the early-day heroes like Russell and Rutherford because they were simply WRONG about so many things. That comment BEFORE the article is released would be almost blasphemous, but once it has been out, maybe the glimmer of real light may take place in her head. Maybe she (or anybody else that I may have the opportunity to suggest such a thing to) will begin to see that what has been considered sacrosanct really is not; and that would include the present powers-that-be.
I did this when somebody on this board let us know that the WTS was planning on having credit-card kiosks at the assemblies. I said, "I've heard that in the churches of Christendom they actually can put their contributions on a credit-card!" She gasped and said that she wasn't a bit surprised. Then there those kiosks were at one of our own conventions!
Any other ideas?
-
The Quiet One
I'd suggest only mentioning them distancing themselves from Russell, because Rutherford is still part of the FDS in the new understanding. It might just make the impact a tad greater if you focus on his best teachings (core doctrines such as hellfire etc) and get her to think that they'd never say he's not Faithful Slave .. Good idea, though.
-
DaCheech
I never noticed before: One of these "7" with Russell was a General, and used it (title) in their holy propaganda?
-
moshe
JWs don't care about changes, they don't need logical proof to accept changes, either. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a destiny= to be obsequious stooges for the WT publishing corporation.