by hamsterbait 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The Gibbering Buddies always say this when back pedalling or reversing a teaching. Why won' t they admit that THEY said it. They also use " some have said/thought" as if distancing themselves from the crap, it makes them less responsible.
It is like Aaron's golden calf it just "came on out " of the fire all by itself!
When referring to older teachings they have also used:
"Some Christians might feel..."
"Some might think..."
etc.
My personal favourite was when everyone went mad about avoiding lecithin in the 1970's.
May be derived from blood so ask the manufacturer - w63 2/15 p. 123 Carry Your Own Load of Responsibility
For example, while lecithin is found in blood, it is also derived from soybeans, which happen to be the common commercial source of most lecithin. If there is doubt about a product, it is up to the individual to investigate by inquiring of the manufacturer. The substance may have been derived from blood or it may not.
Is not derived from blood - no need to ask the manufacturer -w79 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers
some Christians have refused to eat any product having lecithin listed as an ingredient. Others have felt compelled to write to manufacturers to check on the source of the lecithin used in certain foods... there is no reason for any manufacturer to seek to have lecithin extracted from blood
So once again (and with a hint of ridicule) it is 'some Christians', and 'others' who have 'felt compelled to write to manufacturers', no mention that they were TOLD to do so by the Governing Body.
Splash
Good connection to Aaron and how he weaseled out of being executed for his own apostasy and giving the official stamp to the apostasy of the Israelites
(Exodus 32:1-4) 32 Meanwhile the people got to see that Moses was taking a long time about coming down from the mountain. So the people congregated themselves about Aaron and said to him: “Get up, make for us a god who will go ahead of us, because as regards this Moses, the man who led us up out of the land of Egypt, we certainly do not know what has happened to him.” 2 At this Aaron said to them: “Tear off the gold earrings that are in the ears of YOUR wives, of YOUR sons and of YOUR daughters and bring them to me.” 3 And all the people began tearing off the gold earrings that were in their ears and bringing them to Aaron. 4 Then he took [the gold] from their hands, and he formed it with a graving tool and proceeded to make it into a molten statue of a calf. And they began to say: “This is your God, O Israel, who led you up out of the land of Egypt.”
(so whose idea was it to make the idol, the people or Aaron..AARON)
5 When Aaron got to see this, he went to building an altar before it. Finally Aaron called out and said: “There is a festival to Jehovah tomorrow.” 6 So on the next day they were early in rising, and they began offering up burnt offerings and presenting communion sacrifices. After that the people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.
(once again it is Aaron that is taking the lead, making an altar and naming it a festival to Jehovah, not the common people)
Note what this QFR says (and think of the reason David was not executed for murder)
*** w10 5/15 p. 21 Questions From Readers ***
Yes. Because of such supplication and for at least two other reasons, it seems that Jehovah answered Moses’ prayer and did not punish Aaron.
One reason apparently had to do with Aaron’s record of faithfulness. When Moses was commissioned to appear before Pharaoh and to bring the Israelites out of Egypt, Jehovah appointed Aaron to accompany Moses and speak representatively for him. (Ex. 4:10-16)
Consider also what led up to Aaron’s making the golden calf. Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days. When “the people got to see that Moses was taking a long time about coming down from the mountain,” they persuaded Aaron to make an idol for them. Aaron cooperated and produced a golden statue of a calf. (Ex. 32:1-6) However, Aaron’s subsequent actions indicate that his heart was not with this idolatrous movement. He evidently gave in to pressure.
Evidently, Jehovah forgave Aaron for his weakness
-------------------------
Where does Aaron take responsibility for his actions?
The GB always blame some unknown
The only formal admission of guilt was a single paragraph in the 1980 Watchtower article "Choosing the Best Way of Life". This paragraph confessed excitement surrounding 1975 was encouraged by the Watchtower. However, one cannot help note with disappointment the five year span before such admission, or that the article still concluded by shifting blame to the attitude of the members. The Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.17 stated:
"In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility . It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
Nevertheless, there is no reason for us to be shaken in faith in God's promises. Rather, as a consequence, we are all moved to make a closer examination of the Scriptures regarding this matter of a day of judgment. In doing so, we find that the important thing is not the date. What is important is our keeping ever in mind that there is such a day - and it is getting closer and it will require an accounting on the part of all of us. Peter said that Christians should rightly be "awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah." (2 Pet. 3:12) It is not a certain date ahead; it is day-to-day living on the part of the Christian that is important. He must not live a single day without having in mind that he is under Jehovah's loving care and direction and must submit himself thereto, keeping also in mind that he must account for his acts."
Oprah Winfrey, had an article in her magazine recently about Highly Defensive People. These are individuals who cannot take any criticism at all without making excuses.
Normal people try to justify their actions too, but when they make a mistake they admit it, apologize, and move on. Highly Defensive People, are not emotionally strong enough to accept even the slightest, constructive criticism.
Here's an article from WebMD regarding it. Wait! Are You Implying That I Need To Read This Article?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/151245/1/They-Cant-Admit-Theyre-Wrong#.VABccd0gpYU
It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
vs. Exodus 32:24:
So I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold must take it off and give it to me.’ Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.”
"It is to be regretted", not "we apologize for".
"Out came this calf", not "I made this calf".
Slimy wankers, the lot of them.
Aw '95 6/22 p8
More recently, many Witnesses conjectured that events associated with the beginning of Christ’s Millennial Reign might start to take place in 1975. Their anticipation was based on the understanding that the seventh millennium of human history would begin then.
These erroneous views .....................
and
YB 87 pp131/132
However, some had their own personal convictions with respect to the year 1925. Would they let themselves be admonished by The Watch Tower of January 1, 1925? It cautioned:...
Interesting article, coco. Your link wasn't working for me, but I found the article here, for anyone who's interested (and no, that URL is not cut off): http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Martha-BeckWait-Are-You-Implying-I-Need-to-Read-This-Artic
I'm dealing with someone right now who can't take any criticism, so I need all the advice I can get. Sorry for the slight off-topic-ness.
1969 Awake it was that "promised" us young ones that we would never get old in this system of things. I was 21 then and am now nearly 68. Is 68 old? Guess not!
just saying
eyeuse2badub
The no-blood doctrine is another example of the GB's use of such expressions as 'they reason' or 'some Christians object...' or 'some Christians may conclude....' as though the rank and file really have the freedom to think for themselves when really its' WT pulling the strings and who have the final say when it comes to what is proper or not proper use of blood in medicine .
Notice WT's highly defensive maneuvering in this QFR 6/15/04 article on page 30:
Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’ They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be ‘poured out on the ground.’ (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.
Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions?
“Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, noted that plasma proteins (fractions) move from a pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her fetus. Thus a mother passes immunoglobulins to her child, providing valuable immunity. Separately, as a fetus’ red cells complete their normal life span, their oxygen-carrying portion is processed. Some of it becomes bilirubin, which crosses the placenta to the mother and is eliminated with her body wastes. Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells.
I don't see the problem in that wording, JW GoneBad. The Society is talking there about a conscience matter, not hinting at what the R&F should believe by using leading language.
