"Do 'the Witnesses' fully align with God's word? Indeed, this is not true. There were times when, for example, vaccination against diseases was forbidden. And this was not so long ago. Then, according to the old Witnesses' stories, it was also forbidden for someone to be a member of agricultural cooperatives or trade unions, as this was considered a political stance. At that time, this was also called TRUTH. Did Jehovah want this? Did Jehovah want that for decades it was written at the beginning of Awake that the Creator made a promise that is now retrospectively not true?
What is my problem? I see this syrupy, sweet "faithful servant" worship. We are taught to put obedience first. However, the Bereans showed a different spirituality. They didn't believe anyone until they themselves were convinced of something. Now I see a trend as if someone (some power) wanted to "breed" a group of people who hold complete loyalty as the highest value. Not direct adherence to the Bible, but adherence to the group that interprets the Bible, so essentially adherence to an authority (the word of power). True, God is also power, so loyalty to God is also loyalty to power. But what if this whole thing is just a very good disguise? What if this is Satan's masterpiece, with which he wants to deceive "even the saints"? - Jesus gave a criterion: love. I do not see love in congregational life. Do you know what I see? The demonstration of love. Yes, the demonstration of love works, love does not. However, the outsider does not notice this. He only notices it when he gets into the middle of it. He realizes that there is no love. However, this is masterfully hidden. In fact, this concealment is not masterful, but brilliant. For example, we are taught to show love, and to make an effort to show love. But where there is love, where there really is, it is expressed naturally, without effort, and no effort needs to be made for this purpose. Effort is only needed when you want to show a love that does not exist. In this case, a great effort is needed and for someone to constantly remind us. Effort always needs to be made for what is not natural. If someone is hungry, they have to make an effort to hold back from showing their hunger, not to show their hunger.
What is my problem? I see this syrupy, sweet "faithful servant" worship. And at the same time, I see the honesty of simple Witnesses. How much they can be misled. If an article came down tomorrow with "new truth" that the Holy Spirit is, after all, a person, then the elders would read it with the same impassive voice as the other changes, and publicly not a single dissenting voice would be heard. About 10 years ago, when I first saw one of the "faithful and discreet" at a convention, I honestly had unpleasant feelings. He made an impression on me like a robot. I thought to myself that if I got up now, went up to him, and suddenly beheaded him publicly with a sword, wires would appear. Sick thought, it's true. Maybe Satan suggested it."
"The outrage towards the "faithful and wise" coldness, reclusiveness, insensitivity is just too much. As if they are not even humans, but some distant cold software that just keeps spewing well-phrased instructions; but it doesn't know the concept of "bottom-up initiative". It dictates what questions the study leader can ask and defines what is appropriate to answer. However, it does not even give its name. No one knows who writes those articles. Yet, this would be a fundamental thing. After all, these articles are far less inspired than the Bible. Therefore, the authors' names should be published, so the mistakes can have an owner too. After all, the Bible was written by people whose names we know: Moses, Paul, Luke, etc. They did not shy away from writing it down. If they could give their names, why doesn't the "faithful and wise" dare to take responsibility? You can pray, beg, ask God, in other words, communicate because He indeed answers. But the "faithful and wise" is so distant, intangible, it's unbelievable. Because you could go to Jesus, you could slap a protestant pastor - these are all human-like. But the "faithful and discreet" is different. As if watching the world from a distance. That's why I have this feeling that they are not humans, but some perfectly developed robots that look like humans attending congresses. Or take the 144,000. They are basically the ones we are just helpers to. Jesus only made a contract with them, we just carry their bags symbolically. Are they publicly named? Do you know how many there are in the country, or at least where they live? The secrecy starts here. What the Witnesses may know, they only know it at the level of gossip. If a "new truth" comes to light, and the "old truth" is no longer true, they don't even say "sorry". As if it wasn't them who said it was the Creator's promise, which turned out not to be true. This impudence is shocking. Would Jesus have behaved this way? - I don't think so."
"This waste of leisure time is very true. This whole "training" is very similar to how soldiers are trained. They have to be overloaded so that they have no time to think. There was a Watchtower article in September 2008 about how the preaching work is not about results, but about constant activity. As if they wanted to kill even that natural instinct that distinguishes an intelligent person from a soulless robot - because a bricklayer is also happy that the house is being built, not that he can wheelbarrow the rubble. It's basically about filling time. The entire so-called service meeting and theocratic ministry school serve the same purpose. Because the efficiency of both is almost zero. They discuss artificial topics so circumstantially that they contribute not to efficiency, to spiritual freshness, but to absolute dullness. The whole methodology basically aims to maintain an illusion: the illusion of unity, and the illusion that the learner gains serious biblical knowledge. But he doesn't. The selection of biblical quotes also serves this purpose: to stun with a pile of irrelevant information, to intensify the self-torturing feeling of how stupid I am, and to give a flat explanation of deeper logical connections. In the end, the person even believes about himself that he has a great knowledge. But it seems that it is not the knowledge that is important, but the belief that we have knowledge. Not the known, but the demonstration of knowledge. Not love, but the demonstration of love, not activity, but the demonstration of activity, not reality, but the demonstration of reality."
"Until 1995, every Awake magazine began with the statement that "... this magazine reinforces trust in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and secure new world will be established before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." Then, in February 2008, it turned out that Matthew 24:34 is not about the generation of 1914, but about the 144,000 who are still alive today, i.e., they have not "passed away". Moreover, according to some year-end reports, their number can sometimes even increase compared to the previous year. Also, according to a 2008 Watchtower, the selection of the 144,000 did not end in 1935, but it is still possible today that God will call someone (not just to replace a "fallen" anointed one - as they said before -, but anew). Of course, this wouldn't be such a big problem, after all, "the path of the righteous is like the first light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day." (Proverbs 4:18) The problem is not if knowledge is still incomplete and part-by-part, but when lies are put into the Creator's mouth. Because indeed, it is a great lie that the Creator would have said something like "a peaceful and secure new world will be established before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." Such a claim cannot be found in the Bible, so the Creator could not have said this. This lie was distributed for decades in millions of copies. Those who dared to put this lie on Awake, do you think they committed a pleasing act to God? Because they themselves knew that it was not God who said this, but they interpreted God's word in this way. So once again: it was not God who said it, but they interpreted God's word this way and were so presumptuous that they elevated their own interpretation to the rank as if it really was God who had said it. What is arrogance, if not this??
Then there's a new problem. So far, they have taught that Jesus already came invisibly in 1914. Of course, this is also not in the Bible, this is also an interpretation, namely, the interpretation of what is contained in Daniel 4:7-14, the so-called second fulfillment of the 7 times in verse 13. By the way, the Bible does not say a single word about that this 7 times would have a fulfillment that ends in 1914. Because according to the Bible, the 7 times "was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar" (Daniel 4:30) And if it's fulfilled, it does not follow that there is a greater fulfillment. Of course, this cannot be ruled out, but the rest is just speculation, which is either true or not. So Jesus came in 1914, of course invisibly, but still "every eye saw him", and those who crucified him. Of course, the words here also mean something different, as if the Bible was written in thieves' language. And now behold: Jesus not only came invisibly in 1914, but will also come during the great tribulation (whether he will be invisible again, or visible, the Watchtower does not write about this), because on page 20 of the issue dated July 15, 2008, under point 17, this is written: "The final judgment will be when Jesus comes during the time of the great tribulation."
So how is this?
I call the claim a lie: "... this magazine strengthens confidence in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and safe new world will come into being before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." - Do you understand? The part underlined is the lie, because the Creator did not make such a promise to anyone. Whoever denies this obvious fact is simply lying, and consciously lying - just so that his words may carry greater weight in front of the masses of Witnesses. So he lies in a political manner. If it were true that Armageddon will come within the lifetime of the 1914 generation, this would not change the fact that the Creator did not make such a promise. Because such a promise does not exist in the Bible and according to the teaching, God does not make miraculous revelations today. At most, what can happen is that the "faithful and wise" correctly interpret God's word. Do you understand? It's about interpretation, not about the Creator making a statement. This is a difference even if the interpretation is correct by chance. Once again for those who have difficulty understanding: the faithful and wise servant elevates his own interpretation of the Bible to a status (not just in this particular case) as if it were the word of God, and then sells it to the simple Witnesses as "This is the creator's promise". Like some American advertising trick. On the other hand, many interpretations have already been proven incorrect, so one may rightly ask why this one would be correct? That's why it's a lie to claim that God made this statement."
"And if I am fulfilled, it does not follow that there is a greater fulfillment. Of course, this cannot be ruled out, but the rest is just speculation, which is either true or not. So Jesus came in 1914, of course invisibly, but still "every eye saw him", and those who crucified him. Of course, the words here also mean something different, as if the Bible was written in thieves' language. And now behold: Jesus not only came invisibly in 1914, but will also come during the great tribulation (whether he will be invisible again, or visible, the Watchtower does not write about this), because on page 20 of the issue dated July 15, 2008, under point 17, this is written: "The final judgment will be when Jesus comes during the time of the great tribulation."
So how is this?
I call the claim a lie: "... this magazine strengthens confidence in the Creator's promise that a peaceful and safe new world will come into being before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." - Do you understand? The part underlined is the lie, because the Creator did not make such a promise to anyone. Whoever denies this obvious fact is simply lying, and consciously lying - just so that his words may carry greater weight in front of the masses of Witnesses. So he lies in a political manner. If it were true that Armageddon will come within the lifetime of the 1914 generation, this would not change the fact that the Creator did not make such a promise. Because such a promise does not exist in the Bible and according to the teaching, God does not make miraculous revelations today. At most, what can happen is that the "faithful and wise" correctly interpret God's word. Do you understand? It's about interpretation, not about the Creator making a statement. This is a difference even if the interpretation is correct by chance. Once again for those who have difficulty understanding: the faithful and wise servant elevates his own interpretation of the Bible to a status (not just in this particular case) as if it were the word of God, and then sells it to the simple Witnesses as "This is the creator's promise". Like some American advertising trick. On the other hand, many interpretations have already been proven incorrect, so one may rightly ask why this one would be correct? That's why it's a lie to claim that God made this statement.
Or "let's not deal with the past"? Maybe the history of the Witnesses is not interesting? Not even important? Didn't we study the past of Jehovah's Witnesses for years through various publications (e.g., through the publication titled "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand!")? How can you say the past is not important? If the past was not important, how could you prove that the Witnesses are chosen by God? How could you prove that many biblical prophecies were fulfilled precisely on the Bible students around 1918? Without the past, the Watchtower could not be a tower, because every tower needs foundations.
I didn't say that you should deliberately look for small mistakes in the text. However, you should not ignore the glaring, almost eye-poking mistake. And that the Creator promised something cannot be a trivial detail, which is irrelevant from a perspective of 13 years. Basically, you can read all of Lenin's works with the attitude "what benefit do I get from it", because you can extract many true and instructive things from it.
"I didn't even teach my disciples anything that was not in line with the claims in our publications."
This is what shocks and horrifies me. You're even bragging about it! How dare you train disciples this way? And if a disciple inquires about something that you think differently, will you babble? And if you're asked to give a lecture, will you present what you're convinced is not true? And your conscience? Indeed, the cat is out of the bag now. When I studied with them back in the day and asked difficult questions, the leader of the study also babbled. And I noticed this and quite disliked him, because I expected honesty, not manipulation. If he had said, "I don't know", or that the book's explanation may not be true, he would have been much more likeable. But seeing his pathetic struggle, I despised him.
By the way, what is this gag order? If you come to a conclusion, something contradictory to what is in the Teaching, should you keep silent? - But why should we be silent? - Okay, I believe you can't discuss this with brothers who would be confused by this, who would never think of such things on their own. I also agree that 99% of the brotherhood can't be told about this (it's also sad that the ratio is so high). But why can't you write a letter to the "faithful and wise"? Why isn't it natural for someone to ask a question? Didn't they ask Jesus? Did the Bereans blindly accept everything Paul said? Doesn't the Bible encourage us to examine everything? Is the Watchtower an exception?
You say that if someone stumbles upon something disturbing, they should wait for Jehovah. OK - but then this attitude should be followed in every area of life! So if I get a flat tire, I'll stand in front of the car and pray, why should I initiate the tire repair on my own? Or if I become unemployed, I sit at home and pray, then someone will come and offer me a job! - The Bible does not encourage such passivity. On the contrary, it encourages knocking. Asking questions. Of course, not to force the answer with a gun, but with adequate means: the power of word and language."
"I also went to the preaching service and I know that all it takes is minimal knowledge and a thick skin. If one gets used to being kicked out from 100 places, being able to push a publication on 10 places and having a primary school level conversation at about 1 place, they could easily complete even 90 hours. And you can get used to this. Then I also know what 90 hours this is. A pair starts, they approach someone, who of course refuses, and from here the time starts ticking. Then half an hour later they approach someone again, then they loiter a bit at a gate where the door is not opened when they ring and the two hours pass nicely. And like someone who did their job well, they can go home. The result doesn't matter, after all, a recent Watchtower also wrote that the result is not important, but the intention. It's easy to play smart, the Bible expert in front of people who can't tell their left hand from their right (the prayer book from the Bible) during the door-to-door service. And for those who are so self-absorbed, I recommend coming to a forum like this. Argue here, test your argumentation skills here, measure your preparedness here and not just on artificially planned demo presentations."
"You write, true, the Watchtower is written by people, but these people are led by the Holy Spirit. I know that the writers of the Bible were led by the Holy Spirit. So is the Bible of the same value as the Watchtower? There were errors in the Watchtower. The teaching changed quite often, sometimes by 180 degrees, for instance, the relationship of Christians to higher powers changed several times. I have old publications where, for example, it is written that in the last days evil angels will once again take on bodies on earth, just as they did before the flood. So the writers of the Watchtower were not inspired, because if they were, they could not make mistakes. They could be considered scholars or researchers, but not inspired.
You gave an interesting answer, because you wrote: "when Jehovah deems it important for a certain matter to be understood, then he inspires them and they write it down precisely."
So Jehovah does not inspire every Watchtower statement, but only those he wants to be revealed at a certain time. From this it follows that every Watchtower statement should be classified into two categories: the category of "interpretations inspired by Jehovah" and the category of "uninspired interpretation attempts by the Faithful and Discreet." Perhaps these sentences should be printed in different colors so that a Watchtower article would have to be set in two different colors. Let's say the red sentences would be the inspired sentences, and the black sentences would be the uninspired ones. However, this is also godlessness, because every article is set in the same color, so the reader thinks that every interpretation, every sentence is inspired. This is the sin of arrogance. Remember how severe a punishment Moses received when he attributed God's power to his own merit. I think it is even more serious when someone attributes their own opinion, speculation - about which they themselves know best that it did not come from God - to Jehovah, and sells this symbolic "product" as Jehovah's word. This causes serious damage, because it makes Jehovah look ridiculous and like someone who constantly changes his opinion.
This above opinion is my opinion. But it's just my opinion, because I might be wrong - which I admit the moment someone refutes it. But how conceited it would be of me to claim that this above train of thought is divine inspiration !?"
"You didn't understand that I objected to the "faithful and discreet" speaking about certain things when they were not inspired by God to do so. According to this, Jehovah does not inspire every Watchtower statement, but only those he wants to be fully revealed at a certain time. From this it follows that every Watchtower statement should be classified into two categories: the category of "interpretations inspired by Jehovah" and the category of "uninspired interpretation attempts by the Faithful and Discreet."
"It's not a problem if the "faithful and discreet" speak when they are not inspired by God - because after all, if we saw them as scholarly Bible researchers, then they would have the right to make mistakes - but the problem is that they mix their own uninspired statements with their inspired statements, i.e. those that God truly inspired. Because it is impossible that God would inspire them incorrectly.
Let's take an example, I think the most serious one, about 1914. The problem is not that they wrote for decades that "the 1914 generation will not pass until Armageddon comes", but the problem is that they advertised this as the Creator's promise. So about something they figured out through logical deduction and calculation - i.e. their own human interpretation - they claimed for decades, publicly, in millions of copies, that this was the Creator's promise. But they knew best that this was not a statement inspired by God, but something they figured out.
"Well, you shock me more and more, you wrote this:
"If the elders write something down in the Watchtower, it must be so. We cannot doubt that."
Then you are not a worshipper of God, but of the "faithful and discreet". By the way, even Paul didn't say such things about himself. On the contrary, Paul expected his words to be examined and only accepted if they are in harmony with the Bible. Is the "faithful and discreet" more than Paul? Read about how much Paul praised the Bereans, who did not immediately accept his words, but examined them to see if they were true. If the Watchtower writes something, why can't we examine it? We would still be obligated to examine it even if they had never made a mistake. But changing so many times, that's a bit much. I know families whose children were born later because in 1975 they held demonstrations emphasizing how inappropriate it was to get married or have children, as there is so little time left. How can such a fraud be swallowed? And how is it possible that no one is responsible for this? - Of course no one is responsible because they don't sign their name to the article, even though Russel and even Rutherford did. There are 60-70 year old Witnesses today who could not play football in their childhood because their parents told them they could play football in the New World soon. And they have grown old, many have died.
If you don't know the answers to these, ask those with whom you are studying. You can still ask them questions, they are still obligated to answer you. But not everyone is obligated. Those who have been baptized are no longer obligated, and those who have been excommunicated are not even spoken to. So as a student, you are in a key position where they are obliged to answer you and find the answer even from the depths."
"About the Jehovah's Witnesses, you write:
"Do they do this with joy, perhaps?"
They sure don't do it joyfully. The truth is, they are already bored with everything, they just don't dare to say it. But I think the smarter ones no longer take the "faithful and discreet" seriously, so whether they are spiritualists, fraudsters, or God's true people, it doesn't matter - there has been so much talk and PR that people just pretend to believe them. So the situation is not as tragic as you paint it. Jehovah's Witnesses don't even seriously believe that Abaddon is the same as Jesus. They read it, recite it like a tape, but they don't care. So they don't identify with it, only the leadership believes it, because by the time the reports reach them, they have been "beautified" by all the zealous gossip, just like in any political party or hierarchy. Then if someone has a personal relationship with God and feels His help, then he "doesn't give a damn" about what the elders or any religion tell him. Because faith is not just talk, especially not a lot of talk, because a lot of talk and rules kill faith. Faith is an experience, the experience of God's help, regardless of all the nonsense. So if someone feels this help as a Jehovah's Witness, then let them be a Jehovah's Witness, but they don't have to fall flat in front of all the talk."