by raymond frantz 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
As is often the case, the change announced at the annual meeting is being made to be a bigger deal than it actually is.
The change introduced at the annual meeting was that the 'one thought' (Revelation 17:13) is now considered to refer to the 'nations' giving their authority to the UN rather than to destroy 'false religion'.
But the JW position that the UN, once it has been given authority in the imaginary scenario, will then 'turn against false religion' has not actually changed.
DoC: Lots of stuff to take place before worrying about the GT.
All of it is up to interpretation (and re-interpretation, after it turns out to be wrong), so the GT can begin at any time because they can interpret the events however they need to in order to fit the narrative. It's similar to their approach where they claim you must trust the GB since it is "spirit-directed" but also you must let them off the hook because they are mere fallible men.
If we get it right, that is a reason to trust us. If we get it wrong, that is not a reason to distrust us.
so the GT can begin at any time
Hey Remond,
When was it broadcasted?
Now, let’s break this down. Why would the Watchtower want to position themselves in a less extreme light? Well, for starters, they don’t want to look like a group of doomsday fanatics.
Well, its too late for that.
Thanks Jeffro
"The change introduced at the annual meeting was that the 'one thought' (Revelation 17:13) is now considered to refer to the 'nations' giving their authority to the UN rather than to destroy 'false religion'.
But the JW position that the UN, once it has been given authority in the imaginary scenario, will then 'turn against false religion' has not actually changed."
Once again, the self-proclaimed “faithful and discreet slave” reveals itself not as a prophetic guide but as a doctrinal contortionist. The latest “new light” from the Annual Meeting has sparked a quiet, awkward shift in Jehovah’s Witness eschatology: Babylon the Great, long caricatured as the entirety of “false religion,” no longer seems to be falling according to script. But rather than acknowledging the failure of past prophecies, the leadership pivots, reshapes, and rebrands its narrative—an all-too-familiar pattern for those who have tracked the Watchtower's checkered doctrinal past.
For decades, Babylon the Great was a centerpiece of their apocalyptic worldview. Illustrated in Watchtower literature with collapsing cathedrals and burning churches (always churches, never mosques or synagogues), it served as a convenient foil against which the organization could define its own purity. The message was consistent and forceful: all other religions are corrupt, demonic, and on the brink of divine annihilation. And yet now, when that anticipated destruction fails to materialize, and religion continues to thrive in vast swaths of the world, the Society’s bravado fades into ambiguity.
What is unfolding before us is not a case of divine refinement but strategic rebranding. This recent reinterpretation, in which the “one thought” of Revelation 17:13 is redirected toward the political realm—namely, the nations handing power to the United Nations—signals more than theological ambiguity. It reveals a desperate retreat. Babylon the Great, once center stage, is gradually being relegated to a conceptual background as the governing body attempts to preserve relevance in a world that continues to disprove their chronological confidence.
Let us not forget, their 1919 narrative—that Christ judged all religions and chose Jehovah’s Witnesses alone to be his earthly organization—is foundational to their authority. To walk back any part of their eschatological framework, even slightly, is to shake the fragile scaffolding on which their spiritual supremacy rests. That scaffolding, built on the ruins of failed expectations and revised dates, cannot withstand scrutiny. The fall of Babylon the Great was not merely postponed; it was never happening according to their timeline. Yet, instead of admitting prophetic error, they simply recalibrate the lens, hoping that loyal members won’t notice the sleight of hand.
But the shifting emphasis carries further implications. In toning down their aggressive stance against other religions—especially Christianity—the organization positions itself as more palatable to secular governments and charitable watchdogs. In nations like Australia and the UK, where the Watchtower has faced legal scrutiny and where charity status is under review, it is expedient to appear moderate. How ironic that an organization which once reveled in damning others as "harlots of Babylon" now adjusts its tone to avoid appearing intolerant or sectarian. The fire-breathing denunciations of “Christendom” are replaced with vague, sanitized language designed to escape controversy and preserve tax benefits.
Even more revealing is the selective application of their rhetoric. While Christian denominations—especially the Catholic Church—are depicted as the ultimate embodiments of Babylonian corruption, Islam, Judaism, Eastern religions, and animistic traditions receive conspicuously little criticism. Why? Not out of theological nuance, but due to social caution. It is far safer to attack Catholics—who won't retaliate—than to risk accusations of bigotry or incitement by polemicizing against protected or sensitive religious minorities. Thus, their so-called prophetic courage proves itself to be moral convenience.
In truth, the only “fall” that appears underway is that of the Watchtower itself. Membership stagnates or declines in many parts of the world. Kingdom Halls are shuttered or sold. The once-tight screws of behavioral control loosen quietly. Beards, university education, relaxed dating rules—all formerly grounds for suspicion or discipline—are now tacitly accepted or openly allowed. The governing body, once the purveyor of eternal absolutes, now trades in temporal flexibility.
But what is left when the apocalyptic urgency fades, when the walls of doctrinal exclusivity begin to crack, and when the “us vs. them” paradigm is diluted into vague niceness? The answer is simple: a hollowed-out ideology struggling to reinvent itself. The supposed uniqueness of Jehovah’s Witnesses is being traded for survival strategies, and the prophetic core that once gave them zeal now resembles little more than a shuffled deck of outdated Watchtower magazines.
In this, we see the inevitable unraveling of a theology not rooted in timeless truth but in reactive adjustment. The Catholic Church, by contrast, does not hinge its authority on predictions of imminent Armageddon or on denouncing others to validate itself. Her endurance lies not in sensationalism, but in sacrament; not in doomsday charts, but in apostolic succession; not in adjusting doctrines to save face, but in preserving what was handed down from Christ and his apostles.
As the Watchtower continues its evolution into a more socially acceptable but spiritually vacuous institution, one cannot help but ask: if Babylon the Great is no longer falling, then what exactly are they waiting for? Or perhaps, more poignantly: has the Watchtower mistaken itself for the very harlot it so often condemned?
