Does the WTS's past matter?

M.J.

I know, I'd jump into this topic by saying, "heck yeah. They're the ones saying they've been appointed by God based on what they were doing back around 1914-1919." But I'm trying to help someone out who has reached a roadblock with his wife. He relates the following:

She has a hard time with examples that are 100 years old or even 15-20 years old in regards to past predictions and beliefs. She has accepted the fact that like any human or human organization, mistakes are made and that JWs have acknowledged these mistakes. In essense, what we tell her about what they did 10-15 years ago has little basis on what she believes to be a changed/corrected/evolved organization.

The "new light" argument is a standard JW fallback.

Any thoughts?

LittleToe

If they had reformed then it would mean little.
As it is they have over a hundred years of tradition that shows they have changed little.
They continue to say that "the end is in sight", and rouse up expectations accordingly.

Big Dog

M.J., when I would point these sorts of things out to my family I would get the they are human etc. arguement to which I would respond, yes, that's fine, all well and good. But here's the rub, at the time those beliefs were held as absolute, and if you did not believe them you were either an unbeliever or an apostate. They were not presented as ideas that you could either accept or reject, they were presented as absolute truth. That seems to be the big thing that JW's never get when examples of past follies are brought up.

If they said, ok, two core beliefs, love God, love your neighbor, and all this other stuff is interesting conjecture but you don't have to believe it under penalty of death, fine, I'd have no problem with that. But the WBTS has paraded this stuff as absolute Truth which non-belief caused severe sanctions. That's the problem IMO.

Will Power

This excuse really gets to me sometimes. Something from 1978 can be used to explain a "conscience" decision for certain behaviour even tho a later publication will lean a different way. AND at the same time really old stuff is ok, unless newer stuff exists that is different and thats the one they have chosen to accept. They do the same with scripture.

It's all picking and choosing, as long as the choice allows the person to remain in the group. Isn't that why the WT prints & holds several different opinions as being in the truth at the same time, so that they can have an answer for every thing at any time for any one?

When a loved one chooses to choose whichever will keep them in the group, you know what has been done to their mind is a crime.

sincerely

will

AK - Jeff

MJ -

I think many of us felt like that while we wanted to believe it was the 'truth' - didn't we?

But how bout this?; If she becomes a witness [or stays one], and her child or husband is seriously hurt, needs blood, and she decides to let them die - ok if they have the absolute and undisputable truth - right? But if three years down the road the wts just jumps track and says that blood can be transfused now - then what? She will be out a loved one - the wts will never admit they had it wrong - and she will not be able to criticize them for the 'new light'. IF she does - boom - disfellowshipped.

There really is a lot to loose when we trust this organization to be right. They can kill you and then never apologize for having it wrong before they did!

Millions know it - if she refuses to hear it - what can you do?

Jeff

Kenneson

Why want JWs allow the same argument for other religions and their past?

eye 23

Hi

I think thats what I thought originally...hey what does it matter we all make mistakes, its not the thought now.

this is how I would reason it out now though

I think focusing on what those mistakes meant to actual people within the organization. For example I read one mans account of how when his much loved wife of over many years needed a transplant and it wasn't seen as scriptual by the sociaty she refused and died and the untold sorrow he felt at loosing his wife and best friend.

he remained in the 'truth' faithfully until there was 'new light' which stateted that ...Now we can accept transplants...how wonderful brothers! without much acknowlegement to all those that suffered except to say that they should find comfort in the fact that there loved ones chose to obay Jehovah in their major life/death decisions. This is cold comfort for a man who is lonely for his lifes companion.

it also points out that they couldn't have been 100% sure what it was Jehovah wanted them to relate to the congregations... so it follows there must have been a measure of arrogance on their part to asume they had all the facts ...when as it turned out they didn't!

if this kind of negligence was a one of occurance. Then maybe if there were heart felt repentance for the suffering that was caused ... we could reason on forgiveness as Jesus taught...but this happens again and again and faithfull brothers and sisters who even encouraged their most precious loved ones along with beautiful children to take a course that ultimitally our loving father didn't want us to take in the first place...feel heavy of heart unsure and sad......................................but what of the WBTS ..........if those very brothers/sisters complain about the injustice...keep in the forefront of your mind here that our loving father never ever gave this requirment ...............then they are shunned by the remaining was they love!

we used to laugh at those 'so called' christians that sat around singing to jesus with their guitars.....thinking ..'its all about emotion'..'they don't have an accurate knowlege'..................but hey........you know what? that was just exactly what jesus was about...........kindness and compassion and love!

something the WBTS would do well to remember when they are praying for holy sprit/guidence from Jehovah.

that's what I would say anyway

hope it helps

eye23

M.J.

One faulty premise here, as LT brought up is that the organization has actually changed/improved. Aside from a few administrative moves and a few flashes of "new light", IT IS THE SAME ORGANIZATION. The same "theocratic arrangement" spews forth its policies in the same way that it always has.

Big Tex

In essense, what we tell her about what they did 10-15 years ago has little basis on what she believes to be a changed/corrected/evolved organization.

Suppose she caught her husband cheating with another woman dozens of times. Each time he told her the affair had happened because he was 'just a man' but now miraculously he was changed. If she suspects he is having another affair and questions him, he becomes angry and accuses her of not believing in him and that she should trust him because he said he had changed.

Wouldn't the past matter then?

"New Light" reminds me of that old Richard Pryor routine. He said his wife once walked in on him in bed with another woman. "Honey we're not having sex." She said it looked that way to her. He said, "Who you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

jeanniebeanz

eye 23 really summed it up nicely. It might not matter if no one got hurt. Thousands have been hurt and killed. Trying to get that through the thick JW ~~skull~~ shield is tough.

J

Does the WTS's past matter?

Share this