From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:44:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center

Antti's newsfeed is giving him trouble, so he asked me to
post this for him:

	I SENT THIS TO YOU BY EMAIL, BECAUSE MY BBS-SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK, SO YOU
	CAN SENT IT TO T.R.M WITH YOUR COMMENTS. 
(my comments are on the margin, without the ">", his are indented..)

In talk.religion.misc you write:
>Antti, I don't know where you get that from.  If the Jehovah's Witnesses
>claim to being a "prophet" is only that they can bring the prophecies
>found in the Bible to people's door, then anyone from outside the
>Jehovah's Witnesses could do the same, and thus also be "true prophets".
>By that criteria, you would have to consider Mormons "true prophets",
>which you do not.  

	No, they misinterpret Bible. Besides, they have their own bible. 

Then apparently "being the feet of the OT prophets" and preaching door-to-door
isn't what makes a True Prophet (tm) in your book.  So what makes the JWs
True Prophets? 

>Now this gets interesting.  So what you're saying is:
>1) That Russell was a "phony JW".     

	Hmm... depends what way you put it. Some of his interpretations were 
	really strange + the pyramid stuff etc. . In this way yes. But on the
	other hand he was honest. 
Lots of other people are honest as well, and are not JWs. Are they therefore
"true"? 

>2) That when those before 1931 said God was using them as His "channel"
>   to the world, they were lying. 

	No, but as you know, before 1919, in Russell's time, they were still
	in the imprisonment of the Great Babylon. 

That would have been news to them.  When Russell started the Watchtower
movement, he said he had basically wiped the slate clean, dumped all old
practices (although he admitted to not being a religious man up till
that point, so he couldnt have had too much to dump) and started clean.
Naturally in later years, as old teachings needed to be replaced to
conform to new situations, SOME excuse had to be made for Russell being
wrong on so many things.  Now, if they were only "in the imprisonment of the Great Babylon"
till 1919, how does that explain some of the bizarre tachings that came
AFTER 1919?  

In reality, I dont think most JWs really know what Russell taught, and
what their roots are, even though it was all only about 100 years ago.
For example, Russell taught back in the 1880s that the "message" had
ALREADY been preached to all the nations; that their work was only
to get people into what he called the "elect", NOT to convert the
"masses" for their salvation; that would come after Armageddon, unlike
the current JWs who say you have to join them or else you will not
survive Armageddon, and you will NOT be ressurected.  

>I've never heard any JW put it the way you are here.  Is this official
>JW belief (I doubt it) or your own attempt to explain away the screwups that
>otherwide would be difficult to deal with? 

	In a way both.                               
Cant argue with an honest answer...I give you credit for admitting that,

>This, Antti, is where you need a little historical prospective.  As far 
>back as the 1880s, the JWs (rather, Russell) believed HIS eyes had
>already been opened; that they had been freed from "false religion". 
>That they were "starting from scratch" so to speak, worshipping "in
>spirit and truth".  (These buzz-words sound familiar?) I'd suggest
>going to your KH library, and read some of those early works. 

	Of course, wouldn't they admit that they're still in the false 
	religion ?

I'm not sure if the language barrier has confused this statement.
Are you saying "if I read these old books, wouldn't Russell, in
them, admit to still having some false religion?"  

>1) the world will end 6000 years after Adam & Eve's creation.
>2) 6000 years after Adam & Eve's creation is in 1975. 
>So, they didn't come right out and say it directly, but anyone
>could put 1 and 1 together and get 2.  (and many did..)  My wife,
>who was a teenage JW in 1975, remembers the time well; she
>remembers telling classmates that their class would never graduate
>(she was class of '75) because the world was going to end that
>year.  

	I dunno, if you have missed this one. 1975 is 6,000 years after 
	Adam's creation, not necessarily Eve's. 
	I would call that one a personal belief. 
Now that 1975 has come and gone, sure.  20/20 hindsight is great.
But in the years approaching 1975, NO.  It was stated with certain
belief that 1975 was 6000 years from BOTH of their creation, that
BOTH were created in the same year.  It wasn't until after 1975 passed
that the Watchtower leaders "discovered" what they called the "Eve gap".
They said there was no way to know if they were created in the same
year or not.  Thus, however wide the "gap", that would be how long after
1975 the "end" would come...

	For your information: Steven Edwards sent me Raymond Franz's book 
	Crisis of Conscience. I read some parts of it (and then threw it down 
	from a bridge), especially about 1975. I sought EVERY ITEM MENTIONED 
	ABOUT 1975 IN JW LITERATURE, so I know quite well what has been said 
	about it. 
Really...so you are familiar with the "Eve gap", and the fact that it
was not "discovered" until after 1975's expectations had failed?  

>"speculation by individual JWs" for the whole 1975 thing.  

	That's what it's all about. 
In a way, thats correct.  The problem was, the people *speculating* about
1975 being the end of 6000 years, and thus Armageddon, were the people at
the very head of the group; those writing the literature; those who are
viewed as being "God's mouthpiece" and prophet to the world.  It would seem
that they have been rather careless and cavalier about that self-appointed
honor, with all the speculating they do. 

>the less "good" something is, the more zealously it must be pushed.

	Don't mic it with 'fanatic'. 

>Now, to apply your "could a bad tree produce good fruit ?"
>to others besides yourself.  The Catholic Church is active in charity
>and feeding famine victims in Africa. Good fruits, are they a bad tree
>then? The Mormon church sends missionaries all over the world, spreading
>the Gospel as they do practical work projects to help the people they
>preach to.  Good fruits, bad tree? The list could go on and on.  So they
>must all be good trees?  

	I refer to the missiles in your back yard. 
Not an answer.  Many different groups produce good fruits; therefore by
your approach, they must be good trees. Correct? 

			Andreas

Walter

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex