From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jws: bible alone?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:59:15 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <199226.4338.34820@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
| [....]
|In <TODD.92Sep2112309#palomar.tivoli.com>, todd@palomar.tivoli.com writes:
|>From The Watchtower, 12/1/1981, p. 27:
|>
|>  ... Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his
|>  "faithful and discreet slave," made up of spirt-annointed ones ...
|>  Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God
|>  is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how
|>  much Bible reading we do ...
|
|Yes, I believe that's true.  The quote ended with:  "Compare Acts 8:30-40."
|
|This is why, in Acts 8:26, the angel instructed Philip to go to this Ethiopian,
|who was reading and reading the Bible.  Yet that reading alone would never be
|enough; when Philip asked, "Do you actually know what you are reading?", the
|man testified, "Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?"
|
|The Ethiopian recognised that he would never progress along the road to life,
|no matter how much Bible reading he did, unless he was guided by the channel of
|communication Jehovah was using at that time -- in this case, the Christian
|congregation, represented by Philip.

Who was the `channel of communication' that guided C. T. Russell in his work?

|Recall that the greatest crimes in all of history (Inquisitions, Crusades,
|Bible burnings, etc.) have been committed in the name of God by people who read
|and studied the Bible for years.  No, just reading the Bible is not enough.

Then how did C. T. Russell find all the `truths' that have become the core
doctrines of JWs?

|>The WTS claims to be the one right religion
|
|Yes; if we didn't believe it was the right religion, we'd change to the one we
|thought was right.
|
|There cannot be more than one true religion.  All religions disagree in at
|least a few beliefs (else they wouldn't be different), yet for each belief only
|one view can be correct.  For instance, either a fiery hell exists or it does
|not; either God is triune or He is not; either fornication is acceptable to God
|or it is not.
|
|There is at most one religion which has no incorrect beliefs (if there were
|another, it would differ from the original in at least one belief and by
|definition would then contain an incorrect belief).  Therefore it is not
|conceited to say there must be only one true religion.

Your statement above, `there is at *most* one true religion' makes sense,
but by your standard of judgement -- having no incorrect beliefs -- JWs
cannot have the true religion.  Most of the early doctrines have been
rejected, so they must have been incorrect, or they would still be held,
right?  The policy of allowing for extensive doctrinal change continues to
this day, and so JWs must still hold at least some incorrect beliefs that
have not yet been corrected, right?  Surely you don't claim that *all*
current beliefs are true in the absolute sense, do you?  So, how can you
then claim that your religion is the true one, when it has always held
incorrect beliefs?  If your standard of judgement is rigorously applied,
then you have to admit there must be *no* true religion, since you don't
accept any others as being true and since JWs still hold incorrect beliefs.

The resolution, of course, is that correctness of belief is not what
convinces JWs they have the true religion.  They have faith that no
matter what comes out of Brooklyn, God is still guiding `his organization'.
What convinces you personally of this guidance?  Most JWs I know of are
unable to provide a clear answer, but resort to vague generalities like,
`look at the rate of increase in membership', `who else do you know of
that is fully in accord with the Bible?' and so on.

|                                                        Finding out which one
|it is, of course, is another matter; we can find out which it is by comparison
|with the Bible (e.g., John 13:35 is a good starting point).
|
|>[1] Does the WTS claim to be God's organization?
|
|The Watchtower Society is just a legal corporation, required by law so that
|Jehovah's Witnesses can perform all the activities associated with our global
|educational work and Kingdom-preaching ministry.  (Matthew 24:14; 28:19,20) It
|is created under secular law and can be dissolved by the same.
|
|The global brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand, which uses the
|WTB&TS as a legal instrument, is (we believe) created under divine law and
|cannot be dissolved by government or legal action.  It is, we believe, God's
|_earthly_ organisation (a small part of a much greater universal organisation).
|
|I just wanted to make the distinction that "the WTS" is a legal entity _used_
|by "God's organization".
|
|>[2] How must we obtain information from God?  Is reading the Bible
|>    alone enough?  Who acts as God's channel on earth?
|
|We must obtain information from Jehovah primarily through his Word, the Bible.
|More is needed beyond just reading the Bible (see above).  Jesus prophesied
|that Jehovah's chosen channel would be a "faithful and discreet slave" class;

The context of the scriptures do not show that this would necessarily be
a class.  The early WTS certainly did not teach this.  In fact, C. T. Russell 
spoke of himself, *personally*, as being God's mouthpiece and agent for
revealing truth.  The Dec. 1, 1916 _Watchtower_ said:

    Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he
    filled the office of `that faithful and wise servant,' and that his
    great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season.
    His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title,
    but he admitted as much in private conversation.

The WTS continued this view well into the 1920s.  The Mar. 1, 1923
_Watchtower_ quotes Russell as saying that some spoke of him as the
`faithful and wise servant' and others spoke of the WTS as such.
It then added:

    Both statements were true; for Brother Russell was in fact the Society
    in the most absolute sense, in this, that he directed the policy and
    course of the Society without regard to any other person on earth.
    
The `faithful and discreet slave' may well be a class, but in WTS practice
this really means the members of the Governing Body and no one else.  No
JW, even one of the `anointed' class, who is not a member of that body
has any say in organizational activities.  Also, there are other
interpretations, such as that the `slave' refers to the body made up of
all Christians.

|we can identify who that is in these last days by comparing all religions
|claiming to be Christian with the Bible's standards and seeing who alone meets
|them; they must be Jehovah's organisation, cared for by that "slave".

Again, this is according to whose standards?  There are a lot more Bible
interpretations than there are Christian religions.  The WTS claims
that it should be judged according to standards of its own making.

|For instance, in these last days, what global organisation is fulfilling the
|prophecies in Isaiah 2:2-4, Matthew 24:14,

These scriptures first depend on whether one can prove we are in the `final
part of the days'.  This is a large task and JWs have not done so.  All
JW doctrines about the `last days' hinge on the 1914 date, and a study of
C. T. Russell's predictions about 1914 show that not one of them came true.
Additionally, there is not one feature of the `composite sign' --
earthquakes, war, famine, pestilence -- that JW doctrine claims is being
fulfilled in the 20th century, that has not been equally evident in
previous centuries.  See, for example, Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant
Mirror_, which shows that in many ways the problems of the 14th century
(Black Plague, etc.) were much worse than those of the 20th.

|                                           John 13:35,

There are many religious people other than JWs who practice love among
themselves.  Very few JWs know this because the Watchtower Society carefully
keeps that information from them.  If you look at the number of people who
drop out each year (several hundred thousand), who also become members of
other religions, this becomes obvious.  There are many support groups
specifically oriented toward ex-JWs and mostly started by evangelical
Christians, who prove this all the time.

|                                                       etc.?  We feel that only
|Jehovah's Witnesses do.

Are you certain you are familiar with the practices of *all* other religions?
Have you studied them and come to a conclusion based on that study, or are
you just accepting the word of the Watchtower Society that this is true?

|                         This is something that I'd be happy to pursue at much
|greater length, as I'm confident that the evidence is plain and compelling.
|
|>[4] If the Witnesses are right could any other religion be a true religion
|>    too? If the WTS is the one true religion should it always be in the truth?
|>    If the WTS is not always in the truth is it the one true religion?
|
|No; it should always be progressing to more accurate truth (Proverbs 4:18);

Prov. 4:18 reads (New World Translation):

    The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting
    lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.

This scripture is constantly misused by the JWs to excuse their doctrinal
fluctuations.  The context of this scripture shows there is no basis
for the WTS's interpretation.  The writer of Proverbs is making a simple
contrast between what happens to the wicked on one hand and the righteous
on the other.  The passage has nothing to do with a `revealing of new
truths,' either to individuals or to an organization.

|yes as long as it holds fast to the truth to the degree God has so far revealed
|it (Daniel 12:4,9,10), respectively.

`Truth' as defined by the Watchtower Society's current interpretations.
How do you ever know what truth is apart from what the WTS claims
at this particular moment?  In practice, whatever makes it into print
is `truth' until the printed word is changed.

Let's take a specific example.  The March 1, 1971 _Watchtower_, pages
133-152, contained a series of articles about the heart, which argued:

    Where and what is your heart? You may say, What heart are you talking
    about? You know you have a heart in your chest, one that is pumping
    blood....  But do you have another `heart' in your head, a `figurative
    heart'?  Is it part of your brain....?  No!  The brain, in which the
    mind resides, is one thing and the heart in our thorax, with its power
    of motivation, is another thing....  The Bible does not speak of a
    symbolic or spiritual heart in contradistinction to the fleshly or
    literal heart, just as it does not speak of a symbolic mind, and thus
    we do not want to make the mistake of viewing the literal heart as
    merely a fleshly pump as does orthodox physiology today.  Most
    psychiatrists and psychologists.... [look] upon the word `heart'
    merely as a figure of speech....

These ideas were presented in a drama at the `Divine Name' district
assembly in the summer of 1971, and were illustrated by giant, glowing,
talking models of a heart and brain.  Did Jehovah direct these articles
to be written and did he direct the assembly dramas to be staged?
Did he direct individual JWs to preach this foolishness to others?
Did Jehovah then change his mind and make a complete turnabout on this
question in 1984 and direct that the following statements be written?

    What are we to understand, then, by the word `heart'?....
    What an amazing number of different functions and capabilities are
    ascribed to the heart! Do all of these reside in the literal heart?
    That could hardly be so.... in nearly a thousand other references to
    `heart' in the Bible, `heart' is obviously used in a figurative
    sense.... obviously, a distinction must be drawn between the heart
    organ and the figurative heart. [Sept. 1, 1984 _Watchtower_, pp. 3-7]

This information is obviously not new.  Not one thing was stated in the
1984 article that was not known in 1971.  Obviously a strong minded
individual, namely Fred Franz, then vice-president of the Watchtower
Society, managed to convince enough other people of his ideas that he got
his ideas into print.  They then became `truth' and JWs were required to
believe them, on pain of disfellowshipping.  How powerful a force was Fred
Franz in WTS theology?  Governing Body member Karl Klein called him the
`oracle of the organization for many years'.  He was, essentially, *the*
translator of the WTS bible.  He was the only member of the WTS writing
staff, under president N. H. Knorr, whose writings were not subject to
review or revision by the editorial committee, since for all practical
purposes, he *was* the editorial committee.  Franz was a master at
rationalization, as the above 1971 _Watchtower_ article shows.  Karl
Klein once said `Freddie can rationalize *anything*'.

Note that the 1984 article contains not a hint that the subject had ever
been discussed before, and that this was a significant change in doctrine.
Did God direct the writing of either article?  How are rank-and-file JWs
supposed to tell what has come down from God and what has come from men?
Answer: they are not supposed to make that judgement.  They are supposed
to accept whatever is printed in Watchtower literature, even if it is as
nonsensical as the 1971 article.  This is supposed to be for the sake of
unity.  Fred Franz's and Hayden Covington's testimonies in the Douglas
Walsh trial in Scotland in 1954 show that the WTS considers unity to
be more important than truth, and that JWs can be disfellowshipped for
promulgating truth that is in conflict with current doctrines, *even if
some of the WTS staff members are aware that the doctrine is false*.

|                                      (Boy, am I glossing over a lot in saying
|it this briefly 

That's for sure.

|                -- you realise that each of those questions deserves a full
|article's worth as a reply!)  :-) More in the next followup...
|

Here is more information on the WTS practice regarding `new light'.
C. T. Russell did not at first agree with what have become the WTS's
practices with regard to `new light.'  On page 188 of the Feb. 1881,
_Zion's Watch Tower_ he wrote something very sensible:

    If we were following *a man* undoubtedly it would be different with
    us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which
    was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness
    now:  But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,
    and so it is with *truth;*  any knowledge or light coming from God
    must be like its author.  A new view of truth never can contradict a
    former truth.  `New light' never extinguishes older `light,' but adds
    to it.  If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets
    you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but
    would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus
    give increase of light:  So is it with the light of truth;  the true
    increase is by adding, not by substituting one for another.

The WTS does not subscribe to this view today.  Instead it advances
the doctrine of `progressive revelation,' a particularly hazy concept
which is never clearly defined and never carefully analyzed.  It usually
means a progressive *organizational understanding* of the Bible through
the application of reason, study, and some sort of undefined guidance
of the holy spirit.  It is said to be based on Prov. 4:18, which was
quoted and commented on above.

The Dec. 1, 1981 _Watchtower_ states on page 17:

    Prophecies open up to us as Jehovah's holy spirit sheds light upon
    them, and as they are fulfilled in world events or in the experiences
    of God's people.

In what manner were prophecies that have been discarded been opened up to
the WTS by God's spirit?  Prophecies such as those concerning 1914, 1925
and 1975?  Were these not merely products of wishful thinking?  Does not
the WTS's application of Prov. 4:18 make virtually any change of
direction, no matter how radical, justifiable?  Is it not true that when
new knowledge was opened up to God's servants in the Bible, it did not
contradict previous knowledge but supplemented and fulfilled it? Is it
not true that no true servant of God is described in the Bible as ever
having made false predictions? They made mistakes, true, but never in
making predictions in God's name.

The WTS often uses contrived illustrations to justify its many failed
predictions and doctrinal changes.  The illustration from the Dec. 1, 1981
_Watchtower,_ page 27, is a marvelous example of intellectual sleight
of hand:

    At times explanations given by Jehovah's visible organization have
    shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view.  But this has
    not actually been the case.  This might be compared to what is known
    in navigational circles as `tacking.'  By maneuvering the sails the
    sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth,
    but all the time making progress toward their destination in spite
    of contrary winds.

Has not the Watchtower ship actually been sailing in circles in some cases?
Such as the complete circle made with regard to understanding the `superior
authorities'?  And the understanding of who should be called an ordained
minister?  How can it be said that these doctrinal changes have not been
to a `previous point of view'?

In the illustration the sailors make the ship tack.  Who makes the
WTS's `ship' tack?  Is this illustration not an exercise in cynical
sophistry? The article was written by Governing Body member Karl Klein,
who, as previously mentioned, seems to have had no scruples in calling
Fred Franz an `oracle'.

Although referring to other religions, the May 15, 1976 _Watchtower_ well
describes this tacking in circles:

    It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then
    find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental
    doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go
    back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly
    determined to be in error.  Christians cannot be vacillating -- `wishy
    washy' -- about such fundamental teachings.  What confidence can one
    put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?

Can you answer the last question?

Well illustrating how the `increasing light' principle works is the
March 1, 1979 _Watchtower_, which said on pages 23-24:

    Because of this hope [of an earthly paradise], the `faithful and
    discreet slave' has alerted all of God's people to the sign of the
    times indicating the nearness of God's Kingdom rule.  In this regard,
    however, it must be observed that this `faithful and discreet slave'
    was never inspired, never perfect.  Those writings by certain members
    of the `slave' class that came to form the Christian part of God's
    Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other
    writings since.  Things published were not perfect in the days of
    Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible
    and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F.
    Rutherford, the succeeding president.  The increasing light on God's
    Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that
    adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present
    time.  But let us never forget that the motives of this `slave' were
    always pure, unselfish; at all times it has been well-meaning.
    Moreover, the words found at Romans 8:28 are fitting here also:
    `God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who
    love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose.'
    Actually any adjustments that have been made in understanding have
    furnished an opportunity for those being served by this `slave' to
    show loyalty and love, the kind of love that Jesus said would mark
    his followers. (John 13:34, 35; compare 1 Peter 4:8)  For those who
    truly love God's law there is no stumbling block. - Ps. 119:165.

C. T. Russell used virtually the same argument in justifying the obvious
failure of most of his predictions.  He said that it 

    certainly did have a very stimulating and sanctifying effect upon
    thousands, all of whom can praise the Lord -- even for the mistake.

All this simply proves that, even though Jehovah's Witnesses have been
required to believe many changing doctrines down through the years,
whenever the doctrines became untenable the WTS would retreat to
the assertion that `the faithful and discreet slave' is not infallible
but must progress with the increasing `new light.'  In the meantime,
*all* printed doctrines must be adhered to, and any disagreements about
them must not be mentioned, on pain of being labelled an apostate and
being disfellowshipped.  Is this policy not completely contrary to
Christian principles and intellectually dishonest?  Of how much value
is to claim that one is not infallible when one has obviously made a
serious mistake, but to squash all questioning or criticism?  You are
perfectly well aware that anyone in a JW congregation who seems to be
critical of WTS doctrine is looked at askance, and that anyone who
publicly makes a problem known is subject to censure.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com