Have JWs had any doubt on any of their organization's doctrines prior to the doctrine change or does it always

Question

come as a surprizing and welcome revelation from God?

Answer 1

sure they do. But they suck up their doubts and go along in silence until the doctrine changes or they die, whichever comes first. This is called "waiting on Jehovah" and not "running ahead of Jehovah" and if they didn't do this, there would be swift action from the congregation leadership (Elders) to "keep the congregation clean" from dissent.

I've often wondered if those Elders who've been party to disfellowshipping ones for not keeping silent ever have regrets when that understanding is changed later by their Organization and it turns out the poor guy was right, after all. But his crime was not being right at the wrong time, the crime was this running ahead and not waiting stuff.

weird, huh?

Answer 2

They will not answer that one. None of the Apostles called themselves prophets. The Governing Body does, very crucial difference.



Would the Watxchtower world emplode if Auchtung_Heiss ran out of paste? Creeps me out, Seems like a drone who has no voice except the one the WBTS allows it to have, and all of the other Witnesses follow it along....

Answer 3

I have been suggesting that their blood doctrine is changing, they deny it. Even against the evidence. They are too scared to say anything more than their Society allows them to say.

Answer 4

To me they sound like whatever the organization says is the truth.

Answer 5

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/1975franz.html


i guess they are too afraid to question the changes or too naive.

Answer 6

Was Peter surprised when Jesus called him "Satan"?

Jehovah's Witnesses are imperfect, and may be both surprised and delighted to recognize some new detail from the bible.

More than a century ago, Jehovah's Witnesses recognized the bible truths that hell is not hot, that the soul is not immortal, that God has a personal name, that Jesus is not Jehovah, that most humans will be resurrected as humans, and that God's Messianic Kingdom will restore paradise to earth and end the suffering of humankind.
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

Amazingly, those ideas remain tightly and uniquely identified with Jehovah's Witnesses. Some enlightening regarding details has emerged in 130 years, but it is a silly exaggeration to pretend that significant teachings (such as those mentioned above) have been "reversed".


It seems relevant to note that the critics of Jesus could have remarked that he advocated cannibalism, then retreated from that advocacy, then later advocated cannibalism again.

(John 6:51-56) I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” 52 Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Accordingly Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. 54 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me. . .

(Matthew 26:26-28) [Jesus] said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my ‘blood


In any event, it seems rather obvious that ongoing bible research, as well as occasional advances in archeology and etymology, would result in refinements of one's understanding. That was true for Jesus' apostles and other early Christians, and it is true today.

In the first century CE, certain ideas took DECADES to resolve, even among men and women who walked with Christ Jesus. Even in the presence of Jesus, the idea of 'eating flesh and blood' stumbled some disciples (not outsiders, but disciples) who were unwilling to wait for the now-obvious answer (Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically).

After Jesus' impalement, sincere disciples were confused about whether Christianity should involve only Jews, or maybe only Jews and Samaritans, or maybe only these and circumcised Gentiles. There was confusion about using tongues within the congregation, about tolerating sin and "Jezebel", about when Jesus would "return", and about when Armageddon would arrive. Much of this confusion was quite public; even though the apostle Peter enjoyed tremendous privileges and direct communication from heaven, Peter seems to have been the source of an incorrect teaching "out among the brothers" that was perhaps not resolved until the apostle John wrote his Gospel more than 60 years later!

(John 6:61-68) Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble you? ...he went on to say: “This is why I have said to you, No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with [Jesus].

(Acts 18:25-26) [Apollos] had been orally instructed in the way of Jehovah and, as he was aglow with the spirit, he went speaking and teaching with correctness the things about Jesus... When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him into their company and expounded the way of God more correctly to him.

(John 21:21-23) Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what will this man do [that is, the apostle John]?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that [the apostle John] would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”


Does the bible support the idea that full knowledge would be instantly understood by everyone? No. Instead, the bible contains such reasonable ideas as these:

(1 Corinthians 13:12) For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known.

(Daniel 8:16,17;12:4,9) [The voice] proceeded to call out and say: “Gabriel, make that one there understand the thing seen.” ..And he proceeded to say to me: “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.” ...“And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.” ...And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end.


For the most part, Jehovah's Witnesses consider their publications (such as 'The Watchtower') to present the official understanding of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. A baptized Witness may choose for himself whether he accepts or does not accept any teaching, and may freely discuss the reasons he believes differently with any elder or by means of correspondence with any branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses. Beyond that, when a baptized Witness begins to advocate his own teachings, then he himself is choosing to distance himself from his former religion. Jehovah's Witnesses consider apostasy to be a serious sin such as could result in disfellowshipping from the congregation.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_02.htm
http://jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

Answer 7

They always welcome "New Light". :D