This Watchtower review was written by Andere Stimme
[From ws15/06 p. 20 for August 17-23]
"Let you name be sanctified." – Matthew 6:9
No Christian can find fault with the counsel to “live in harmony with the model prayer”. The lessons to be learned from any portion of scripture, however, will have the greatest value if the passage in question is understood as its Author intended. In the following review, we will attempt to separate the wheat of inspired instruction from the chaff of the speculative reasoning of men.
After the introductory paragraphs, the first subheading seeks to answer the first of the three review questions: What can we learn from the expression “our Father”? And this is where the article first runs into problems. While Jesus' model prayer makes it clear that his followers were to view God as their Father, the article imports the concept of two groups of Christians that have two very different types of relationship with their heavenly father. Paragraph 4 says:
The expression “our Father,” not “my Father,” reminds us that we belong to an “association of brothers” who truly love one another. (1 Peter 2:17) What a precious privilege that is! Anointed Christians, who have been begotten as God’s sons with heavenly life in view, rightly address Jehovah as “Father” in the fullest sense. (Romans 8:15-17) Christians whose hope is to live forever on earth can also address Jehovah as “Father.” He is their Life-Giver, and he lovingly provides for the needs of all true worshippers. Those with this earthly hope will in the fullest sense become God’s children after they have reached perfection and have proved their loyalty in the final test.—Romans 8:21; Revelation 20:7, 8..
The scriptures cited do nothing to back up this convoluted notion of dual sonship, unless taken within a larger theological framework that is based on human interpretation. The contradictions continue in the next paragraph where a brother speaks of how his children, now grown, “recall the atmosphere, the sacredness of communicating with our Father, Jehovah”. Apparently, there is some 'sanctity headroom' left for the long-awaited day when the atmosphere of communication with our heavenly Father will be sacred “in the fullest sense”.
Let Your Name Be Sanctified
The lead-up to the this subheading mentions the need to 'learn to love God's name'. The following paragraphs use the term “name” in the sense of “a distinguished, famous, or great reputation”[1]. We wholeheartedly agree that the name to be loved and sanctified is not just a proper noun, however lofty, but rather a description of the superlative qualities of the Most High.[2] Asking for God's name to be sanctified, paragraph 7 tells us, “may move [us] to ask Jehovah to help [us] to avoid doing or saying anything that would dishonor his holy name”. This is excellent counsel, and the timing – right after the sessions of the Australian Royal Commission – is as poignant as it is ironic. We are reminded of Jesus' admonition to “practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don't follow their example”. (Matthew 23:3.)
Let Your Kingdom Come
By far the most tendentious material of this article is found under this subheading. We will focus on three problems:
1. Acts 1:6, 7, where Jesus plainly stated that it did not belong to his disciples to know 'times and seasons', does not apply to us, and it hasn't for about 140 years
The August 15, 2012 Watchtower says that “We can now grasp the meaning of prophecies that remained a “secret” for ages but are now being fulfilled in this time of the end. (Dan. 12:9) These include....the enthronement of Jesus.” The angel's words to Daniel that “the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end” are taken to mean that special knowledge would be available in the time of the end. The logic here, however, is circular: We have special knowledge because we're in the time of the end; we know we're in the time of the end, because we have special knowledge.
2. Prayers for the kingdom to come were partially answered in 1914, but we should still pray for it to come in a complete sense.
Nowhere in the scriptures do we find the idea of two “comings”. Once again, doctrines of men are imported to muddy up a clear scriptural truth, namely, that the benefits to be reaped under God's kingdom begin when it comes, and it only comes once.
3. 19th Century Christians received a revelation (“were helped to understand”) that the end of the Gentile Times had drawn near.
The publications have often admitted that they are not inspired (see g93 3/22 p. 4). But what practical difference is there between being “helped to understand” something that is not explicit in scripture, and receiving a revelation from God? However, not only is the premise false, the statement itself is deceptive. Paragraph 12 says:
When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year.
'God's people', until the late 1920s, thought that Jesus' invisible presence had begun in 1874, and that he had been enthroned as king in 1878. The passage above, however, gives the impression that in 1876 Jehovah helped his people to understand that Jesus would “start ruling from heaven” in 1914. The authors seem to endorse the philosophy that “A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.” (See Awake! 2/8/00 p. 20 Lying—Is It Ever Justified?)
Let Your Will Take Place...on Earth
The final subheading encourages us not only to make that request in prayer, but also to live in harmony with it. That is, indeed, excellent counsel. However, we are left scratching our head at the example they give: “In line with this part of the model prayer”, a sister is quoted as saying, “I often pray that all sheeplike people will be contacted and helped to come to know Jehovah before it is too late.” Without questioning our sister's sincere intentions, one wonders what she is afraid of. That the God of Justice will destroy "sheeplike" ones because they didn't meet the deadline? We are then encouraged to imitate her example and 'pour ourselves out in doing God's will' in spite of our limitations.
It is certainly good advice to do our utmost to preach the true gospel. It's a shame that this article, devoted as it is to Christ's model prayer, so often deviates from it.
[et_pb_divider admin_label="Divider" color="#1c6ca0" show_divider="on" height="2" divider_style="solid" divider_position="top" divider_weight="2" hide_on_mobile="on"] [/et_pb_divider]
[1] Definition #5 at dictionary.com
[2] Examples of Bible characters whose names were changed to better describe their qualities or roles are Abraham, Israel and Peter. Names given at birth often were descriptive as well, such as Seth, Jacob and Manasseh.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-19 14:00:13
Thank Andere, good article!
So if we are to take what paragraph 12 says at face value, "Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events." That means that Jehovah helped us to understand that Jesus was--as you point out--present in 1874 and enthroned in 1878. Also, he helped us to see that the great tribulation began in 1914. Then around 1930 he helped us to see that what he'd previously helped us to see was wrong and that 1914 marked the presence and enthronement. It was still the start of the great tribulation, though. Then in 1969 he helped us to see that what he'd helped us to see after the last time he'd helped us to see was also wrong and that the great tribulation didn't start in 1914, but was yet to come. Perhaps if Jehovah would stop helping us to understand the timing of events, we might be better off. At least we know where to put the blame for all the confusion.
Comment by father jack on 2015-08-19 14:19:01
If the so called great crowd can address god as their father then how is it they are not classed as his sons? What's all that about ( in the fullest sense ) this reasoning doesnt make an sense at all to me ! They seem to be saying he is but he isnt . I might give my dad a ring later in the fullest sense of course but my younger brother no he cant . What ?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-19 14:49:46
Good point, Kev. Perhaps they could provide us with the Scripture where Jesus says that the great crowd are not sons in the fullest sense. After all, I'm sure such an important distinction would not have slipped his mind.
Reply by Menrov on 2015-08-19 15:31:55
Have faith...wait for Jehovah to explain......:-) just kidding. You are right. Another example of the JW dictionary. They invent their own definitions. Reading their wording: "Christians whose hope is to live forever on earth can also address Jehovah as “Father.” He is their Life-Giver, and he lovingly provides for the needs of all true worshippers."
So because it is said that Jehovah is the live-giver and provide of need to all true worshiper (in contrast to fake worshippers I guess)., H can be called our Father. Well, what about Jesus? He is in heaven. He is or judge for eternal life. He will make sure that anything you ask in his name, will be done.
It continues: Those with this earthly hope will in the fullest sense become God’s children after they have reached perfection and have proved their loyalty in the final test
So, until the "final test" the r&f are partial children? Potential children? Illegitimate children? So, He is our partial Father? Potential Father?
Pffffff..........
Comment by Skye on 2015-08-19 14:30:07
Matthew 24:29,30 "Immediately after the distress of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the people of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."
If we are to study the Bible intelligently, then we will see that Jesus did not return in 1914.
Comment by Menrov on 2015-08-19 15:21:40
Thanks for the review. You said in the beginning: "No Christian can find fault with the counsel to “live in harmony with the model prayer”. Well, maybe I am the only Christian that can find fault with this counsel because it is not a scriptural counsel. Jesus never indicated that believes or HIs followers should live in harmony with the so-called "model prayer".
You address some fine points. Of course there is more to discuss if one wants to but happy to see your review.
Reply by Menrov on 2015-08-19 15:22:48
sorry, should read BELIEVERS...
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-20 17:10:02
Hi Menrov,
I'm just curious: Is there some part of the "model prayer" with which you feel we should not live in harmony?Reply by Anonymous on 2015-08-20 21:49:49
I would think by definition that is not possible that we should not live contrary to it. That is, if the model prayer was originated by Jesus, than it surely was in harmony with the will of God. And, it should be obvious that it is in fact the will of God for us to LIVE within His will. Therefore, there is no part of the model prayer that we should live contrary to. If someone can find fault with this reasoning, please let me know.
Reply by Menrov on 2015-08-23 03:52:00
Hi, as indicated above, the prayer is not given as a model to follow. The express the feelings / longings / desired of a true believer. ANd yes, all believers should have these same longings. But to ask or say that anyone SHOULD live in harmony with it, is in my view not a scriptural view as it would imply that the model prayer contains a standard against which anyone is measured.
For certain things I understand of course that you should consider your own actions i.e. when asking for forgiveness, to what extent did you forgive others.
Anyway, just my view.Reply by father jack on 2015-08-23 10:35:26
Cant say i disagree with menrov that the lord's prayer to me is simply a prayer expressing faith in god . Particulary that he will bring about his promises ie his own sanctification by his kingdom that god's will be done on earth . The hope he will keep his promise to us about our food and the promise of forgiveness for our wrongdoing . Its seems all about expressing our trust in god for this day we live and for our future . I think that is the message of the lords prayer
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-23 20:37:46
I understand what you're saying Menrov, that the model prayer was not meant as a set of guidelines for Christian living, but I'm not sure the article is saying that it is. We must live in harmony with - or in a manner not in conflict with - the things for which we pray, or we will be hypocrites, whether or not our prayers can be considered a template for a godly life.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-08-25 15:25:28
I didn't really understand at first what Menrov was getting at, but I am now leaning to his point of view. Jesus provided the model prayer, and surely the things Jesus spoke were in harmony with God's will. I don't believe anyone questions that part of it.
The part that is in question is the notion that "we must live in harmony with this prayer". With a more clear-eyed view of such a sentiment, it does seem to me now that this innocent-sounding expression is a way to exercise control over people, when the WT uses it in this way. It is as if they are equating "Let your name be sanctified, let your kingdom come" with "this is a divine mandate to 'preach the good news of the kingdom' as defined by the WT". And thus, "living in harmony" with the prayer becomes living in harmony with the direction and dictates of the WT.
The net result would appear to be that WT is "co-opting" the model prayer, a sincere expression of faith in God, and turning it into one more command of men. This in itself might not be so objectionable if the brand of preaching they espouse were not so greatly at odds with the truth of the Bible.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-25 15:49:15
So it would appear the problem isn't so much 'living in harmony with the model prayer' as 'living in harmony with someone's self-serving interpretation of the model prayer'. I too think the model prayer is "a sincere expression of faith in God", and when I express the same things in my own prayers, I try not to do anything that belies that expression of faith.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-08-25 20:58:13
Yes, exactly. By comparison, the story of the good samaritan ends with, "Go your way and be doing the same yourself." If Jesus really wanted us to "live in harmony" with the model prayer, why didn't he say so in plain language, when he had a chance and had a listening audience? The very fact that he didn't do that indicates that this "living in harmony" concept is a manmade doctrine.
Reply by Menrov on 2015-08-23 03:46:15
HI Andere, sorry for late reply but I did not receive a mail that there were new comments. Not sure if that notification system still works.
Anyway, I of course understand the principle but I believe the "model prayer" was not given to His followers as a standard in organizing our lives or as something people should live in harmony with. The prayer is not a command nor does it contain actions or principles. The prayer reflects the longings of a believer. A believer might ask him/herself if they have the same longings. Yes, but that is not the same as livin in harmony or even to say that one SHOULD live in harmony with the prayer.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-08-19 15:26:55
Jesus is pretty plain and clear when he says, You must pray this way, Our Father, ... But hear comes the GB to say, Never mind what Jesus says, WE say that God is not your father "in the fullest sense". In doing so, they are not only acting as "substitutes for Christ" (wording that appears in no other translation) but they are countermanding his direction. For men to subsume a spiritual role they are not entitled to is more than arrogant and presumptuous; it is blasphemy.
Comment by Buster on 2015-08-19 21:06:32
This is what that article says of 1876
he Bible Examiner
October 1876
GENTILE TIMES: WHEN DO THEY END?
By Chas. T. Russell
“Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” -Luke 21:24.
Doubtless our Lord intended to communicate to His disciples some knowledge, and possibly it was addressed more to the disciples in our day, than to the early church.
Let us then search what times the prophecy, which was in Christ, did signify. Of course, if it be one of the secret things of God, we cannot find out; but if a secret, why should Jesus mention it? If, on the contrary, it is revealed it belongs to us. Shall we guess and suppose? No: let us go to God’s treasure-house; let us search the Scriptures for the key.
Jesus does not foretell its treading under foot of the Gentiles, as Rome had her foot upon them at that time. He does tell us, however, how long it will continue so, even the disciples thought “that it was he which should have DELIVERED Israel.”
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . . and I will bring your land into desolation . . . and will scatter you among the heathen.” Israel did not hearken unto the Lord, but disobeyed him, and this prophecy is now being fulfilled, and has been since the days of Zedekiah, when God said, “Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto Him.” Comparing these Scriptures, we learn, that God has scattered Israel for a period of seven times, or until “he comes whose right” the Government is, and puts an end to Gentile rule or government. This gives us a clue at least, as to how long until the Jews are delivered. Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments. “A king of kings and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air, hath God given into his hand.” Dan. ii:38. God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.” Dan 4:34: for all the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord when He is the Governor among the nations.
Our next question naturally, is, How long are seven times? Does God in his word, furnish us any clue from which to determine the length of that period? Yes, in Revelations we learn that three and one-half times, 42 months, and 1260 prophetic days, literal years, are the same (it has for years been so accepted by the church,) and it was so fulfilled: if three and one-half times are 1260 years, seven times would be twice as much, i.e., 2520 years. At the commencement of our Christian era, 606 years of this time had passed, (70 years captivity, and 536 from Cyrus to Christ) which deducted from 2520, would show that the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation, and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
But, some one will say, “If the Lord intended that we should know, He would have told us plainly and distinctly how long.” But, no, brethren, He never does so. The Bible is to be a light to God’s children;–to the world, foolishness. Many of its writings are solely for our edification upon whom the ends of the world are come. As well say that God should have put the gold on top instead of in the bowels of the earth it would be too common; it would lose much of its value. So with truth; but, “to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom.
We will ask, but not now answer, another question: If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc., how long before does the church escape? as Jesus says, “watch, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape those things coming upon the world.”
Brethren, the taking by Christ of His Bride, is evidently, one of the first acts in the Judgment; for judgment must beginat the house of God.
W. Philadelphia.
Yeah, we were so correct. Yeah Right
Comment by BeenMislead on 2015-08-20 12:33:35
The problem is Jehovah is not really even Gods Name.
If you have a copy of the book Aid to Bible Understanding, take a look at pages 884 and 885.
-----------------------------------
“The pronunciations "Jehovah" and "Yahweh"
By combining the vowel signs of 'Adho•nay' and 'Elo•him' with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations Yeho•wah' and Yehowih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinized form "Jehova(h)." The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270.” – (1971 Aid to Bible Understanding, Pg. 884-885)
-----------------------------------
So Jehovah is the result of inserting the vowels of Adonai (which means Lord in Hebrew) into the Tetragrammaton. So the wrong vowels were used.
Jehovah's witnesses continue to believe that Jehovah is really God's name and the explanation that Jehovah is the English rendering of Yahweh when in truth, Jehovah is the LATINIZED form of a mistaken understanding of Hebrew practices of ancient times.
-----------------------------------
See Also:
Watchtower 1980, 2/1, Pg. 11, The Divine Name in Later Times
See Also:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-20 17:06:38
There is some controversy about whether the original pronunciation was two or three syllables. (You can google "divine name three syllables" for more information.) In point of fact, JWs do not assert that the form "Jehovah" is the correct pronunciation, but rather the best known form in English.
*** w08 6/1 p. 22 An “Ineffable Name”? ***
"Although we cannot be certain exactly how God’s name was pronounced, the important thing is that using his name draws us closer to him....In English, the pronunciation “Jehovah” is commonly known. Would it not be appropriate for all who love God to address him by that personal name and thus draw close to him?"
The fact that Jesus said "Let your name be sanctified" and yet did not use the name in the model prayer to address his father (or at any other time, as far as we know) indicates that he was referring to something far more significant than the mere pronunciation of it.Reply by father jack on 2015-08-20 18:34:26
I agree with that statement andere i think it means the person how can a mere name be sanctified .
Reply by Skye on 2015-08-20 20:24:41
John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word."
Reply by father jack on 2015-08-21 01:44:25
Although the greek wordfor name does appear in the text at john 17 v6 . Ive a feeling it denotes the character of god . We remember that god has been slandered called a liar by the devil . It can happen to humans and when it does we very often fight to (clear our name ) dont we . That people can see that we are innocent and nothing like the person we have been presented to be .
Reply by Skye on 2015-08-21 14:48:20
So the meaning of the Biblical name would include the character and the whole agenda of a person, I think. Therefore in revealing God's name, Jesus would make known his Father's plans through the work that he had been assigned - Luke 4:43 "But he said, I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent."
In John 17:4 Jesus said that he had completed this work. So he had given his Father's Gospel-word to the disciples who were then assigned to preserve it and pass it on to others. John 17:6; John 17:20
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-24 20:42:11
William, in Spanish, is Guillermo. Yet, the phonetic Spanish alphabet is quite capable of rendering William very close to the English pronunciation. Nevertheless, there are many British "Williams" living in Spain who have no problem responding to the Spanish equivalent, Guillermo. As Shakespeare put it, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.". It is not the accurate pronunciation of the name as it was first spoken that is important, but the person it represents.
Comment by Skye on 2015-08-20 15:42:45
If Biblical names represent the meaning behind the name, we are not focusing on how to "say" the name, but rather on its meaning - the character, qualities and purpose of God. Jesus Christ then revealed his Father's name to us through his ministry, the Good News of the Kingdom of God.
Comment by Alien Resident on 2015-08-20 16:26:56
Well written Andere, yes, regarding paragraph 4, surely the writting committee, must see how strange the point is regarding one group of Christians can call God father, and the other can, but not in the fullest sense!!
So the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray. In His answer Jesus first of all sought to instruct His disciples about Who it was to whom they prayed. Said Jesus: "When you pray, say: our Father...." If the disciples have difficulty praying, they need to have fixed in their minds to whom they are praying. After all: to whom we speak determines what we say and how we say it. To a stranger we do not say the same things as we do to a father...and therefore what or how do we view our father and what to say to him, who were told his not our father in the fullest sense...
Comment by RC on 2015-08-21 06:15:07
After the RC exposure, fresh in its probing tenderization, of course these articles only add insult to injury. Everyday the WT apostasy joke gets worse and worse, when they write one thing, but do another.
Comment by AndereStimme on 2015-08-22 12:45:10
Interestingly, the implication of the statement "Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events" is that Jehovah gave a revelation to N.H. Barbour, who "belittled" the ransom. And why "Jehovah helped..." instead of "Jesus helped..."? The more I think about it, the more I find wrong with this article.
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
*** jv chap. 10 p. 131 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
But when Barbour, in the August 1878 issue of their magazine, belittled the Scriptural teaching of the ransom, Russell responded with a vigorous defense of that vital Bible truth.
Under the heading “The Atonement,” Barbour had illustrated how he felt about the teaching, saying: “I say to my boy, or to one of the servants, when James bites his sister, you catch a fly, stick a pin through its body and impale it to the wall, and I’ll forgive James. This illustrates the doctrine of substitution.” Though professing to believe in the ransom, Barbour referred to the idea that Christ by his death paid the penalty for sin for the offspring of Adam as being “unscriptural, and obnoxious to all our ideas of justice.”
Comment by leaving_quietly on 2015-08-23 11:55:07
The 1876 article says, in part, "Jesus does not foretell its treading under foot of the Gentiles". Yes, he did. The Greek word "estai" in the phrase "Jerusalem *will be* trodden down" is in the FUTURE tense.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-08-23 12:12:53
Regarding being a brother of Christ: Matthew 12:50: "For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Jesus said nothing of being a co-ruler, being anointed, being destined to live as a spirit person in heaven as being prerequisites in this matter. If we do the will of the Father, we are the brothers and sisters of Christ, meaning that this alone determines if we are children of God. Not the determination of some men (men who are "guardians of the doctrine" in the latest GB-speak). Each person must individually choose to be a child of God. It is the very same choice Moses informed the Israelites about in Deut. 30:19: You must choose life.
Comment by Buster on 2015-08-23 15:22:32
So today at the meeting, when it came to the whole 1876 prediction and of 1914 was pinpoint, there were a number of elders saying oh Russell knew while nobody else knew , and every other religion was in darkness, I laughed outloud at the meeting, and was thinking man we don't know a thing about our history, maybe they should check out the proclaimers book , right. Man this meeting was rough, I had to just read the bible oh else I would have walked out.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-23 20:28:58
I felt the same way. Rough meeting. I'll have a hard time getting my meeting clothes on next week.
Comment by Beanie on 2015-08-24 20:14:09
Andere - re Let your kingdom come section - Taking words out of context makes the pot calling the kettle black
eg your comment ...The authors seem to endorse the philosophy that “A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.” (See Awake! 2/8/00 p. 20 Lying—Is It Ever Justified?)...is quite incorrect if you read the article.Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-08-25 13:50:28
Hi Beanie,
I would really love to address your concerns, but I'm not sure what they are. Do you feel I misapplied the quote about inaccuracy, or that the quote was taken from an article that doesn't deal with this kind of situation, or is it something else? I'd be happy to make a clarification or retraction if necessary.
Comment by Me Again on 2015-09-02 04:25:57
Hi Andere - sorry, I'll try to clarify :-)
At the end of your section of 'Let your Kingdom come' where it's discussing the WT view of Russell and 1914, which appears an incorrect impression, you add "The authors seem to endorse the philosophy that 'A little inaccuracy saves tons of explanation' and quote the Awake! 2/8/00 article to support your view
Reading on, the whole article shows JWs advice to readers actually against lying, Their quotation of "A little accuracy saves tons of explanation" was just quoting a popular expression, and not recommended for us,
I'll paste here the first part of the article to get it more into context. I tried to copy a bit more, but couldn't get it to happen, but you or anyone can check it out themselves fromwhere I read it at wol.jw.org
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Lying—Is It Ever Justified?
“A LITTLE INACCURACY SOMETIMES SAVES TONS OF EXPLANATION.”
THIS comment illustrates how many people feel about lying. Their rationale is that lying is not wrong if it does not harm anyone. Such reasoning even has an academic name—situation ethics, which says that the only law you need to follow is the so-called law of love. In other words, explains author Diane Komp, “if your motivation is right and your heart is right (then the) fact that you lied . . . is no big deal.”
Etc etc you can read up.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-02 05:37:37
I think Andere was using this reference not to misrepresent the organization's official position on truth and accuracy in reporting, but to show that they do not always honor their own words, especially when it comes to anything that might require a lot of embarrassing explaining or give rise to many additional and awkward questions.
Reply by AndereStimme on 2015-09-02 15:40:12
Meleti is correct. I was being a little sarcastic, I guess, so my mistake.