# Discussion summaries

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rational [trw] on October 29, 1999 at 13:28:35 {CAtoZJLIp2YgCUWv3.1cm0FN8UzOHE}:

I have noticed how difficult it can be at times to follow the ebb and flow of discussions on this board, particularly the more significant ones. This is due partly to the linear format of posts that should be viewed in parallel, partly to the dispersion of arguments throughout posts, and partly to an intermix of (il)logic, ad-hominems and verbal 'detritus', as well as other factors. In an attempt to show what might be done at an appropriate summary point in any such discussion, I am presenting here what I believe to be a fair analysis of the thread that began with Nimrod's post "Serious Mistake."

I believe an accurate summarization of the positions can easily be created. It should then be possible for all participants in the discussion to agree or disagree that the summarization does accurately represent their position. (And if they disagree, to supply a concise replacement without the detritus typical of in-line posts.) With the topic and its associated arguments pro and con presented in this more immediate and accessible fashion, it should be easier for all to see the entire picture and to determine which line of reasoning is better supported by facts and which position better merits their acceptance. (They could also post any errors or logical fallacies they observe.)

To illustrate this process, I offer the following analysis of the thread "Serious Mistake." Therein, Nimrod quoted the Society's 1984 book Survival into a New Earth (1984), p.120, as follows:

> It would be a serious mistake to reason that, because the destruction of the "goats" is everlasting, the parable could not apply until later on, perhaps during the Millennial Reign of Christ. On the contrary, Jesus gave this parable as part of the sign of "the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:3) What he describes takes place after he is enthroned but also while his "brothers" are still in the flesh and experiencing the hardships that he mentions.

Nimrod then made the assertion that this demonstrated the Society itself had made the quoted "serious mistake" in 1995, when it changed its understanding of the timing of the separating of sheep and goats. He quoted the 10/15 Watchtower, pp. 21-23:

> Although Jesus is now King of the Kingdom, his further activity mentioned at Matthew 19:28 will include sitting on a throne to judge during the Millennium. At that time he will judge all mankind…Does this parable apply when Jesus sat down in kingly power in 1914…But what judging did he do soon thereafter? It was not a judging of "all the nations." Rather, he turned his attention to those claiming to make up "the house of God." …Yet nothing indicates that at that time, or for that matter since, Jesus sat to judge people of all the nations finally as sheep or goats…Jesus' 'sitting down on his glorious throne' for judgment, mentioned at Matthew 25:31, applies to the future point…Understanding the parable of the sheep and the goats in this way indicates that the rendering of judgment on the sheep and the goats is future. It will take place after "the tribulation…"

Friend objected to this application of the "serious mistake" premise, and his reasoning may be summarized thusly:

> The "serious mistake" to which the 1984 book alludes is applying Jesus' parable to sometime after the end or "conclusion" of the system of things, and did not have reference to sometime later in the "conclusion of the system of things" (e.g., at Armageddon) . The Society's present understanding, that the separating takes place within the "conclusion of the system of things" (i.e., in connection with Armageddon) complies with the sense of that 1984 quote, namely, that the parable could not find fulfillment after the system of things has completely ended at Armageddon, and to think that it could do so would be a "serious mistake."

> Relevants quotes from Friend are:

> > That considered "seriously mistaken" was not then and is not now considered "present truth" …. The "serious mistake" has to do with any application of Jesus parable beyond the conclusion of the system of things.

> > [neither] In 1984 nor today have Jehovah's Witnesses taught that Jesus' parable could not apply until beyond "the conclusion of the system." They have not made the supposed "serious mistake."

> > As for whether Armageddon is part of "the conclusion of the system", I hardly think there is any doubt that Armageddon has long been held as the very end of the system, making it part of the conclusion, the grand finale.

> > The 'serious mistake" had to do with a period of which an application should not be made after. The period was "the conclusion of the system".

> > Yes, you have my contention understood. The only "serious mistake" described in that 1984 citation is that of teaching that Jesus parable could not apply until beyond "the conclusion of the system".

> > Your alternate concept is easily dismissed in that the Society teaches that Armageddon is part of "the conclusion of the system of things", in fact it teaches that Armageddon is the culmination of "the conclusion of the system of things", the very pinnacle of it. Please consider this citation already offered in support of that from the very same publication, the Survival book.

> > the "serious mistake" is in respects to "later on" beyond "the conclusion of the system" not "later on" during "the conclusion of the system"

Gedanken's argument (summarized) in support of Nimrod's contention was this:

> The 1984 quote was intended to affirm that the separating work was then in progress (since 1914) and that any interpretation that such judgment was yet future would diminish the sense of urgency with regard to preaching and, hence, would be a "serious mistake." The Society's change in doctrine in 1995 thus did fit the definition of a "serious mistake" because it did, in fact, defer the fulfillment of the parable to a date later than that concomitant with the preaching work.

> Relevant quotes from Gedanken include:

> > It is a contradiction because the present teaching differs from the previous one. In fact the Society admits this much when it says [WT 10/15 1995 p. 21]:

> > > Does this parable apply when Jesus sat down in kingly power in 1914 as we have long understood?

> > The Society was using this reasoning to emphasize the importance of doing more in the preaching work. Note the question that accompanies this paragraph in the Survival book: 15. (a) How do we know that this parable applies now? (b) So, what work is of vital importance?

> > The Millennium was simply given as an example of a possible later time but it was not the only later time possible. That is why they used the phrasing "perhaps ..." Any later time would do. In other words, anyone who reasoned that the parable did not apply "right now" was making a serious mistake.

> > What matters is how the phrase was intended to be understood by its readers at the time it was written.

Rational's argument (summarized) in support of Nimrod and Gedanken was this:

> The actual wording of the 1984 quote allows for no application of the parable to Armageddon, but only to the time period from 1914 up to the judgment at Armageddon. The quote associates the parable's fulfillment with "the sign of the 'conclusion of the system of things'", not the conclusion per se. This distinction between associating the parable specifically with "the sign" as opposed to merely associating it with "the conclusion of the system of things" (as Friend contends) is crucial. That "sign" is interpreted by the Society as ranging from 1914 onward and cannot be taken to refer to Armageddon, since the "sign" must precede that which is approaching and to which it alerts people. Additionally, the quote associates the parable's fulfillment with the time period during which Jesus' brothers would 'experience hardships' at the hands of the world, not anytime after that.

> So to say that the "serious mistake" could only refer to a time during or following the millennium is disingenuous. The word "perhaps" includes application to any time period during or after the millennium, but does not preclude any time period just prior to the Millennium, so long as that time period was not concomitant with "the sign" and the "hardships" aforementioned. The change in 1995 was precisely this and thus fit the 1984 description of a "serious mistake."

> Relevant quotes from Rational include:

> > Survival into a New Earth made it very clear that:

> > > Jesus gave this parable as part of the sign of "the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:3)

> > [The Society] associated the parable with "the sign". That "sign" was understood (and still IS!) to have begun in 1914 and to be the precursor of Armageddon, NOT part of Armageddon. So to say that the parable was "part of the sign" was to say that it preceded Armageddon. This is borne out by the additional statement that the parable would be fulfilled "while his 'brothers' are still in the flesh and experiencing the hardships that he mentions," which hardships precede (and, according to the Society, even provoke) Armageddon.… The only "period of time" during which the Society originally allowed for it to be fulfilled was from 1914 up through the time concomitant with "the sign" and "the hardships that he mentions." Anything else was "a serious mistake."

> > For its fulfillment to be part of "the sign" it could not come at the very end of the "conclusion of the system of things" (i.e., at or after Armageddon), since by then the "sign" would have fulfilled its purpose--to be a prelude and precursor to the end!

> > ...the Society has never "taught that Jesus parable could not apply until beyond 'the conclusion of the system'." That would have been "a serious mistake", per the 1984 quote. But that is not the only way a "serious mistake" could have been made, within the constraints of that quote (which seems to be your contention)…. the supposed implausibility of the parable's being fulfilled "during the Millennial Reign" … is stated as one possible application of the parable's being fulfilled "later on." By definition this means it was not the only possible application. The most (only?) other rational application of a fulfillment "later on" would be in connection with the judgment at Armageddon ... which is precisely the understanding that the Society DID adopt in 1995! Hence the 1995 understanding is in fact included within the context of what was described in 1984 as "a serious mistake."

As stated at the outset, in any significant and involved discussion thread, a fair summarization of the positions can be created at an appropriate summary point (or points). It should then be simple for all participants in the discussion to agree or disagree that the summarization accurately represents their position. (And if they disagree, to supply a concise replacement.) With the topic and its associated arguments pro and con presented in this more immediate and accessible fashion, it should be easier for all to see the entire picture and to determine which line of reasoning is better supported by facts and which position better merits their acceptance. Surely it would be helpful to see a similar format followed in those serious discussions involving Greg Stafford, A.F., Tom (Zack), etc.? Any suggestions as to how this might be effected?

Rational

Follow Ups:

- *Discussion summaries AF 01:26:57 10/30/99 (21)
  - **Discussion summaries Friend 15:56:08 10/31/99 (18)
    - ***Discussion summaries AF 22:57:19 10/31/99 (17)
      - ****Discussion summaries Friend crtd 07:17:16 11/01/99 (10)
        - *****Discussion summaries AF 10:51:09 11/01/99 (9)
          - ******Discussion summaries Friend 11:21:38 11/01/99 (8)
            - *******Discussion summaries AF 14:33:16 11/01/99 (1)
              - ********Discussion summaries Friend 16:01:14 11/01/99 (0)
            - *******Discussion summaries Rational 12:21:31 11/01/99 (5)
              - ********Discussion summaries Friend 12:40:40 11/01/99 (4)
                - *********Discussion summaries Rational 14:54:58 11/01/99 (3)
                  - **********Discussion summaries Friend 15:46:18 11/01/99 (2)
                    - ***********Discussion summaries Rational 18:08:33 11/01/99 (1)
                      - ************Discussion summaries Friend 19:02:07 11/01/99 (0)
      - ****Discussion summaries Friend 06:46:48 11/01/99 (0)
      - ****Discussion summaries Rational 06:42:37 11/01/99 (4)
        - *****Discussion summaries AF 11:04:33 11/01/99 (3)
          - ******Discussion summaries Friend 11:59:40 11/01/99 (2)
            - *******Discussion summaries AF 14:42:36 11/01/99 (1)
              - ********Discussion summaries Friend 18:23:13 11/01/99 (0)
  - **Discussion summaries Rational 08:44:28 10/30/99 (1)
    - ***Discussion summaries AF 12:54:06 10/30/99 (0)
- *Discussion summaries nimrod 15:39:39 10/29/99 (0)
- *Discussion summaries The Solution 14:53:53 10/29/99 (0)
- *Discussion summaries Gedanken 13:53:20 10/29/99 (0)
- *Discussion summaries Fred Goff 13:47:33 10/29/99 (5)
  - **Discussion summaries Gedanken 13:55:11 10/29/99 (4)
    - ***Discussion summaries Fred Goff 13:57:59 10/29/99 (3)
      - ****Discussion summaries Gedanken 14:29:18 10/29/99 (0)
      - ****Discussion summaries Farkel 14:06:47 10/29/99 (0)
      - ****Discussion summaries Farkel 14:06:25 10/29/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Discussion summaries

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]