Posted by 5GJW [5thGenerationJW] on April 05, 1999 at 16:37:05 {6.uz.4vynMlo6QIt25t6ZX9D1q7/.6}:
In Reply to: *****?s for the reform minded posted by Friend on April 05, 1999 at 12:54:25:
My first post has gone into the void, so here is another try.
Hi Friend,
You said:
>Let me ask you a question: If you had certain knowledge of facts that you could not readily display, would you be unfounded for believing what you knew to be true?
You present facts that you cannot prove, but that does not make the facts wrong. The conclusion that you draw from these facts is unfounded, that this is why the blood doctrine was changed. Without proof, this is only your opinion. Unfounded is not an insult, it means:
1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See synonyms at baseless.
2. Not yet established.
If I grant you that there are letters, which I don't doubt exist, it does not necessarily follow that these letters are the reason that the doctrine was changed. It is your opinion that the letters are the reason, but to claim it as fact would be unfounded. That does not mean that you are wrong, it means that you can't prove it.
I will also say that J's letter does give support to your claim, but I still think that there is not enough evidence to make the claim that what you say is a fact. The letters that J mentions may have been a secondary factor, but I find it hard to accept that the GB would be that moved by the wishes of the brothers to reverse their direction on the blood issue. At most, the letters may have accelerated them in the direction that they were already headed. This is my opinion, based on my observations of the workings of the org., and I offer it as such.
I would actually like to be proved wrong on this, but I'm sure you understand that I need more evidence than what you have provided here to accept your conclusions as fact.
5GJW, who is of the opinion that the generation teaching was changed because people can count to 81