The root of the movement’s current confusion as to the beginning of the Youthful Worthies lies in a misunderstanding of that exact reference they overuse. Put plainly, the “present view” brought forth by the Executive Trustee two years ago is based upon a lack of understanding of English semantics and perspective on the three misunderstood references in E4, pages 375-376.
- “brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones from 1878 on”
- “coming back into present Truth, and bringing unbegotten consecrated ones with them from 1878 to 1881”
- “Hence no crowns were available for the Ruth class consecrating and coming into the Truth between 1878 and 1881.”
Read on their own, one would tend to think that there were Youthful Worthies from 1878 to 1881. But read in context, the antitype of the first chapter of Ruth shows a journey to full consecration from 1878 to 1881, overcoming obstacles along the way. Both the Ruth and Orpah classes (those more and less faithful tentatively justified) left with Naomi, so they weren’t fully consecrated right away. The obstacles couldn’t take place in rapid succession, since that would make the consecration process too fast and easy (which we know it is not). And all three classes had to leave the Nominal Church, Moab, in order to miss what they had. And finally, in order for both Naomi to be with her people in Canaan and for Ruth to be a stranger member of Israel required that they be in the land…not along the way…and not in Moab.
When did you first meet your lovely wife?
The three references above show a process, coming from a perfected or known point of view. An easy example of this is in the question, “When did you first meet your lovely wife?” A smart husband, in recounting the event, would normally wax rhapsodic about the first time he met this lovely woman. Were they married then? Certainly not! But from our perspective it makes sense. We know her because she is his wife, he knows her as his wife, and the question acknowledges it. So, he references her from that status and knows what we mean. A dim-witted husband, in recounting the event, would take the question too literally and begin his story from the moment the minister pronounced them husband and wife. Clearly, the questioner was asking about their first encounter and not when they were actually married.
The First Californians
A better example, more in line with the E4 references, would be a similar journey. Quoted from California State University course material, “The first Californians were probably immigrants like the rest of us. Archaeologists believe that the ancestors of American Indians crossed over the Bering Strait from Asia thousands of years ago and then headed south. By 1769, about three hundred thousand Native Americans were living mostly near the coast….” The statement is shown from our perspective, since we know California. Hopefully, we would not be motivated to contact the California Historical Society to tell them we had found new truth about the state’s beginning and that it existed long before it was a state in 1850 or before it was a territory.
1 comment:
This site is awesome. Finally some common sense along with all the references that don't harmonize with the "present view." The new way: Doesn't make sense logically. Doesn't make sense scripturally. Doesn't harmonize with God's plan. Doesn't harmonize with the writings. Doesn't give The Church her due (Harvest Time, being 1st on our Lord's list to deal with), etc. It just doesn't make sense. Finally someone is talking sense and it is so refeshing. Why are the brethren so willing to walk away from something that was already cleansed? And, why are they so willing to dismiss in their heads, brethren they say they loved all their lives. Wake up people!!!! These brether are NOT Sifters. They are telling that the very foundation of the Epiphany Truth is being threatened and the Parousia truth is being compromised.
Post a Comment