Thirdwitness -- An Agent of the Governing Body?

by AlanF 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jwfacts

    Well said Alan, and you may have a point.

    I don't think the WTS cares about converting back the apostates though. They just want to keep the JWs satisfied that there is an answer. Since a Dub is trained not to think too deeply about discrepencies I think the WTS ploy will work in cases. A Dub will skim read these well constructed but logically unstable theories, think it sounds plausible and slip back into their comfort zone of following the Slave.

    I have found it quite depressing that a number of my friends came close to leaving, then could not take to step and slipped back into their old routine of spoonfeeding from the WTS. Their response is "I don't quite know about the doctrine, but it just is easier this way".

  • AuldSoul

    I think the intent is to create the effect their posts initially had on saki2fifty. He noticed that we were arguing about it and initially concluded that there must be grounds for dispute over the issue. We know better, but these yahoos muddied the water sufficiently with their unfounded statements of fact that some have been left wondering whether there is a possibility the WTS is correct after all.

    Whether or not these pro-WTS posts are sanctioned by the WTS, the effects render the posters agents of the Governing Body. But it is odd how they refuse to discuss the issues on which we have them dead to rights and prefer to stick with issues revolving around chronology, as if timetables are the theme of the Bible.


    (edited): Is it possible they are trying to figure out who are their chief adversaries, the ones they should be most concerned about?

  • dozy

    I don't buy into the "agent of the GB" idea - I agree with other posters that they:

    (1) Don't really care about defending their doctrines on the net.

    (2) Theologically are opposed to "debates" with apostates / ex-witnesses and would never sanction such an act (or even condone it , if it became known)

    (3) As the leadership are institutionalised and (by and large) elderly , have little comprehension of the challenge and opportunity that is presented online and would not wish to sponsor such activity.

    So who are "thirdwitness" and his like? Any who have been associated with JWs for some time will be aware of "intellectual JWs" - very knowledgable , always quoting the latest miniscule "new thought" or "new light". I recall an elderly brother who loved to call on church vicars and theology students and debated bible chronology and the minutae of doctrine ; a cup of tea was always available for him at the local parsonage. I commend posters like scholar & thirdwitness and feel they provide a much needed balance to the board.

  • AuldSoul


    Except thirdwitness has already admitted that the account is shared by more than one poster. Does that change your evaluation at all?

    (2) Theologically are opposed to "debates" with apostates / ex-witnesses and would never sanction such an act (or even condone it , if it became known)

    Theologically, they are opposed to voluntarily joining organizations that support Satan's attempt to bring about world peace in direct defiance of God's Kingdom, however they were an Associate member of the United Nations Department of Public Information from 1992 through 2001, with sanction. Perhaps a reassessment of what they would or would not sanction is appropriate.


  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    Jaracz and his cronies appear to be singularly unaware that certain critical Watchtower doctrines and practices have no support in the Bible or in terms of secular arguments, and they seem to have lost a sense of history in terms of proclaiming "the end is near".

    Unaware, or don't care? I tend to think the latter moreso than the former. Freddie was the theological idealogue. This crowd, I believe, doesn't give a tinker's dam about theology or facts for that matter.

    You could well be right Alan and if so then I'm very glad I waded into the 2 witness thread (a truly evil policy).

    Auld Soul, I think they did more damage to their position than they helped it. From a reasonably objective viewpoint, reading their arguments versus yours, or Alan's or Leolaia's or hillary_step's, et al. there is a marked difference in tone and logic. Now obviously there are many Witnesses who don't care whether the Society's teachings are biblically based or not. So really any argument is irrelevent to those types. But to a true believer, or at least one with nagging doubts, these threads are very important.

    I haven't read anything published by the Society in over 15 years and, with that as a backdrop, I have no trouble following the posts showing the inaccuracies of the silly 607 teaching for example. I have much more difficulty following thirdwitness or scholar's posts as they are so eager to misdirect or ignore valid counterpoints. It's like trying to read through a maze, or watch that old shell game (where's the ball now you see it now you don't).


  • Outlawed

    Maby they are the first "victims" of the "Bethel dowsize" in there "first free staps" without control from the top.

    my 2 cents

  • vitty

    I wouldnt put it passed them to host a unofficial pro witness site .............even if they condem them.

    I cant see how they would just sit on their hands while all this "apostate" stuff is out there and not try to conteract it someway

    The topic here for example about the "truth" about the watchtower NOT being involved with the UN. I saw a site which dealed with all the issues on the net

  • ozziepost

    Whatever the origin of thirdwitness, I believe he never really wanted a 'discussion' but was simply intent on 'spoiling'. His latest efforts centered around publicising his own publication for which his posting 'rights' were curtailed.

    I hope that in future he will use his limited posting to enter into real discussion i.e. answer the questions that he repeatedly failed to do.

  • AuldSoul


    Good point. Also, sites like the ones to which thirdwitness links do not allow any feedback AT ALL. There is no opportunity to publicly challenge the validity of the claims, which is in direct imitation of the Governing Body's methods even if not directly sanctioned by them.


  • avengers
    I commend posters like scholar & thirdwitness


    How in the name of whatever can you commend people who stand behind rules which protect pedophiles?

    If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say

    Don't the elders have a responsibility towards the child? There are ways to find out if the child is telling the truth.

    The reason they can't find out is because they are not professionals, but mostly janitors and cleaners.

    This polcy about which thirdwitness says is the best policy is in fact the worst.


Share this