"Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie"

by becca1 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  becca1

  So says the February 1st 2007 Watchtower in bold print on page 6.

  The name of the article is: Why Be Truthful?

  Under the subheading, What Is a Lie? it reads:"Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie. Why not? A dictionary defines a lie as "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to decieve." Yes, lying includes the intention to deceive someone. Hence, to speak an untruth unwittingly - such as giving someone incorrect facts or figures by mistake - is not the same as to tell a lie."

  Then in larger bold print it repeats: Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie

  OK, I agree that if you say something incorrectly, while believing it to be true, you were not lying, you are simply mistaken. However, what is this "dictionary" they get their qoute from? And why highlight and repeat the above statement? Why beat around the bush on the matter of truth? Why do they have to split hairs on this issue? Isn't condemming lying, like the Bible does enough? Who are they giving an "out" to? The readers? Themselves? Am I getting paranoid?
• 

  confusedjw

  I think they are giving themselves an out
• 

  Confession

  I certainly agree with the statement. I tire of hearing people accuse others of "lying," when they were really just "mistaken." It's not fair, and diminishes the seriousness of genuine liars.

  I'd agree also with ConfusedJWs assessment. Printing this in their magazines gives them a potential "out" if and when their mistakes come under even greater scrutiny that they're under now. The only problem is that some of their "untruths" have been deceptive. It's true that originally their position about 607 & 1914 was a mistake. But when the President of the WTS admits he doesn't know whether 1914 is right or not--and their writing department discovers they'd been wrong all along--and it is on this prophecy that all of their claims of authority hangs--and they keep this from the rank & file, even DFing many who are troubled by it, that very definitely becomes "deception," which is another word for "LIE."
• 

  wozadummy

  Perhaps this is a part of a campaign to soften up the witnesses for a huge change in doctrine like 1914
• 

  Scully

  George Costanza's Credo "It's not a lie if you believe it."

  
• 

  JWdaughter

  This is a set up-like 3 card monte. The WT is so full of it!
• 

  Amazing

  Becca1,

  My dictionary says in its "first" definition of a lie: "to make a statement that one knows is false, especially with the intent to deceive." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American language, Second College Edition, (c)1980 by William Collins Publishers, Inc.

  My dictionary essentially agrees with the definition used by the Society. Most dictionaries give the same definition.

  And why highlight and repeat the above statement? Why beat around the bush on the matter of truth? Why do they have to split hairs on this issue? Isn't condemming lying, like the Bible does enough? Who are they giving an "out" to? The readers? Themselves? Am I getting paranoid?

  This is where you hit upon the raw nerve with the Society. The Society knows without question that they have made a mountain of errors in teaching. They are in such a mess that they do not know how to get out of it. Now deceased Governing Body member, Dan Sydlik once stated that he felt the Society has it all wrong, and that they need to trash everything and start over at Genesis 1:1. (This was reported to my by Tom Cabeen, former Factory Overseer, and personal friend of Dan Sydlik. Tom gave me persmission to quote him.) While this quote is hearsay to me, I trust Tom as a highly credible source.

  The Society likely fears ex-JWs accusing them of lying. They now confront the great equalizer, the Internet, where previously isolated ex-JWs can now publicly shame the Society by pointing out errors and omission made in their publications. This equalizatioin now reaches people around the world in a matter of seconds. The Watchtower's power of the print media is no longer their great weapon.

  The Society also likely resents ex-JWs accusing them of lying, because many in the leadership probably believe that they are telling the truth. So, by adhering to the strict doctionary definition of a lie, they are probably opening up an out for themselves to admit errors ... and soften the reaction of the JWs and possibly the public.

  Here is where the Society will get hurt on this issue: They utterly refuse to accept constructive and critical review of their works by professionals, and by rank and file JWs, and former JWs who can show them the serious errors the Society still promotes. Thier stubborn refusal of, and willing blind eye to, information that is critical and corrective of their published material is a form of lying by omission. It is no different from a political, business, or military leader who tells subbordinates to go ahead with some conduct, but just don't tell the leader about it ... so that the leader has plausible deniability.

  I hope that more ex-JWs read your posting, because you have uncovered a serious and important issue that I believe the Society will try to use to its own benefit as the months and years go by.

  Thanks for the post.

  Jim Whitney

  PS: I am going to alert Randy Watters to see if he will post your article on his web scroll ... and I am posting a copy with credit to you on two other discussion boards.
• 

  jayhawk1

  So is it a lie if Watchtower says to lie under oath?
• 

  Scully

  Reading these lyrics, I'm almost wondering if there is a JW history somewhere...

  Taking Back Sunday - Follow the Format

  "follow the format" by t.b.s
  
  make a big scene
  make this glass house my coffin, you
  missed the big picture
  but it's the words that you're coughing up
  out on your sleeve
  so forge my sins here in song
  well i'm telling you now
  what you've known all along
  
  and it's tired, so true, more
  subtle than you, there's
  a lull in the stereo
  it's calling for you (calling for you)
  it's calling for you
  
  well i'm a slave to my vices (it's true)
  they've all been (re)
  renamed as your crutch
  so drag my name and my face through the mud
  you're better at confronting me
  (you're better at confonting me)
  show us just how vicious you can be
  do what you came here to do
  (do what you came here to do)
  
  trigger, finger
  gets you pointed in
  the right direction,
  my new-found discretion
  
  it's not a lie if you believe it
  it's no mistake if it's always repeated
  it's not a lie if you believe it
  it's no mistake if it's always repeated
  it's not a lie if you believe it
  it's no mistake if it's always repeated
  (shall we call it quits or just wait)
  it's not a lie if you believe it (even, even if my last name rhymes with)
  it's no mistake if it's always repeated
  (your rescue of hear say, do not say you know)
  it's not a lie if you believe it (call me out, it's such a lie)
  it's no mistake if it's always repeated
  but i don't need to hear it from you
  what's another word for?
  i don't need to hear it from you
  what's another word for?
  i don't need to hear it from you
  what's another word for?
  don't need to hear it from you
  
  It gets easier with doses of time
  (easier with dull sense of time)
  easier with doses of time
  (easier with dull sense of time)
  easier with doses of time
  (easier with dull sense of time
  easier with doses of time
  show us just how vicious you can be to me
• 

  thecarpenter

  The society put this quote in the magazine for a reason, the article had to be suggested and then approved by a committee. There has been so much old literature resurrected that exposes the organization that they have to find a out for the willful deception. I certainly don't buy into the 'but we really believed it' nonsense, there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

  Here is where the Society will get hurt on this issue: They utterly refuse to accept constructive and critical review of their works by professionals, and by rank and file JWs, and former JWs who can show them the serious errors the Society still promotes. Thier stubborn refusal of, and willing blind eye to, information that is critical and corrective of their published material is a form of lying by omission. It is no different from a political, business, or military leader who tells subbordinates to go ahead with some conduct, but just don't tell the leader about it ... so that the leader has plausible deniability.

  They are trying to preserve what little credibility they have so that a the very least, they could say they 'meant well'. Unfortunately, they still insist on a high level of control over the lives of the members to the point that it shatters families, causes all sorts of psychological harm, and steal years of life from each individual who buys into it. Their willful blindness is dishonest and unethical; their self-serving interpretation of the scriptures make them false prophets and charlatans.