Theocratic War Strategy - UN

by anglise 3 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • anglise

    This is a direct quote from the Guardian Newspaper today (8th Oct 01):

    “In an internal document, the WTBTS describes its policy as a “theocratic war strategy”. It claims: “In time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does not harm anyone; on the contrary it does much good.”

    Is this a tactful and clever thing to say, using words like “spiritual warfare”, “enemy” and “war strategy”, less then 4 weeks after the World Trade Centre and Pentagon were attacked by terrorists during their spiritual warfare?

    Do you think the UN realise that the WTBTS are using this terminology?

  • comment

    The Society did not use this language in a direct reference to its policy toward the UN. Nor is the quotation from the last few weeks..

    It's not from an "internal document," either. It's from some Watchtower article from the 50's.

    Nonetheless, it doesn't look very good on them. Same with that '87 article about how Witnesses who find out other Witnesses have had abortions or blood transfusions should breach medical confidentiality and tell the elders.


  • Xena

    hey ya'll here is a link to that newspaper article:

  • bjc2012

    One important point we must remember on this subject is this. The whole premise of using "Theocratic War Strategy" on people is based upon the WTS' concept of what constitutes a "lie" by definition. WTS style "lying". Let's analyze this definition.

    The WTS defines a "lie" as follows,

    "The opposite of truth. Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is ENTITLED TO KNOW THE TRUTH and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person." (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II page 244 under subject heading of "Lie".)

    So, "Theocratic War Strategy" is used to "deceive" all those who are NOT "entitled to know the truth" about the matter.

    Therefore, by this definition, when the Governing Body acted to "deceive" the UN Officials when applying for secret NGO status, while writing articles condemning other religions like the Catholics against such a practice as being idolatry, they were not really "lying" at all. At least, according to what "they" [WTS] call a lie.

    That's how they see it.

    However, contrary to this original premise, we notice when the real heat was put on them (by the Guardian News and others) say, in the UN Library Card Defense which is obviously a falsehood (lie), the Governing Body brazenly told a OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD to all 90+ branch offices without hesitation. The vicious falsehood came in the form of the "Library Card" Defense, an official statement, released by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses on November 1, 2001.

    In doing this, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, callously employed "Theocratic War Strategy", or this transparent "deception" to deliberately mislead the entire brotherhood of JWs worldwide.

    Now by doing this, the Governing Body violated their "own" warped, disfunctional standards of what a "lie" is by definition, as taught by the the so-called F&DS in the printed publications.

    Because of this action, all sincere JWs, that is even those who subscribe to the theory of "Theocratic War Strategy" presently, must ask themselves the following questions about this "library card" defense fiasco:

    According to the WTS definition mentioned above of a "Lie" in the printed publications, aren't the brothers "entitled to know the truth" about the matter?

    It is a fact, the printed publications clearly teach, if those who are "entitled to know" are purposely deceived by such a statement, then it is a "Lie" by definition. And we would have to say the spiritual brothers are certainly "entitled to know the truth", aren't they? Therefore, the "Library Card" Defense, is indeed a vicious "lie", told to mislead those that "are entitled to know", the spiritual brothers of the JW Organization. The statement becomes an evil statement intented to "deceive" those "entitled to know". Just like or comparable to what is customarily employed by the original "deceiver", the "father of the lie", Satan -- is it not? (John 8:44)


Share this