Walsh Trial questions.

by Fatfreek 11 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Fatfreek

    Many here have seen them. I've pasted a portion of the transcript below. My question is in regard to the identity of the Q. and the A. persons.

    Is the Q = to Covington or Clyde? Is the A = Franz or Covington or someone else?

    Has anyone actually bought the complete transcripts? How much did they cost?

    Len Miller


    The following testimony excerpts are from the Pursuer's Proof of Douglas Walsh vs The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, MP, PC, as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service. Copies of the complete transcript or parts thereof may be obtained from the Scottish Records Office, H.M. General Register House, Edinburgh, Scotland. The numbers following the quotations show the transcript page on which the testimony is found.

    Q. Is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?
    A. It certainly is.

    Q. You have promulgated - forgive the word - false prophecy?
    A. We have. I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy, there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.

    Q. It was promulgated as a matter which must be believed by all members of Jehovah's witnesses that the Lord's Second Coming took place in 1874?
    (A short discussion of evidence given by Fred W Franz about 1874 takes place here.)

    Q. That was the publication of false prophecy?
    A. That was the publication of a false prophecy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfilment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.

    Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?
    A. Yes, because you must understand, we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

    Q. Back to the point now, a false prophecy was promulgated?
    A. I agree to that.

    Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's witnesses?
    A. That is correct.

    Q. If a member of Jehovah's witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong, and said so, would he be disfellowshipped?
    A. Yes, if he said so, and kept on persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erroneous, and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across, then there is a disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching ...... Our purpose is to have unity.

    Q. Unity at all costs?
    A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation,the governing body of our organisation, to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

    Q. A unity based on an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
    A. That is conceded to be true.

    Q. And the person who expresses his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the covenant, if he was baptised?
    A. That is correct.

    Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
    A. I think....

    Q. Would you say yes or no?
    A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

    Q. Do you call that religion?
    A. It certainly is.

    Q. Do you call that Christianity?
    A. I certainly do.

  • AlphaOmega

    I took advantage of the free PDF download of the transcript.


  • Fatfreek

    Thanks AO. After I started this thread, I found a download link but it is somewhere in the order of 70 bigga bytes. I'm on a relatively slow connection so I'd rather beg the few answers to those questions -- if not, I'll click the download link.


  • AlphaOmega

    I've just had a look at the file, it looks as if the "A" was Covington - it can be found on page 347.



  • Leolaia

    Yup, it's the WTS's crack attorney Hayden Covington, giving the mother of all admissions on the stand. "We're false prophets ... and a JW has to accept our false prophecies ... and those who reject them are worthy of death".

  • Fatfreek

    the WTS's crack attorney Hayden Covington, giving the mother of all admissions

    Thanks, Leolaia. The identity of that person on the stand was my biggest question.


  • Pickled

    Leolaia, you always provide such great information on this forum. Thanks for making that effort.

  • Raphael


    When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him

  • Terry

    For an organization, the core foundation is UNITY before anything else. That is why C.T. Russell didn't want organization.

    He switched from his original membership in a Scottish Presbyterian style church to a Congregational (no outside direction from a central authority) structure.

    C.T.Russell eventually succumbed to the temptations of vanity and ego, however. Russell wished to detach his own authority and prestige from that of his equally gifted wife, Maria. She was every bit the keen thinker and expositor that Pastor Russell was. (She is credited with inventing the new and useful doctrine of the Faithful and (wise) Discreet Slave.

    It is painfully obvious to us here and now that Russell was wrong in his prophecy and expositions. Yet, there would be no Jehovah's Witnesses building on his foundation were it not for the unifying theory of his successor, Judge Rutherford.

    Instead of calling themselves, simply: Christians; Jehovah's Witnesses under Rutherford, were renamed to represent a new Brand. The new Brand was a unifying strategy to make the former International Bible Students and Russellites into something monolithic and controlled.

    JW's are a brand of nay-sayers and contrarians vis a vis Christianity at large. Yet, amongst their own, they must conform to every jot and tiddle coming from Brooklyn, NY (i.e. The Governing Body).

    It should surprise nobody that Covington and Franz were of the opinion that conformity to unity trumps accuracy and truth.

    Today's rank and file member is loyal---not to Jesus or their misnomer god, Jehovah. They are loyal first and foremost to the Governing Body cadre of authoritarian will-o-the-wisp fascists.

    The test of orthodoxy lies in each member's profession of acceptance of the GB.

    While the superficial stance of any Christian religion is that of adherence to scripture--it is manifestly ridiculous to claim it ends with that.

    Martin Luther invented a brand new way of thinking concerning Christianity and Church. The Church (Catholic) of history and tradition maintained it was the Majesterium which held an ironclad monopoly on interpreting acts of faith and morals which the laity must obey.

    Luther contradicted this with his own SOLA SCRIPTURA (the bible alone) policy. Luther's view was that the Holy Spirit would guide individuals and not groups of Christians under a hierarchy of priests. One man, one bible.

    The divisions which soon followed in Protestantism came from the demonstrably false premise of Luther. How so? Every man had a decidedly DIFFERENT interpretation of orthodox behavior!!

    The Church of England was practically a carbon copy of Catholic behavior and priesthood. The Puritans and Separatists craved unique exclusion to authority and practised (fallibly) a perfection of self and community.

    The thousands of Christian denominations we find like ants at a picnic attest to the foolhardy notion that the Bible can solve any question vis a vis one man and the Holy Spirit as far as UNITY goes.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses, therefore, have reproduced the solidarity of the Catholic Church in their heirarchy of Governing Body as the Majesterium and the other sheep/laity must merely obey no matter how it turns out to be fraud, error or malpractice.

    The average Joe JW takes the view of the Nazi commanders who were "only following orders" and doing their duty. They seek to be excused for their false prophecy distribution in door to door magazine sales.

    The most important work a JW engages in is passing the buck and taking no personal responsibility for having a conscience.

    JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CANNOT POSSESS A PERSONAL CONSCIENCE do to the policy of authority wrought by the Governing Body.

    Covington and Franz demonstrated that in their testimonies.

  • Fatfreek


    Great assessment -- a slam dunk.


Share this