Serious Omissions in New Watchtower Book

by metatron 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  civicsi00

  This book is a thorough review of the Bible book of Acts, which includes Acts 15. Yet, it says nothing about blood transfusion and simply passes by James' remarks with little comment.

  This is interesting. As much as I would love to speculate (and forgive me if I do) about why the omission, I wonder if they left it out because they've already put their opinions about blood transfusions in their other latest book, Keep Yourselves in God's Love (or whatever it's called).

  I do believe that the GB is going to allow JW's to accept the 4 main components of blood soon (as in the next 5 years). Some of the members of the GB are probably waiting for Jaracz and Barr to hurry up and croak so that they can change the stance.

  So many changes have been made as of late, that it's impossible for the GB to keep ahold of possibly thousands of JW's from leaving without changing the blood doctrine.

  Of course, if the changes do come about, there will never be an open, honest apology. Look at what they did when they changed the alternative service stance in 1996. They blamed it on God.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Some of the members of the GB are probably waiting for Jaracz and Barr to hurry up and croak so that they can change the stance.

  I understand that cognitive dissonance is involved, and that it is a dangerous mind control cult, but GB politics to get a majority and waiting for someone to pass away shows that it is not Jehovah guiding decisions. Can't they fu*&ing see that?
• 

  JWoods

  On the blood issue (and what was posted above is fascinating speculation on the subject) - could it possibly be that the legal department gurus are really the ones swinging the cat in the GB boardroom?

  Already burned on the pedophiles and the lawsuit over civil liability when a Bethel guy got into a fatal accident while on Society Business - could it be that they are moving to kill this obvious source of more litigation? Then, too - there is the notion of moving most printed production to Canada...

  Plus the reportedly hi-delux digs legal has provided for its elite...
• 

  cantleave

  "Look at what they did when they changed the alternative service stance in 1996. They blamed it on God."

  I feel really ignorant now - could you enlighten me on what this statement refers to - Thanks.
• 

  JWoods

  I feel really ignorant now - could you enlighten me on what this statement refers to - Thanks.

  Maybe said in jest? IIRC, they actually wrote that "anybody who went to prison over this (i.e. would not take alternative service for objectors) - should be proud that they followed their own christian conscience". Not a word about they way they forced everybody into this position under threat of being disassociated.
• 

  Borgia

  Metatron,

  Thanks for the headsup. It sure is an old song they are singing as long as there's somebody with some repute saying sometihng nice about something they've done ...

  OTWO: I believe that particular quote had to do with earthquackes. It's somewhere on the site here.

  Cheers

  Borgia
• 

  Humanist

  It was their misquoting and self quoting that finally tipped me over the edge. Mainly in the 'Creation' book.

  Borgia, there's a bit about earthquakes and their misrepresentation of facts here: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/earthquakes.php

  (not sure how to make the link clickable, sorry) One example from the site is:

  The 1983 Watchtower article also misquotes Professor Aki in a further attempt to prove a surge in earthquakes.

  "Professor Keiiti Aki of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology speaks of "the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years," though stating that the period from 1500 through 1700 was as active." Watchtower 1983 May 15 p.6

  This partial quote from Professor Aki gives the opposite meaning to what he actually said. Aki's full sentence was:

  "The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years is, in all probability, due to improved recording of earthquakes and the increased vulnerability of human society to earthquake damage. The main reason is the well established plate tectonics which indicates a very steady fault motion over the past many millions of years."

  In other words, due to the slow movement of plate tectonics there is no surge, just an apparent one due to better measurement and recording. However the manner in which the Society misquoted the Professor gives the misleading impression that there has been a surge.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  ""The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years is, in all probability, due to "

  I have - not trying to excuse anything, no hidden agenda - often problems in seeing why this should misrepresentation, lies, you name it, on the side of WT. Because Aki here does not say there in fact has been NO surge - to me as a reader he says there has been an apparent surge, and then goes on to state that "in all probability" this due to .... But it is in all probability, so there could have been a surge, could there not? Mind you; English in not my first language, but as I read it, there might as well be a surge. And when the WT says that he speaks about an apparent surge - where is the dishonesty?

  I think such quotes are blown way out of proportions - as there are other far more important ones to consider. Here, they quote him as talking about an apparent surge - but the rest of what Aki says, are his interpretaion of why. So they quote his observation, but not his interpretaion of it - what is the wrong in that?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Aki wasn't misquoted, as far as I can see, and the WT does add that he believes seismic activity was as intense from 1500-1700.

  BUT the problem I see is that the use of the quote was misleading. In itself, taken in isolation, the Aki quote would evoke a 'that's interesting - there are periodic surges - but so what?' response. But sandwiched among statements about how unique the 1914 generation is and with that infamous Il Piccolo quote coming straight after which kind of neutralizes Aki's, it gives the reader the impression that earthquake activity is unusually high and more devastating than ever before.
• 

  yesidid

  "Look at what they did when they changed the alternative service stance in 1996. They blamed it on God."

  I feel really ignorant now - could you enlighten me on what this statement refers to - Thanks.

  New Light on
  Alternative Military Service

  (From: Investigator No. 49 1996 July)

  B J Kotwall

  The May 1 1996 WT does not mention or admit to any change in policy

  and makes no reference to the previous stand and its change from the

  stand previous to that.

  It is common practice for the WTS to omit mention of previous doctrine

  when introducing changes. This hinders newer JWs from knowing what

  was taught previously and in the present instance means no apology is

  made to those JWs who went to prison needlessly or to their families.

  The change of allowing JWs to opt for alternative service was published

  in The Watchtower (WT) of May 1, 1996. The WTS ban on alternative

  service had been enforced for about 60 years by threat of disfellowshipping

  [excommunicating] the JWs who disobeyed. The ban caused thousands

  of JWs to go to prisons and caused the death of some of them. As is the

  usual practice of the WTS when revising its doctrines and policies, it did

  not refer to its previous stance or admit to enforcing it.

  The WTS has now added insult to injury by placing the blame, of

  abstaining from alternative service , onto the shoulders of the hapless

  JWs who had meekly followed the WTS dictate:

  (The Watchtower 1998 August 15 p. 17 : Underlining added)

  "Feeling of Having Suffered Needlessly

  In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in

  an activity that their conscience now might permit. For example, this

  might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian

  service. A brother might now feel that he could conscientiously perform

  such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present s

  ystem of things.

  Was it unrighteous on Jehovah's part to allow him to suffer for rejecting

  what he might do without consequences... What reason could anyone

  have to regret having followed his conscience in taking a firm stand for

  Jehovah? By loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them

  or by responding to prodding of conscience they proved worthy of

  Jehovah's friendship. Certainly, it is wise to avoid a course that would

  disturb one's conscience...

  In modern times, there have been some Witnesses who were very strict

  in their viewof what they would or would not do. For that reason they suffered

  more than others.

  Later, increased knowledge helped them to expand their view of matters.

  But they have no reason to regret having earlier acted in harmony with

  their conscience even when this possibly brought extra suffering. It truly

  is commendable that they demonstrated their willingness to suffer in

  faithfulness to Jehovah..."

  The above quotation shows the WTS putting the blame solely onto the

  JWs and also implicating Jehovah in the process! No blame is acknowledged

  by the WTS for wrongly imposing the restrictions, or for enforcing them with

  excommunication, or for forbidding the "independent thinking" by which the

  JWs might have made the right decision independently.