God is editor of the WT
If Judge Rutherford was such an alcoholic, how could Jehovah have used him as His spokesperson on earth? I always wondered about that...
Am I mistaken, or is one of the JW mainstays the 'fact' that they are the true religion?
It's obvious that everyone who supports the doctrine of being the 'true' religion is claiming an authority on that basis, and they have clearly portrayed to others that they are God's 'particular people', and by going along with them you'll be in God's favour. If they're not inspired they should tell people at the door.
It seems they would rather lie against the spirit of the truth and use what deception is available by the words in this world. Even worldly people understand what the 'spirit of' something means, like the spirit of the law. Bullshit goes beyond sentence structures.
I'm just posting so that I can get email updates of this thread.
The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible "
the comment was made:
Franz says several times that Jehovah God is the editor, watching over the editing, directing, etc. etc. the publication of the Watchtower magazine. I guess that means that when the crap hits the fan, they say to Him "It was the magazine You edited that perpetrated the lies, not us."
and this really puts it in a nutshell
if the info is wrong don't blame us god is the editor we just run the presses
this is the type of wacked reasoning and explainations that NONJW when they read will say- you guys are a:
"FEW FRIES SHORT OF A HAPPY MEAL"
My intention in supplying the full context of the court record was not to attack or defend the testimony that Fred Franz gave. It was to allow those without access to the court record to judge for themselves just what he meant when he said that God became the editor of the Watchtower.
However, refiners fire asked me to speculate why Fred Franz said that Rutherford was one of the five members of the editorial commitee designated in Russell's will, when he wasn't. Of course I cannot be sure, but when Russell specified that an editorial committee should take charge of Zion's Watch Tower on his death, he said :
In addition to the five named for the committee I have named five others from whom I prefer that selection should be made for any vacancies in the Editorial Committee...The names of the Editorial Committee are as follows:In the month after Russell's death, both W.E.Page and E.W.Brenneisen resigned from the Editorial Staff and were replaced by J.F.Rutherford and Robert Hirsh. As a matter of interest, W.E.Page resigned because he was not able to take up residence in Brooklyn and E.W.Brenneisen resigned because of family responsibilities.
WILLIAM E. PAGE,
WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH,
HENRY CLAY ROCKWELL,
The names of the five whom I suggest as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee are as follows: A.E.Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo.H.Fisher (Scranton), J.F.Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar.
So, although Rutherford wasn't one of the five that Russell specified, he was mentioned in Russell's will and he did become a member of the Editorial Committee on Russell's death. As it does not seem that Fred Franz had a copy of the Will at hand it is no wonder he thought Rutherford was included.
Adonai438 referred to an example in the trial in which Nathan Knorr claimed inspiration for the Watch Tower. Angie, this is another instance of selective quotation. You quote as follows:
Q: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you?A consideration of the context shows quite clearly what Knorr believed about the Watch Tower. The attorney for Olin Moyle (the plaintiff) had been asking Nathan Knorr about the difference in doctrine regarding the interpretation of Revelation in the books "Finished Mystery" and "Light". The cross-examination continued (columns 1473,1474):
A: Not that I recall.
Q: In fact, it is set forth as God's Word, isn't it?
A: Yes, as his word.
Q: Without any qualification whatsoever?
A: That is right.
Q: So that the doctrine set forth in the earlier work was erroneous?Once again selective quotation suggests a claim that the Watch Tower is inspired but when he just previously says that the only expression of God's view "is in the Bible, which is God's word", it's plain that he cannot believe both. His remarks should surely be understood in the light of his earlier reply "When we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes."
A: Yes. I might say, if I can express further-
Q: Well, it was erroneous, was it not?
A: Well, not all of it was erroneous. The Light shines more and more under[sic] the perfect day, and as things become clearer it is much easier to understand the Scriptures. It is difficult to understand Scripture until things have transpired to fulfill those Scriptures.
Q: God was writing these books ever since 1918, wasn't he?
A: I wouldn't say God was writing them.
Q: They were written under the influence of God, weren't they?
A: They were written by men in the service of God's Organization, to bring to the attention of the People the truths as expressed in the Bible.
Q: Would you say that God's views had changed between 1918 and 1930?
A: God's views never changed, and their only expression is in the Bible, which is God's word. Man can make a mistake in the interpretation thereof.
Q: So that these leaders or agents of God are not infallible, are they ?
A: That is right.
Q: And they do make mistakes in these doctrines?
A: That is right.
Q: But when you put out these writings in the Watch Tower, you don't make any mention, to those who get the papers, that "We, speaking for God, may make a mistake," do you?
A: When we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes.
Q: But you don't make any mention in the fore part of your Watch Tower that "We are not infallible and subject to correction and may make mistakes"?
A: We have never claimed infallibility.
Q: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: In fact, it is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it?
A: Yes, as His word.
Q: Without any qualifications whatsoever?
A: That is right.
AlanF, thank you for your courteous and well-reasoned response. I quite agree with you that the court must have been mightily entertained. I had many a chuckle myself when reading through the trial transcript and I would make it compulsory reading for anyone interested in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I have to say I have some sympathy with Fred Franz's debacle in describing God as editor. When he was asked who became the editor of the Watch Tower after the Editorial Committee, the record shows he wanted to explain what was said in the magazine when it discontinued publishing the names of the editorial committee. I surmise the passage he had in mind was the statement that "the work of God's organization is not subject to the control of man or to be controlled by the will of any creature". But we will never know as the court intervened and insisted he say who became editor. So he said it was God and having said that he had to stick with it. I agree with you that Franz, Rutherford, and current Watchtower leaders claim that God is actively guiding them but I doubt they consider that applies to everything that appears in The Watchtower.
But there is another part of the transcript which, I believe, shows clearly how JWs can so easily change their beliefs. It is not that they believe the Watchtower is inspired. In the thirty years I have been baptised I have never come across a JW who admits to believing the Watchtower is inspired (in the biblical sense). But let me quote the relevant section (columns 845,846). Again, Mr. Bruchhausen is cross-examining Fred Franz:
Q: Did I understand you to say that Jehovah's Witnesses or their doctrines are not a religion?The crux of this cross-examination is Franz's answer to the question : Don't you have some fixed creeds that don't change?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You distinguish between what they profess and what organized churches profess, don't you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you call the religion of organized churches a religion because it is an organization, is that it?
Q: If they have a profession in churches and profess to read the Bible and state doctrines in it, isn't that some profession of faith?
A: That is their creed.
Q: And you also profess to use the Bible and state some profession of faith, don't you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In that respect, they are both the same, aren't they?
A: No, sir.
Q: How is the profession of faith by a church different from the profession of faith by Jehovah's Witnesses.
A: Because a religious organization has a fixed creed which represents that which is established as a doctrine of the church and from which it does not change.
Q: Don't you have some fixed creeds that don't change?
A: The Bible is our creed, and as the Bible opens up, we get a clearer understanding of it.
By the Court:
Q: The Bible does not change, does it?
Q: In other words, when you get to it or when it opens up to your mind?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: It is always there and it is always the same thing?
A: Yes, sir. The text does not change.
By Mr. Bruchhausen:
Q: So that the difference between the two now is that one never changes their creed and you do, is that it?
A: Yes, sir.
Essentially, his answer is no except for the belief that the Bible is our creed. That means it is quite possible (although improbable) that one day Jehovah's Witnesses will believe in the trinity. In fact they can believe anything at all, and change those beliefs, provided they are convinced it is taught in the Bible. As ludicrous as that sounds it is very similar to what happened to the early Christians as a study of the first three centuries will show. That is why they had all those Councils...there simply was no fixed creed for the Church beyond a belief in Jesus as saviour.
Does that mean a JW can believe anything provided they are convinced it is taught in the Bible? After all, if it is taught in the Bible then sooner or later it will be explained in the Watchtower!? My answer has to be yes, but...
...but they cannot teach it to others if it is not accepted by the church. Why not? Because Paul says "you should all speak in agreement, and there should not be divisions among you, but you should be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought". There simply would not be a recognisable faith of Jehovah's Witnesses. As it is, the religion today is not the same as that which existed before the elder arrangement (1971), and that one was not the same as the one with elective elders, which was not the same as...
A church with only the Bible as their creed is a noble endeavour but it is destined to continue to redefine itself until "the day is firmly established". Forgive me for rambling on a bit, I didn't mean to use this as a soapbox. It's just that my reflections on what Fred Franz said, and the logical consequences of that, have crystalised my own convictions on the subject.
"Beware the Jub-jub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
Sorry only read the last bit of this thread. Some of the most convincing writing I've seen proWT.
However, what you seem to be saying then is that God is good & right & just, never changes, & is completely trustworthy
and it is only the buffoons in the writing dept & all who approve the far out stuff that makes the trouble and its ok because they don't do it on purpose. They can only write as far as their intellect will take them on any given topic.
Could this be one reason why they sought help from the big red UN library?
Then I think I understand now.
well the answer is right there ernie.
"A religion has a fixed creed from which it does not change"
What is the belief regarding the "Faithfull and Discreet slave" cllective, if not a fixed creed?
It is a revealed truth. A fact of heavenly reality.
yet, in times past the org held the position that Russell himself was the slave.
The very fixedness of their "collective slave" understanding (currently held) is the reason they slip slide around the former position held regarding Russell, and seek to conceal it.
They wish to show that their current position is the position they have always held, that interpretation has not changed.
Divinely revealed facts do not change.
This applies to their failed prophecies also.
definition of 'infallible' from my dictionary-
"exempt from error".
If you make a prediction, and it doesnt happen, thats an error isnt it?
Dont give me that "light gets brighter" stuff.
Dont talk to me about "present Truth".
The Adventists used those arguments before your church was born.
The desire to appear "exempt from error" is the reason false prophecies are concealed.
And what else would you expect from someone who claims that what is written in the Watchtower is "Gods word".
This is not "private interpretation". Not "suggestions". Not personal opinion.Not "just a thought".
It is revealed truth.
Who reveals Truth, ernie?
The Watchtower is divinely revealed truth. Inspired.
Every member attending meetings believes that, why else would they all do everything the org tells, suggests, implies they should do
unless they believe that what is being said is a directive from God Himself?
Why does every member engage in the door to door activity?
Because it is a command from God, as espoused thru the WT.
If you cannot see that this means the WT is inspired and infallible I cannot help you.
There should be just one simple comment on Fred Franz' asserting that Jehovah edited the Watchtower magazine: He blasphemed.
These people who deny their own reality really bug the hell out of me.
Ernie. Consider this, can you tell me why there isnt a single J W man who has a beard?
Why is that?
( hope they still arent allowed to have beards, they werent last time I went)
Where in the bible does it say you cant have a beard?
see you claim the Org holds to the Bible as its only creed.
If it doesnt say in the Bible that your not allowed to have a beard.
Then why does EVERYBODY shave their beard?
Answer because the org says beards arent allowed.
And if every single male Dub across the entire planet shaves his beard, doesnt that mean that all the members think the Org is God talking? That those words on page 23 saying ..."beards are inappropriate"..are the words from the lips of God Himself?
Doesnt that meanevery single dub across the planet THINKS the words are inspired?
Course thats what it means....
Why does everyone wear a suit to the meet?
Where in the old Biblos does it say ..."wear a suit"...
Why do all the men have short hair?
Where does it say that a creative day is 7000 years long?
Not in the Bible. Why then did Witnesses hope for a longed for event in 1975?
Answer, because the Watchtower said a creative day was 7000 years long,and 7000-6000=1000.
Are you blind???
I agree with you that Franz, Rutherford, and current Watchtower leaders claim that God is actively guiding them but I doubt they consider that applies to everything that appears in The Watchtower.
This is incorrect, as shown in Aug. 1, 2001 WT:
First, since “oneness” is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete con-fidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jeho-vah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.”
In fact, how can a Chris-tian be in oneness with fellow believers if he only believes or accepts a certain part of “the faith”? ... Rather, we should be interested in taking advantage of all of Jeho-vah’s provisions through his organization...
Some of the bible was written by the apostles. Who do the GB compare themselves to?
Russell was said to have "revived the great truths taught by Jesus and the apostles." (see Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 17)
Christian elders govern by using their "abilities to direct" (Greek ky-ber-NE seis) in providing leadership and guidance in local congregations. (1 Corinthians 12:28) But the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem served as a body to give guidance and counsel to all the congregations. (Acts 15:1,2,27-29) Today, therefore, a governing body of elders provides spiritual oversight for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.
(Watchtower; December 15, 1989; p. 21)
Confident of the loyalty of his faithful creatures, Jehovah delegates authority. So does his Son. From among his anointed followers, "the faithful and discreet slave," he has chosen a few to serve as a visible governing body. (Matthew 24:45) In the first century, this group was composed of the apostles and several older men in Jerusalem.
(Watchtower; Jan. 15, 1990; p. 26)
They have a modern Governing Body of older Christian men from various parts of the earth who give needed oversight to the worldwide activities of God's people. these men, like the apostles and older men in Jerusalem in the first century, are anointed members of the faithful and discreet slave class designated by Jesus to care for all of his Kingdom interests here upon earth. History has proved that they can be trusted to follow the direction of the holy spirit and that they do not rely on human wisdom in teaching the flock of God the ways of genuine peace.
(The Watchtower; Dec. 15, 1989; p. 6)
WT 15/01/94, p. 16
In the past, Jehovah ruled and revealed truths through individuals, such as prophets, kings and apostles. Jesus said that during his royal presence, he would identify a faithful body of followers, a 'faithful and discreet slave'. In 1919 this slave was identified as the remnant of anointed Christians. Since then, as represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it has been the center of theocracy on earth.
"However, all person who have love for the truth are invited to examine this claim that Jehovah's Witnesses really do have the truth. In doing so, they should imitate what those persons in the first century did who listened to the preaching of the apostles: They received the word with the great eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."
(Watchtower July 1, 1979, p. 25)
WT June 1, 82:
"Today, a remnant of this 'faithful slave' is still alive on earth. They occupy a position similar to that of Paul...when that apostle said of the wonderful truths...:"It is to us God has revealed them through his spirit."
Only when things go terribly wrong will the GB call themselves "imperfect men".