New Curcuit Overseer Brainwash Talk....Obey the Slave even if you find a serious Flaw in JW Doctrine

by foolsparadise 59 Replies latest jw friends

  • sizemik

    While there have already been a number of threads on the "Douglas Walsh" case . . . it's worth reminding ourselves that there is nothing new here. The WTS GB has pushed this line for a long time, as the following excerpt from the case (from 1954) shows;

    Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

    A. I agree 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 prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

    A. Yes, if he said so and kept 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 disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. 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. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

    A. That is conceded to be true.

    Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?

    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 it Christianity?

    A. I certainly do.

  • kurtbethel

    Epic Fail here, folks.

    Where in scripture does it say that doctrine is channeled to believers from invisible spirit beings? No where! Spiritism being taught there.

    So Peter was part of a governing body that has passed down authority to this day, which resides in Brooklyn. Is this scriptural?

    Let's have a look at the Reasoning book, page 37.

    Apostolic Succession
    Definition: The doctrine that the 12 apostles have successors to
    whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the
    Roman Catholic Church, the bishops as a group are said to be
    successors of the apostles, and the pope is claimed to be the
    successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs
    come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the
    functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy
    of authority over the whole Church. Not a Bible teaching.

    (emphasis in original)

    Their lies upon lies have become so convoluted, that the entire religion is compromised beyond repair.

    watchtower epic failure

  • kurtbethel

    What got me was the talk about "if you had a direct vision/dream from Jehovah, but the Governing Body said, 'Thanks, this is our understanding now'" should listen to the GB instead of Jehovah!

    "He will exalt himself and defy every god there is and tear down every object of adoration and worship. He will position himself in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4

    "This little horn had eyes like human eyes and a mouth that was boasting arrogantly." Daniel 7:8

    "The king will do as he pleases, exalting himself and claiming to be greater than every god there is, even blaspheming the God of gods." Daniel 11:36

    "He will have no regard for the god of his ancestors, or for the god beloved of women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all. Instead of these, he will worship the god of fortresses - a god his ancestors never knew - and lavish on him gold, silver, precious stones, and costly gifts." Daniel 11:37-38

    God of Fortresses?

    watchtower god of fortresses

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    That was painful.

    So recapping...Peter got the vision to allow Gentiles in, baptized Cornelius, but the governing body didn't really take it seriously for 13 years, but Peter just shut up the took it, and we should too.

    That can EASILY be turned on them. During those 13 years...did Peter just sit there, keep quiet and do nothing? No, he continued his work, disregarding the belief of the "governing body" and the GENTILE congregation grew. During that time, did the governing body send elders to him threatening to disfellowship him for apostacy? No.

    Peter continued on doing what he knew from Jehovah was right and totally disregarded what the governing body's opinion...and LOOK, Jehovah blessed him. Eventually, that old, narrow-thinking, steeped in old doctrine, governing body who just didn't "get it" FINALLY came around.

  • mrquik

    The GB is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Out of one side of their mouths, they insist that they are God's only channel of truth. Out of the other side they admit they're imperfect. Thus the need for "new light". They may need new light but certainly God doesn't. So which is it? Did Jehovah intentionally mislead them even when it caused suffering & death? If that were true to any extent, he would have to violate his own principle of love. Or are they, as we have known all along, never God's "channel". They are indeed the real apostates, and as the Pharisees, worthy of permanent destruction. Sure going to miss the bullshit.

  • munchausen


  • Violia

    that link downloaded to my media player. can anyone tell me where on six screens I should look for it?

  • Farkel


    : He had nothing else to say for a few seconds and then told me I should just wait on Jehovah...

    Not a bad idea, but that is a buzz phrase that puts the WTS in PLACE of "Jehovah" and a diversion, since the WTS makes itself the same as "Jehovah."

    :but I think I planted a seed...

    I doubt it. A two-by-four upside the head plants a better seed than reason with those braindead morons.

    "Never wrestle with a pig. First, you can't win, and second, the pig actually likes its." - Mark Twain


  • munchausen


    This link seems to work OK for me. It opens up the recording automatically. Maybe someone who is more tech savvy than me would know.

    Here is the link:

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Paul and Peter did not get along. James, not Peter, was the focal point b/c he was the brother of the Lord. Paul is always justifying himself, bragging almost. So Peter and James dissed his ministry and he dissed them, while paying token obedience. Vigorous debate was ongoing. The Jewish Christians died out. Paul was triumphant. This is only one dispute contained in the Bible.

    Many others were onging. What if Paul waited on Jersualem to endorse his ministry? There would be no Christianity today. It was gutsy or bravado on his part to claim that a lblidning light and vision of Christ that only he saw was sufficient for a special calling.

    I saw Russell and Rutherford era writings growing up. Christmas was celebrated. Crosses appeared. The occult was obvious. Ray Franz mentions one Armageddon calculation that erred. The calculation had to deal with the distance from Pittsburgh to NY by train. A follower found an engineer or other rr worker and discovered that the time in the printed schedule was incorrect b/c of a spur. Please!

    I recall 1975 and words out of Fred Franz very mouth at a Yankee Stadium conventioin. It reminds me of the witnensses in Schindler's List. Certainly, even if a lawyer could find them faultless with 1975 (which I know it is not true), Bethel had vast knwoledge of how the teaching was perceived by the rank and file. No clarification was issued.

    A cult is a cult.

Share this