The Governing Body has NEVER claimed to be inspired…

by Alfred 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cantleave


  • Alfred

    Leaving WT... Thank! That's excellent information...

  • designs

    Don't you just miss the days when Freddie was in charge of the Light

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    Here's something confusing:

    Hence the purpose of this magazine is to keep sharp and faithful focus on Bible truth, on world happenings that may fulfill prophecies, and on religious news generally. Sometimes it will tear down religious falsehoods, that Bible truth may be built up in their stead. Such two-way work is Scripturally commanded, and is beneficial for all persons of right heart condition. (Jer. 1:10; Heb. 12:5-13) However, The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures. Its purpose is to aid others to know Jehovah and his purposes toward mankind, and to announce Christ’s established kingdom as our only hope. The Watchtower, 1950, 8/15 p. 263

    Then, in 1955, within that article that you opened this topic with, we can deduce that they did make the inspiration claim at that time.

    Then, later -- they flopped (or flipped) back to the no inspiration claim. Someone needs to explain to me this following WT quote: "At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustmentsi, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case." The Watchtower, 1981, 12/1 p. 27 Len
  • bennyk

    The snippet from the Walsh trial transcript was from the cross-examination of Hayden Covington -- not Fred Franz.

  • No Room For George
    No Room For George

    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.

  • Chariklo

    Wow, this stuff is priceless!


  • moshe

    No member of the GB has ever publicly declared themselves to be one of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, either. But that doesn't stop JWs from believing they are. Futhermore, the GB have little, if any, input with the writing department, as that was spun off from GB control decades ago.

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    Bennyk: You are correct. Thanks for setting me straight.

    The following is the Fred Franz testimony from (that's a google shortened link to avoid wraparound)

    FREDERICK W FRANZ (President 1978 - 199 )

    Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion or statements of doctrine?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Are these statements held to be authoritative?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice,or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society? A. It is obligatory.

    P. 4


    Q. Is it for that reason that Jehovah's witnesses accept without question doctrines and Biblical interpretations as expounded by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society through its Directors?

    A. Yes.

    Q. In publications both periodical and in book form?

    A. Yes. P. 25


    Q. But I think you have told us already that an acceptance of the beliefs and facts is compulsory?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And there is no possibility of picking and choosing amongst the facts which you will accept, and those which you will reject? It must be taken as a whole?

    A. That is right. Each individual must prove it by the scriptures.

    Q. Accepting the exposition of the scriptures in the manner you have already explained?

    A. That is right. P. 38


    Q. Am I right that you put what is described as the end of the time of the Gentiles in October, 1914?

    A. Yes

    Q. Is it not the case that Pastor Russell put that date in 1874?

    A. No.

    Q. Is it not the case that he fixed the date prior to 1914?

    A. Yes

    Q. What date did he fix?

    A. The end of the Gentile times he fixed as 1914.

    Q. Did he not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?

    A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus' Second Coming spiritually.

    Q. Do you say. used to be understood?

    A. That is right.

    Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah's Witnesses?

    A. Yes.

    Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. So that I am correct, I am just anxious to canvass the position, it became the bounden duty of the witnesses to accept this miscalculation? A. Yes.

    PP. 103-105


    Q. So that once again Judge Rutherford preached error?

    A. He didn't preach the full round-about truth of the matter.

    Q. In that particular, not putting too fine a point on it, he was in error? A. He was in error.

    Q. How was that error corrected?

    A. We have had no book given out dealing with that particular phase of the subject.

    Q. But you haven't stopped publishing the book with that in it?

    A. The book still circulates, and is a reference work to show that we believed at that time.

    Q. How does one now joining Jehovah's Witnesses,and reading this erroneous view of Judge Rutherford's know that it is now regarded as erroneous?

    A. Because he keeps up with the latest expositions and the latest publications in bound book form.

    Q. But there is no latest or recent publication of the Society which brings to the notice of the Witnesses that that view held by Judge Rutherford is wrong?

    A. The explanations given show that there is a different understanding of the matter to-day.

    Q. Where upon that particular point does the adherent to the society find any enlightenment?

    A. In the publications that he reads.

    Q. Must he read all of them to arrive at the fact that upon this one point Judge Rutherford was in error?

    A. It isn't necessary for him to read that Judge Rutherford is in error on that point. What he is interested in is in the present truth, the up-to-date truth.

    Q. Yesterday's errors cease to be published do they?

    A. Yes, we correct ourselves.

    Q. But not always expressly?

    A. We correct ourselves as it becomes due to make a correction, and if anything is under study we make no statement of it until we are certain.

    Q. But may one not assume that Judge Rutherford did not publish until he also was certain?

    A. He published only when he was convinced, and he withheld publication until he was convinced that he was correct.

    Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?

    A. We have to wait and see.

    Q. And in the meantime, the body of Jehovah's Witnesses have been following error?

    A. They have been following a mis-construction of the Scriptures.

    Q. Error?

    A. Well, error. PP. 112-114


    Q. Am I right that it was at one time forecast that in 1925 Abraham and other prophets would come back to earth?

    A. They were expected to come back approximately then,

    Q. But they did not come back?

    A. No.

    Q. It was published, was it not, to the body of Jehovah's witnesses, that that was expected in 1925?

    A. Yes.

    Q. But that was wrong?

    A. Yes, and Judge Rutherford admitted it to the Headquarters. PP.120-121


    Q. Therefore, at baptism must he know those books?

    A. He must understand the purposes of God which are set forth in those books.

    Q. Set forth in those books, and set forth in those books as an interpretation of the Bible?

    A. These books give and exposition on the whole Scriptures.

    Q. But an authoritative exposition?

    A. They submit the Bible or statements that are therein made, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scriptures to see that the statement is Scripturally supported.

    Q. He what?

    A. He examines the Scripture to see whether the statement is supported by the Scripture. As the Apostle says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

    NOTE:-Does this imply discarding that which is NOT good if it disagrees with the Scripture. The Prosecutor seems to have been thinking this judging by the following questions put to Franz.

    Q. I understand the position to be - do please correct me if I am wrong - that a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses must accept as a true Scripture and interpretation what is given in the books I referred to you?

    A. But he does not compulsorily do so, he is given his Christian right of examining the Scriptures to confirm that this is Scripturally sustained. NOTE:- The following on his "Christian right".

    Q. And if he finds that the Scripture is not sustained by the books or vice versa, what is he to do?

    A. The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.

    Q. What does a man do if he finds disharmony between the Scripture and those books?

    A. You will have to find me a man who does find that, then I can answer, or he will answer.

    Q. Do you imply that the individual member has the right of reading the books and the Bible and forming his own view as to the proper interpretations of Holy Writ?

    A. He comes......

    Q. Would you say yes or no, and then qualify?

    A. No.......

    Q. A witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed, instructions in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake!"? A. He must accept those. PP. 122-123


    Q. Is there any hope of salvation for a man who depends upon his Bible alone when he is in a situation in the world where he cannot get the tracts and publications of your Incorporation?

    A. He is dependent on the Bible alone.

    Q. Will he be able to interpret it truly?

    A. No. P. 133

  • Rabbit

    Hey FatFreek...did you leave the freezer door open again?

    I-I-just felt a cold, sickening ch-chill dwn my spine while reading that...brrrr...

Share this