Watchtower falsification of its history

by jwfacts 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • MrFreeze

    Watchtower falsifying its history? If you were running the WT, wouldn't you fudge some facts here and there? I would, seeing as how embarassed the WT seems to be about its past.

  • cedars

    Just a few observations folks!

    Firstly, the significance of the yearbook quote seems to be lost on some. The Yearbook mentions "electronic material" among the things which it supposedly ensures are "thoroughly researched and accurate". The society also doesn't mince its words by saying that "the Writing Department insists on using only material that is accurate and truthful, even regarding seemingly insignificant details".

    However "insignificant" some may consider it to be that american flags were all over the place at the 1922 Cedar Point convention (please put your hands up now?!), the fact remains that, according to the Society's own words in their yearbook, this detail should have been included on any attempt to reconstruct the 1922 Cedar Point convention, either digitally or otherwise.

    The second point is that many haven't figured out that jwfacts has posted a "still" of the DVD, and not a doctored photograph. One of the comments earlier on where "photoshop" was jokingly referred to seems to have confused some. The digital still was clearly captured from pausing the DVD at the point where the full stage is shown. How the convention was recreated is unclear, although it appears to have been digitally reproduced by some means, at least in part.

    Thirdly, the fact that there are other inconsistencies (the shape of the windows, the banner etc) between the original photo and the reconstruction in no way detracts from the magnitude of the blatant attempt to erase the american flag from this landmark event in witness history.

    Fourthly, there is evidence (if you examine the photos more closely) that this WAS a blatant attempt. If you look at the original photo, there were flags either side of the stage backdrop. These were hung infront of the windows, because you can actually make out the sunlight shining through the fabric. If you look at the same place on the DVD still, you notice that where these flags were there are now flag-shaped wooden boards! The brother who digitally created this would have needed to consciously place panels either side of the stage where there were no panels in 1922. If this doesn't show how blatantly the flags were "edited out" of history, I have no idea what does.

    A final point is that on the website of jwfacts under "experiences" on the link below there is an experience from a former bethelite who claims to have assisted in working on this very project. Among the difficulties he had (which led to him eventually quitting bethel) was his disbelief at the obvious attempts to "sanitize" the history of the society.

    If you do the math everyone and are willing to keep an open mind, all the pieces of the puzzle are there.

  • sabastious

    I would suspect the Watchtower of having an internal explanation for the editing. I'm sure it's convoluted and full of logical fallacies; DJ could write the press release.


  • gumby

    Let's see if I have this correct.

    The writing department goes to WORDLY authors for the research they provide us with.

    They go to the whore "Babylon the Great", when they quote from refrence encyclopedia's, commentaries, and dictionaries etc..........and yet they claim to be directed by Jehovah and that he feeds us through the Faithfull abd discreet slave.

    One would have to think our information we recieve is really from "Babylon the Great" since their researchers get all their info from these sources.

    I guess ONLY the writing department along with the FDS is really the only ones qualified to get favors from a whore whos going down for her 'sins that have massed to the heavens' when it's all over.

    Damn.....makes sense to me.

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    I think this is an incredibly silly post and some of the comments are worse. There are far more serious issues with how the Watch Tower presents its history than the quality of a reenactment. The Watch Tower does not write history. It writes religious myth.

    The portrait at the center of the banner is of Christ, not Rutherford.

    Period photos of this hall show that the flags were a permanent fixture. They were not part of the convention's decoration. The motion picture camera has been photoshopped out. Are we making an issue of that too? And have any of you actually seen the convention films? They seem to have been lost, though they were sold through The New Era Enterprise, a Russellite paper published in St. Paul.

    Instead of focusing on this scene's photo accuracy, focus on what the watch tower says.

    And yes, i know I'm a cranky old man. Live with it. I'm old enough to be your grandfather, maybe even your great grandfather. We get cranky as we age.

    The Watch Tower is full of poorly researched crap. Much of it is insignificant. (Calling the publisher Houghton Mifflin an author) and some of it is serious and missleading. Focus on the serious stuff. This is just silly.

  • cedars

    Old goat - if you were looking to book a convention venue for a politically neutral ground-breaking rally the purpose of which was to "advertise the king and his kingdom", would you choose one with floor-to-ceiling american flags draped all over the place?

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat


    The flag issue wasn't raised until 1935. Neutrality wasn't an issue of note until 1939. The watch tower still books conventions in statiums displaying flags. these things would not have mattered to any bible student in 1922. it's a non issue.

    Focus on the real issues.

  • cedars

    You clearly don't know the prophetic significance of the convention - look it up in the Climax book, particularly the fact that the outpouring of the seven bowls of God's anger included those worshipping the wild beast and its image.

    Regardless of when the society became politically neutral (and it clearly wasn't at the time) the "real issue" is that the society feels comfortable claiming that all of its publications are truthful and accurate while at the same time doctoring its own history so that it can be more sanitized and acceptable. Does that sound faithful and discreet to you?

  • cedars

    Also old goat, I wasn't aware that jwfacts was forbidden from starting this discussion thread without first running it past you to see if it was "groundbreaking" enough to meet with your esteemed approval.

    It may not be the worst thing the society has ever done, but it's hard evidence of falsification and deceit by the "faithful steward".

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    I know what the watch tower says the prophetic significance is. When I was a new witness we were still circulating Rutherford's Light books. It's full of that nonsense. I own copies of the seven resolutions. You're missing the point. No one except someone who is desperate to find anything - anything at all - to criticize will see this as significant. You're holding the watch tower to a standard the history channel does not meet.

    What is really wrong with the Watch Tower's presentation of its history is that it is contrived myth. The Watch Tower is guilty of altering its history by selective omission. It's guilty of poor and changing research. Document those things. Focusing on a truly insignificant part of the recent CD makes us look petty. It IS petty. There are better and less petty faults with watch tower publications than this.

Share this