Watchtower falsification of its history

by jwfacts 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  dozy

  Old Goat says .." You're holding the watch tower to a standard the history channel does not meet."

  With respect , the History Channel doesn't claim to be God's sole channel of communication. If it did , then we would rightly expect that even in "seemingly insignificant details" they would be accurate. And if they weren't , they would publish corrections and admit faults , which the WTBTS never does.

  The point I see is that the WTBTS often speaks positively about Jehovah's representatives in bible times (of whom they claim to be the modern day equivalent) as being candid & honest about their failings. They also often quote the scripture in Luke 16:10 - "He that is faithful in least is faithful in much."

  What angers me about the WTBTS is that in so many ways , some petty , others much more substantial , they deliberately misrepresent themselves to present a positive image - "airbrushing" , if you like , their past and present activities.
• 

  Old Goat

  Cedars - don't be silly. I no where suggested that he needed my approval for a post. I don't need your approval to express my opinion on this post either. You like this because it gives you a sense of self-justification. You don't need to seek justification for your rejection of watch tower teaching. Pure rationalism is grounds enough. I'm no attacking him for posting this. I'm saying we can do better. This post is 'preaching to the choir.' It's not something that will shake the faith of a believer.
• 

  cedars

  The History channel doesn't parade around as God's channel with mankind, that's an extremely flawed analogy.

  For your information I only became firm in my understandings about the society a few weeks ago - and YOU are making this sort of site look bad to a first-timer like me. Anybody logging on to this forum for the first time would think that finding tangible evidence of the falsification of history by an organisation that claims to be truthful is nothing more than petty and pointless.

  You strike me as the kind of person who could have an argument in an empty room. We are basically on the same side but you are finding something to disagree on purely because the dicussion thread doesn't meet the "epoch-making magnitude" that you demand. I really really hope that not everyone on this site is as argumentative and difficult as you are. jwfacts is either right or wrong. Everyone but the closed-minded are saying he's right. Why do you need to be the odd one out and belittle opinions that aren't as exalted as yours?
• 

  Old Goat

  No, Cedars, you're wrong. If this forum matters it is because sometimes we take up serious topics that do expose the Watch Tower for what it is. However, many of the threads here are less than serious. They have a place too. What bothers one person will not bother another. The watch tower is a paranoid, dictatorial organization. If you just want assurance that you made the right choice in leaving, you won't get it here, not in a meaninful way. That has to come from you and your conscience. If you want to help others to see it for what it is, then point to the things that matter. You cannot be happy if you wear your feelings on your sleeve.

  This is not a matter if is he right or wrong. It's a matter of degree and effetiveness. And you may wish to note that I did not belittle his opinion. I said this is ineffective because it focuses on the insignificant. All sorts of nonsense gets posted here. Calling it what it is, is not a bad thing. Was Russell a mason and are masons in a conspiracy to rule the world? Does the design on a New York City Assembly Hall, a design that was there when the building was built as a theater way back when and that is protected by New York State law, proof that the Watch Tower is masonic? Is Russell's will as printed in the Watch Tower way back when valid or not? Can we sue the society for what happened in 1917? Do elders have cooties? Which Circuit Overseer did you like? Or like to hate. (Hey, I have my own list on that one.) All these things show up here. Sometimes they're entertaining. Sometimes they aren't worth a read.

  The one who wishes to stifle debate here is you. Not me. You need to reasses just how important this all is to you. If you are seeking a place where only your feelings, wishes and beliefs are reflected, you've come to the wrong forum.
• 

  cedars

  I'm not adding to this, it's detracting from the main discussion. Also, I won't take lectures from someone who thinks its acceptable to label fellow believers and their genuine observations "silly" and "petty". I wouldn't say that of you, regardless of how wacky your beliefs and ideas are.
• 

  Old Goat

  Well, I could say, "I win and you lose" but that's not the point. And this isn't that sort of debate. I've hurt your feelings. It wasn't my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. However, this is a world of strong-willed, strong-minded people. You need to learn to live with that. If you are upset by the words "silly" and "petty" what will you do with a real debate?

  Did you leave the watch tower because of hurt feelings? I don't expect an answer or explanation. The world is a hurtful place. Sometimes we're hurt by what is not intended to be hurful. I'm sure the original poster appreciates your defense. He didn't need to be defended. He's a big boy, and, though I called this post silly, he's a smart one too.

  I am not your enemy. But I will note that the one calling names is you. As far as my wacky beliefs go, you don't know what I believe or why I hold the opinions I do. You're too busy protecting your recently made decision to leave. No one is faulting you for that decision -except maybe yourself.

  I have the impression that you're fairly young. Hey! Everyone's young as far as I'm concerned. But I mean on the truly youngish side. Do not make life harder than it needs to be. People will always have opinions that differ from ours. That they have contrary opinions does not invalidate our beliefs or ourselves. Why do I suddenly feel like I need to parent you? How silly of me. I wish you well, Cedars. I think you have some hard lessons to learn, and I wish I could make that process easier for you. Unfortunately I cannot.
• 

  cedars

  I'm not continuing it. Thanks for your comments, let's hear someone else's opinion now. Thanks!
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Hey Gumby, glad to see you're back here.

  Everyone is wearing hats in the video but not in the picture as far as I can see. That's a good observation, Slim. I wonder if it's also because they're standing -- perhaps for playing of the national anthem (see the raised arm of (perhaps) an orchestra leader in the front). Maybe they were standing for prayer in those days. Therefore, the hats were off in this particular shot.

  At 71, I may be as old as Old Goat but certainly can't remember the days of the early 20's.

  Hey, Old Goat, we may have crossed paths in the early days. It would be great to share notes with you. You see to still have plenty of passion in your belly. Me too. And take it easy on these young 'uns. They do plenty of attacking the major issues on this forum -- and they do a good job of it. Sure, there's plenty of fluff posts as well. I just don't think this is one of them. It may be just a little nail, agreed, but it sometimes takes a bunch of nails for building a good coffin.

  Len
• 

  leavingwt

  Earnest:

  My conclusion is that this does not involve Photoshop or deception but photos taken at different assemblies, and probably at a different location. There are similarities but I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the shape of the windows if it is the same location.

  The first photo is from the DVD. It's from a re-enactment. IOW, when they staged the re-enactment, they changed the way the stage looked.

  This is what jwfacts stated, before the photos:

  With that in mind, compare the stage of the Cedar Point convention with the re-enactment from Jehovah's Witnesses - Faith In Action, Part 1, with an actual photo from Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy page 299. You will notice that at the convention, the hall and stage were framed by the US star spangled banner flag. Yet this detail has been left out from the DVD.

  He didn't suggest that a photo had been altered. He suggested that the re-enactment had been staged to give a different appearance than the actual convention shown in the actual photo.

  Or, am I missing something?
• 

  Earnest

  leavingwt:

  You are quite right that I missed the point jwfacts made that the photo from the DVD was a re-enactment. If I had realised that I would not have argued as I did.