Falsus in unum, Falsus in omnibus
A useful Latin saying which means that any person (or government) that will lie to you once is not to be trusted to tell you the truth
about anything.
If so it might be useful to ask ourselves if the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has ever actually lied on purpose.
We know about the impatient wrong (uh-hem) guesses. The over eager tendency to set dates and (uh-hem) assume Jehovah had been behind the idea is well known. The adjustments to doctrine which are not corrections of error so much as they are an (uh-hem) amplifying of brightness as New Light is obvious human failure.....but....
None of this is a provable LIE.
What else might we point to.
Well, first we need a good solid and reliable definition of what a LIE really is.
I personally don't think a better definition exists than the one Aristotle fashioned back in the 5th Centry B.C.
"To state the opposite of what one holds in the mind to be True is a LIE."
I think a strong case can be made that the Governing Body lies and that those lies are demonstrably conscious ones.
And once that is established, I think it would be prudent to apply that Falsus in Unum Falsus in Omnibus to the Religion itself.
First of all, let it be said that a liar has two choices when confronted with the lie.
1.Disclaim ownership
2.Plead ignorance
Being a liar means you don't accept responsibility because, you see, you are trying to get away with it!
A liar can craft language filled with nuances and technical escapes. Weasel words they are called.
Weasel words:
words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated.
(Bill Clinton : "I did not have sexual relations with that woman; Miss Lowenski" was a way of finessing all the other kinds of sex the two of them were up to).
Qualifying a seemingly definite statement
To finesse a definite statement with a qualifier is to weasel out of ownership of responsibility.
In 1892 the Watch Tower asserted that God's battle, Armageddon would end in October 1914, a date "definitely marked in Scripture," (15 January 1892, page 1355) and Watch Tower editor Charles Taze Russell declared: "We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." (The Watchtower, 15 July 1894, page 1677).
"We see no reason" weasels as does "nor could we change them" because it implies a helpless devotion to a compulsion under God's authority.
Inserting "we believe" takes away from the "definitely" and is like the burglar wiping fingerprints away from the crime scene.
Christ's thousand-year reign was predicted to begin "probably the fall" of 1925, based on other dates upon which God had placed "the stamp of his seal ... beyond any possibility of erasure". (The Watch Tower, May 15, 1922 p. 150, as cited by Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, page 224).
Notice how definite.....and yet....that probably is still a weasel word providing escape possibility.
Not Allowed to take it or leave it?
Are members of Jehovah's Witnesses even allowed a "take it or leave it" attitude or choice when it comes to embracing these Governing Body statements of ...qualified...FACT?
"Following Faithful Shepherds with Life in View", The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, page 591, "Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect ... in submitting to Jehovah's visible theocratic organization, we must be in full and complete agreement with every feature of its apostolic procedure and requirements."
No!
Being a Jehovah's Witnesses makes acceptance of human error mandatory!
Here is where we catch the culprit with the smoking gun!
The Governing Body does not develop a christian conscience in its members. It develops a test of loyalty to themselves!
"The Godly Qualities of Love and Hate", The Watchtower: 441, 15 July 1974, "Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization."
JW's cannot even ask questions which challenge the veracity of false statements!
This speaks to the mindset of the criminal who is aware that he is commiting crimes!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pretending to be one thing while being another?
"They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972,) states that God had raised Jehovah's Witnesses as a
prophet "to warn (people) of dangers and declare things to come" . Also: "Identifying the Right Kind of Messenger" (The Watchtower, May 1,
1997, page 8) identifies the Witnesses as his "true messengers ... by making the messages he delivers through them come true", in contrast to
"false messengers", whose predictions fail.
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah - How?
(1971, pg 70, 292) describes Witnesses as the modern Ezekiel class, "a genuine prophet within our generation". The Watch Tower book noted:
"Concerning the message faithfully delivered by the Ezekiel class, Jehovah positively states that it 'must come true' ... those who wait undecided until
it does 'come true' will also have to know that a prophet himself had proved to be in the midst of them." He also cites "Execution of the Great Harlot
Nears", (The Watchtower, October 15, 1980, pg 17) which claims God gives the Witnesses "special knowledge that others do not have ... advance
knowledge about this system's end".
A confidence man is a criminal who cheats people by gaining their confidence and then lies to them under the guise of helping them.
Reviewing the above paragraphs demonstrates such a pattern among Governing Body policy makers.
The religious leaders claim to be a special kind of "prophet". What kind? The kind that you are compelled to trust!
You can be disfellowshipped if you question their credentials!
"You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy", The Watchtower, February 15, 1976, page 124, "Would not a failure to respond to direction from God
through his organization really indicate a rejection of divine rulership?"
Talking out of both sides of its mouth the Governing Body gives and then takes back any freedom to exercise choice or free will.
"Who Molds Your Thinking?", The Watchtower, April 1, 1999, page 22, "You have free will. Exercising it, you can choose to respond to Jehovah’s molding influence or deliberately reject it. How much better to listen to Jehovah’s voice instead of arrogantly asserting, 'No one tells me what to do'!"
The Organization can, in one instance say that salvation is a "free gift" of Jehovah's undeserved kindness and then turn around and claim
the same Jehovah has a work schedule which must be followed to earn that same free salvation!
"Righteous requirements", Watchtower, July 1, 1943, pages 204-206, "Jehovah ... has appointed his 'faithful and wise servant, who is his visible mouthpiece ... These expressions of God's will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action ... The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further ... He says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month ... and for regular pioneers 150 hours ... And for company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher'. These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us ... This expression of the Lord's will should be the end of all controversy ... The Lord through his 'faithful and wise servant' now states to us, Let us cover our territory four times in six months. That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, 'Let us make man in our image'. It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it."
What are we to conclude, then?
Does the Governing Body deliberately LIE?
Do they speak with definitie authority while qualifying with weasel words?
Do they deny personal responsibility for error by pretending over eagerness which requires mere adjustment now and then?
Do they insist no member question them upon penalty of destruction at Armageddon while pretending you have free will?
What do you---the members of the jury delcare?
