Stands For True Worship. I am turning myself in......

by DATA-DOG 83 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • wasblind

    I call 'em Nickle slick liars

  • Phizzy

    Truth does not change.

    Truth does not need "adjustments".

    Truth is not in the Jehovah's Witness make up, just look at SFPW's "answer" to a simple question. A lesson in obfuscation.

    If he isn't already, they will soon invite him to be part of the WT writng team, mendacity is the main qualification.

  • cantleave

    Phew - no need for me to return. So the "Truth" is in fact a huge staeming pile of complete and utter bullshite! Thanks for the clarification Standforpurebullshit.

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    SFPW - that was pathetic - I expected more. You apparently believe that God's truth is relative - as the WBTS is Jehovah's mouthpeice and their understanding of the waht tis the Truth has changed over time. So even though the Bible was written 200 years ago and as Jehovah's word is absolutely unquestionably true and has not changed - the spirit-directed understandings of the WBTS, which are presented as absolutely true such that anyone who does not accept them is an apostate, they are in fact only relatively true, if such a concept exists, and change every few years. I am afraid it is impossible to square this circle and you need to recognise that and become an Apostate!

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    BTS - Data-dog - all credit for putting this question to SFPW and exposing him for the BS merchant he is.

  • notjustyet

    I think that the video from youtube explaing the Walsh trial in Scotland where Fred Franz and Hayden C Covington might be appropriate right about now.


  • Phizzy

    Now that SFPW has been exposed for what he is, as expressed so well by Cantleave and others, I think we will notice his absence. Until he comes back in another guise and tries again in a few months.

    I suggest that we keep this question, and maybe one or two like it, close in mind when the return "visit" happens, or even for new "Apolotrolls" (JWapologists who act like internet trolls) and rather than engaging in pages of pointless "discussion", which it really isn't, the troll won't actually debate, we hit them with two or three such questions and demand an honest, succinct answer.

    Q1 "On what date did the WT/JW's have the truth?

    Q2 "What doctrine unique to the WT/JW's is demonstrably true ?"

    Q3 "When will you answer Q I & 2 ?"

    We will not get honest and succinct answers of course, but it will prove the point that such people would not know Truth if it bit them in the bum.

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One

    SFPW said: "I have to say, all of this reminds me of something I read from an author that I’ve come to appreciate in recent years. He said, “The man who finds a truth lights a torch.”

    ..For those who might miss what he is doing here, the writer he refers to is

    Robert Green Ingersoll. Here is an example of his works..

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One

    And here's another gem from SFPW.. : "Proverbs 4:18 comes to mind which I know is a verse some of you here take umbrage with and I don’t entirely knock that as I think it’s been used to justify changes when the context of the verse on the surface doesn’t really support how the WT has used it. I think they know it too which is why they’ve lately begun moving away from that along with the phrase “new light” being replaced by, adjustments."

    Do you guys get what he's doing now?...


    Well, it all comes down to this..

    The JWs follow the GB. That's it. If the GB say that they have an "idea" that they love, then SFPW must equate that idea with "truth." He/she has no other choice, it's believe the GB or death. Even if SFPW had a private doubt, he/she would NEVER voice it. To do so would be suicide. The GB have the power to ruin SFPW's life with the stroke of a pen. That is real power.

    The GB/FDS's opinions are the R&F's "truth", until it changes or gets "adjusted." Is that Christian at all?!

    This section of transcript comes from the testimony of Hayden Cooper Covington, pp.345-348 from the Walsh Trialtranscript.

    Covington was an accredited attorney who converted to the Jehovah's Witness religion in 1935. In the year 1939 he was retained as the legal counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. During his career with the Watchtower Society he successfully won 37 victories against the United States Supreme Court, including a victory for non-member Muhammad Ali at a time when Ali was battling against the military draft related to the Viet Nam war.

    We have highlighted particular portions of the transcript
    (We did not correct the original typos from the transcript)

    Q. Is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?
    A. It certainly is.

    Q. Is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of Holy Writ from time to time?
    A. There is every reason for a change in interpretation as we view it, of the Bible. Our view becomes more clear as we see the prophesy fulfilled by time.

    Q. You have promulgated -- forgive the word -- false prophesy?
    A. We have -- I do not think we have promulgated false prophesy, there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.

    Q. Is it a most vital consideration in the present situation of the world to know if the prophesy can be interpreted into terms of fact, when Christ's Second Coming was?
    A. That is true, and we have always striven to see that we have the truth before we utter it. We go on the very best information we have but we cannot wait until we get perfect, because if we wait until we get perfect we would never be able to speak.

    Q. Let us follow that up just a little. It was promulgated as a matter which must be believed by all members of Jehovah's Witnesses that the Lord's Second Coming took place in 1874?
    A. I am not familiar with that. You are speaking on a matter that I know nothing of.
    [For this 1874 teaching, please see the article here]

    Q. You heard Mr. Franz's evidence?
    A. I heard Mr. Franz testify, but I am not familiar with what he said on that, I mean the subject matter of what he was talking about, so I cannot answer any more than you can, having heard what he said.

    Q. Leave me out of it?
    A. That is the source of my information, what I have heard in court.

    Q. You have studied the literature of your movement?
    A. Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," and I have not studied this matter that you are mentioning now of 1874. I am not at all familiar with that.

    Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874?
    A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.

    Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?
    A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erronious statement in fulfilment of a prophesy that was false or erronious.

    Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?
    A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

    Q. You do not believe in the worldly armies, do you?
    A. We believe in the Christian Army of God.

    Q. Do you believe in the worldly armies?
    A. We have nothing to say about that, we do not preach against them, we merely say that the worldly armies, like the nations of the world today, are a part of Satan's Organization, and we do not take part in them, but we do not say the nations cannot have their armies, we do not preach against warfare, we are merely claiming our exemption from it, that is all.

    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 erronious 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.

Share this