http://www.nccg.org/nccm/wrongtrain.html
A portion:
In 1954 in Scotland the Jehovah's Witnesses sued the Ministries of Labour and National Services. This was a test case brought by the Society to set a precedent for future Witnesses.
The complete record of this trial is available to anyone for the price of the microfilm. It is the invaluable testimony given by the leaders of the Society. They make admissions in court that they would not make anywhere else. The attorneys for the Government have done their homework very well an elicited statements that give a true picture into the workings of the Watchtower Society, and the psychology of the Witnesses. Those who testified for the Society were Fred Franz, the Vice-President; H.C.Covington, the head legal counsel of the Society at that time; Grant Suiter, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Society; A.R.Hughes, the British Branch Servant; and D. Walsh, the Congregation Servant who brought the suit. Just a few quotations appear in these notes, those covering interesting statements.
During the trial Fred Franz, Vice-President of the Society, gave the following answers:
Q. Who is responsible for the interpretation in case of doubt, or in general, of scriptural writings for the guidance of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. We believe that Jehovah God who is author and inspirer of the Bible is he one who makes the interpretations. he is his own interpreter. He does this by the use of his invisible active force, the Holy Spirit acting upon the mind of his witnesses upon this earth, and he causes events to come to pass in the earth which are in fulfillment of his prophetic word and which, therefore, throw light upon the true significance of his word.
Q. That is very helpful, but it does not quite meet the point I was making. What I want you to tell me was whether you can say how the Biblical texts are authoritatively interpreted: who is the interpreter?
A. Jehovah God is the interpreter, but he guides his people upon this earth, and in this case the editorial committee of the Society, they study the Scriptures continually, and they examine and re-examine the evidence as it appears, and under this Divine guidance with the help of the Holy Spirit they arrive at an understanding of the Scripture.
Grant Suiter gave the following testimony at the trial.
Q. Indeed can any person...have an understanding of the Scriptures apart from the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. No.
Q. Only by the publications can he have a right understaning of the Scriptures?
A. That is right.
Q. Is that not arrogance?
A. No.
Mr. H.C.Covington, the head legal counsel of the Society at that time have the following testimony.
- Q. Back to the point now. A false prophecy was promulgated?
A. I agree to 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 the prophecy 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 starts on his own trying to put his idea across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching together. 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 government body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. A unity based upon a forced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expressed this view, as you say, that it was wrong and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptised?
A. That is correct.
Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think....
Q. Would you answer yes or no?
A. I will answer yes unhesitatingly.
Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Do you call that Christianity?
A. I certainly do.
Mr. Covington also gave the following testimony.
- Q. But then it is the case, is it not, that on occasions you have not spoken what is true?
A. I have agreed to that many times, and I will agree to it many times more, that we have mistakes and proclaimed error and have had to correct ourselves many times. But that proves we are a real live moving Christian Congregation. If we did not move we would never have to correct ourselves.
- Q. Where on that particukar point does the adherent to the Society find any enlightenment? A. In the publication that he reads. Q. Must he read them all to arrive at the fact that upon this one poinr 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 the present truth. The up-to-date truth.Q.Yesterday's errors cease to be published today, 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 one may not assume that Judge Rutherford did not publish until he also was certain? A. He published only when convinced, and he withheld publication until he was convinced 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.