Lies from the watchtower
gone for good: Yes! the fact that they tell people they don`t shun their kids. They are using one specific scenario to justify this, but I believe that their omission of the obvious is so blatant that we could consider this a lie.
Shirley: Jehovah's Witnesses don`t deny that they celebrated christmas. So this isn't a lie. They believed a lot of things, but as long as they do not deny it, its not a lie.
Hey @StephaneLaliberte, I noticed you used a recent example of deception in your opening post. The existing Governing Body's lies and misleading statements might be the best examples we can use to wake friends up with, I think. There's no "light getting brighter" fallback that way.
Check out the September 2015 Broadcast, hosted by David Splane. At eight minutes in, you can catch Splane in a verifiable LIE:
For those who don't watch the segment, basically what's happening between 08:00-09:30 is, Splane makes the unique claim that in 1914, the anointed people (Rutherford, Franz, Henschel, et. al.) were the "only ones who saw these signs and understood them correctly." This, apparently, is used as a proof that these were God's people on earth back then.
However, a trip down WT lane will reveal that in 1914, the doctrine being taught was that Jesus' parousia had occurred in 1874 . Rutherford, Franz and Co. were NOT looking for Christ's presence since they believe he'd already arrived four decades prior! According to Zion's Watchtower, Christ had indisputably begun ruling as king in 1878. And this continued to be taught all the way until 1932.
You remember Rutherford's campaign slogan back in the 1920's? Come on everybody, say it with me in three, two, one...
"ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE."
And what was he advertising, exactly? ...That Jesus had already come in 1874 and had started ruling as king in 1878.
Now, for David Splane to go on JW Broadcasting over a century later and say that those WT Presidents "CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD" the sign, we can deduce this is nothing but a bold faced lie. This goes beyond misleading the JW audience. It is a despicable coverup and a rewriting of history.
Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho: This is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for.
If we can prove and point out enough lies, I believe we could bring them to court for fraud. I know it sounds far fetch, but when you stop to think about it, it is not.
In the end, I believe they will have to either come clean about things they are lying about, or pay up eventually. I believe that those who are born in, baptized and subsequently shunned would be in the best position to bring them to court.
In the end, I believe they will have to either come clean about things they are lying about, or pay up eventually
"come clean" about their lying? If you mean put another spin on it, then yes, like they're doing as to why the number keeps going up of the anointed every year, but totally admit their lies? Never.
As far as paying up, they are being sued for covering up sexual misconduct by those that were molested by Elders, etc because it was never reported, that's the only "pay up" they will every do and they're being forced to do that
ShirleyW: You are right, instead of doing a full circle with clean apology, they would likely put in their own spin. However, many will see through this.For instance, even if they did put their own spin on their UN membership, many didn't accept this and left. Even if they changed the meaning of "this generation", many stopped believing. By forcing them to face these lies, they will loose many members and donations.
It is not because they are sued for one crime that they should not be sued for another. The question comes down to this: When someone makes a donation, would he give the same amount if he/she was aware of the lies of the leaders? Consider this: Many have left the religion once they became aware of such lies.
We can add the undue influence applied through the shunning policy of those who leave their faith. This practice limits the ability of the individual members to evaluate their own beliefs properly, thus, influencing the size and frequency of their donations.
Demonstrating a lie is a little harder than pointing out a mistake, because you have to offer reasonable proof that the person or persons knew better beforehand.
The misrepresentation of JW history above is a good example
Here is a different type of example: In the late 1970's and early 80's a handful of people in the JW parent organization were questioning the "Great Crowd" doctrine and one of the points in contention was the fact that Revelation consistently places the great crowd in the most holy of the temple, which usually represents heaven itself.
The JW parent organization offered the following response:
Three of the five bullet points here are demonstrably false. And my basis for claiming that this is a lie rather than simply a mistake is the fact that JW's have not only produced their own translation; they've produced an interlinear of that that translation. Certainly they knew better.
The NT writers used two basic words for temple: Hieron, which usually refers to the entire temple complex and Naos, which usually refers to the inner sanctuary.
The money changers (Third bullet point) were not in the temple proper, they were in the outer courtyards as the Greek text clearly shows:
You can see that neither of the three writers used the word, naos to describe this event. They all used the word, hieron.
Watchtower writers lied.
TD: This is interesting. However, I have to ask: Is there many, or any greek versions of the bible that do use the word Naos in these verses?
Is there many, or any greek versions of the bible that do use the word Naos in these verses?
Modern Greek versions, (Like the Greek NWT produced by the JW's) don't count here. Two thousand years is a long time and the language has changed a lot since then.
When we talk about the word as it was used by the Bible writers themselves, we're talking about a handful of Greek master texts, like Wescott & Hort or Nestle Aland, from which modern translations are derived.
The word choice in the master texts is as I've described.
I don't have the ability to post the sources but, the phrase "Millions now living will never die" was changed in more modern quotes to say "Millions now living may never die" They did it in text as well as the picture being edited if i remember correctly. The modern version was in the Proclaimers book I think but could be wrong.
There is also the infamous quote in the 1995 awake that changed from having the statement at the bottom saying it was the creators promise that those who saw the events of 1914 - oh man, can't quite remember it. But basically it promised Armageddon before the 20th century. Then later in that year it changed to a wish washy statement. But the way to see it is to look in the bound volume of awake 1995.
The WTS's leaders (GB) have lied about so called apostates making lies.
Steven Lett recently stated on a JWorg. broadcast that apostates have said that the JWS organization is permissive to child sexual abuse.
Not true at all, the truth being that the WTS/JWS had in the past tried to handle child sexual abuse internally, many times letting the matter unresolved being that there was no admittance by the perpetrator and no two witnesses, instead influencing the situation to be hushed and leave the matter into Jehovah's hands.
The ARC investigation in Australia proved without doubt that this did occurred.
The word permissive was a lie , more like acting irresponsible with careless apathy to all concerned more like it.