Randall Watters exposed

by StiLLinTruth 115 Replies latest jw friends

  • bigboi

    Hey All:

    And after ALL this digging and going through the vast volumes of anti-JW literature, I began to see light shining from the Bible. I watched as most of my material fell to pieces, exposed as lies or exaggeration or just twisting the truth.. or clearly unscriptural garbage (like Randy's stuff) .. the rest of the Society's flaws was due to human imperfection. I realized that the JWs were by no means perfect - but closest to what the Bible teaches, definitely standing out from the sea of Jesus-churches and church-state hybrids out there. I studied the trinity for months, tried to prove it (had Rob Bowman's "Why you should believe in trinity" with me to help) but couldn't. Can't prove what ain't in the Bible.

    So I became a publisher. First an opposer - seen all the internet sites - now a baptized Jehovah's servant.

    This was to you who don't know my story yet. I've posted about it before. So don't gimme the "read Crisis of Conscience then come back" 'cause I've done it, and it failed to impress me.

    So I'm an exception. I've developed immunity.

    Still if all the above is true then why do you feel the need to come here to publish news that no one wants to hear, is interested in or has decided with their God-given conscience is not truth?

    Any answer would be greatly appreciated



  • stephenw20

    glad you found what you are looking for....

    maybe you missed these:

    Court Transcript Of JW Elders Admitting To False Doctrine

    In November 1954, the Douglas Walsh trial was held in the Scottish Court of Sessions, in which the Watchtower Society tried to establish before the British court that certain of its members were ordained ministers. High ranking leaders of the Society testified, including vice-president Fred Franz and legal counsel for the Society, Haydon C. Covington. Covington's testimony before the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service included the following:

    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 erronious, 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.

    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.

    Fred Franz, then vice-president of the Society, also answered questions for the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

    Q. In addition to these regular publications do you prepare and issue a number of theological pamphlets and books from time to time?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and the semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion of statements of doctrine?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Are these statements of doctrine held to be authoritative within the Society?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?

    A. It is obligatory.

    The British government counsellor later directed attention to certain teachings that the Society had in time rejected, including some involving specific dates. What, he asked, if someone, at the time when such teaching was promulgated, had seen the error in it and had therefore not accepted it? What would the organization's attitude toward such one be? The testimony explains:

    Q. Did [Pastor Russell] not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?

    A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus' Second Coming spiritually.

    Q. Do you say, used to be understood?

    A. That is right.

    Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah's Witnesses?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That is no longer now accepted, is it?

    A. No.

    Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. So that am I correct, I am just anxious to canvas the position; it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation?

    A. Yes.

    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.

    Q. And in the meantime the body of Jehovah's Witnesses have been following error?

    A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.

    Q. Error?

    A. Well, error.

    Again the question as to how great the authority attributed to the Society's publications is came in for discussion. While at one point the vice president says that "one does not compulsorily accept," his testimony thereafter reverts back to the earlier position, as can be seen:

    A. These [Watchtower Society] books give an exposition on the whole Scriptures.

    Q. But an authoritative exposition?

    A. They submit the Bible or the statements that are therein made, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scripture to see that the statement is Scripturally supported.

    Q. He what?

    A. He examines the Scripture to see whether the statement is supported by the Scripture. As the Apostle says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".

    Q. I understood the position to be - do please correct me if I am wrong - that a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses must accept as a true Scripture and interpretation what is given in the books I referred you to?

    A. But he does not compulsorily do so, he is given his Christian right of examining the Scriptures to confirm that this is Scripturally sustained.

    Q. And if he finds that the Scripture is not sustained by the books, or vice versa, what does he do?

    A. The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.

    Q. What does a man do if he finds a disharmony between the Scripture and those books?

    A. You will have to produce me a man who does find that, then I can answer, or he will answer.

    Note Franz's waffling. He is unwilling, even under oath, to admit that present understanding can be in error, even though he just finished testifying that what is published as truth today may be error in a few years.

    Q. Did you imply that the individual member has the right of reading the books and the Bible and forming his own view as to the proper interpretation of Holy Writ?

    A. He comes - - -

    Q. Would you say yes or no, and then qualify?

    A. No. Do you want me to qualify now?

    Q. Yes, if you wish?

    A. The Scripture is there given in support of the statement, and therefore the individual when he looks up the Scripture and thereby verifies the statement, then he comes to the Scriptural view of the matter, Scriptural understanding as it is written in Acts, the seventeenth chapter and the eleventh verse, that the Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness, and they searched the Scripture to see whether those things were so, and we instruct to follow that noble course of the Bereans in searching the Scripture to see whether these things were so.

    Q. A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake"?

    A. He must accept those.

    To recap, Haydon C. Covington basically said that the Watchtower Society views unity as more important than even doctrinal truth, and that this desire for unity may even result in a forced acceptance of false prophecy. Fred Franz's testimony confirmed this, and further showed that, while the Society makes a show of encouraging people to examine its doctrines in light of the scriptures "to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:10,11), it does not allow its members to freely act upon the results of that examination if the Society's claims are found wanting. Since the Society will never admit to members that it is wrong right now, it does not truly allow them to examine its doctrines to see "whether these things were so," but in practice requires them to examine the scriptures to confirm that these things are so, and to "readjust" their thinking if they are unable to do that. In other words, no matter what an individual finds, he is obligated to believe whatever the Society teaches at that moment. At least, he is obligated not to publicly or privately disagree with the Society, and so if he really cannot bring himself to accept some doctrine, he must pretend to accept it, and live a lie in order to remain in good standing. Since Psalm 51:6 says of Jehovah, "you have taken delight in truthfulness itself in the inward parts," and the Bible says that Jehovah is a God of truth, this attitude would appear inconsistent with his will.

    So, even though the Society states it is fallible and is not inspired, no member is allowed to act on this without serious consequences ranging from loss of congregational privileges to disfellowshipping. The Society wants every member to believe, as Covington testified, that any member who acts on the fact that Watchtower Society leaders are not infallible is worthy of death.

    hope you have a nice day!

    now run along

  • crossroads

    Stillindark-I'm glad you have such a GOOD friend.
    May you both R.I.P.

  • openminded

    so you became a publisher?

    I am just glad your friend was a Jdub and not a skinhead. Then again skinheads only dream about killing people Jdubs actually do(through stupidity and fear).

  • openminded

    How you can read the Bible and still support a corporate organization that is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent children, in the face of the mercy Jesus taught and stood for, is beyond my comprehension.

    Why not research the verses in the Bible in which Jesus asked the Pharisees, -Who of you would hesitate to rescue an animal from the bottom of a well on the sabbath, even though they knew TECHNICALLY they would be breaking Gods law?

    Killing kids is not cool!

  • outnfree

    Dear Still,

    I had a moment of regret after I dashed off my "AND it shows" thinking that perhaps I should refute many of your cited Bible texts with others that added insight, or just reminding you of the context as Had Enough has done.

    (Aside to Had Enough: I just love the way your name fits in so nicely with so many concluding thoughts in your posts! )

    And I was right to have that moment of regret, for as JT has reminded all of us, "persecuting" StiLLinTruth only validated his/her status as a true Christian. In fact, we all remember that there is no point arguing Scripture with a newly converted one. Any of us who were not born in the organization and who were converted were righteously certain that we had "the Truth" and that it had set us free.

    Those of us who are inactive, da'd, df'd, or just brave enough to be posting here, also know that it took most of us many years of self-doubt before we allowed ourselves to "hear" what we didn't want to:
    the realization that the organization to which we had exclusively devoted ourselves was NOT Christ-like in its deeds -- true love, compassion and mercy were lacking. This knowledge shook us to our very cores. It was hurtful to admit. Many felt angst about how we had treated non-believing family members and friends -- with the disdain and disregard for feelings with which the congregation would certainly treat us the minute we spoke aloud the message that our hearts played loudly and clearly now in our minds. And the pain certainly did come, and the shunning certainly did commence once we left (or left off emotionally).

    So, I want to publicly apologize, SiT, for my unthinking remark. I do not want to be guilty of being hurtful and making you feel as though your point of view doesn't count for anything.

    Yes, the tone of this forum should be welcoming and non-judgmental.

    SiT, many here have suffered mightily from abuses of power within the organization or just from what they feel to be extra-Biblical requirements which have nothing to do with becoming a footstep follower of Christ Jesus and everything to do with becoming a drone in the organization which self-proclaims itself to be Jehovah's.

    Please do not send condemnatory posts. The same points you made could have been expounded in a more civil way. And our retorts might've been very different.

    I hope you will accept my apology.


  • bigboi

    Yes Still:

    Another thing perhaps you regard yourself as he Great Immune Teacher of us apostates here. but maybe after a few more yrs of service to Jehovah he'll let u in oo the meaning of the scriptures at 2Tim.2:23-26. Look it up why don't cha.


  • Simon

    so... you studied all the history, read all the past experiences of people and still fell for it all ? How sad is that !

    I don't buy it for one minute although I suppose there will always be people that fall for anything. Whatever unbelievable nonselse someone is selling you can guarantee that someone wants to buy it.

    Of course, you didn't but it or else you wouldn't be here. Either that or you really did buy it and now resent us being 'free' from something that snared you ?

  • unanswered

    still- are you still giving yourself the title "apostate-buster"? you used this expression last time you graced us with your presence, and i have yet to see evidence of it. it seems you think you have some special immunity to apostates, and great ability to defend your belief of the scriptures. what i fail to see is anything but the intellect of the WT. i could find pretty much everyone of your answers in a bound volume, so it is very hard for me to be impressed by your attempts.

    you have been in the org. for one year, you could have learned all the rules by now, but you haven't. even though you side step this every time, i assure you, the WT does not approve of your actions on this website. if you WERE totally familiar with the rules of the WT, you would know that it wouldn't matter even if you DID have an immunity to apostates-the WT is very clear about the rules applying to everyone, and doesn't make exception for those with "special" abilities.

    it seems to me that you are doing what most jws do at some point, and altering the WT rules to fit your desires, and it's only taken you a year! so you have your own micro-sect going within your beloved "truth", don't feel bad, tons of active witnesses do this, it makes it easier to stomach the things you know are messed up within the org. if i was still a jw, i would probably have to do the same thing. in a way, you're one of us(i shudder to think)! a year into it, and already deciding which teachings you will accept, and which ones you will reject. bravo!!! and welcome to the dark side.:)

    not letting you bother me this time, and much happier for it!(although last time it was more like an itchy rash)-nate

  • somebody


    Hello again friends!

    hello back at ya!

    I was heated the last time you showed up to defend the men you worship, so I'm being calm this time. I'm just happy to see that we didn't scare you away. I will add more when I can.

    PS.......Do you think there is anyone here who views Randy Watters as the faithful and discreet slave spoken about in the Bible and has to follow his every view and endure facing dieing at armaggedon, or WORSE yet, a judicial committee set up by people who might worship him, if they disagree with him?

Share this