How do you prove the watchtower organisation is not genuine using recent evidence?

by punkofnice 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • punkofnice

    when I was a Jobo, I would say that anything in Jobo history, eg. Miracle wheat, Beth sarim et al (old light), wasn't worth considering as evidence that the WBT$ was a weirdo cult.

    I think that's probably the Jobo mindset now.

    What would you show them FROM VERY RECENT lies teachings to encourage them to consider the possibility the WBT$ is a scam?

  • LoveUniHateExams

    I would point them to the ridiculous Overlapping Generation^TM doctrine.

    Or I'd bring up the child abuse cases.

    Or are these not recent enough?

  • punkofnice

    LUHE - I would say they are recent enough. Overlapping(tm) was 2010 which was my last a$$embĀ£y. As a Jobo, when anyone mentioned anything going back to CT Rissole or JF Boozerford, I'd discount these as being too old. It is with that Jobo mentality that I think we're up against.

    Australian Royal Commission is rather good at showing the way the holy holy holy govbod lie as badly as the lower ranking drones.

  • schnell

    Okay, for those of us unfamiliar, what is the Australian Royal Commission and why is it relevant here? I've seen the ARC mentioned in another thread here. Lay it on me.

  • punkofnice

    Hello, schnell, try looking here...

    In a nutshell the ARC investigated why cases of child abuse were not reported to the police et al. Elders and a GB member (Jackson), appeared before them. the lies and tap dancing around direct questions was vile and painful to listen to.

  • Landy

    As you can't prove a negative, you can't prove that they're not genuine. On the plus side they can't prove that they are either.

  • Vidiot

    Personally, I don't concern myself with "proving the WTS wrong"; it's been a while since I needed to deconstruct WT ideology.

    I think simply letting the media exposures of the Org's endemic child abuse problem is probably the best way to go.

  • millie210

    I think the recent blood transfusion policy change in the elders handbook is significant.

    As baby boomers age and since most JWs are older anyway (the young people leave) the chances of having surgery and medical procedures goes up. Imagine their (the publishers) surprise to find the Org has quietly moved (shifted may be a better word) the taking of blood out of the automatic disfellowshipping category.

    I think they are hoping the bloodless surgery movement will take away any need to "change" their policy. Meanwhile, they are quietly changing it right and left.

    In addition to the above, they have a form (it originated in Canada in a meeting between a hospital ethics committee and the Canadian branch of JWs and is now used in the U.S. also - the liaison committees provide it to parents on a case by case basis at THEIR discretion) for parents to sign allowing children to have blood without any resistance from the parents or "judgement" (involvement) of the Org or "worldly authorities.

    And of course we all know the huge leaps they have allowed in vaccines, organ transplants, fractions and blood substitutes.

    The common response is "why havent I heard all this???" Mostly because JWs dont think about the blood issue in any real way unless they need it. The people who discover all the changes in policy are the ones who are researching ahead of a surgery NOT the ones in a bad car wreck or some other emergency situation.

    In JW world there is a HUGE disconnect between what is actually known by the publishers and what is actually allowed with no penalty if the publishers only knew of its allowance by the leaders.

  • BluesBrother

    Honesty & truthfulness in all things is what is expected of a Christian leader. I would cite the UN fiasco of a few years back, more recently the flying of National flags on K/halls in Chile and the many deliberate misquotes in the lit.

    That is dishonest .

  • millie210

    Okay, for those of us unfamiliar, what is the Australian Royal Commission and why is it relevant here? I've seen the ARC mentioned in another thread here. Lay it on me.

    Heres a couple little "trailers" "tidbits" or "spoilers" for you!

    As mentioned above, Governing Body member Jackson upon being asked if he thought JWs were Gods representatives on earth replied that "to think that would be presumptuous"

    even though we all know they DO think that and it is in print.

    Also the Society lawyer (was his name Crooke or something similar?) when asked about Theocratic warfare was deliberately obtuse about even knowing that term LOL.

    A term originated by the Org!

    My personal favorite was when G. Jackson called JW leadership "the guardians of the doctrine"

    A quick google search reveals that was said much earlier by someone else very prominent.

    Who, you may ask?

    The Pope.

    It gets worse...MUCH worse (or better if you are looking for inaccuracies, sleeze and dirt perpetrated by JW leadership) if you take the time to watch the videos or read the transcripts.

Share this