JW history (big green book)
You already know you'll get more accurate info from this and other web sites. That Proclaimers book is quite sanitized. Some of the most fun reading I've done on the topic is in books available from Randy Waters.
When you're up to it, post your story.
You might be interested in this website which shows the ways the WTS tries to hide information in the Proclaimers Book.
Divide and Hide
Although described in its Foreword as "objective" and "candid" Jehovah’s Witnesses-Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom reads like a clever piece of propaganda. But perhaps the slickest trick of all is the very format of the book itself: unlike history books which present matters in chronological order, this one covers JW history topically. The result is that the accounts of embarrassing episodes, when not omitted entirely, can be fragmented into less embarrassing bits and pieces related in different parts of the book.
These bite-size fragments are easier to swallow that the whole truth presented clearly in one place. See, for example, how information about the Society’s false prophecy for 1925 is broken up into separate discussions on pages 78, 425, and 632 -- each with a different excuse or euphemism to help JWs dismiss the episode as unimportant, or at least excusable.
Moreover, the topical arrangement allows the book to pull matters out of the context of surrounding events and to portray them differently in a topical context. For example, discussion of Charles Taze Russell’s religious affiliation during the decade following 1870 is broken up into separate discussions on pages 43-48, then 120-122, then 132-135, and finally page 204.
So, when the book says on page 204 that "The operation of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has undergone significant changes since Charles Taze Russell and his associates first began to study the Bible together in 1870," readers may have forgotten that Russell was still part of the Adventist organization until 1879, as revealed in the earlier material, and that therefore a separate "organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses" was not operating at all in 1870.
Similarly, on page 147 the book presents a 1962 doctrinal change (on the interpretation of Romans 13:1) as "progressive understanding." But information presented separately on page 190 shows that the ‘new’ view was already being taught by C. T. Russell back in 1904. The 1962 teaching was not really new at all, but was a return to an old viewpoint. It was actually a back-and-forth doctrinal flip-flop, but the book hides this fact by separating the different parts of the story. (continued)
As fare as I now one of the main experts how wright this book was barbara Andersson, if this book have so many faults she may bee one how can tell why and how it was doing like this.
Aspecially as she no longer are JW, why havent she speak upp about this?
Thanks everyone for the quick replies! I will post my story soon....
Yes, Alan F's essay is excellent.
And Blondie, thanks for the CFTF link.
Well Happy Man, perhaps Barbara hasn't said anything about it because no one has asked her to.
Of all the publications of the WTBTS over the years, the one that I personally think reveals the most in a direct manner is Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose. This book reveals information directly and in one, long, unbroken stream of seamless Barbara Streisand (BS). Actually, I thought JWDP was powder blue, but I haven't seen one in years.
I do remember thinking what a giant pair they had, assigning to their puny little actions the role of prophetic fulfillment (the seven assemblies in the summer of 1932 were the fulfillment of the prophecy that seven bowls of fire would be poured out on the head of false religion. Or even more ballsy, this book reveals they considered some little one page, three by five inch tract was the fulfillment of yet another prophecy. It was really too, too much.)
But the most telling was how much scorn they heaped on the clergy in each assembly city because the clergy would not accept Rutherford's challenge to come to the assembly to be engaged in debate with him. The clergy's unwillingness to come out and debate Da Judge was prima facie evidence, according to Da Judge, that they knew already that they were preaching false religion and they were unwilling to have their role exposed. Weeeeeeeeeeell now. Who is it today who will not come out and debate I axe you?)
I say the WTBTS is fully aware that they constitute a cult; they are fully aware that it would be child's play to prove in debate that they constitute a cult; that in order to protect their cash flow they will never agree to debate anyone, ever. And I say, once again, that the WTBTS is a cult and I say f**k 'em.