True or False did the Watchtower Corporation create false doctrines intentionally to enhance the proliferation of their own publications ?
As usual you misstate what the quotation says. The full quotation suggests that SOME charities are burdened with administrative expenses and do not fulfill their obligations. Some is not all.
With my writing partner I write accurate (as accurate as we can make it)
So in other words you just want to refute any information that goes against your own findings about the IBSA/JWS
with personal bias.
I showed an example of the disingenuous corruption certain WTS's editorial heads used ie. 6000 years doctrine but you excuse it as a simple unintentional mistake. ......really ?
Maybe you should listen more to people who were deeply involved with this religion for decades in personal experience ?
Favorable bias? I wouldn't say that. As a historian I feel it isn't ethical to attribute bad motive where other explanations suffice. Sometimes motive is 'bad.' In our books we point to several instances. In volume one of Separate Identity we point to L. A. Allen's apparent sexual relationship to one of the Watch Tower evangelists, but we use her own words to 'go there.' We point to Russell's self view that in the period we cover [up to 1887], he was God's special agent, a teacher of teachers. But we use his own words to do that. We point out that Barbour was a thief and a liar. But we use his own words to do that.
Attributing motive where there is no firm evidence is wrong. And doing so would make us like E. C. Gruss who simply made up his 'history.'
Many on this board feel hurt by the Watchtower. I understand this, and my own experience with Witness elders is almost entirely negative. But some of those who feel hurt express themselves irrationally. Assume someone is disfellowshipped for what? Sexual issues will do. They did not wish to live the life of strict adherence Witness culture demands. That is their choice. Personally, I don't care what others choose to do as long as it does not hurt others. But Witnesses believe they must intervene. So they disfellowship. Exclusion from a group is hurtful, and disfellowshipping is supposed to hurt. The goal is to make the 'bad boy' repent. In most cases it doesn't work, and the expelled person is resentful.
When we're resentful we tend to be irrational. So, let's say our 'bad boy' had multiple partners. That's not the Witness way. He likes having indiscriminate sexual encounters. Does he really want to be a Witness? Well, he doesn't want to behave as one, but he may like that feeling of belonging and he may want to stay within the fellowship. Exclusion brings with it the feeling that he is less than he was. In fact, nothing has changed. He is worth exactly as much before as after. But the feeling of rejection is still present. There is often a transference of blame. "Sure, I kissed ten girls today, six of them underage, and probably I shouldn't have, BUT they said I'm worthless and threw me out and my own mommy won't talk to me!"
Okay, I know that's extreme, or I hope it is. But humans tend to transfer blame for faults.
There is also the feeling that one has been misled. The Watchtower suggests that life within its fellowship is a near paradise. It isn't. People are what people are. Every fault individuals had before they were Witnesses, or the underlying causes, remains. One may have given up smoking, for instance, and never cured the underlying addictive behavior. So expectations raised by Watchtower doctrine cannot be met within their fellowship. There is nothing so bitter as believing you were lied to.
Watchtower authority structure is such that adherents expect ideal behavior from those filling authoritarian office - elders and such. At conventions, instead of thanking God for the 'spiritual feast' the chairman thanks the Governing Body and everyone applauds. They set their members up for disappointment. Adverse reaction to this often comes slowly. Old Goat who used to post here lives across the Columbia River from me. I know him well. He was a Company Servant back in the Day, then Congregation Servant, then Elder, Convention speaker, appeal committee choice. But over the years he associated numbers of incidents accumulated that could not finally be resolved. He simply walked away though nominally 'in.' When saturation occurs, there is a reaction. Again, one may want to say and think the worst of the person or organization they see as cause.
But we shouldn't say what is false. Ethically and morally we should not attribute motive where the facts do not sustain it.
You write: "So in other words you just want to refute any information that goes against your own findings about the IBSA/JWS"
No. I want to refute poorly formed, irrational arguments that have no foundation. The one with strong personal bias here is you. Either you do not know the meaning of the words you use, or you purposely use inflammatory words that to not rightly characterize events. You degrade your points by doing so.
Quit trying to spin things away from the facts Vienne its getting annoying and your not showing an appeal to honesty.
The information you provided reconfirms what is known by all practicing JWS.
The WTS always discouraged its members to financial support outside charity organizations, particularly if they are associated with other religious institutions.
They provided some information to what can and does occur with large charity organizations but they stop short of telling the whole truth or what these organization do accomplish.
They have been known to spin information short with a intentional underling agenda , kind of like what you've been doing as of late.
Your here to support your book not necessarily striving to reach the truth.
Simple unintentional mistake? Really?
You think they pointed to 1975 knowing that it was contrived and expecting a mass exodus of members?
Franz was an old time Russellite. He was imbued with belief that the 6000 year theory was correct - that Christopher Bowen's chronology was accurate. He used it. The Watchtower still uses it, though without attribution to its original source. It wasn't a simple mistake. It was 'true belief' in a false theory.
F, you have a habit of misstating what others say. That's the problem here.
That's BS. The real issue is that you want to paint your former associates as wicked and will say anything, no matter how incorrect, to do so.
The statement on charities is plain. Witnesses benefit from some of them. Some of them are faulty.
Sounds like your worried about information getting out that contrives your own findings making your work a incompetent flop.
You alluded many times on this forum that your a foremost academic researcher upon the JWS religion.
Well I'm not impressed, but I understand your trying to promote your published literature to drive people to buy your book $$$, well thats free capitalism in operation I guess.
Thanks for the further explanation of background. I appreciate you never chose to be a JW yourself, nevertheless interaction with JWs may be fairly described as more than academic.
I can’t show it written down anywhere, but I can certainly say that my experience is that giving to charity was frowned upon. The basic attitude was that money donated to charity could be better spent on the “world wide work”. Because what charity could be more important than the good news? If you really believe the JW worldview then they would have a point.
This was not a hard rule. Some openly donated and even volunteered for charities. But those doing this seemed to need to “justify” their actions to others.
Obviously, you can't step away from ad hominem.
I respect your comment. Practice and written word often differ within the Watchtower organization. My experience beyond what the Watchtower has said rests with a Witness relative who supported a child care agency in India which was not associated with Witnesses at all. I'm not aware of anyone making an adverse comment. And F is right that no Witness would donate to a religious charity.