DA-ing Announcement in the Society's New Book (page 11)

Gill

The Evil Slave is busy with putting it's strangle hold on the Jelly.

They forgot what happens to Jelly when you squeeze it too hard!

Squelch!! And it all falls away.

diamondblue1974

seems like they are trying to get round the legal issue of defamation (slander) cases against them by creating ambiguity. Much like they did when they created the act of 'marking'.

Jim_TX

"seems like they are trying to get round the legal issue of defamation..."

Bingo! We have a winner!

What you have to remember is that nowadays, it is the 'legal department' that is guiding the WTBTS... not the 'holy spirit' - or whatever.

So, any time you see 'new light', the first question you need to ask is... "How does this affect them legally, or in a court of law?"

Once you start doing that, it becomes very transparent what they are doing. Just trying to cover their butts in court.

Regards,

Jim TX

BONEZZ

So this new announcment will probably mean a softening in attitude towards "non-witnesses"....Yeah Right!!!

- Watchtower 1988 April 15 pp.26-31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit

14 The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man."?

if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. - ENOURAGING THE BREAKUP OF THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP

"Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . - SLANDEROUS STATEMENT (Especially when used against those who walk/fade away)

This "new" announcement has to be legalistically inspired.

-BONEZZ

Sunspot

What you have to remember is that nowadays, it is the 'legal department' that is guiding the WTBTS... not the 'holy spirit' - or whatever.
So, any time you see 'new light', the first question you need to ask is... "How does this affect them legally, or in a court of law?"
Once you start doing that, it becomes very transparent what they are doing. Just trying to cover their butts in court.

Great point, Jim!

I *had* forgotten that "tiny" thought of all the departments that now encompass the WTS empire. You are absolutely right! Any "Noo Lite" must be looked at from the standpoint of which department issued it----and Holy Spirit has NOT had anything remotely connected to the WTS doctrine.

Annie

willyloman

There's new information in the latest WT about the hebrew word for "Light" found in the scripture that reads, "The light keeps getting brighter...."

It seems the word can also be translated "lawyer" so that a new and better translation, which will now go into immediate use, is:

"The lawyers keep getting brighter...."

--Willy (tongue in cheek) Loman

tonyend

"In New Zealand, there's a strict religious group known as Exclusive Brethren..." I had never heard of these guys until Steve2 mentioned them. I Googled them and came up with this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/brethren/exclusive.shtml . These guys sound like what the society would love to aspire to be. No TV, Radio, Newspapers or College are allowed. And they believe the internet "are being used by 'the man of sin' referred to in the Book of Revelation..." If everyone in the Halls did what the Watchtower magazines suggest that's exactly how JW's would be IMHO.

Elsewhere

"seems like they are trying to get round the legal issue of defamation..."

The WTS is diluting itself if it thinks they can get around slander charges by saying "[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

The WTS does not decide whether someone leaves or not... the person does. The WTS can only kick someone out and make note of it in their records. If the WTS announces that someone "is no longer a Jehovah's Witness" but the person disagrees, there are grounds for a slander suit because of the repercussions of such an announcement.

At this point the WTS will carry the burden of demonstrating to the court that the person did in-fact resign as opposed to being removed. This is not a theological issue, it is a membership issue, so the courts will most certainly be willing to address it.

Ok, how will this be used? Here is an example:

The WTS no longer Disfellowships people for accepting blood, instead they announce that the person Disassociated themselves. They do this because in some countries the WTS would be shut down by the courts VERY fast for trying to prevent their members from accepting medical treatment.

The WTS trys to get around this by saying that they did not Disfellowship the person who accepted blood, instead they say that the person resigned (Disassociated). The problem with this is that the person can now go to court and sue for slander and they will win because the WTS has no letter of resignation from the person.

The new tactic of the WTS is to just say "[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and completely bypass the cause (Disfellowship vs. Disassociate). This is where my statements above come into play. If someone accepts blood and then the WTS says "[Name] is no longer on of Jehovah's Witnesses", where is the documentation to demonstrate that the person resigned? It isn't there. The result is that the WTS can be sued for lieing about (slandering) the person.

garybuss

Maybe some day they will explain how the holy spirit works on / with the legal department and show how the legal department does not participate in government.

franklin J

I think Euphamism got it right; sounds to me like a legal manuever.

Announcing that someone is "no longer a JW" is stating an objective. One can draw what ever conclusion as to WHY. However the WTBTS is only stating an observation.

DA-ing Announcement in the Society's New Book

Share this