They can't and won't defend their insanity because they know it is indefensible. If they had the truth they should be able to discuss it with anyone. Instead, they run and hide behind freedom of religion. Then they refuse the same liberties to others.
Removing Apostate Lies from the Internet with Legal Action...why not?
by Gill 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
keyser soze
They don't want to set that kind of legal precedent. Then all the people that they've misquoted over the years in their publications can come after them.
-
Gill
It seems, after reading all the posts, that the ONLY reason the WT doesn't go after these sites en masse is that they do not want to bring attention to the Bull Shit they have been spewing forth for the last near 130 years!
Read this stuff out loud and you can't help but wonder what was wrong with yourself to believe it for so many years. Let a lawyer start reading it.....well...goes without saying that the ludicrous beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the WT Bible and Tract society becomes obvious. It would be an embarrassment to try and explain flip flop doctrines in a court of law with 'new light' excuses! I'd like to see it though! It could be very funny!
-
wozadummy
I like what MARY said about the QUOTES site ,the problem the WTS had with it seems also to be that even though their Literature was being quoted, they did not have the control on how to present and filter it and that would be a major problem for them ,that is no control.
-
Gill
Quotes showed the WT literature without a (for Dr Who fans) a PERCEPTION FILTER!
Quotes shoed the literature as it really is and with no spin. As 'it is,' is not a pretty sight!
-
dedpoet
Read this stuff out loud and you can't help but wonder what was wrong with yourself to believe it for so many years. Let a lawyer start reading it.....well...goes without saying that the ludicrous beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the WT Bible and Tract society becomes obvious. It would be an embarrassment to try and explain flip flop doctrines in a court of law with 'new light' excuses! I'd like to see it though! It could be very funny!
Funny you should ask that, Gill, Just click on this link
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/false_prophecy_admitted.html
-
Gill
Thanks, Trevor!
'Unity is based upon a forced acceptance of false prophecy'.
'Acceptance is obligatory.'
-
dedpoet
You are welcome Gill.
If this article was on the original Quotes site that the org went to
court over, and I think it was, maybe it's the main reason the
wt wanted it removing? It must be kind of embarassing to know
that people can read stuff like this.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.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.
-
Gill
If that doesn't expose the WT Society for what it really is then nothing does!
Quotes was a terrible embarrassment to the WT.
The real embarrassment to them was themselves and you can't change that, you can only try to hide it.
-
dedpoet
If that doesn't expose the WT Society for what it really is then nothing does
I thought that when I first read it a few years ago, Gill.
They can duck and dive over doctrinal flip flops in their publications,
but obviously their "new light" bs doesn't wash in a court of law.This is from Haydn Covington's statement. He started off by trying to avoid
giving a straight answerQ. 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 erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.Then he tried to plead ignorance
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 erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophesy that was false or erroneous.But in the end he had to admit the wt had prophecied falsely
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 erroneous 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.So to be a jw, you had to believe lies. I wonder what those watching
this little drams unfold thought?