by Marvin Shilmer 35 Replies latest jw friends
Mistakes Admitted by WTS?
I seek feedback on the following series of questions:
1. Has the Watchtower Society publicly admitted its mistakes?
2. If so, how did they do it?
3. If not, do you think the Watchtower Society asserts it has admitted its mistakes?
4. If so, how do they claim to have done this?
There is some peculiar language in an old Watchtower magazine that speaks to these questions. Before presenting it I would first like your feedback.
Each of the WT histories, Proclaimers Book, 1975 Yearbook and the other one (can't remember) have had whitewashed versions of their history. It's a close to public admissions of guilt as you are going to get with them.
It's always comical to read the Proclaimers book and then find the actual Watchtowers of the time period and compare the two to see exactly which version is closest to the truth.
Slipnslidemaster:"The average person thinks he isn't."
- Father Larry Lorenzoni
In 1980 (?) they admitted some responsibility for the 1975 debacle. Was that written by Ray Franz pre WT exit?
Hi Marvin,
1. Has the Watchtower Society publicly admitted its mistakes?
I know of a few cases.
One publication admits that the imprisonment of the members of the governing body in 1919 was allowed by Jehovah as a form of discipline because they had not separated themselves from false religious practices.
Also, the Proclaimers book has a statement that the governing body is not infallible or inspired and so is capable of making mistakes.
I don't have access to my publications today, but could find these quotes if you'd like. As a rule, though, the admissions of error are sparse.
Marvin,
A number of years ago a Bank in Europe made a mistake in processing a stock investment that I made.
I was irritated and suggested an apology was in order. The bank accepted liability verbally and offered, without my request, that they would pay compensation to the tune of $27,000, far in excess of my potential losses, and indicative of a far more serious mistake than actually took place.
In a meeting with the banks representatives, I offered a way out to them which would save them $27,000 - a written apology.
They refused to give me this as 'it was not the Banks policy to apologize'. This was due of course to them opening a far greater legal pot of worms.
The WTS, it seems to me, cannot apologize. If they did it would be an admission of liability that they legally could not afford to establish as a precedent. Far easier to lose a few 'disgruntled former members', as it likes to describe its victims, than to accept liability for its mistakes.
Kindest regards - HS
WBTS dosen`t make mistakes!They get NEW LIGHT.That way they don`t have to appologize to anybody,and they can sweep their dirty shit under the carpet...OUTLAW
The Society apologizes without apologizing.
____________________________
"Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional."
It has been consistent WTS policy since I was baptized in the early 1960's to mostly ignore mistakes and changes. Years later these problems may be discussed in a white-washed way from the safety of the distance of time. Frequently the Yearbooks will talk a bit more openly about things that have happened, but always LONG after the fact.
I will give you a current example. The "generation" change in 1994-95 was a HUGE doctrinal and teaching change. It was presented, of course, as new light from Jehovah. BUT, it caused serious problems. My feeling for some time is that overall growth stopped at that time, and things have been slowing down ever since. I know I was one of many influential elders and former elders who walked away at that time.
I also know from excellent sources that the WTS received more mail on that issue than on any other in its history. And the result has been?
NOTHING. They remain essentially completely silent on that change and the effects it continues to have. As Ray Franz made clear about 1975, the Society's policy has consistently been to IGNORE these problems in the hopes that they will fade from the minds of the rank and file JWs.
I think that approach may have been much more successful before the advent of the Internet. Of course, that will not prevent the Society from continuing to use it.
S4
Clarification:
1. I am not asking about whether the Watchtower Society has ever apologized for mistakes, but whether they admit …
2. My questions are not about isolated incidents of admission. My question is about what policy the Watchtower Society has on the matter of admitting mistakes. Naturally, policy results in something more extensive than would isolated incidents, so whatever they have done should be noticeable. This wider application is what I seek feedback on. (Of course whether a policy asserting itself as admission amounts to actual admission is part of what this thread is about)
With these two clarifications in mind, let me restate the four questions with some new and emphasized language:
1. Has the Watchtower Society publicly admitted its mistakes as a matter of policy?
2. If so, how have they done it?
3. If not, do you think the Watchtower Society asserts it has admitted its mistakes as a matter of policy?
4. If so, how have they claimed it was done?
Marvin,
I did understand your original questions, though perhaps did not explain myself throughly enough, my apologies.
My own take on this issue is that legally, an admission to a 'mistake' or an apology for a mistake are bound together is a bond of liabiblity that the WTS, or indeed any other religion of Corporation, can only afford to unravel at the cost of a legal precedent.
I used an illustration with my Bank to show how this works in practice. A mistake was made and verbally admitted to, but an apology refused. I have known of two similar cases where the WTS has paid compensation to individuals specifically without admitting a mistake in writing, or issuing an apology in writing but accepting verbal responsibility. The payment of compensation is the legally safe method of dealing with the problem without setting a legal prority.
I have never seen the WTS admit a mistake in print. The admission to fallibility, or past punishments by God, are not really an admission of mistakes. The WTS calls them 're-adjustments' and by definition then blames God for making them, as they are only his 'vessels'.
However, I have heard a member of the GB verbally admit to errors of understanding, and a WT last year admitted that the WTS had been 'misinformed' over a number of doctrinal issues in the past. These statements fall well short of admissions of error and certainly could not be legally defined as such.
Hope that this makes more sense - HS
