Watchtower falsification of its history (page 5)

slimboyfat

It does look like a concious decision was made to omit the flags.

jwfacts

Thank you for all the great comments.

Dozy - That conversation is just how I imagined it.

Discrete Slave - "The video does show the banner above the stage. The banner is opened after Rutherford says to advertise"

Thank you for highlighting that point. They have gone to great lengths to make the scene accurate, where convenient.

Wow Gumby, great to see you comment after such a long break.

Cedar - Welcome to the forum and thanks for the good summary of the situation. It would be great to get Former's input.

Old Goat - It is interesting to hear you were around in the Light days, I have an ancient looking copy at home. Thank you for admitting to being a grumpy old man, because even though much of what you said makes great sense, I think your point about the value of this thread is unreasonable. There are 200,000 topics posted on this site, and they cannot all be groundbreaking revelations. This topic is important in light of the Yearbook's insistence that what the Watchtower presents is accurate even in insignificant details. Certainly, my some of my family trust their very lives on every word of the Watchtower. These pictures shows not only are insignificant details overlooked, but purposefully manipulated.

munchausen

I would agree that the re-enacted event purposely omitted the US flag. But little has been said about the possible motives to falsify the video. Two reasons come to mind:

1. Embarassment that the US flag was prominently displayed at the 'historic' convention in view of the later 1939-1943 flag salute issues. (Although I have been to many assemblies where there is a flag draped up somewhere in the facility and nobody seems to notice or care.)

2. The majority of JWs now are not in the US, and the DVD is intended (with translation) to be distributed worldwide. There is some objection that it is an American religion. It could be that the flag was omitted purposely to make it more palatable to the non-US witnesses.

Concerning the headware: The Proclaimers book p 258 has a photo of the crowd at Cedar Point in 1919 seated outside, it is clear that almost every woman has a headcovering of some sort, either a fashionable hat or a handkerchief for-the-sake-of-the-angels headcovering. The photo of Cedar point in 1922 (p 259) also has some of the same silly handkerchiefs. The photo from the Daniel book p. 299 appears to be taken from a vantage point further back; maybe the sisters didn't put on their headcovering until they sat down? I don't know, maybe one of the oldtimers would know more about that.

dgp

Bookmarked. Great job, as usual .

sizemik

Old Goat . . . you said . . .

I think this is an incredibly silly post and some of the comments are worse

Then you said . . .

I'm no attacking him for posting this .

And you may wish to note that I did not belittle his opinion.

Do you post under DJEggNog as well? Seems the WTS isn't the only one who falsifies their history . . . at least they have the decency to wait a few decades.

Old Goat

No, i'm not DJEggNog. I don't read this forum consistently enough to know who that is. I stand by my opinion. This issue does not further thoughtful opposition to the Watch Tower.

If you look through my past comments you will see that my primary interest is in Watch Tower history. My past posts speak for themselves and should server to disabuse you of the opinion that i am someone else.

sizemik

Fair enough . . .

I'm usually quick to pick up on contradictory statements that's all . . . and the other poster is notorious for it.

I might add that those who want to dictate to others what should or shouldn't be posted here, by denegrating their fellow posters, only ever start arguments . . . and the Forum just stays the same. You may want to consider leaving threads alone that simply don't meet with your approval . . . or even start one yourself that discusses what you consider important . . . unless you just like arguing . . . in which case . . . carry on.

punkofnice

Watchtower falsification of its history

Well, they should read the scriptures once in a while (OH, sorry, I forgot the watchtower is higher than the Bible. My bad!)

Luke 19:17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'

Obviously because they are God's mouthpiece and tell God what to do, they do not need to be faithful in little things (EG: Re-enact something with accuracy).....let alone discrete!

It's all information control!!

Old Goat

Calling a post silly and calling the man silly are not the same thing.

If I were argumentative, I'd be on every post stating my case. That I've been registered here for five years and only posted 100 times indicates that I am not. I am interested in seeing the best arguments put forward. Weaker arguments cloud the issue.

There is nothing in what I said that suggests I want to dictate what people post here. If you read up you'll notice that I said that there is room here for all sorts of posts. I don't have to like them. I usually don't read past the initial post if I don't. But there are some who post here who have the talent and observation to write things that really matter. I hate to see that keen-eyed talent wasted on a triviality.

wannabefree

On the one hand, I don't think it is a big deal about how the reenactment left out the flags ... on the other hand, I believe it is a valid point because jwfacts compares it with the Society's own claim of painstakingly making everything as accurate as possible in all they do ... it is Watchtower hypocrisy that makes it an issue. Just like the NGO fiasco, no big deal on the surface, but because of who the Watchtower claims to be and how hypocritical they are, it makes it a huge issue.

Watchtower falsification of its history

Share this