by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends
Watchtower — Destroy the document!
Today I uploaded a new article to my blog documenting a practice by the Watchtower organization that betrays a position contrary to “truth”.
My article is titled Watchtower — Destroy the document! and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/watchtower-destroy-document.html
Marvin Shilmer
I added an image to this article.
Marvin Shilmer
Oh, yeah...
Without even reading the article - yet - I can agree with that. The Watchtower Society practices revisionism - and as so many people on here have posted, there have been several book-destroying pogroms directed at the older Watchtower literature located in various Kingdom Hall libraries...
I, for one, have been very grateful that the destruction has been sporadic... Enabled me to pick up quite a few old books... Which I will get around to reading, one of these days!!
Zid
I guess I don't really see the big deal about the examples you listed on your website, except for maybe the last one about the letters and elder book if the intent is to keep certain things undocumented, therefore no evidence.
I have worked for companies that will receive replacement pages for manufacturer's manuals telling you to destroy the page(s) replaced, I would assume this is fairly common so that you wouldn't accidentally refer to outdated instructions.
Surrrreeeee.....
Like destroying all of Russell's and Rutherford's books and revising the info in older Watchtowers and Awakes is another form of destroying "outdated" instructions...
Besides, as any good lawyer or enrolled agent (tax specialist with a legal background) will tell you, sometimes the juiciest stuff is found when comparing the old info with the new!!
Yes, but people generally don't look to manufacturers for religious truth or directions on how to live so that you and your loved ones will be spared a violent death at Armageddon. So far as I know, companies like Sony, General Motors and Craftsman don't claim to be spokesmen for God.
wannabefree,
What about the 2001 incident of document destruction? Do you think that a tad bit unusual?
Also, why do you suppose Watchtower tells elders to remove and destroy some documents and yet of other documents it says to merely remove them, when in each case the documents are equally no longer current policy?
And, what about those forms that are destroyed? Has it crossed your mind that Watchtower does not want folks realizing the extent of personal information it has demanded on these forms in years gone by?
Marvin Shilmer
Hey, I was just making a comment about most you listed, they seemed to be replacements of like for like with adjustments.
I would assume that Mother Organization keeps record of the originals, maybe not, but just wants to make sure they don't have elder's accidentally going off of old light.
I am not familiar with the 2001 incident, any type of Watergate destruction I think would be unusual, I am not saying the Organization hasn't done that, it just doesn't seem that the examples you listed are that sinister. (however, if they aren't consistent and have a remove and replace but keep the old, and a remove and destroy, well, that doesn't make sense)
I appreciate the information you provide, I have found it very informative and useful. I was just giving an opinion, which is subject to revision and overlapping.
I think the aftershocks of 1975 exposed the authority of the Watchtower Society to falsification like never before.
But, how to handle the embarassment??
They ignored it as long as possible. This means they were in denial.
The best indication of that denial is elevating Fred Franz (the architect of the 1975 imbroglio) to the highest seat in the house.
After the Ray Franz incident drove a wedge into the very nest of headquarters a paranoia come to the fore.
The lawyers started swarming all over plausible deniability.
Step by step they went into lockdown, stonewall and pre-emptive mode.
Removing anything that could conceivably be used as documentary evidence of policy gone awry is a no-brainer.
Better to have nothing to explain.
I wonder if they have had destroyed the early instructions on how to (mis) handle abuse cases, these could be most damning, and of interest to courts in cases going back decades.
