Watchtower — Destroy the document!

by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  steve2

  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you to destroy the page(s) replaced, I would assume this is fairly common so that you wouldn't accidentally refer to outdated instructions.

  Fair enough, I suppose. Businesses do this and they make it perfectly clear in their policies that they do it. For example, "This online manual is updated on a dialy basis" or "Customer feedback is taken into consideration when we update our manual". It's nicely upfront and ethical.

  However, the updating that occurs in the Watchtower's publications is not "above board". They continue to state that the "current" copies of earlier publications are actually the original. No where do they inform readers about the revisionism. It creates the worng impression that they have no made mistakes, errors etc.

  If secular businesses can be ethically transparent about amendments, updates, etc, I would expect an organization that claims to be blessed by the One True God would adhere to even stricter standards regarding its amendmentsd and updates. They're not and they claim their work vindicates "Jehovah's name".
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  wannabefree writes:

  "Hey, I was just making a comment about most you listed, they seemed to be replacements of like for like with adjustments."

  That is how I read your response, and did not mean to imply otherwise.

  My response was only to underscore that Watchtower's methods and means (remove and destroy) is demonstrably more than simply keeping the congregation's policy manual up-to-date. The 2001 incident is a perfect example of this.

  Also, the 2011 letter I cite addresses two lists of letters. One list of letters elders are told to remove from the manual. The second list of letters elders are told to remove and destroy. This disparity of treatment is a transparent betrayal of something beyond keeping a policy manual current. Unfortunately you were unable to realize this latter point because my blog entry does not show the desperate treatment within the same letter. That's my fault and not yours.

  Thanks for taking time to express your view. I welcome all feedback.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Out at Last!

  Revising a manual and removing a page is far different then telling all of their followers to sell everything and preach until the end comes in 1975; then denying that they ever said that, and that their entire organization of followers from common publishers, elders, pioneers, CO's, and even their own DO's "MISUNDERSTOOD" their message.
• 

  WTWizard

  It's quite one thing to destroy instructions that refer to outdated technology so workers do not get confused, or that refer to outdated laws so people referring to these documents don't think something is still legal and get in trouble based on outdated information. It might be added that such documents are not usually referred to by the public.

  It's another when your everlasting life is dependent on the accuracy of such documents. You are told that such documents are the absolute truth, and you are to go by them even if you can prove them wrong using their own Bible. Then, when the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger fixes something, the old documents are destroyed to prevent anyone from realizing they were ever in place. This prevents the public and the regular members from having an accurate basis to decide whether the religion is for them or not. They simply deny that such doctrines ever existed.

  It is also used to protect them from prosecution. They promise to allow blood transfusions as a condition of being legal, and then they welsh on those promises. Or, they harbor pedophiles that extort "consent" from their victims and then threaten with death and destruction if they don't shut up about it. Then they will destroy documents when they are raided. Altering documents does the same thing--it obstructs justice and allows the Washtowel to function to ruin more lives.
• 

  sizemik

  It's like Terry said . . . just symptomatic of a policy of plausible deniability. Without the specifics of a previously used form for collection of information . . . it's almost impossible to determine exactly what information is currently still held, and relies on the honesty of the one holding the information. Theocratic warfare policy soon closes that door.

  Policy changes, even involving only a few innocent word changes, can become future problems that are unforeseeable. Destruction of old material provides the manoevering room for deniability if and when it becomes necessary.
• 

  steve2

  From the top of the human "food chain" to the very bottom, we're all prone to making mistakes and hopefully later learning from those mistakes. So we cannot - and do not - critcize the GB for its mistakes. Rather, we criticize the GB for the myriad ways it has altered what the publications actually stated at specific points in time, forbids the rank and file from disagreeing with its repeated prophetic speculations and itsconstant criticism of the "mistakes" and shortcomings of other religious groups.

  In a word, we critcize the GB for its religious hypocrisy.
• 

  rebel8

  Another genius blog post.