by WinstonSmith 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I finally tracked down a copy of the paper today. It is a full page article with a couple of extra columns on the following page. It does not put JWs in a positive light in any way.
The link that Refriedtruth posted above is the same as what has appeared in the paper.
wow just wow
Thats a pretty big lie BUT we should be careful...the only quoted word is "Myth" not vincents whole alledged sentance, he may have used the word in any number of contexts.
that said, its pretty obvious that the WT spins one story to the press and another to the rank and file...probably what vincent did say...but JWs would point out what i just did too.
The heat is certainly being turned up
oz
This is a great opportunity to publicise the negatives of being one of jehovahs witnesses ,it can destroy families,discourage higher learning,isolate you from freinds who are not jehovahs witnesses,definetly set your children apart from peers at school,discouraging competitive sports,your children not socialising with children who are not jehovahs witnesses,not giving your allegiance to the state,Govt.Queen,condemning everybody to death at armageddon who is not a jw and relishing in every and any disaster that they see as a sign of the imminent destruction that is to come upon every human being man,woman and child who is not a jehovahs witness.And they have been praying this for the last 130 years .
smiddy
refriedtruth
Who is the 3rd news article on this? The AGE the Border paper who is the other ?
smiddy
Here is the gist of a text exchange I'm in the middle of with a brother in our congregation. I texted him the link this morning and said "Wow, keep this in mind if you are out in field this morning."
His response was to say "It sounds like the start of persecution!" I asked he thought it was weird that what the WT lawyer said didn't match up with what is on JW.org. "Must be a misquote, typical media" was his reply.
We then talked about some other things, and then he says "I'm not going to look at that article, it sounds apostate." I just said that I would read so I know what it's about if someone brings it up while we are out witnessing.
As 00DAD would say, "Let's review - it's a cult!"
Vincent Toole said . . . shunning was a "myth."
Jehovah's Witnesses say . . . "he or she will be shunned."
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/
Great article. Good coverage. Wonderful comments.
Just Lois
I've been thinking the same as Aussie Oz, that the "myth" quote may be taken out of context. For instance, the original statement may have been that a specific aspect of shunning was a myth. Ask yourselves, is it logical that a lawyer would say something so obviously false, when there's plenty of literature lying around to disprove him? I'm waiting to see if the Society makes a response or tries to clarify what Toole was saying, before coming to any conclusions.
You may well be right that The Toole was taken out of context, but the WT are in an awkward position, its like saying "No, our cover up of Abuse doesn't work like that, our cover up of abuse works like this". Hardly good Press, however they handle it.
Individual JW's will of course hone in on that if it is a mis-quote, or partial quote, which when you look at the WT's record is ironic in the extreme. They will ignore the rest of the article because of one slight error. Or they will be like Winston's numb-nuts friend who won't read it "because it sounds apostate" WTF?
How can an article from a never been a JW journo be "apostate" ?
What he should say is "I will only read opinion that is spoon fed me by the WT", any contrary opinion will "sound apostate" to his ears, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
