Watchtower lies through their teeth.

by GeddyLee 40 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Farkel

  startingover,

  : The quote from the yearbook in Farkel's post, does that mean that the government changed their requirements and now allows the JW's to be recognized as a religious org. and still own property, or did they have to give up their property under government pressure? The later is what it sounds like to me, that the government finally figured out what they were doing in their hidden meeting places and made them come out in the open, taking their property in the process.

  : Does anyone know if they still own property there?

  The whole issue was about owning property. The Yearbook hides the real truth. When Mexico relented and finally allow religious organizations to own property, the WTS got "new light" and legally went from being a phony "cultural organization" to the religious Cult they always were when the ban on owning property was in effect.

  Farkel
• 

  gumby

  Thanks Fark

  Gumby
• 

  startingover

  Farkel,

  Because I may have to share this info with my loyal JW family in the future, I need to get my facts straight.

  The conclusion drawn from these interviews was that our organization should operate openly as the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, even if it meant that all of our meeting places would become government property.

  From this it appears to me that they had to give up their rights to own property because they were given no choice since it seems the government was on to what they were doing. From your comments it seems that they do own property. Does proof of that exist somewhere?

  startingover
• 

  gumby

  they declared themselves as a cultural organization and instructed their members not to do things that might identify them as a religious book-selling organization

  So this sentence is REALLY ....the point....isn't it? The society MADE a ban, where there was no ban! THEY banned singing and praying, to HIDE from authorities that MIGHT THINK THEY WERE LYING.....if they CAUGHT them!
• 

  Farkel

  starting over,

  http://hometown.aol.com/stephengoforth/aroundtheworld.htm

  NOVEMBER 18, 2002

  MEXICO

  A Mexican official says the government has drawn up plans to lift
  Mexico's ban on religious groups owning radio and TV stations. The
  move would be one more step in liberalizing the harsh anti-clerical
  laws that Mexico enacted in the 1920's. In 1992, the Mexican
  government repealed laws that denied churches the right to own
  property and prohibited wearing clerical garb in public. Besides
  legalizing church ownership of broadcast media, Mexico's interior
  secretary says the new proposals could allow religious ministry in
  state-run hospitals and jails and permit government officials to
  attend worship services on their own time.

  Farkel
• 

  plmkrzy

  Why would any JW consider any of this material anything less then possitive and be proud of the way things were handled? This is nothing new. There isn't anything so far presented that "wouldn't" be viewed as "spiritually directed" for the benifit of the org.
• 

  Utopian_Raindrops

  Actually plum,

  I think this would disturb a Dub if you could get them to THINK.

  Thats the problem here really is getting their minds not to shut down the minute you sound negative about the Org.

  See Daniel prayed in public even when there was a ban. Man did not come before Jehovah.

  Now here we have a case where they could have publicly prayed with no repercussions other then not owning property.

  The Org STOLE a large part of worship from them over land rights! Thats HUGE! It is purely Satanic!

  The Mexican Government had no problems with them publicly praying or singing. Just so long as they did not own the buildings they worshipped in.

  The WTBS went against the Almighty Himself in directing The Flock to abstain from public demonstration of their worship to Him

  If only a Jdub didnt get that glassy eyed nobodies home look when you start informing them.

  That is the conundrum.

  My 2 cents ....no refund

  Agape,

  Utopian_Raindrops

  Para ti......

  Edited by - Utopian_Raindrops on 4 January 2003 4:26:8
• 

  startingover

  Farkel,

  Considering what the YB said:

  In 1989, with the approval of the Governing Body, a letter was written to all the "companies" saying that as of April 1, we would be operating in Mexico as a religious organization. Afterward, in the June issue of Nuestro Ministerio del Reino (Our Kingdom Ministry), which was changed from being called Informador (Informant) de la Torre del Viga, further details were given. From then on, the Bible would be used from door to door, and prayers would be offered at meetings. Later, we began to sing songs at the meetings.

  And then this quote:

  NOVEMBER 18, 2002

  MEXICO

  A Mexican official says the government has drawn up plans to lift
  Mexico's ban on religious groups owning radio and TV stations. The
  move would be one more step in liberalizing the harsh anti-clerical
  laws that Mexico enacted in the 1920's. In 1992, the Mexican
  government repealed laws that denied churches the right to own
  property and prohibited wearing clerical garb in public. Besides
  legalizing church ownership of broadcast media, Mexico's interior
  secretary says the new proposals could allow religious ministry in
  state-run hospitals and jails and permit government officials to
  attend worship services on their own time.

  What was the situation between 1989 and 1992? It sounds like they gave up their property.

  Don't misunderstand my reason for asking, I firmly believe the real reason for all this was to own property. I just want to get all the facts straight. It seems to me there is a 3 year gap we have to deal with.

  startingover
• 

  Farkel

  : Don't misunderstand my reason for asking, I firmly believe the real reason for all this was to own property. I just want to get all the facts straight. It seems to me there is a 3 year gap we have to deal with.

  Knowing the Watchtower as well as I do, I can assure you that if they even had to give up ONE piece of property in Mexico they would have paraded that all over their literature, and praised themselves for holding to their "Christian obligations" by publicly "coming out" as a religious organization. They would have further announced to the whole world how the evil government of Mexico persecuted them by confiscating their property. They didn't do that either.

  Considering how boring Watchtower life normally is, they would have loved to have a sensational story like that to put in their magazines and especially in their yearbook.

  Remember, you are not under the burden of proof that requires you to prove the WT LOST any property over being a religious organization. Dubs who make that claim face that burden, and they can't prove it.

  The issues are simple: did the Watchtower society lie to the Mexican government about their status as a religion because they wanted to continue to own and buy property? The answer is clearly "yes." There is no other possible reason. They were not being persecuted by the government and there is a not a shred of evidence that I've ever seen that says they were.

  The other issue is: did they lose property when they finally told the truth about their religious status during that three year period you mentioned? If so, why didn't they say anything about it? Since money is EVERYTHING to the Watchtower Corporation, the evidence leads to the conclusion that they didn't lose any property. Anyone claiming they did is faced with the burden of proof.

  There are a number of possible explanations why they came forward with their announcement before the ban on a religion owning property was fully lifted. Among them are, the laws on that matter had softened before the ban was completely lifted, or they were not being enforced very often during that period.

  Another possible explanation is that the society lied about "coming out" in 1989. They lie all the time, you know.

  Farkel
• 

  plmkrzy

  Hey there U_R, I know what the point is and you're right about getting people to THINK. That is usually the root of all problems. LOL But when I read something potentially controversial I try to look at it from different perspectives. I can't obviously look at this from any other perspectives then those I've either had at one time or have now and anything in between. So when I read articles like this one I try to put aside MY personal opinion and read it objectively as though I were on ALL sides. How would I read this if I were in a KH surrounded by a group of "brothers and sisters" as apposed to reading it on a web site?

  How I may view it has very little to do with "the big picture", seems to be a hard thing for a lot of people to grasp

  The Mexican Government had no problems with them publicly praying or singing. Just so long as they did not own the buildings they worshipped in.

  If things could be presented that simple with no other possible explanations then I would have to agree there would be only one possible way to view the situation. The problem is like with any form of politics. (Which IS exactly what this is) there will always be another way of looking at it and the way one will look at it is usually the way one WANTS to.

  What might seem obvious and reasonable conclusions for any of us might seem to others as blinded or Bias. And vice versa, yadda yadda

  Here is a quick example of my point,

  Country Study & Country Guide for Mexico

  Mexico The Church Although there has been conflict between church and state in Mexico since the country's independence, more than 90 percent of the population remains Roman Catholic, according to 1990 census estimates. The state feud with the Roman Catholic Church is reflected in the 1917 constitution, which imposes many restrictions on the influence and privileges of the clergy in Mexico. The early drafts of the 1917 constitution banned public religious ceremonies, the establishment of monastic orders, and property ownership by the Roman Catholic Church, and forbade the clergy from participating in elections. All church buildings, according to law, were considered national property,and church ministers had to be Mexican nationals.The law also prohibited criticism of public law and institutions, both public and private, by members of the clergy.

  http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/mexico/mexico95.html

  That is just 1 example out of a possible, who knows how many?