minimus, I might continue to defend the WT organization on certain matters (even after doing extensive research on those matters, for my commitment is to that which I consider to be truthful, whether the information is pro-WT or anti-WT), but I also criticize them on certain other matters. For examples of the latter consider the following.
I say they are wrong for believing that the Bible is the word of Jehovah God (or of any god), for I am convinced that no personal god exists (at least in relation to humans on Earth and even in regards to our universe). I disagree that blood transfusions (in which the donors of the blood are giving their consent to save human lives) are in conflict with the Bible's teaching. I disagree that Christ began ruling in 1914 (C.E./A.D.). I even disagree that Jesus Christ, or any supernatural Christ exists (however there have been those, and there might be those, who have received an anointing in a nonsupernatural sense). I believe it is wrong for the WT to have handled numerous quotes the way they did, even if I think I they believed they were justified to do so in that way. I intensely disapprove of their requiring JWs to believe everything the WT teaches on religious matters, knowing that the WT is a largely unreliable source for correct interpretations of the Bible (especially in regards to theology). I am appalled by their former use of Greber's NT 'translation' in support of the wordings of some of the verses in the NWT, especially considering that earlier they sharply condemned Greber's NT 'translation' as being as being inspired by the demons. [By the way, note my use of quote marks around the word "translation",
thereby suggesting that I think Greber's book might not have been truly a
translation of the NT.] I am appalled by their former status as an NGO of the UN, considering what they have said about the need to be no part of glorifying the UN and to be no part of the UN.
I intend to soon post negative comments about some recent discoveries I made in Rutherford's books called Preparation, Enemies, Religion, and Children, and what they reveal (to me at least) about the WT organization, not just about what they reveal about Rutherford. During the past few days the more I study the WT's old books the more negative I am becoming about the character of the WT organization, at least in regards to it's governing body and its writing department. But even now I still find it hard to believe that those currently taking the lead (and those who have done so in the past) of the JW religion and those on its team of writers don't believe in most of the teachings of the religion (though I think they might disbelieve some of the teachings, otherwise it would be hard to explain why teachings and policies often change considerably when a new person joins the governing body).
There is a difference in meaning for the phrase "false statement" and the word "lie". Some may make a false statement while believing it is a true statement. Someone doing so is being sincere and is thus not not lying, even if they are repeating the lie of someone else. But if one believes those people are lying then all people (other than those who don't speak and also don't write) are liars since we all have incorrect ideas and thus say incorrect things. A lie is false statement of specific type, namely one in which the person who told the false statement knew and/or believed/thought he/she was making a false statement and that it was done with the intention of deceiving (but not as a joke). [In a sense someone could even be lying while telling the truth if the person telling the truth thought he/she was telling a falsehood.] At least such has been my view since early childhood. From this view of mine it is very hard (at least for me) to know if someone is lying since it would require knowing if the person uttering the false statement knew he/she was uttering a false statement. Since I don't know the governing body members personally (nor the anonymous writers of the writing team) it is very hard for me to know if they are lying, instead of merely telling false statements which they sincerely consider to be true. However sometimes a person's (or an organization's) own literature will show he/she knew certain things to be true of which he/she later proclaimed the opposite to be true. It is granted though that people sometimes change their minds.
I found online a history of the WT at https://medium.com/@janhaugland/the-successor-problem-ed79df215f80 . I have only read a small percentage of its content but what I have read of it seems to be very well researched and very accurate. It appears to have useful information about the WT's history (and Rutherford's history). I wonder what caused Jan Haugland to have enough interest in Rutherford and the WT to motivate him to write the article.
