I have just finish to read all your comments ,and i must tell you it was very informative,excellent work.I got in the org.in 1986 and i did not know what was going on.I actually liked the way this people teach and for twelve years i convinced myself that i was in the wright org.finally!!! But in the last few years i used my common senses,that is i begin to reason on the few things that clearly was going on. But the day i wake up it was like a reveletion.NO thank you I AM NOT I ROBOT. I will read the 1984 ,and the other books mentioned in your letter.thanks very much to you all for the precious information. The computer surrely must be a huge pain for someone who love secrets.
Just Re-Read 1984
by Francois 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Francois
Masterfully done, Alan. However, I believe you're grossly overweening about it. I guess its hard to break old habits. I have said that I was repeating what I have heard others say about the number of changes between the original and the CD versions of the Watchtower; I have said that as far as I was concerned, one change was sufficient - the Your Will one will do; You assert "... you now state that you're not willing to consider the actual evidence..." I have stated no such thing. You only wish I had stated that. I have stated that I am not willing, given that one example suffices - to which you agreed - and that more examples are superfluous, to spend massive amounts of time researching the question when you have already acquitted yourself of this admittedly Augean task.
I will even agree with you that such erroneous charges weaken the case against the WTBTS, not strengthen it, and should be avoided and not bandied about as I unfortunately have done - mea culpa.
You asked, "What kind of thinker are you?" I am an efficient one buster, and I feel no compunction to refuse to wade through thousands of WTs in order to seek out one more (superfluous) example of Watchtower reprehensibility and culpability. Nor will I accept any onus for this refusal. I am in no contest with any one here. I am not interested in standing on my desk to announce for one and all that I have written almost half of this or that essay, pounding my chest all the while and claiming my deep humility. Don'tcha just love irony?
francois
P.S. I do think there is at least one more though, and as soon as I can get my hands on my parent's hardcopy of the original Index, I'll let you know. It was a statement in a WT, rather bald, that said that the WTBTS "acts as a prophet," and appeared sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. I will get back to you all as soon as I can get my hot, sweaty mitts on that Index. So far as I can tell, this claim of theirs has been left out of the Index, or at least I can't find any reference to it on the CD. But it's on the hardcopy version of the Index sure as you're born. And just like the WTBTS, ya just can't have it both ways.
francois
-
NeonMadman
It was a statement in a WT, rather bald, that said that the WTBTS "acts as a prophet," and appeared sometime in the late 70s or early 80s.
Not sure if this is the one you mean, but I just extracted this one from the 2001 WT Library CD. It's from the infamous "April Fool's Day" WT of 1972, in which the organization claimed prophetic status, and I believe that Greg Stafford has crafted a defense of the WTS based on its wording (i.e., "acts" as a prophet rather than "is" a prophet):
*** w72 4/1 p. 197 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ ***
However, Jehovah did not let the people of Christendom, as led by the clergy, go without being warned that the League was a counterfeit substitute for the real kingdom of God. He had a "prophet" to warn them. This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning, and have been joined and assisted in their commissioned work by hundreds of thousands of persons who have listened to their message with belief.
Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?
-
Francois
I don't know if that's the one or not. I don't think so. The one you quote is sort of conditional, whereas the one I'm thinking of is more of a direct statement of fact. Just gimme some time. My folks just moved and as soon as I see that index I'm off to the races.
francois
-
heathen
If they claim to speak for God then they are claiming to be prophets , there is no getting around that . It's very clear to me that the WTBTS makes these claims when they say they receive spiritual food at the proper time and they have the responsibility of feeding it to the congregations .
-
observador
NeonMadman and AlanF,
you're right on the money. I'm glad Frank admitted he sad what he heard, which is a beautiful thing.
But if anyone has one more example(s) of this type of thing, I'd like to see it as well.
Now, the only other magazine I am aware of as being changed from the bi-weekly edition to the bound volume is the Watchtower Sep 15, 1982, where the cover of the magazine allegedly was plagiarized from the whisky company Johnnie Walker. This, of course, does not quite fall in the category we're talking about here, since it didn't change STATEMENTS made before.
Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/wiskey.html
Observador.
-
AlanF
Francois said:
: Masterfully done, Alan. However, I believe you're grossly overweening about it. I guess its hard to break old habits.
Apparently it is hard. JWs generally grossly exaggerate the faults of their critics. That's what you're doing here, so obviously your old habits die hard.
Your problem, Francois, is that you can't admit when you're wrong. At least, not gracefully.
: I have said that I was repeating what I have heard others say about the number of changes between the original and the CD versions of the Watchtower;
Yes, after several of us pointed it out to you, and several times challenged you to prove your original claims. Even then it's like pulling teeth to get you to admit you were just repeating hearsay.
Will you now quit doing that and screwing up the reputation of us honest apostates?
: I have said that as far as I was concerned, one change was sufficient - the Your Will one will do;
But that's the one that I brought up; you apparently didn't even know about it. Besides, after I investigated it this evening, it turns out that it isn't even a good example. In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/57801/1.ashx proplog2 said: "This is taken from YOUR WILL BE DONE ON EARTH (1958) Page 161 paragraph 29: No longer included on the CD-ROM" Well, that sounds like (and I interpreted it to mean this when I said what I said to you) page 161, paragraph 29 is no longer on the CDROM because it has been excised from the text of the book, the rest of which text is still there. Problem is, the whole book is no longer on the CDROM, so proplog2 gave a very misleading impression. This is no more an example of your claim (that there are hundreds of examples of changes between the CDROM and the original publications) than are any of the other dozens of outdated books the Watchtower doesn't put on the CDROM.
Point being: neither you, nor I, nor anyone else I know of, knows of any such changes as you've claimed.
: You assert "... you now state that you're not willing to consider the actual evidence..." I have stated no such thing. You only wish I had stated that. I have stated that I am not willing, given that one example suffices - to which you agreed - and that more examples are superfluous, to spend massive amounts of time researching the question when you have already acquitted yourself of this admittedly Augean task.
Which is precisely what I said: you have refused to consider the actual evidence. Remember that I told you quite clearly that the Your Will Be Done thing was only a possible example, and that I would check it out. My statement stands.
: I will even agree with you that such erroneous charges weaken the case against the WTBTS, not strengthen it, and should be avoided and not bandied about as I unfortunately have done - mea culpa.
Very good! Now wouldn't it have been a lot simpler just to admit that from the beginning, when you were first challenged to produce evidence for your false claim?
: You asked, "What kind of thinker are you?" I am an efficient one buster,
I think not. Cutting out the meat of real evidence leads to bad arguments and conclusions, which leads to good thinkers having to spend lots of time correcting the lousy thinking of people like you. I really don't care what you think on your own, but your authoritative sounding comments are picked up and repeated blindly by those incapable of or too lazy to do the research themselves, just as you yourself have done. Once again, when too many otherwise intelligent ex-JWs do this, it screws up the landscape for good critics, because JWs can lump all critics into one bad lump and dismiss them.
: and I feel no compunction to refuse to wade through thousands of WTs in order to seek out one more (superfluous) example of Watchtower reprehensibility and culpability.
Which is exactly my complaint above, that you refuse to consider actual evidence, but prefer to give ear to hearsay -- even when I specifically stated that certain evidence could be wrong.
: Nor will I accept any onus for this refusal.
Well that's your lookout.
: I am in no contest with any one here. I am not interested in standing on my desk to announce for one and all that I have written almost half of this or that essay, pounding my chest all the while and claiming my deep humility. Don'tcha just love irony?
I love it, but the above comments are not ironic in the sense you think. They're ironic because you think merely they're ironic while they're just plain stupid. I'll explain why if you need me to.
: P.S. I do think there is at least one more though, and as soon as I can get my hands on my parent's hardcopy of the original Index, I'll let you know. It was a statement in a WT, rather bald, that said that the WTBTS "acts as a prophet," and appeared sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. I will get back to you all as soon as I can get my hot, sweaty mitts on that Index. So far as I can tell, this claim of theirs has been left out of the Index, or at least I can't find any reference to it on the CD. But it's on the hardcopy version of the Index sure as you're born. And just like the WTBTS, ya just can't have it both ways.
That would be a useful study. Neonmadman gave one example of this. You can find an extensive consideration of many, many such Watchtower claims to be a prophet in the articles under the general titles "Notes on False Prophets" and "The WTS and the End of the World", and specifically in "Part 4: The WTS Says It Is a Prophet and Inspired" and "Part 1: Why So Many False Alarms?" here:
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/pro4.htm
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/end1.htmIn order to do what you want to do, you'll need to compare the various entries having to do with "prophets", "prophecy" and such, in the 1971-1975 Index, with those in the 1930-1985 Index, and with the index in the latest CDROM. But since you don't seem to be particularly research minded, I'm prepared to wait a long time for you to complete this task.
AlanF
-
Farkel
Francois old warrier,
: The fact that you haven't seen but one or two personally doesn't alter the fact that there are hundreds of changes.
Sorry. Not true. I've spend hundreds and hundreds of hours on the WTS CD ROMS and in the printed literature, and in fact, there are very few (but of these, there are significant changes and omissions) changes.
Actually, the bound volumes do get a few doctoring up here and there, as is well known.
The CD ROMS are pretty faithful to the original printed word, though.
Really.
I have the 1958 "You Will" book on my 1997 disc. I tried to re-read it, but went into cardiac arrest after ten pages. If there is really a Hell, and I get the pleasure of visiting that place, I'm going to beat the shit out of Fred Franz.
Really. :)
Farkel
-
greven
The WTBTS usually dismisses apostates by claiming that they lie, twist things and use propaganda. They can however, provide no solid examples, which cripples their argument. That is why it is so important for us to get the details right. We should not make false accusations by lousy research (hearsay for instance) because that would provide the WTBTS with a stick to beat us.
I am hopefully not hammering on this point. I think it is important. When I finally hooked up to the internet looking for what the apostates were really saying I was baffled by their accuracy and journalistic honesty. A propagandist rarely cites his sources and seldom provides quotes. The apostate material I came across did just that and even invited careful inspection of the context to see if what it was saying, really was true. THIS SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY!
Remember, the first impression is very important. If the one who doubts starts reading apostate material and is right away confronted with hearsay and claims that when verified prove to be untrue, the doubter will see the claims of the society confirmed instead of ours.
Francois your posts are generally pretty good. I have no axe to grind with you, this is not directed only at you but a warning to all of us. I have seen this claim roaming several boards ever since these CD-roms came out. We apostates have become a little paranoid, with good reason ofcourse. But when things are imaginary, exposing this will only help us. As in science: scrutiny will root out misconceptions however dear we may hold them.
With kindest regards,
Greven
-
heathen
I agree that posting facts while exposing the WTBTS hypocrisy is important but alot of times the jehovah's witnesses will do and say things that the WTBTS will not disclaim or acknowledge as official doctrine and of course there are some here on this board with a personal vendetta and will distort the facts to their favor in order to smear the WTBTS . This site does not claim that all posts have been researched and are factual so you have to do some thinking on your own .