Nittt-Gritty: They published a wrong definition with the best of intentions. They swept their mistake under the rug in a footnote with not so laudable intentions.
Evidence of WT bad intent - How they handled changing the meaning of "porneia"
by AlainAlam 38 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
menrov
It says:
Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time
You wonder where that knowledge came from? Like with many other "mistakes", it is always the believer who is wrong.
-
Nitty-Gritty
AlainAlam
It seems their intentions were to put the readers mind at ease, that they have not committed fornication if they remarried because they did so in good faith, relying on the information from the WT, as they were told to. So I don't see any ill intent there.
-
AlainAlam
Nitty-Gritty, imagine I'm driving and I hit your son. I kill him. By mistake, not on purpose.
Then I send you a text message saying "don't worry, he'll be resurrected". With the intention of putting your mind at ease.
-
JWTom
AlainAlam JWTom, thanks for bringing this up. First time I hear about it. As far as I know, the oldest reference to pornography and disfellowshipping is the '06 QfR. What did the elders use to do before that? Were there any instructions? I tried to look up letters to the elders online, but I couldn't find anything relevant.
During the mid-1990s to mid-2000s there was not much in print as it was the new world of the Internet. A lot of guidance was by private communications with the branch and not sent out to BoE. Which of course led to lots of local BoE concluding that "this person is doing really bad things looking at porn, we should really discipline them severly". I remember one case where the BoE Judicial Committee decision was made on a porn case and when the CO showed up he decided it was more serious and wanted to change the decision/discipline (1999/2000 timeframe). This happened since there was not really any clear direction on how serious of a sin pornography is and thus the more puritanical BoE are going to ruin your life. A more liberal BoE will give you a slap on the hand - no consistency.
It is just one example where the organization wants to make many, many strict rules and regulations.....but then thinks nothing of changing the rules/regulations down the road leaving many people that have been disciplined as collateral damage in the process. This is one reason more and more RAF members simple do their own thing when it comes to drinking, sex, porn, flirting, work, etc......and just don't tell anyone in a leadership role in the org. since you cannot expect the BoE or larger organization to handle anything in a consistent way.....
Not exactly what you originally wrote about but your thoughts and this topic are really a theme of the org. changing things with no regard for how it has impacted lives.
-
AlainAlam
JWTom thank you, interesting.
-
wozza
smiddy3
I think that is one of the reasons they don;t identify who wrote which article.
They have done this before especially when they first released the new world translation of the bible, not identifying who the commitee was.
Different reason maybe, but the effect of their mock humility to the sheep is that they are so humble and ":discreet", deflecting mock humility to jehovah as the "real" author , as in scripture, "do not interpretations belong to god"
Of course this begs the question - if the GB gets interpretation wrong ,well it's gods fault because he has waited this long to reveal new light ? And after all the sheep can't blame any one person for a wrong interpretation because they don't know who signed off on it because all internal WTS letters and works are preceeded with a code to identify the author only to the big wigs of the WTS !
-
Vidiot
I suspect that they'd simply go with the stance that would result in the least amount of legal divorces (regardless of individual personal consequences), because having a lower divorce rate than "Christendom"'s religions would make them look better to potential recruits.
-
slimboyfat
There is a detailed inside account of this by Ray Franz, as I recall, in either Crisis of Conscience, or In Search of Christian Freedom.
I don’t think it was intentionally malicious, but more a lack of consideration for others, which pretty much amounts to the same for those on the receiving end.