Is This a False Quote From AWAKE! ?

by Myxomatosis 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanB

  10. Are we personally alert, so that no unrighteousness is found on our lips? For example, can our family members really trust what we say? Can our spiritual brothers and sisters in the congregation do the same? It would be easy to develop the habit of couching one?s words in terms that are technically accurate but misleading."

  Hmmm Interesting..... I was thinking about this only this morning. I have two children who live with their witness mother, she was always dressing up the truth in such a manner as to present a false impression.

  For example, during our divorce, after she had refused my contact with the children she had to give reasons to the authorities. Instead of telling the truth, ie she believed I was the son of Satan and therefore she did not wish me to have contact with the children, she came up with a whole load of irrelevant and misrepresented stuff.

  My favourite was that I had encouraged my oldest child to play on a railway line, which cunjoured up images of electrified tracks and high speed trains. The reality was a disused rusted up line at a museum.

  Anyway, the reason this is so fresh in my mind is that yesterday I visited my younger son's school and managed to look through his file, I found a few comments there that initially made me angry, then I realised that I have to play the sytem in the way she does.

  I have written a letter to the school to redress the balance, the relevant extract highlights the problem....

  The issues of concern are that in XXXXXX's notes there is a comment that my contact with the boys is strictly controlled and restricted. In addition there is a note that I should not have contact with the boys after school or collect them from the school.

  Whilst I have no need or intention of collecting after school the tone of the comment I believe creates a false impression. I would like it noted that during our divorce, the boys mother refused access to the children, no valid reasons were given. I applied for a contact order which was granted. A couple of years ago I applied for an increase to this contact which was also granted. The note in your file is intended to suggest that there is a problem with my having access, whereas the courts found no problem and acted in my favour.

  I believe the Mrs XXXXX?s motive for this stems from a policy of denying as much influence on the boys life as possible. I believe this to be due to the fact that she and her family are Jehovah?s Witnesses. Although I was brought up as a Witness, I left the faith around the time of our divorce. Jehovah?s Witnesses believe that they should have minimal contact with unbelievers, ex Witnesses fall into another category and Witnesses are instructed to have no contact with such a person whatsoever.

  I have tried not to play upon the religious angle, however I feel I now have no choice, as my ex wife constantly attempts to support her policy of denying as much involvement in the boys life as possible by misleading statements and lies, I feel I have to present the underlying motive for her actions.

  Once again she has shot herself in the foot.

  This is a situation that after 11 years has not improved and as the boys reach 16, I am starting to get concerned as to her next move.
• 

  stichione

  This information I pasted from an electronic debate that took place over 2 years ago at the BMJ website. This information may help. The context in which it is written is the founder of the AJWRB replying to the statements made by a Watchtower Society apologist by the name of Furuli, debating about the JW blood policy:

  Furuli states:

  ??those persons whom you represent and who have written letters in connection with your article actively oppose Jehovah's Witnesses and express false accusations.?

  I?m pretty sure that Furuli is talking about me here so I'll use this opportunity to specifically ask him where I have made some false accusation. He quotes me where I state: "My question to you, sir, is this: is the sacrifice of hundreds, perhaps thousands of JW children a justifiable price for 'greater peace, inner contentment, and life meaning."

  Then Furuli goes on to state:

  ?This is a serious accusation, but where is the proof behind it? Hundreds, perhaps thousands of children killed by Jehovah's Witnesses? The article in Awake! May 22, 1994, to which the writer refers, does not speak about children in general, but about youngsters with leukemia and similar deadly diseases. The lack of blood did not kill the youngsters mentioned in the article; their disease killed them. If a young person who already knows that he or she is going to die, does not want to try to prolong life for a short time with the use of blood but seeks alternative treatment, how can it be said that Jehovah's Witnesses sacrificed ("killed") this person??

  I agree with Furuli, I have made a serious accusation but not a false one. Consider the following:
  

  The WTS has at times portrayed children who have died as a result of following its policies as martyrs. The cover of the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine (official church magazine) shows the photos of 26 children, with the caption: "Youths Who Put God First." The inside cover of the magazine states, "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue." (italics added for emphasis)

  There are approximately 3100 new cases of leukemia and lymphoma diagnosed in children age 15 and under in the U.S. each year. With the U.S. population at 274,000,000, the approximately 1,000,000 JWs in the U.S. constitute about 0.364% of that population. This suggests there are approximately eleven new cases of leukemia and lymphoma among JW children in the U.S. each year (or more if we include sixteen and seventeen-year-olds).

  Worldwide there are nearly six million active JWs and another nearly nine million who associate with them and have varying degrees of commitment to the WTS blood policy. If we conservatively estimate the size of the JW community at ten million and base our projection on U.S. statistics, we would expect to see approximately 110 new cases among JW children each year.

  In the 1940?s, when the WTS blood policy began to take shape, the mortality rate for children with a diagnosis of leukemia was nearly 100%. Today that rate is less than 20%. Since transfusion of red cells and platelets generally remains essential to successful treatment of these cases, it is reasonable to conclude that the mortality rate among JW children may still be close to 100%. Thus, the impact of the WTS policy is significant: each year probably 80 or more JW children are at high risk of dying when their parents insist on ?bloodless? treatment.

  This figure could be adjusted downward somewhat for cases involving very young JW children where courts have taken custody away from the parents temporarily to provide needed care. Nonetheless, the WTS? own comments seem to acknowledge a very high incidence of death among JW children.

  Even reducing the estimate to a very conservative 50 JW children per year, it is apparent that physicians could have saved hundreds--if not thousands--of additional lives in recent decades had they been allowed to transfuse red cells and platelets, thus enabling a rigorous use of chemotherapy. So the inference made by Awake magazine that ?thousands? of children have died as a result of compliance with WTS policy may be quite correct.
• 

  rocketman

  It would be easy to develop the habit of couching one?s words in terms that are technically accurate but misleading.

  Once again, the wts fails to apply its own counsel. Jws and elders especially become quite good at this too.
• 

  TD

  Only that the last part of the sentence should have been highlighter "putting God first", in stead of the first part, "thousands have died". Cleverly done, but nonetheless wrong. Twists the sentence 180 degrees around.

  Semantic legerdemain.

  You can't peel away a modifying phrase from the predicate and ignore the verb it modifies.

  "Died" is the main verb here. The prepositional phrase "For putting God first" is acting as an adverb in the sentence in question, explaining why the youths died.

  Like it or not, "Died for putting God first" is the antecedent of "Doing it" in the sentence that follows.
• 

  Myxomatosis

  Thank you everyone! I'm first of all very releaved that the quote was not misinformation, because I'm so used to hearing that the info re: the WT or related to it is just false especially on the evil internet satan sites (riiiiight)
  
  
  Certainly "numerous" children have died :( in accord with this worthless policy.
  
  I don't care if it's 1000, 234, or 15. ONE IS TOO MANY!!
  
  *glares in the general direction of Brooklyn*
  
  Just like ONE WAS TOO MANY with the organ transplant rule.
  
  and its so sadly ironic that the biblical cause for abstination from eating it, is ,,,,the SACREDNESS of LIFE.
  
  :(
  
  here's hoping that this policy gets the boot YESTERDAY
  
  
  Myxomatosis
• 

  TheOldHippie

  One child dead is one too many, I certainly agree with that. The semantics, too. But, thousands of children are not dying - if so, where are they? In all my years I have experienced none - perhaps I have heard of 1, but thousands? Therefore, I stand by what I have said, that the sentence is twisted because of bad original wording.