Blatant Lie, or is it possible? (page 2)

Undaunted Danny

Shock 5 The Watchtower is run by psychopaths Gossip

Crooked Lumpy Vessel

Thanks for the links. I was wondering what the WTS's response was to that. Did they claim it was a typo?

Curious.

pseudoxristos

Farkel,

Maybe I didn?t make this very clear.

The Witnesses I quoted is saying that there were magazines with both the "IN OUR 20TH CENTURY" phrase and the "IN OUR DAY" phrase.

He is also implying that the Bound volume is correct in that it correctly reflected the magazines where the article read "IN OUR DAY".

This is what I considered a blatant lie.

It doesn?t seem likely that the Watchtower would stop the presses in the middle of the printing, change the article, continue the printing and then distribute both versions of the article.

I find that it may be difficult to argue this point with him, because he claims to have seen a copy of the Watchtower with the phrase "IN OUR DAY" in it.

I?m wondering if anyone else has heard of such, and how to politely tell him he is full of crap.

pseudo

Shutterbug

Quote from The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah, How Copyright, 1971 Page 216

Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom.

Did a battle start and we all missed it ???? If push come to shove, I have three copies of this publication. Bug

Shortly after the "new light" appeared in print the CO mentioned in his talk that there were eight such changes in recent literature. I don't remember the list now. This change was one, there were others in the Paradise book, someone else will have to complete the list since I do not recall.

Nina (who will watch to see if Mustang adds a post concerning "ratification".)

stichione

I have an Italian language edition of the January 1/89 Watchtower, and it definitely says:"...in the 20th century."

Farkel

psuedo,

: Maybe I didn?t make this very clear.

No, actually you made it quite clear, and I agree with you:

: The Witnesses I quoted is saying that there were magazines with both the "IN OUR 20TH CENTURY" phrase and the "IN OUR DAY" phrase.

This may be true, but it is still irrelevant. WHICH phrase would grab JWs more: "In our 20th century", or "in our day?" The first is quite specific. The second is quite vague, because "our day" is not precisely defined. Not so with the first statement. Everything else is bullshit.

Obviously, the WTS is being duplicitous, trying to have it both ways. If both phrases are correct, since they must both be Bible-Based(tm), then "in our 20th Century" makes "in our day" irrelevant.

: He is also implying that the Bound volume is correct in that it correctly reflected the magazines where the article read "IN OUR DAY".

Of course, but that is a red herring. The real issue is why the WTS changed the words in the ORIGINAL magazine when they printed the bound volumes. It would be easy to say it was a mistake, EXCEPT for one pesky thing: the bound volumes (and the CD ROM) were changed to correct a massive and arrogant blunder by the WTS, and they never admitted they doctored up the volumes and CD to cover up their mistakes in the original rags, er mags.

: This is what I considered a blatant lie.

Yep. But it is also a cover up, and that makes it a conspiracy of a lie. This is worse than just lying. The WTS is capable of many evil things and has done many evil things. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I know.

With regards to your apologetic dub friend: give it up for now. If God Himself came down and told him the WTS was full of shit, he would think he had some demon attack. You CANNOT reason with dubs unless they are ready. The teacher only arrives when the student is ready. Bide your time, my friend. And be prepared for the very sad fact that the student might never be ready. Some people just like to live in ignorance and all the facts and logic in the world will not move them from that ignorance.

Farkel

gumby

The WTBTS is now working on a way to change the writing in previously printed material by using ink that can be programmed to say what they want and cover their tracks. I'll bet they wished they really had some of that ink eh? Maybe I should invent some and sell it exclusively to them. They could hide their lies and call all copy and pasters a bunch of liars and the flock would believe them.

What's nice about this sickass cult, is they have buried themselves in their own words and have no way to detract them. They lose. Losers always lose.

Gumby

mustang

Ratification:

A challenge, eh wot!!! This is small potatoes for applying Ratification; the legal doctrine of Ratification is usually held for more important matters, such as that pesky Baptismal Vows matter. And as Farkel mentioned concerning the bound volumes, the Baptismal Vows "fast switch" is also a cover-up. (Notice how STEALTHY they were about that!!!)

But if you must: It does fit!!!

So, you get your magazine during the year. You read it and pay little attention at the moment. But WTS is nervous; they don't like the way things are going. So they pull the fast switch. They print up a special run of the magazines with the change and set them aside for the binding run with the years orders of bound volumes.

Then YOU DO THINK ABOUT IT and look it up with your bound volume. There it is: comparative anatomy turns up a smoking gun!!!

Now, this will have happened a few times when long term doctrines are about to embarrassingly time-out J

I believe that the "masthead" statement in one of the magazines was treated similarly in recent years. It would have to have been, near the changing of the century/millennium.

Where does ratification come in?? Well, you can "call them out" and ask for an explanation!!! Start with the eLDERS: "Hey, I'm not going any further!!!" YOU WILL be faced with making a choice, since you have been quite vocal.

Or you could write a letter to Brooklyn. Again, this is quite vocal. Both of these courses will get you a showdown. This is the ultimate test of the RATIFICATION principle: you will not be allowed to go forward with holding your new found nugget of information.

You will be given Galileo's choice: RECANT OR ELSE!!! (Remember: no HARBORING OF PRIVATE IDEAS!!!)

Or you could just swallow the lump in your throat, highlight the contrasting passages and quietly file this away. You may simply fold your tent and steal away into the night. If you do this and quietly leave the JW's you have recognized the change and NOT RATIFIED it.

But, if after swallowing the lump in your throat, you show up and "go along with the program", you have RATIFIED the change. You compromised. You were compelled to follow the hints/teaching/shepherding and caved in to the directions, explicit and implicit. Do not ever think that there is no pressure, peer or otherwise.

It is not required of the changing agency/authority to EXPLICITLY call out all changes. This is why few people notice this matter. If the changes are done smoothly and with finesse, you may not ever notice them. You will find something similar to "caveat emptor" is in effect in these matters. The user is generally expected to continuously monitor his affairs for such changes.

If such notices were frequent, and over small matters, it would raise many questions. Why? Why? Why this change; why that change? Somebody would remember scriptures about an unchanging God and so forth.

Ahh, but the STEALTH MANNER is best. In this way, no one is the wiser. Or very few, anyway. If you lose one a year, so what? Keep it quiet, don't make a stir; the "flock" might figure out that something is up or amiss. And they don't tumble onto the SUPER-LEGALISTIC manner of the real Church, in the bargain.

You COULD quit over such a trifle. People may have quit over less (like that RandCam rubbish; that is the type of minor misunderstanding that happens all the time in business and nobody thinks would happen; people attribute more intelligence and even brilliance than is merited to all those in business: horse-puckey!!!!; but if somebody quits over it, that's OK with me). Personally, I quit over a LOT of small and large matters.

This is the sort of thing that should start you thinking and ultimately gets you out the door.

I do believe that this subject has been broached before. Now, where is that list of eight that the CO mentioned? I would be interested in seeing that!!!

Mustang

gumby

I wonder who specifically looks for these errors such as this. The editors I suppose in writing? You would think of all the retractions they have made, that those who have to write the stuff and edit the stuff, would see for themselves it's a bunch of hoo-ee and would exit. It would be nice to have a few more on the outside who has dealt with messes such as this when they were on the inside.

Gumby

Blatant Lie, or is it possible?

Share this