"Theocratic Warfare" - An Apostate Strategy?

by slimboyfat 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  seattleniceguy

  SBF,

  If you think that JW doctrine allows a place for anything other than totally ignorant non-Witnesses, I think you are deceiving yourself. But this relates to another facet of JW deception: they convey very different messages depending on the audience. When speaking to the public, and in the magazines intended for public consumption, they will make reference to the "importance of associating with God's people," etc, etc. But in KMs, at assemblies, and so on, they put a much finer point on it. You can try to explain it as changing views, but I can't see it as anything other than deceptive.

  However, doctrine is always in the eye of the beholder to at least some degree, so let's abandon this particular topic. What say you regarding the obvious and deliberate cases of deception by misquoting in the publications?

  SNG
• 

  catchthis

  Also, I know for a fact that the elders get a different letter with more information than the ones that are read to the congregation or letters the congregation never see or know of. Why? Because the publishers don't need to know.

  A perfect example of this was the donation arrangement. The KM simply mentioned "simplification." Whereas in the letter to the elders, it specifically mentioned the court case in Califiornia(Swaggart) as being the impetus for the change. Why they would even clue the elders in is a mystery to me. Elders can blab just like the rest of them.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  all things considered, Jehovah's Witnesses are on the whole remarkably honest people

  I'm sorry, SBF, but in my opinion JWs do not know the meaning of honesty. They know how to scrupulously avoid a sequence of words that represents a false statement, but that's about where it ends. In my experience, they are much less honest than people in general. When I compare my former friends in the organization to my current friends and neighbors, there is absolutely no question. The non-JWs are simply more open, direct, and honest.

  SNG
• 

  sweet tee

  When apostates make up such obviously facile complaints against the Witnesses as this so-called 'doctrine', they should not be surprised that they find it hard to get a proper hearing from society when they have areas of geniune complaint!

  If you have read any of these threads slimboy you would know that the WTBTS NEVER RESONDS to GENUINE COMPLAINTS! Just like you, they stake their claim and stay there no matter what documented evidence is brought against them. Just as you stated "Jehovah's Witnesses are the most honest people - blah blah blah". Puhleeezzzeee - open your eyes man. They are just people like the rest of humanity and just as prone to lie, cheat, steal, rape, rob, murder and pillage as anyone else ... and THEY DO! Deal with it. We (apostates) have seen it for ourselves and can accept the TRUTH for what it is. So sad that you cannot. (by the way, how much time did you count for this thread ... how many RV's?) (sweet tee of "the TRUTH is a LIE class")
• 

  IT Support

  Slim,

  Do Jehovah's Witnesses now believe that all non-Witnesses will die at Armageddon? This is not clear. Since the goats change in 1995, Witnesses have promoted strongly the idea that Jesus will make the final judgement and that Witnesses cannot be sure who will be saved and who will not.

  I've no doubt you are sincere in your attempts to defend WT. But in the early 1990s WT had a problem. Lots of 'worldly' people, especially in newly-'democratic' Eastern Europe, got very upset when JWs 'preached' they're all going to die unless they become a JW. Especially when these 'worldly' people were politicians responsible for registering new religions. So this hard-line doctrine started hurting them, both politically, and potentially, financially, in Russia, Greece, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Bulgaria, and not forgetting France (to save $28 million, virtually any doctrine becomes 'negotiable').

  On the other hand, if WT stopped saying only JWs will survive Armageddon, then many JWs would wonder why should they bother being a JW. Which is a not unreasonable question.

  So WT had to 'soften' their public position, while still keeping JWs fearful thrall that they may not survive themselves. Thus the changes you described.
• 

  slimboyfat

  SNG,

  But this relates to another facet of JW deception: they convey very different messages depending on the audience.

  And who does not do this? We all do this in all aspects of our lives - so that we may be understood, and that we may get a sympathetic hearing. Many apostates here are dead against the Witnesses and express their opposition with vehemence among their own kind on this forum. But when some get the chance to try to dissuade current Witnesses from their beliefs what tack to they adopt? Since it is reasonable to assume that the tone used on this forum would switch off the average Witness immediately, it is certainly understandable that apostates try a gentler approach with active Witnesses that may involve initially suppressing their utter disdain for the religion (we have seen many threads along these lines, with useful tactics and so on). Is that dishonest too? They are flip sides of a coin if you ask me, and I see no point in getting all moralistic about. Sure Jehovah's Witnesses adapt their presentation to put themselves in the best light for whichever audience for whom they presenting themselves: strange would it be were it otherwise. They are humans like you and me.

  Misquotation? Well some years ago I actually looked into this quite a bit - especially the Trinity brochure and the Reasoning book. I got books out the library, even from the basement and inter library loan to check some of the references claimed to have been misquoted by various apostate websites and anti-Witness books and tracts. My conclusion is that there are certainly a few (not many) quotes in the Witness publications that I wonder how the author could have honestly presented the material like that. However, most of the time I found that those who had claimed there were so-called 'misquotations' were actually guilty of misrepresenting the source and the Witnesses' use of it. I think this is another aspect that anti-Witnesses (Evangelicals in particular) have overblown and distorted the facts.

  I don't know about the Creation book and all the misquotes that are supposedly in that - you may know more about that than me since you are interested in that subject. From one website I read a long time ago I gather than many of the misquotations from Darwinian sources may have been the result of the Witness author's plagiarism of creationist tracts that in turn misquoted the original sources. So that may be down to laziness and bad scholarship rather than barefaced dishonesty.

  But I don't really see how this all relates the central apostate contention that Jehovah's Witnesses have a major doctrine called "Theocratic Warfare" that supposedly prompts them to lie in court, to the police and in other aspects of public life. I don't see how the 'misquotations' debate fits neatly into this discussion since even people like Bergman have not claimed, so far as I am aware, that 'misquotations' in the literature are part of the "Theocratic Warfare".
• 

  slimboyfat

  Hillary,

  You make good points, sorry for not replying sooner.

  As you long as you are in agreement that Jehovah's Witnesses lie in certain circumstances then this is a non-issue. I am not speaking of evasive action, I am speaking of lying for whatever reason.

  Of course Jehovah's Witnesses can lie just like anyone else. I don't claim that Jehovah's Witnesses never lie - that would be ridiculous. Bergman does not simply claim that Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes lie. What he claims is that they have a major doctrine which they use to justify lying, and that they routinely use this in the courts and in dealing with all non-Witness agencies (and even within the organisation, in fact). The truth is that Jehovah's Witnesses have no such doctrine, and Bergman has cobbled it together from various out-of-context statements about Witnesses who had to lie to officials in very exceptional circumstances, in Nazi Germany and Communist countries.

  Just because Bergman is able to find cases where Witnesses have lied in court does not mean that Witnesses lied because their religion teaches them to lie. That would be like someone claiming the Catholic religion teaches people to rape, and then to prove this you simply produce a case of a Catholic who has raped someone.

  I am sure various Jehovah's Witnesses have lied in court for various reasons, some no doubt even with pressure from Watchtower representatives - but that does not equal a doctrine and a policy of "Theocratic Warfare" as Bergman has constructed. It just means, surprise surprise, that Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes do not live up to the ethical standards they espouse, and are not averse to bending the rules sometimes - just like everyone else.

  The fact is that the Watchtower magazine has only discussed whether Witnesses should lie under oath once and its stance was clear: Witnesses should tell the truth under oath. (look it up)

  As for the infamous example in legal booklet of kids being told that they should not all say they want to be pioneers and so on in court... well if that is all you can come up with in the literature to prove a policy of lying then I think it is pretty lame proof frankly. Ironically it may actually represent one of the society's more honest moments in as much as, while the magazines constantly exhort youths to avoid sports and extracurricular activities and all become pioneers, the simple fact is that a significant proportion of those brought up in Witness households ignore that advice and have absolutely no intention of becoming pioneers!
• 

  Honesty

  SBF is forgetting one small detail.

  The people labeled apostates by the WTBTS do not claim to be God's only representatives on earth.

  The WTBTS has taken upon themselves to be God's only representative on earth and have several million people convinced they are.
• 

  slimboyfat

  And this relates to the topic, how?
• 

  hillary_step

  Slimboyfat,

  The fact is that the Watchtower magazine has only discussed whether Witnesses should lie under oath once and its stance was clear: Witnesses should tell the truth under oath.

  Yes, I am aware of the WTS which contained this information and this goes to the crux of the matter which led to my original post.

  The term 'Theocratic Warfare' may indeed be out of style, but its principle is alive and well. I gave an example in which the WTS encourages parents to lie in court in order to achieve their goal of gaining custody of a child. The lying is not spontaneous but systematic and WTS Legal has even produced a manual instructing is members how to put this manifesto into action.

  I also gave a documented example of how WTS legal, under the auspices of Glen How admitted lying in order to gain the upper hand in a court case. Of course most legal firms would do this, but this is not the point.

  The WTS has very rigid moral codes, so rigid that they control every aspect of an adherents life. In these examples, which are not the failures of an individual but the policy of a corporation, they set aside this rigid code and on the basis of Scriptual policy allow and encourage lying for the greater good of its corporation.

  As I said noted, whether they now call this policy 'Theocratic war strategy' or not is not relevant, rather like the 'approved associate', 'unbaptized publisher' labels, they amount to the same thing. As long a systematic lying for the good of the corporation exists, it amounts to the same thing.

  Best regards - HS

  PS - Thank you for your private note. I do agree that it is good to have an alternative viewpoint of such matter as it is possible for XJW's to become as much believing sheep as JW's are.