# *Friend's Question

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AF [AF] on November 14, 1999 at 11:38:29 {fiuUEQ5dxU1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: Friend's Question posted by AP on November 14, 1999 at 07:34:12:

You continue to ignore the comments that I and others have made on the nature of proof. Absolute proof comes only with respect to systems of pure logic, such as proving mathmatical theorems.

In real life such proof does not exist, and so your basic point here is trivially true. But if you really believed what you're claiming, you'd have to accept that the JW disfellowshiping system is fatally flawed because one can never absolutely prove lack of repentance.

In real life, proof is less rigorous than in math and amounts to weight of evidence. Thus, in a murder trial a jury is charged with determining the motivation of the accused. Was his crime deliberate? Without a confession a jury cannot be absolutely sure, but society accepts that motivation can be determined by circumstances. The Bible itself gives weight to this view. Did the killer lie in wait? If so, that's proof enough of motivation.

So too with the motives behind certain errors in Watchtower literature. If the writers are informed of an error, do they correct it or do they ignore it? Do they try to cover the errors over? Do they use ambiguous language, lawyer style, that can mean a number of things? Do they phrase statements in such a way as to convey accurate information or so as to hide specifics? How often is this done? Is this apparent deception infrequent, or is it part of a pattern?

Many people on this forum are aware that I've done a major criticism of the Society's 1985 Creation book. I've documented about 100 errors of fact, misinterpretations and outright misrepresentations in the book. I've written letters to the Society about these things, I've helped others write letters, I've spoken to GB member Albert Schroeder personally and even to the main author of the book, Harry Peloyan, personally. All were entirely unconcerned. None cared that much of the book's argumentation is based on the writings of a paranormalist. None cared that the statements of many scientists were twisted to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.

This same pattern of misrepresentation and failure to correct mistakes is found in much of Watchtower literature. It evidences a culture in Bethel of unconcern for truth.

So when one finds that extremely bad errors were made in a basic doctrine like the 1914 chronology, and finds that explanations were given that turn out not to be explanations at all (one JW told me that the 1943-44 material was like a shell game), and finds that the Society is unwilling to deal with the errors today and set matters straight, one can only conclude -- like a jury determining a murderer's motivation -- that some of the errors were deliberate and certainly that the covering up of them was deliberate.

AF

Follow Ups:

- **Friend's Question AP 17:36:52 11/14/99 (1)
  - ***Friend's Question AF 12:09:56 11/15/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Friend's Question

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]