# *Friend's Question

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

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 14, 1999 at 14:59:27 {fiuUEQ5dxUHdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

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

AP,

As AF has pointed out, the type of proof that you and Stafford seek is not possible in most cases. Society-at-large simply could not function if it had to adhere to the impossible standards that you (and Stafford) have had to fabricate so as to shield the Society from criticism. If you were to state your position in less flowery language it would amount to saying that "since we cannot prove with absolute 100% certainty that the Society lied then the issue is moot (or, perhaps, not moot)." Would you be happy living next door to a man who was not a child molester and rapist with, say, a 65% probability?

However, I want to present an example which will show that, while it might not be possible to prove what a person's motivations are, it is sometimes possible to demonstrate what they are not. Before I start, the validity of this concept is shown by a simple example. If a man shoots another man through the head we do not necessarily understand what his motivations were. However, we do know that his motivation was not to prolong the other man's life. Much can be learned by understanding what someone's motivations are not.

In his book Stafford has defended what the Society said in print regarding the date 1975, although not commenting on things which were said from "the podium" which Stafford claims to be disturbed by--- evidently not enough to comment on in his 1st edition. He stated that "Even though some in the organization may have put too great an emphasis on the chronology put forth by the Society, the Society itself has always maintained the proper outlook." Several of us here have argued that this was not, in fact, the case. Our arguments are based partly on the Society's own plain statements in print or from the podium and partly on personal experience. (Of course, "The Society's view" means the view expressed in the official publications of the Society or by its official representatives speaking in their official capacity.)

The predicament that apologists such as Stafford often fall into is similar to that of the mad coyote who runs over a cliff and keeps on running, that is, until he looks down. Stafford's keen desire to defend the Society has made him resort to arguments that are so extreme and purpose built that he tends to overdo things a bit. This is where something about his motivations is revealed. Stafford maintains that the Society "has always maintained the correct position in regard to 1975." Yet the Society does not itself hold to that view as the following clearly shows:

> *** w80 3/15 17-18 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***

> 5 In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.

> 6 In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.

> (italics as in original)

Thus, the problem with Stafford's defense of the Society is plain; he is clearly not motivated by a desire to determine objectively what the "truth" about the Society actually is. After all, why else would he exclude from the section in his book dealing with 1975 the Society's own statements regarding the role it played in that fiasco? It would seem, therefore, that his defense of the Society is, in fact, too extreme in this instance in that the Society itself admits to some degree of responsibility for the false expectations surrounding 1975: the Society has admitted to having given contradictory signals in print re: 1975 and yet Stafford has attempted to re-interpret the signals that fueled false "expectations" about 1975 so as to make it seem that these statements were "proper." Even after the Society admits that they were not.

Credibility as a scholar is built not only upon a respect for the truth but also around the realization that one must search hard to discover what that truth actually is. In Stafford's case it seems clear that he is either a sloppy researcher or a dishonest scholar. If he is a sloppy researcher then what he writes will by necessity reflect his preconceived notions, untainted by the facts. If he is dishonest then what he writes will reflect the position he is trying to push. Either way we can conclude that Stafford's motivations were not to write a book that would objectively examine the charges against the WTS.

Similarly, while it may be true that we cannot ever deduce what the Society's motivations were when it misled its readers about certain things discussed in the GS/AF debate, we can conclude that the Society's motivation was not to present the plain unvarnished truth in a simple and direct fashion. If they had wanted to do that, then, like Stafford should have done, they would have presented all the facts only after a period of intense research.

I might add that the above citation from The Watchtower neatly confirms the argument that the Society's literature can, for an extended period, contain contradictory statements with one viewpoint not automatically negating the other viewpoint. Some writers on this board hold that a single disclaimer necessarily negates all other printed statements to the contrary.

Gedanken

Follow Ups:

- **Friend's Question AP 17:24:53 11/14/99 (5)
  - ***Friend's Question Gedanken 13:17:34 11/15/99 (1)
    - ****Friend's Question Farkel 10:54:33 11/16/99 (0)
  - ***Friend's Question Observer 06:51:36 11/15/99 (0)
  - ***Friend's Question COMF 23:38:25 11/14/99 (0)
  - ***Friend's Question Farkel 18:00:21 11/14/99 (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 ]