Posted by AF [AF] on November 18, 1999 at 07:52:42 {KEdmzBXaT6DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 21:38:39:
:: But I also am certain that the Society has engaged in deliberate deception.
: No one here has argued that that certainty on your part is without strong merit. That is unless you count FRED and ABK, which I doubt.
Well I don’t know about that. Sometimes they offer great insights into the Watchtower world.
:: Do you really think that these men were completely incompetent on this one point? I agree that they were incompetent, but they then compounded that into a deliberate lie by failing to clear up what they had done and why they had done it.
: Yes, they were completely incompetent on that one point and some others.
My point was that they were not only incompetent, but deceptive. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
: They were do blinded by the convictions regarding the chronological significance of 1914 to the point that they felt forcing history was the answer. I kid you not, that is exactly what was going on.
I have no doubt of that. But what you call “forcing history” is just a euphemism for lying. These men may well have justified in their own minds that they were not telling the truth for a good cause. But that’s called “self-deception” and it is lying. It’s lying to oneself, and it’s lying to others who listen to you. It’s lying for God. Job 13:7-12 has something to say about that.
This is much like what the Society did with its attempt to deal with Carl Olof Jonsson’s material in the appendix to chapter 14 of the 1981 book Let Your Kingdom Come. Lloyd Barry wrote the book and I’m fairly sure that I’ve met the WTS researcher who compiled the material for the appendix. This guy is thorough, and quite competent. I have no doubt that when Barry put the material into final form he deliberately left out critical information that was fatal to his argument. Karl Adams did the same thing when putting the Proclaimers book into final form.
The critical thing is this: when a person has information that is negative towards his argument and he fails to present it, and presents his argument as if he were presenting all of the relevant information, he is lying. It doesn’t matter what his reasons are. God could have told him to hold back the information. He is still lying because he has failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
: I believe your personal discussions with Bethel insiders has born that same image to you. You know good and well that to this day there are people at Bethel holding that the forced beginning chronology leading to 1914 will one day be justified. Some honestly hold that opinion. However foolish is sounds to you, you know that to be true.
That’s right, I know it to be true. I also know just as well that these same people would change their belief in an instant if the Society officially came out with “new” information that supported secular history. So we have an interesting conundrum: the people who can change the official beliefs will not do so unless they as a group decide to do so, making it official and in fact, making it something they’ll all pretend was done by “spirit direction”.
Do you see the problems that this blind loyalty to the holy organization causes? It causes men who would be honest to a fault in other situations to blind themselves when they need to “lie for God”.
: As for their 607/6 versus 608/7 dating, they will hold that one or the other was a mistake.
Not a mere mistake, but a deliberate act of substituting dates so as to avoid embarrassing problems. The Society published lying doubletalk, pure and simple. Those men were too incompetent to publish a correct explanation, but they knew that what they were doing was publishing doubletalk.
: I do not buy your conclusions about what happened regarding those dates mentioned. Pure and simple it was a matter of forcing history to a modern day conviction.
That is called lying.
: I do not wish to comment too much about Fred Franz. He could talk a squirrel down from his tree, but he really believed what he said.
Freddie is a prime example of lying for God. As my friend said, “disingenuous” is a pale description of him. When someone of the mental caliber of Fred Franz knows the facts, but suppresses them “for the cause” and tells himself he’s telling the truth, he’s engaging in massive self-deception. That is a choice. People do this all the time. When they choose to deceive themselves, then they also choose to deceive others. When the entire leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses chooses to ignore facts, they’re choosing to deceive themselves as well as others.
: You are correct about the 1975 business. That was his doing all the way. In the beginning it was not intended to use that date as a motivational tool. Problem was, Fred was so excited about it that his enthusiasm spread as if contagious. Before anyone realized how out of hand it was, things had gone too far, way too far.
That’s exactly what my friend said. When a lot of the rank & file got excited, Freddie saw it as a nice, great big new carrot.
What do you think about people like Greg Stafford, who come into the JW religion late in the game and try to pretend that what you and I know doesn’t exist? And when they claim that when you and I tell the truth, we’re lying?
:: Are you saying that you think I'm lying when I said I couldn't remember the 2nd post?
: What I am saying is that what I think does not matter one iota to what is important, that of discussing issues. Does it really matter to you whether I think you are honest or not? Does it really matter?
I don’t know why, but yeah, it matters to me. My friends know very well that, while I can certainly make a mess of things by my lousy memory for things I don’t care much about, and because of plenty of other faults, I do not deliberately lie. From the time I was a small child I could remember all sorts of facts about things, but could forget my head. Do you know how many times my family, even today, has said, “You know, for someone who’s smart about some things, you’re pretty stupid about others”? And I cannot argue with them.
: . . . I do not contend that you are too smart to forget "stuff." I think you are too smart to forget one of only two posts made by your most recent rival at H2O. I think you are too smart to forget the second of two posts considering the innuendo therein. Your continued discounting of the initial and unmistakable value of that second post only enhances my view.
The facts remain: I didn’t save the 2nd post, and I didn’t remember anything about it the next day.
: Now let me ask you a question, should any of that opinion of mine matter one bit to you? Does anyone really care if I believe you were completely on the level all along regarding that post? I don’t think so. I don’t even take the view that serious myself. I only have expressed it because I felt it honorable considering that I likewise freely expressed my impressions of your counterpart’s actions.
Whatever, for some reason it has been important to me. Don’t ask me why; I don’t know.
: I am tired. I do not want to continue this. If I have offended you I apologize. That was not my intention. You asked for my view and you got it. Friends should be able to ask and receive, give and take. My intent is to spur people on toward discussion of issues and away from personalities. I consider you my friend and I make allowance for perceived faults.
I don’t consider anyone my friend who considers me a deliberate liar.
AF