# Walsh Court Case

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

Posted by Camryn [camryn] on November 28, 1999 at 07:28:56 {hcnmikA.FkCAoFoSdQ9.DroBvA4afs}:

Have you Witnesses seen the transcript of the "Walsh Court Case" that took place in Scotland in 1954? (See pages 18-28 of "In Search of Christian Freedom")

The Society's attorney, and former vice resident, Hayden Covington was being questioned about those 67 years (according to the Proclaimers book) that the Society incorrectly taught that Jesus' Second Coming (invisible presence) occurred in 1874. The following testimony explains why Jehovah's Witnesses have "unity of belief"...

Q: It was promulgated as a matter which must [have been] believed by all members of Jehovah's Witnesses that the Lord's Second Coming took place in 1874…?

Covington:: It was a false statement or an erroneous Statement in fulfillment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.

Q: And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Covington: Yes, because you must understand we must have unity…

Q: Back to the point now. A false prophecy was promulgated?

Covington: I agree to that.
Q: It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

Covington: That is correct.

Q: If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong (which it was) and said so, he would be disfellowshipped?

Covington: Yes… Our purpose is to have unity.

Q: Unity at all costs?

Covington: Unity at all costs…

Q: *A unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy*?

Covington: That is conceded to be true.

THE POINT: Witnesses live under the illusion that they all "speak in agreement" because "Everything we believe is based on the Bible." But the above shows that the actual reason they believe the same is because only those who do believe the same are allowed to be Witnesses - even if what they believe isn't true! The date 1874 was not based on the Bible and yet every Witness who didn't believe it was disfellowshipped! Does that sound like anything Jesus taught - or would accept as a part of the religion he established?

To show that this 'philosophy' is still in effect, recall page 31 of the April 1, 1986 Watchtower where the current GB said...

"Approved association with (the GB) *requires* accepting...those beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses."

One of their 'unique beliefs' at that time was that it was "the Creator's promise of a peacefuly new world before the generation of 1914 passes away." Everyone who didn't accept that false teaching was disfellowshipped - until they stopped teaching it (1995).

QUESTION FOR WITNESSES:
Do you really think this is what Jesus had in mind when he said, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."? Do you really think this is what Jesus died for - so that men claiming to represent him could force others who were trying to follow him, to believe their own false teachings - under the threat of sending them to "the everlasting punishment" if they didn't?

Does it still make sense to you that Jesus *accepts* those who misrepresent what he and his Father are going to do (as above), and that he *rejects* those who refuse to accept the false teachings of those men?

If so, please check out...

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/1949/index.html

Follow Ups:

- *Walsh Court Case Farkel 09:43:27 11/28/99 (3)
  - **Walsh Court Case felix a 10:05:00 11/28/99 (2)
    - ***Walsh Court Case Tantalus 11:25:30 11/28/99 (1)
      - ****Walsh Court Case felix a 14:18:52 11/28/99 (0)
- *Walsh Court Case FRED HALL 08:28:36 11/28/99 (3)
  - **Walsh Court Case chappy 11:34:15 11/28/99 (0)
  - **Walsh Court Case Brad 09:13:28 11/28/99 (1)
    - ***Walsh Court Case FRED HALL 14:23:50 11/28/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Walsh Court Case

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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