Posted by AF [AF] on April 06, 1999 at 17:53:48 {JK6FUAMFdMtWYktmF7cQdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ***Why does a THEOCRACY nd REFORM posted by Friend on April 06, 1999 at 12:39:50:
: On the other hand though, JWs, and by extension the WTS, have never taken the position that they perfectly express God�s will.
Of course they have. They've done it explicitly and implicitly. Fred Franz, as I said, was explicit that Jehovah himself was the editor of The Watchtower. You can hardly get more explicit about infallibility. Countless statements in WTS literature contain implicit assumptions of infallibility. Time will fail me if I try to recount them, but you already know enough that I don't have to list any. The policy of disfellowshiping those who disagree with WTS teaching is an explicit declaration of infallibility, since DF'ing is a declaration that a person is an unrepentant, wicked sinner. Any doubt -- meaning fallibility -- would mean that those who disagree might be correct after all.
: You might counter that view with insinuating WTS quotations.
You can read my large array of quotations on Osarsif's webpage in the writeups on "JWs as False Prophets" and "The Watchtower Society and the End of the World". You can also read plenty of quotations from Rutherford era material by Ken Raines on the JW Research website. These arrays are completely devastating to those who would claim that the Society does not claim infallibility.
: Nevertheless, the WTS has time and time again stated explicitly that they are not supernaturally inspired by God in order to express perfectly what His will is.
And Bill Clinton stated explicitly that he had no sexual relations with "that woman". So what? Maybe Bill had in mind that blow jobs were not really "sexual relations", just like Jim Bakker did a decade earlier. But just as such claims are mere excuses, so are the Society's claims about not claiming to be inspired. In an operative sense, they certainly do claim to be. Otherwise, they couldn't ever have justified DF'ing people for disagreeing with them. They really believe that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God. Call it what you will, that's a claim of infallibility.
: Admittedly the normal implication is that God is somehow responsible for WTS actions and teachings.
The "normal implication"? That, Friend, is largely the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
: I think that is where what JW detractors like to
label �double-speak� comes in. Those detractors tend to emphasis
implications (so called �double-speak�) and de-emphasize explicit comments contrary to their own interpretations.
That's precisely what "double-speak" means. It means saying one thing and doing another. It means "admitting" fallibility out of one side of the mouth while acting as if one is infallible. It means issuing statements that sound like humble admissions of fallibility while disfellowshipping anyone who tests that admission.
: I find that approach self-serving and self-defeating.
Then you're burying your head in sand. This happens to be the basic operating procedure of the Watchtower Society. I'm sure you already know it, but simply refuse to admit it. The fact that you know the truth about "The Truth" is proved by the simple fact that you feel constrained to remain anonymous. If you didn't keep under cover, you'd be booted out immediately. People who honestly and humbly admit fallibility do not produce such fearful and self-protective reactions in others.
AF