Lying, it’s convenient, effective at getting people their way, in addition to being (in the eyes of some) an awful lot of fun, so, why not give fibbing a chance. But before doing so, let’s first imagine some of the downsides to a career in lying, well, we’re tempted to overextend ourselves when we’re adequately confident in our ability to fool people, which could lead into nobody taking us seriously (like the little boy who cried wolf). There’s that potentially humbling moment when we’re caught lying too, perhaps by someone more knowledgeable on the matters we just so happen to be telling porkies about.
Not to mention the risk to ourselves of becoming self-deluded. So, liars have their advantages in life and their handicaps, but more importantly, what they’re doing is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and that’s one serious drawback just for the sake of getting what we want in the immediate. Lying is a sign of some serious imperfection in our character, one which we indulge for all sorts of reasons, for example, in an effort to keep the peace, or little white lies as they’re called, however, on the opposite side of the divide we’ve got hulking great lies for the sake of the liar, selfish lies which benefit ourselves and only ourselves, they’re the untruths we’re going to be reading up on today.*
With the above in mind, nobody lies better than the Watchtower and tract society! Their history of lying and putting those lies in the mouth of God almighty for their own gain is one which spans over a century, and yet, faithful believers are still waiting for that big bad wolf to snatch the sheep grazing helpless in the far-off pastures. Below is an excerpt from the Olin R Moyle Vs The Watchtower Society trial, which took place in the New York Supreme Court in the 1940s. Moyle, once a lawyer for the Watchtower, sued for defamation after apparently being mentioned in one of their many publications, like in many cases I’ve read up on, the Watchtower lost. This section of transcript features F. W. Franz (the soon to be vice president of the Watchtow) being questioned by Watchtower lawyer Haydon Covington (the then vice president):
THE US SUPREME COURT TRIAL (1943)
Q. Who subsequently became the Editor of the magazine, the main Editor of the “Watchtower” magazine?
A. In 1931, October 15th, as I recall, the”Watch Tower” discontinued publishing the names of any editorial committee on the second page.
The Court: He asked you who became the Editor.
The Witness: And it said….
The Court: Who became the Editor?
Q. Who became the Editor when this was discontinued?
A. Jehovah God.
Q. And who wrote the magazine under the direction of Almighty God?
A. Various individuals contributed to the magazine, Judge Rutherford and others.
Q. Who passed on what went into it?
A. Judge Rutherford, primarily, and he also called in associates……
The Court: Who had the final say?
The Witness: Judge Rutherford supervised everything that went into the magazine sir.
P. 795 ********************
FREDERICK FRANZ Cross Examination
Q. I understand that you say that in 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued naming the editorial committee, and then Jehovah God became the editor, is that correct?
A. Jehovah’s editorship was indicated thereby citing Isaiah 54.13
The Court: He asked you if in 1931 Jehovah God became Editor, according to your theory?
The Witness: No, I wouldn’t say so.
Q. Didn’t you say that Jehovah God became the editor of this paper at some time?
A. He was always the One guiding the course of the paper.
Q. Didn’t you state that on October 15th, 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued the naming of an editorial committee and then Jehovah God became the edit?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In connection with your statement, you say that the “Watch Tower” does not set forth the opinion of men – that is your statement?
A. That is right.
PP. 865- 867
Okay, that’s as clear as mud. Although upon the stand, claiming to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, our friend from the Watchtower claimed that the change in editor which did take place was predicted and upheld by the authority of the writer of the book of Isaiah (specifically in Isaiah 54:13). Let’s just read by the plain sense of the text and see if there’s any mention of an editorial change some 2000 years earlier in the pages of the book of Isaiah:
Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will rebuild you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with lapis lazuli. I will make your battlements of rubies,
your gates of sparkling jewels, and all your walls of precious stones. All your children will be taught by the Lord, and great will be their peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you.
“And the new editor’s name shall be called wonderful councillor, mighty God, prince of” Oh wait, that never happened, nothing in Isaiah 54 justified F. W in his particular understanding of the text, not to mention that wringing answers out of him was like strangling a graffiti. Here’s what we have discovered however, we now know that in the opinion of the higher ups in the Watchertower, they do not “set forth the opinion of men”, thus, in keeping with the fact that they claim Jehovah to be their editor, they set forth the opinion of God. Let’s read about yet another court case to help us gain further insight into the Watchtower’s infallible staff.
THE SCOTTISH TRIAL – 1954
The following testimony excerpts are from the Pursuer’s Proof of Douglas Walsh vs The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, MP, PC, as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service. Copies of the complete transcript or parts thereof may be obtained from the Scottish Records Office, H.M. General Register House, Edinburgh, Scotland. The numbers following the quotations show the transcript page on which the testimony is found.
HAYDEN C COVINGTON – Former Lawyer for the Watchtower Society
Q. Is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?
A. It certainly is.
Q. You have promulgated – forgive the word – false prophecy?
A. We have. I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy, there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.
Q. It was promulgated as a matter which must be believed by all members of Jehovah’s witnesses that the Lord’s Second Coming took place in 1874?
(A short discussion of evidence given by Fred W Franz about 1874 takes place here.)
Q. That was the publication of false prophecy?
A. That was the publication of a false prophecy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfilment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.
Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. Yes, because you must understand, we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.
Q. Back to the point now, a false prophecy was promulgated?
A. I agree to that.
Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s witnesses?
A. That is correct.
Q. If a member of Jehovah’s witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong, and said so, would he be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so, and kept on persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erroneous, and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across, then there is a disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching …… Our purpose is to have unity.
Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation, to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. A unity based on an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expresses his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the covenant, if he was baptised?
A. That is correct.
Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think….
Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.
Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Do you call that Christianity?
A. I certainly do.
I’ve often asked people who pride their religion for its ability to control people/uniformity, “Would you rather be united in an untruth, or disunited in the truth?” Of course the answer isn’t always forthcoming, which in itself is a statement of how little a person is prepared to offer up their cherished beliefs. Still, for anyone to have publicly proclaimed let’s be united in untruth or you’re deserving of death, that’s an incredibly counter biblical position to hold to. I suppose that’s why people like Covington, Rutherford and Russell made themselves and their organization the sole interpretor of scripture, for which they can just go around in a big circle. Nothing they say is unbiblical even if it contradicts the plain sense of “False teachings are as dangerous as blood-poisoning to the body, and spread like sepsis from a wound.” Let’s continue:
FREDERICK W FRANZ (President 1978 – 199)
Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion or statements of doctrine?
Q. Are these statements held to be authoritative?
Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?
A. It is obligatory.
Q. Is it for that reason that Jehovah’s witnesses accept without question doctrines and Biblical interpretations as expounded by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society through its Directors?
Q. In publications both periodical and in book form?
Q. But I think you have told us already that an acceptance of the beliefs and facts is compulsory?
Q. And there is no possibility of picking and choosing amongst the facts which you will accept, and those which you will reject? It must be taken as a whole?
A. That is right. Each individual must prove it by the scriptures.
Q. Accepting the exposition of the scriptures in the manner you have already explained?
A. That is right. P. 38
Q. Am I right that you put what is described as the end of the time of the Gentiles in October, 1914?
Q. Is it not the case that Pastor Russell put that date in 1874?
Q. Is it not the case that he fixed the date prior to 1914?
Q. What date did he fix?
A. The end of the Gentile times he fixed as 1914.
Q. Did he not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?
A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus’ Second Coming spiritually.
Q. Do you say used to be understood?
A. That is right.
Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?
A. That is correct.
Q. So that I am correct, I am just anxious to canvass the position, it became the bounden duty of the witnesses to accept this miscalculation?
Q. So that once again Judge Rutherford preached error?
A. He didn’t preach the full round-about truth of the matter.
Q. In that particular, not putting too fine a point on it, he was in error?
A. He was in error.
Q. How was that error corrected?
A. We have had no book given out dealing with that particular phase of the subject.
Q. But you haven’t stopped publishing the book with that in it?
A. The book still circulates, and is a reference work to show that we believed at that time.
Q. How does one now joining Jehovah’s Witnesses, and reading this erroneous view of Judge Rutherford’s know that it is now regarded as erroneous?
A. Because he keeps up with the latest expositions and the latest publications in bound book form.
Q. But there is no latest or recent publication of the Society which brings to the notice of the Witnesses that that view held by Judge Rutherford is wrong?
A. The explanations given show that there is a different understanding of the matter to-day.
Q. Where upon that particular point does the adherent to the society find any enlightenment?
A. In the publications that he reads.
Q. Must he read all of them to arrive at the fact that upon this one point Judge Rutherford was in error?
A. It isn’t necessary for him to read that Judge Rutherford is in error on that point. What he is interested in is in the present truth, the up-to-date truth [Oh, the up-to-date truth, so truth changes…wait…..what?]
Q. Yesterday’s errors cease to be published do they?
A. Yes, we correct ourselves.
Q. But not always expressly?
A. We correct ourselves as it becomes due to make a correction, and if anything is under study we make no statement of it until we are certain.
Q. But may one not assume that Judge Rutherford did not publish until he also was certain?
A. He published only when he was convinced, and he withheld publication until he was convinced that he was correct.
Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see [Oh, he made it sound so fun. Like pass the parcel].
Q. And in the meantime, the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following a mis-construction of the Scriptures.
A. Well, error. PP. 112-114
Q. Am I right that it was at one time forecast that in 1925 Abraham and other prophets would come back to earth?
A. They were expected to come back approximately then.
Q. But they did not come back?
Q. It was published, was it not, to the body of Jehovah’s witnesses, that that was expected in 1925?
Q. But that was wrong?
A. Yes, and Judge Rutherford admitted it to the Headquarters. PP.120-121
Q. Therefore, at baptism must he know those books?
A. He must understand the purposes of God which are set forth in those books.
Q. Set forth in those books, and set forth in those books as an interpretation of the Bible?
A. These books give and exposition on the whole Scriptures.
Q. But an authoritative exposition?
A. They submit the Bible or statements that are therein made, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scriptures to see that the statement is Scripturally supported.
Q. He what?
A. He examines the Scripture to see whether the statement is supported by the Scripture. As the Apostle says: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
NOTE:-Does this imply discarding that which is NOT good if it disagrees with the Scripture. The Prosecutor seems to have been thinking this judging by the following questions put to Franz.
Q. I understand the position to be – do please correct me if I am wrong – that a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses must accept as a true Scripture and interpretation what is given in the books I referred to you?
A. But he does not compulsorily do so, he is given his Christian right of examining the Scriptures to confirm that this is Scripturally sustained.
NOTE:- The following on his “Christian right”.
Q. And if he finds that the Scripture is not sustained by the books or vice versa, what is he to do?
A. The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.
Q. What does a man do if he finds disharmony between the Scripture and those books?
A. You will have to find me a man who does find that, then I can answer, or he will answer.
Q. Do you imply that the individual member has the right of reading the books and the Bible and forming his own view as to the proper interpretations of Holy Writ?
A. He comes……
Q. Would you say yes or no, and then qualify?
Q. A witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed, instructions in the “Watchtower” or the “Informant” or “Awake!”?
A. He must accept those. PP. 122-123
Q. Is there any hope of salvation for a man who depends upon his Bible alone when he is in a situation in the world where he cannot get the tracts and publications of your Incorporation?
A. He is dependent on the Bible alone.
Q. Will he be able to interpret it truly?
A. No. P. 133
Lying, it’s not everything it’s cracked up to be ^^^. Then again, maybe these are just errors, as the Watchtower prefer to say, although, if Jehovah is their editor, and they don’t publish the words of men, but rather the words of God, then Jehovah has to be blamed for over 100 years of false prophecy. Isn’t this sophisticated duplicity all a bit silly when it’s set beneath the microscope? Yeah, it’s silly, but as Fredrick Franz explained “The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.” Or, to translate, the Scriptures are ripped out of context and keyed to self-serving false prophecy, promulgated by liars over at the Watchtower so to bolster the hoax of their interpretative authority.
The duplicity is silly, but for these guys to not lie would mean the folks over at the Watchtower would have to get real jobs, and being a false prophet is so much more lucrative than busting one’s hump doing physical labour or reading all of those Bible books in context. Anyhow, the light’s getting brighter, truths getting truer, just because the people behind the Watchtower have been “miscalculating” for over a century, we’re nearer to judgement day than ever before, for which every false prophesy is better than the last (makes me want to become a witness right now!) Honestly though, the witnesses are just ordinary people, but they’re also very pitiable, subject to mind control on a daily or weekly basis, as explained by our last article. So, why not share these things with a witness today?
Perhaps there’s no need to share them on my blog, since I’m bit sarcy, in a similar way, I’ve drawn my transcripts from culthelp.info, which wouldn’t help our friends in the Watchtower (can’t use the c word around ’em). Still, I’ve written to some really inventive and good natured characters on OSC, so, let’s be inventive in sharing something better with our friends who’ve been trapped by creeps like those in the headquarters of the Watchtower. We’ve got everything we need to make a brilliant case against these people in the court of public opinion.
― T. C. M