Ray Franz, former Governing Body member of Jehovah's Witnesses admitted the wrongs of the organization and has helped lead many of us to Christ Jesus. The way, the truth and the life. John 14:6

I went to the doctor the other day for a check up on my health.  I told the doctor that I wanted to start exercising and eating right in hopes of not needing to take the blood pressure medication he had me on anymore.  My doctor told me this would be impossible so I said I wanted another opinion.  Then he told me that he alone was the best doctor on the planet and that  he alone possessed the wisdom of God.  He also said if I leave his care and stop taking my medication I would die an eternal death.  He then said if I question him or discuss my doubts about him with any of his patents he would have me quarantined for the rest of my life in a mental institution.

By now I am sure you must know I made this story up.  But does it sound familiar to you?  If you are a Jehovah’s Witness or were one as I was for years, this should have a familiar tone.  Please notice the following statements found in the Watchtower:

 All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the “greatly diversified wisdom of God” can become known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. (The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; pp. 8 )

 No matter where we may live on earth, God’s Word continues to serve as a light to our path and a lamp to our roadway as to our conduct and beliefs. (Ps. 119:105) But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his “faithful and discreet slave,” made up of spirit anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do. (The Watchtower; 12/1/1981; pp. 27)

 “Only Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the “great crowd,” as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.” Watchtower 1989 Sep 1 p.19 

I would walk out on any doctor if they said the things the doctor said at the beginning of the article.  However,  I lived through years of these types of statements as a Jehovah’s Witness without realizing how ridiculous they were.  I do remember being shocked at times but I still went along with it.  I didn’t want to be put into “quarantine” or disfellowshipped.

The governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses take a very high and outstanding view of themselves as the only hope for mankind and Gods sole channel of communication to the entire human race.   For more on this please see the previous article: How The Governing Body Views Itself 

One governing body member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who at one time occupied this high position ended up having a “crisis of conscience” and his first book was entitled just that,  Crisis of Conscience.   His name was Ray Franz.  Every person who wants to know the real truth about Jehovah’s Witnesses should read both of his books, “Crisis of Conscience” and “In Search of Christian Freedom.”  Regarding the claims of the Watchtower Ray wrote the following in his second book In Search For Christian Freedom:

Men can make no greater claim to authority than to claim to speak for God – even more than that – to claim to be his sole channel of communication to all mankind.  To occupy such a position would be an awesome responsibility indeed, and one that should logically call for the greatest of humility on the part of imperfect humans if they were in fact assigned to fill it.

 A fitting analogy might be that of a slave sent forth by a king to deliver a proclamation.  If impressed with his own importance, lacking humility, the messenger might feel free to add to the message or make adjustments, while nonetheless insisting that all hearers  should accept whatever he presented as a bona fide royal order.  If people questioned him on certain points, he might become resentful, seek to awe them with his royal backing in order to override any doubts about the authenticity of his statements. 

 By contrast, a truly humble messenger would scrupulously avoid any alterations of what came from the royal source.  He would not become resentful if asked for proof of full authenticity for what he said, nor would he criticize if some took steps to confirm that the message he presented was delivered just as given, free from embroidery or change.  Rather than decry such investigation as an abusive lack of respect for himself (the mere slave), he would accept it, even welcome it, as evidence of the inquirer’s concern and deep respect for the will of his master, the Sovereign.  

Again, these are the words of a former member of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Could he have made his point any better?  I don’t think so.  Thank you Ray!  Ray Franz was truly a humble brother and he never condemned his fellow brothers/slaves as they did him.   For a very good commentary on Jesus parables about the Watchful, Faithful, and Disloyal Slaves, check this out on Werner Bible Commentary

Jesus gave us plenty of advice on how to find knowledge and truth and he never pointed to anyone except himself exclusively.

John 14:6, “Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (NWT)

 Matthew 23:10, “Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.” (NWT)

 John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”(NASB)

 John 15:26, “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” (NIV)

 John 15:5, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (NIV)

 Luke 11:9-10, “Accordingly I say to YOU, Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU.  For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened.” (NWT)

 John 10:9, “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” (NASB)

May all of us prayerfully consider our relationship with Christ Jesus and let no man enslave us to follow them.  (1 Corinthians 7:23; Mark 7:13)  Psalms 146:3 applies to all men on earth including the governing body, the human leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.”

Your brother and fellow slave in Christ,


Rating 4.72 out of 5

Tags: , , ,

54 Comments on The Watchtower, God’s Sole Channel of Communication on Earth?

  1. serein says:

    it took a blood transfusion to make me sit up and think,
    and then when i opend my eyes and saw things for what they were i was ashamed of myself for being so blind and not looking in to things when studying, but people need good knolage of the bible and love for god to see the truth of things,jws are more scared of the governing body than they are of jehovah god,scared to search scared to leave family and freinds and thats exactly what jesus said wed have to do.


  2. JJ says:

    Thank you for reminding us Greybeard of the many ways Ray helped us. Once we see what really goes on among the leadership, then the path to Christian freedom begins to open up.


    • dudley cook says:

      Thank you for reminding us Greybeard of the many ways Ray helped us. Once we see what really goes on among the leadership, then the path to Christian freedom begins to open up.

      JJ, please let me second your thanks to Greybeard for his fine essay on Ray Franz’s ministry to us all through his two books. I would have said that and what follows directly to Greybeard but don’t see how to enter it… :( …so I’d appreciate it if you, JJ, will redirect this as needed to see that Greybeard gets it. :)
      I applaud your presentation of many Scriptures appropriate to your essay, as should be expected from a serious writer on the Christian faith. Even tho it’s “expected”, I’m calling attention to this because some responders on this site seem to equate one who quotes the Bible to teach its doctrines
      with being a “Pharisee”.
      On the two “touchy” concepts above, let me add a very brief comment about each one:
      1) Liberally quoting Scripture marked the ministry of Jesus and all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Are they not our examples? Any who doubt this will need to read those Scriptures [again?] thoughtfully.
      2) “Doctrine” is a subject bad-mouthed by some, who may need to look it up in a good dictionary, as i did just now, getting:
      doc·trine [dok-trin], noun
      1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
      2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
      3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
      When we recommend this site, for example, to others, are we not recommending its doctrine [advocacy, teaching] of TTATT, etc? ‘Nuff said??
      — your [older] ex-Jw brother, dudley cook



  3. John S. says:

    Yes,yes,yes.AMEN.For more proof ….John ch.1-John ch.21…some 27 pages of the Bible that will change your life forever,read it slowly and let it work in your mind over the course of 3 or 4 days,I suggest.


  4. John S. says:

    Dear Serein,..oh so well put.It’s like getting hit right in the face with it,when you finally wake up,isn’t it.And the shame,I hate to tell outsiders,as they still will feel you are a J.W. at heart,because you still want to talk about the Bible,but even more so.


  5. The Synchronicity says:

    I spent a lot of time looking for the scriptural precident of such a ‘channel’.

    God is a spirit, yes? So are they ‘channelling’ Jehovah God himself? How exactly is this communication taking place? Their claims evoke mental images of spirit mediumship.

    The prophets and priests of Isreal never made such claims. The inspired apostles themselves never made such claims. Do the men in Brooklyn imagine themselves elevated and superior to even these?

    Scripture (not to mention basic logic) demands that a claim of this magnitude be thoroughly scrutinized.


  6. Alden says:

    The illustration really holds water GB! It’s like we’ve been fenced into a political party that squelches personal opinion. Who can save us? There is only One.


  7. Disappointed says:

    Ray Franz’s books really opened my eyes. I’d buuilt up a lot of doubts over many years, one on top of another, but shelved them all. Till two years ago when they changed the ‘generation’ idea yet again.This time it was all about Jacob’s sons and two overlapping generations. I sat there thinking ‘how can intelligent people accept this teaching’! I knew it didn’t come from God. If a truth was a truth in the past it wouldn’t change. Only falsehoods need changing.Then I read Ray’s books and suddenly everything became crystal clear, it all fell into place. The thing that is clearest of all to me is that this organisation is sidelining the Lord Jesus Christ and putting itself in his place. And even the members of the GB themselves have been deluded by it and continue to perpetuate this idea. Ray was clear minded enough to see it and to share what he had discovered.


    • andrew says:

      I would think a fair portion of JWs have had doubts on certain things, but as many of us do they “shelve” them.
      I can remember doubts on the JW understanding of Revelation for quite a few years and 1914. Recently I read someone’s experience and they said they woke up during the study of the Greatest Man book because the organization seemed so much like the Pharisees. That reminded me that I experienced the very same uneasy feelings during those studies and it crossed my mind that we were like the Pharisees in quite a number of things.

      But we are trained that to even have these thoughts is sinful.


      • phil says:

        I would say go to Jesus get to know him get to know what he wants his yoke is light follow his commands and live in spirit and truth.Surrender to him only and he will give you a new heart new ideas new visions he will teach you through the Holy Spirit ask him to baptize you in the Holy Spirit and you will see all things clearly.You will not need anything else apart from him. Live a life of love praise and worship stop worrying about doctrines. DO not critize other believers whatever their denominations many of them are your brothers and sisters who truly love the Lord. The True Church is one not made by human hands as written in Hebrews.Everything on earth is counterfeit to the real Kingdom which is spiritual. I discovered there are millions of people in many denominations who love the Lord and are being murdered for Jesus. The watchtower society does not recognise this.


      • whateverhappenedtome says:

        i remember my awakening also officially started after watching the 1st installment of the fauth in action video fro wtbts…it made me realize what a man made organization it is…


  8. JIM says:

    “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” (1 Corinthians 2:10)

    “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

    “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH …” (JOHN 16:13)


  9. Reader says:

    WT makes a fair point but only of a modest foundation.
    If you had followed Moses, wouldn’t you be lost up a mountain?
    And the Temple arrangement why did Jesus sigh; Jerusalem Jerusalem …
    And the Early christian Church more or less became the Papacy.
    The path of the Truth has always been marred by corrupting influences.
    Because believers failed to keep a check on what was being taught/directed by those who knew or should know best.
    When a declaration denies Acts 17 v 11 as a desirable quality: note good teachers hope to be questioned, My class listened and thought about it….
    Nevertheless entreat as fathers.
    It must be realized, the basic standard of Scripture used on these sites is because of WTBTS inculcation & training, some gratitude/acknowledgement is also fair too.


  10. Rupunzelsawake says:

    Has everyone viewed “The Channel of God” on You-Tube? At present it is 9 parts. I think more are intended (?). It is EXCELLENT! The brother (?) presents this series very clearly with much documentation. He starts out with the illustration above of the royal messenger. I have visited jwforum to print out all the WT articles he refers to. I was particularly interested to see when this notion of ONE Channel started. Seems to be 1896. Check out these WTs: April 1 1895 pg87,88; March 1 1896 pg 47; June 1896 pg 138,139.


    • JJ says:

      ARP7601 is the name of the YouTuber that makes these. He is a friend of this site and I know him very well. The channel of God series is an outstanding collection of Ray Franz’s comments from his two books brought to life.


      • Rupunzelsawake says:

        I am dying to know now JJ who this “friend of this site” is with the lovely voice like Data off Star Trek!!!


  11. jimmyG says:

    It appears that Geoffrey Jackson, a current member of the WT’s Governing Body, does not agree with the WT’s official doctrine regarding the Faithful and Discreet Slave (also known as the Governing Body). On Friday, August 14, 2015, he appeared before the Australian Royal Commission on Institutional child abuse. The following is an exchange between lawyer Angus Stewart and Jackson:

    Q. (Stewart) Does the Governing Body, or do the members of the Governing Body- do you see yourselves as modern‐day disciples, the modern‐day equivalent of Jesus’s disciples?

    A. (Jackson) We certainly hope to follow Jesus and be his disciples.

    Q. (Stewart)) And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth?

    A. (Jackson) That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to
    say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God’s spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that role.

    Jackson has made a public statement here that contradicts numerous WT references that WT’s Faithful and Discreet Slave/Governing Body is God’s SOLE channel of communication today and to question it, is tantamount to disloyalty and apostasy. Is this Jackson’s personal opinion on this subject? If it is, then he has publicly made an apostate statement, teaching something that is not official WT doctrine.


  12. frank says:

    Dead right, Jimmy. This application of Theocratic War Strategy (deflecting the enemy) has Jackson lying about the open and bold statement about the GB’s exclusiveness (The Elect)as God’s ‘spokesman.’ Of course, this will be hailed actually as an act of loyalty to the Corporation. The reason? Company policy.

    Great comment, Jimmy.


  13. frank says:

    It occurs, Jimmy, that when any hapless victim of WT ‘justice’ when brought before a kangaroo court and asked if one believes that the GB is the only source of truth from God, they should have your quote typed out and ready for use.

    Simply answer their question if they answer yours: Why do you think I should answer that question when even a Governing Body member seems unsure of the exclusivity of being God’s ‘spokesman’!



  14. frank says:

    Of course, we could always ask our judicial judges whether Geoffrey Jackson was announcing doctrinal “new light” to the world!



  15. A Man For All Seasons says:

    Hi Jimmy & Frank,

    Thanks for focusing on the Australia Royal Commission hearings and drawing attention to Geoffrey Jackson’s statement. His remark is certainly glaringly incongruent with Watchtower doctrine as clearly spelled out in their publications. After reflection, it appeared to me that it was a disingenuous attempt at playing semantical word games. Ascribing the role of God’s spokesperson to other individuals in the congregation because they render aid to someone while ostensibly suggesting a distinction between “spokesperson” and “slave” sounded like a rehearsed, classic obfuscation and misdirection.

    So, apparently, Geoffrey Jackson was intimating that “the slave” is a spokesperson for God, but a spokesperson for God is not necessarily functioning as part of “the slave”? Really? Well, following Jimmy’s lead, let’s take another look at the transcript and examine an earlier related exchange between Angus Stewart and Geoffrey Jackson :

    Q. (Stewart) Do you, as members of the Governing Body, regard yourselves as being appointed by Jehovah God or under the capacity or authority of Jehovah God?

    A. (Jackson) What we view ourselves, as fellow workers with our brothers and sisters ‐ we have been given a responsibility to guard or to be guardians of doctrine. So just the same with elders, they are referred to as being appointed by holy spirit, as you probably are aware, we believe that means that when an elder is in harmony with what the Bible says is required of an elder, then he is appointed by the holy spirit. So the same is true with the Governing Body.

    Oh, now we see! Connecting the dots reveals “the slave”, aka GB, is not just a “spokesperson for God”, but most importantly, in “trying to fulfill” their presumptuous self-appointed role of “the slave” providing “spiritual food”, they are: “Guardians of Doctrine”!

    Interesting point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8uKrk9mBXs

    Wonder if Geoffrey received this “new light” as a timely text message from Jehovah and Christ via what conspicuously appeared to be an Apple watch on his wrist? Perhaps, in the aftermath of the ARC hearings, Apple watches will become a requisite wardrobe item for all GB members in order to stay abreast of incoming tweets from the heavenly realm regarding ever changing doctrinal “new light”, especially timely when they are giving testimony in a legal deposition, hearing or proceeding.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Jackson, from my perspective, it seemed evident that neither Justice McClellan nor Mr. Stewart were impressed with his tortuous word dance and obfuscating explanations. In that regard, I would say that “incredulous” could well sum up the feeling that appeared to be evident in their manner and expression. In fact, I would describe that as the overriding sentiment in relation to the entirety of the testimony from Watchtower representatives throughout the several days of the hearings.

    A Man For All Seasons

    “But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved….? Or do they just accept what they are told?” ~ Awake 2000, 6/22, pg.6 par.10

    “A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof.” (Prov. 14:15 The New English Bible)


  16. danielB says:

    Didn’t one of the Patriarchs get away with lying to the enemies ? I know that over time the GB has accepted that sometimes lying by “us” is OK with Jah . Aren’t they Presumptuous ? ! !


  17. frank says:

    Lying for God is righteous (Divine Command Ethics). Didn’t Jesus say he hadn’t come to save the righteous?

    Of course, make one lie and many more are easier, so lying to their own ‘wards’ should not be too much of a chore.


  18. danielB says:

    I suppose so . . . Self-righteousness becomes presumptuousness .


  19. frank says:

    What’s the difference between ‘self-righteousness’ and righteousness, Daniel? Isn’t all righteousness about personal interpretation about a deity’s ‘will’and what each individual or religious tribe believe to be the ‘divine will’? No one could ever accuse ‘holy books’ of ever being crystal clear in their message.


  20. danielB says:

    I have always understood righteous as being right with God , which is a fine thing , whereas self-righteous is an arrogance and self assuming . Of course the righteousness of a man is established from the Bible’s precepts . . . not just my opinion or interpretations of men .


  21. frank says:

    Hi Daniel. Here’s a definition of ‘righteousness’:

    “Righteousness (also called rectitude) is a theological concept in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. It is an attribute that implies that a person’s actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been “judged” or “reckoned” as leading a life that is pleasing to God.” – Wikipedia

    As long as someone feels their actions are justified from ‘God’s point-of-view,’ Daniel, what therefore is the difference between ‘righteousness’ and ‘self-righteousness’?

    There is no way of checking whether God approves of a ‘righteous’ action (Theocratic War Strategy, shunning, two witness policy, ban on blood transfusions etc), so why would you say such actions are ‘self-righteous’ or even ‘unrighteous’ since Scriptures can be evoked to ‘justify’ all of them? What measure do you use?



  22. danielB says:

    Well we can play with words then . You said ” As long as someone feels their actions are justified from ‘God’s point-of-view,’ . ” But as I think I said , it’s God’s determination if He considers someone righteous . . . or for that matter . . . bestows such righteousness upon someone . Eventually I think that we will all know the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness .


  23. frank says:

    Daniel, how do you know that an action is ‘justified from “God’s-point-of view”‘? The Bible’s contents can be used to ‘justify’ about anything with a clever coupling or spin. How does one know that God has ‘bestowed’ anything on someone? What is your measure?

    You may or may not agree that religious difference is tribal. Some say God’s righteousness requires the movement of morality by generational zeitgeist, others insist that God’s ‘morality’ is unchangeable despite the changing attitudes of mankind and the ‘intrusion’ of science in exploding ancient myths about perceived dangers of certain acts of ‘unrighteousness.’

    Who are you, therefore, to say that the ‘principle’ of shunning (a specific combination of Scriptures) or the two-witness ‘principle’ (the dogmatic adherence to an ancient and unscientific paradigm) isn’t righteous, simply because of a personal interpretation of what one thinks God wants?



  24. jimmyG says:

    Therein lies the danger of using ancient ‘holy’ books (e.g. the bible, the koran) as your measure. Carefully selected, cherry picked verses from your book of choice cobbled together to ‘prove’ a doctrine or moral stance. Also known as eisegesis.


  25. frank says:

    As Wikipedia pointed out, ‘righteousness’ is a religious concept. It doesn’t exist in humanism.The latter merely recognises us as creatures attempting to ‘get it right.’ The solipsistic aspect of ‘righteousness’ leads to piety and, can lead to atrocities, depending on one’s brand of delusion.

    Hi Jimmy.



  26. danielB says:

    The world’s agnostic rationalizations don’t make God’s Word invalid . It helps to know about righteousness by reading the occurrences in the Bible . THEN we gain true intelligence on this or any thing of significance . IMO . This is enough explanation from me on the subject .


  27. frank says:

    True, Daniel, but just as righteousness gave us the Law of Love (rooted conspicuously in any human conscience unadulterated by religious lore), it also ended the lives of Canaanite women and children, encouraged slavery and promoted genocide.

    I notice you use the emotive phrase, ‘God’s Word.’ Are you a Biblical inerrantist? Do you accept Divine Command ethics? In other words, do you take the whole Bible literally and do you believe God’s ethics are fluid depending on the accomplishing of his will at any given time?

    I’m just asking.


  28. danielB says:

    Maybe God’s righteousness was involved in ending the lives of Canaanite men , women , & children Frank . I don’t think it “encouraged slavery and promoted genocide” .

    So tell me . . . are your 3 questions above “loaded questions” ? 1- I er with Scripture occasionally . 2- I do accept Divine Command ethics . . . and 3- Will you restate that double-whammy question ?


  29. frank says:

    What could be ‘right’ about killing children and babies, Daniel? If genocide and slavery are seen as righteousness from God,why would not other pious individuals consider these acceptable practices unless the proscription wasn’t innate?

    I’m not sure how one is a Biblical inerrantist ‘occasionally.’ So accepting Divine Command Ethics, Daniel, you believe that an act, despite its contradiction elsewhere in the Bible is righteous
    because it’s in the Bible?

    There was no third ‘double-whammy’ question.

    Thanks for your comments.



  30. jimmyG says:

    Hi A Man For All Seasons. I’ve just noticed today that you have joined in the discussion on the ARC. I have been checking the ‘recent comments’ regularly and didn’t see your name appear. Frank and I have made subsequent comments on the ARC since your August 31 comment, so feel free to join in on those if you want.
    Yes you’re correct in noting Jackson’s use of semantics and obfuscation. Clearly he was prepped by WT spin doctors. In another comment I wrote that this provides him with a ‘get out of jail free’ card, so if he was later reminded of what he said, he could say something like “that’s not what I said exactly.”
    As this all comes under the subject of ‘God’s sole channel’, one of the magnificent 7, Tony Morris (aka ‘Tight Pants Tony’) had this to say at Morning Worship, shown on the JW TV evangelist channel:

    “Now we have apostates and… opposers that would… like God’s people to think that the Faithful Slave is dogmatic. And they expect uh you to accept everything that comes out from headquarters… as if it’s… dogma. Arbitrarily… decided. Well, this does not apply.”

    After saying that he goes on to do what he says they don’t do by making a series of dogmatic statements including this gem:

    “”So, when that direction comes out, to branch committee members, or when it comes out to the… congregations, if you want Jehovah’s blessing on you as uh an individual or a family, certainly as an elder or a congregation, it’d be best to just ask Jehovah to help you understand it, but obey, the decision.”

    Words fail me. They may as well replace these guys with Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Pluto, Buzz Lightyear, Sheriff Woody, and Mr Potatohead (is that 7?)- they’d probably do a better job.


  31. frank says:

    A prescient argument, Jimmy.

    Any glance at the FAQs on JW.org will show the cannily-thought-out answers to basic questions about shunning, whether the Org believes itself to be the only ones saved, and others. It is clear that there is a media-friendly and an enforced ‘answer’ delivered to the masses.

    There is a scripture in one of the letters of Peter which states that ‘all matters will be exposed.’ I think the Internet might just be the thing, don’t you think? I was fascinated with JWfacts page on occult symbols used in early publications.


  32. jimmyG says:

    Thinking a bit more on AM111’s ‘wisdom’, how does he know that apostates would like JWs to think that the GB is dogmatic? Has he been trawling the internet looking at ‘apostate’ websites, something the r&f are forbidden to do? If so, will he face a judicial inquisition as the r&f would?

    These guys never say how their information is gathered…funny that. It’s similar to Lett’s recent outburst about child rape being tolerated in the WT- apparently these are ‘apostate driven lies’. How does he know? What are his sources?

    Morris and Lett are particularly comical with Splane recently joining the asylum with his ‘generation’ ramble on their JW TV evangelist channel. The others aren’t far behind.


  33. frank says:

    Perhaps the GB ‘hire’ non-Witnesses or temporarily de-consecrate minions to do the spying and then react to the intel! The reality, of course, is most likely to be as boring as the corporate stratagem of using armed guards (in-house spying and elders) to patrol the borders of the empire, using Divine Command ethics.

    The relationship between the UN and their big brothers, other UN-affiliated organisations to help them disseminate their message is now exposed. Their hypocrisy over screaming human rights when their freedom is affected and then denying the same rights to their acolytes is palpable and consistent.


  34. jimmyG says:

    Further on Tony Morris’ little speech he closes with this ‘insight’:

    “This is a theocracy ruled by God. Not a collection of man-made decisions. This is governed from heaven.”

    With this claim, he appears to be saying that that WT’s GB is not dogmatic, because they are just ‘passing on’ what God has said to pass on to the rank and file and you can’t argue with God, right? You can’t call him dogmatic, because he’s God.

    And the GB/F&DS, of course, is the channel that God is using. Yeh, right!


  35. frank says:



  36. frank says:

    Delusion is the mainstay of cults; that man can channel the creator-deity. Interestingly, have a look at the Branch Davidian cult. Note the similarities.

    I’m ‘reading’ (channeling) a book called the God Virus (classic) where the author shows how religion spreads like a virus (Richard Dawkins’ memes). One of the quickest way to do this is to convince one’s victims that they ‘speak for God.’ The other is have a vision (Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Paul).

    Take a look at the ‘spiritual reasoning’ (rationale) in Brant Jones’ reply letter from WT. In the same paragraph, WT tells us that though the UN is ‘beastly’ from God’s point-of-view, we should see the good that it does. Does this sound like God and channeling-man were in agreement about this basic concept?

    Occam’s Razor suggests that, rather than an outbreak of ‘new light,’ WT, like the Catholic Church, were just looking to the future and looking for corporate allies. Enter Cardinal Pacelli/Pius XII.


  37. frank says:

    January Watchtower, page 5:

    WHAT IS IT? Saying something false to someone who is entitled
    to know the truth. Lying can include misrepresenting or distorting
    facts in order to mislead a person, omitting key information to deceive someone, and exaggerating the truth in order to give a false impression.”

    Dictionary definition:”the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness”
    “Synonyms: falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication.
    Antonyms: truth, veracity.”

    Can anyone tell the difference?
    Watchtower has now changed the definition of lying by adding a qualifier to match its policy on Theocratic War Strategy. Imagine if accused official Sepp Blatter stated as a courtroom defence that his policy that he only told the truth to “those who were entitled to it”! Why can someone like this be laughed at using this as a defence but a religious corporate entity be taken seriously?

    Geoffrey Jackson and his testimony along with all the other officials cross-examined at the Australian Commission (institutional child abuse) stand as evidence of the ‘truth’ of the above statement.

    The Bible actually says: “Be honest in all things.” Hebrews 13:18

    All Jehovah’s Witnesses can look forward to this 1,000-year brave new world.


  38. jimmyG says:

    Hi Frank. Is that this year’s January WT?

    The WT has its own dictionary it seems. Your example is a good one. Add to it, their unique definition of the word ‘generation’. Since 2010 apparently, a generation can be 2 generations that overlap. They use the word ‘groups’ as if this somehow explains the inexplicable. The icing on the cake with this one is David Splane’s ramblings on a recent JW tv-evangelist broadcast. Ask any active JW to explain it to you. Then wait for the uncomfortable silence.

    “Lying can include misrepresenting or distorting facts in order to mislead a person, omitting key information to deceive someone.” This is WT’s own definition of lying, right? This week’s WT study alone convicts them of lying For example:

    Paragraph 11 begins this way: “Upon recognizing that Christ’s presence began in 1914, Jesus’ followers rightly prepared for a possible early arrival of the end”. In one sentence they have misrepresented their history in 2 ways I can think of.
    1. The Bible Students (now JWs) under Rutherford, up until at least 1933 (when for the first time it appeared in print in the Watchtower mag that Christ’s presence began in 1914), believed that Christ’s presence began in 1874. The above statement is a lie by their own definition.
    2. “Jesus’ followers rightly prepared for a possible early arrival of the end”. Fairly typical of WT obfuscation, this appears to refer to Rutherford’s grand claim that the ‘ancient worthies’ would be resurrected in 1925 with the big “A” to follow shortly after. Of course all of Rutherford’s acolytes were required to believe it. Remember too, the ‘millions now living will never die’ campaign ran from 1918-25.

    How can this statement appearing in this week’s WT study be taken seriously, when the actual facts of Bible Student/JW history are taken into account?

    It took Rutherford nearly 20 years after 1914 to ‘recognise’ that Christ’s presence supposedly started then. Combine that with their preparing for a possible early arrival (1925), which pre-dates by 8 years Rutherford’s proclamation that Christ’s presence began in 1914.

    The use of the word ‘possible’ is misleading, as Rutherford and his cult preached that the big “A” would come in 1925.

    The Writing Dept know all this, but choose to present their revisionist version of WT history, which they have been doing for decades. The cult followers just lap it all up and swallow.


  39. frank says:

    Hi Jimmy, nice to hear from you. It is the January 2016 WT.

    You’re right on the ball about the ‘generation.’ Of course, this ‘defence’ is clearly to perpetuate a feeling of relevancy in a scientific age.

    The implications of their new definition of lying could and will likely mean the Governing Body taking to themselves the sole right to decide, not just what is right and wrong, but also to whom their truth will be disseminated. Perhaps you may recognise this as theocratic totalitarianism (1984, George Orwell). We have already seen how GB members represent themselves to the courts ‘under Satan’s control,’ but this can, and does extend itself to the ‘rank and file’ of the their own congregations! Simply look at how closely they have guarded the contents of their ‘elders’ manuals’! Few, if any, Witnesses are aware of how a WT judicial committee works, and most will not be aware of what constitutes apostasy, or indeed, what other ‘crimes’ bring about ‘divine justice’!

    Generally speaking, the longer religion, especially doomsday cults continue, the less they will seem relevant. That’s okay, except for the power they still wield over peoples’ lives. When we accept that such ‘hopes’ for the future are born of, and maintained, by an emotional attachment to nothing more than a persuasive concept, then an escape route will appear for mankind.

    As you imply, the myths are perpetuated via written and electronic means through the ‘feeding of the flocks.’


  40. JimmyG says:

    I’m not sure if this WT definition of lying is new, i.e including the phrase ‘someone who is entitled to know the truth’. If it is, it may be as a result of Geoffrey Jackson’s recent testimony to the ARC. As we’ve discussed recently, he clearly used theocratic warfare strategy (aka lying) in many of his responses to the Commission and this definition justifies it in their own minds. Most would call it what it actually is- perjury.


  41. JimmyG says:

    Just to add to my previous comments, it seems that the WT’s governing body do not think that the rank and file JWs are entitled to the truth. They constantly lie in their literature, thereby using theocratic warfare against their own flock, the very ones they are supposed to be ‘shepherding’.

    They know that to come clean now with their flock would lead to many becoming disillusioned and deserting the ship, or should I say ark.


  42. frank says:

    Hi Jimmy. You say that the WT’s definition is not new. I personally have never seen this qualifier in print before, though theocratic totalitarianism demands it.

    Significantly, I was watching a documentary on Hitler recently. One ex-Hitler Youth member. while being interviewed, admitted that many viewed the Adolf as ‘God-like,’ and many even offered prayers to him!

    Of course, as we know, for instance, of international trade deals,details are kept from the very people who vote the deal participants in. This likely because big business ultimately is the main interest; the feathering of the nests of the few, disguised as ‘better economies’ for the many. This – is not new, and will always be the case while the ‘rank and file’ allow it to happen.

    Watchtower is a corporation, though as a religion, like all such abstract concepts the Age of Science, is trying to remain relevant. This is increasingly getting harder. Scandals like the mishandling of child abuse, will reveal eventually how heavy are the clay feet of this very human organisation.

    Lying may seem to be pretty much the only way of protecting the abstract borders of an abstract ‘spiritual paradise.’


  43. frank says:

    “Lies are untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others. Satan told a lie to Eve that worked great harm to her and all the human race. Ananias and Sapphira told lies for selfish reasons. But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent.” – Use Theocratic War Strategy, Watchtower, May 1, 1957


    Here is one of the articles that advocate TWS, the telling of ‘white lies’ to protect a religious organism. Probably written by Fred Franz, he expands on this in his convention talk, “Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves,” July 24th, 1955.

    Notice no definition of ‘enemies’ is given, but makes the bold statement that these ‘enemies’ use information to harm the innocent. Notice too, the idea that lies have a good and bad motive, not that they are simply wrong.

    In the ARC, all Australia wanted to do was protect the children of Australian citizens, indeed, that the children ARE Australian citizens, but that WT deemed that misleading information (minimising, misleading statements about extreme policies and doctrinal whitewashing)be passed to the ‘superior authorities’ to close ranks on the effect of WT policies on genuinely innocent children within the organisation. They even ‘forgot’ that there was such a stratagem of ‘theocratic war strategy’ (euphemism for institutional lying).

    It is this extreme and clumsy eisegesis that correctly leads many to think of WT not just as religious fundamentalists, but also as a cult.

    One great book to read is The God Virus, by Darrel Ray. JWs get a lot of attention later in the book, which tells why internal protectionism is so important to survival of the ‘virus.’


  44. frank says:

    In other words; lying is wrong, except where it is required to protect ‘God’s’ organisation.

    This is not moral teaching as many, if not, all organisations; commercial, political, and religious adopt this stratagem to survive in a competitive environment. It’s like saying that injecting blood fractions is a ‘conscience matter’ when the Bible simply states the imperative to “abstain from blood.” The word, ‘honest,’ like the ‘abstain’ is absolute in its definition. There are no exceptions. There are no shades of grey.


  45. jimmyG says:

    In view of the last few comments on TWS and lying, I had to chuckle at this passage in Geoffrey Jackson’s testimony to the ARC:

    “THE CHAIR: Q. I was going to ask you about that next bullet point, but you took us to it. It separates out the testimony of unbelievers and disfellowshipped or disassociated ones. It says “it may be considered but it must be weighed carefully”. It suggests to an outsider that what the document is doing is expressing a need for extra caution when it’s the evidence of an unbeliever as opposed to a believer that is being considered. Is that a correct reading of the document?
    A (Jackson). The reading of the document is saying that someone who doesn’t agree with or feel the same way we do about the scriptures perhaps may take a different viewpoint on certain things ‐ for example, the matter of lying. You see, Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavour to be truthful and present facts in a truthful manner. Someone who is not a Witness may have no difficulties at all about telling a lie. I’m not saying, your Honour, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are perfect, but that’s a reminder that these ones perhaps could make a false statement.
    Q. So my assumption is correct, that the document is saying, “Be more careful with the evidence of unbelievers than you would be with the evidence of believers”; is that right?
    A (Jackson). That’s what it says, yes, your Honour.”

    Using this reasoning, ‘unbelievers’ tell more ‘porkies’ than JW believers. What a joke.


  46. frank says:

    Hi Jimmy G. This is part of the moral argument that grates most agnostics/atheists – that being ‘righteous’ makes one act in a morally-superior way. Obviously it gives the perception that one has a ‘higher’ morality if one ‘follows’ the Bible, but as Jackson correctly implies, ‘believers’ merely ‘strive’ to tell the truth. Within the context of TWS, and Jackson’s own testimony, utility decides when it is ‘righteous’ to tell the truth or otherwise.

    Clearly Jackson is ‘unbeliever’-phobic. Like tight pants’ connection with being gay, the assumption that one is of a different tribe more than suggests that one is motivated to lie. Well, likewise, as we have seen with Jackson’s misleading denial of the GB’s consistent claim to being the ONLY true source of truth on Earth today, all it takes is to perceive a court, a government, or individual as an ‘enemy of righteousness’for the activation of TWS.

    Frankly, I would take the word of a genuine humanist any day.


  47. jimmyG says:

    The following is a quotation from the Shepherd the Flock of God book (the elders’ secret handbook). Under the heading of ‘Offenses Requiring Judicial Decisions’ on page 64, point 16 it states:

    “16. Apostasy: Apostasy is a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment. It includes the following:
    ˙Celebrating false religious holidays: (Ex. 32:4-6; Jer. 7:16-19) Not all holidays directly involve false religion and require judicial action.”

    During Geoffrey Jackson’s testimony to the ARC, lawyer Angus Stewart endeavoured to get Jackson to admit that the WT is a ‘captive organisation’. While Jackson did not admit it, Stewart skilfully demonstrated, through a series of questions and hypothetical situations, that faded, inactive JWs are still subject to WT’s disciplinary procedures and therefore, in effect, ‘captive’ to it, never truly free of the WT. The following is a part of that series of questions:

    Q. But then people who don’t exercise that right are then ‐ in other words, they are, as you described, inactive ‐ still subject to the rules and discipline of the organisation, aren’t they?
    A. I would have to check on that, because personally that’s not my field. But my understanding is, if a person has made it known by their actions in the community over a period of years that they are not witnesses, we would only hold any reports in abeyance until they decided they wanted to return.
    Q. Mr Jackson, I have to say that my understanding is if someone in that position is caught transgressing one of the rules, they would still be subject to the disciplinary proceedings, including possibly disfellowshipping; is that not right?
    A. That is a possibility, but in all fairness to your question, I think there are circumstances, but I couldn’t make a definitive comment on that.
    Q. So, for example, they had become inactive or sought to fade without formally disassociating, and the elders came to visit and found them celebrating Christmas or a birthday, they would be found to be in transgression of the rules, would they not?
    A. That is not my understanding. But again, as I said, it is not my field, that goes into policy with regard to those type of things, but from my personal experience, that’s not the case.
    Q. Mr Jackson, you say it’s not your field, but you are a member of the Governing Body which is responsible, as you have said, for the whole field, and you have been a member for 10 years, and all the committees are responsible to and accountable to the Governing Body.
    A. That is correct.
    Q. So it is your field, isn’t it?
    A. Only as far as approving the basic scriptural principles. So is there a scriptural principle that you have in mind you want to ask me about, or are you talking about policies and implementation of policies? There is a difference there.”

    Talk about TWS in action here! Jackson directly contradicted the Shepherd book regarding the celebration of false religious holidays. WT definitely regards birthdays and Christmas as such. The mere celebration of these, as far as WT is concerned, puts such ones under the label ‘apostates’, as it is included under the heading of ‘apostasy’ in the Shepherd book. Yet Jackson denied this point blank. He stated that the GB is only involved in ‘basic scriptural principles’, but not WT policy.

    Fortunately, Angus Stewart saw through Jackson’s obfuscation and prevarication, when he said ‘it is your field,’ after Jackson’s several attempts to ‘dodge the bullets’ by saying ‘it’s not my field’.


  48. frank says:

    Hi Jimmy. In a judicial committee situation, any who do not answer all elders’ questions unambiguously and accurately, often face a trumped-up charge of ‘failure to respect the authority of representatives of God’s organisation.’ This is why Matthew Barrie’s (Glasgow, Scotland)had his appeal turned down, even though he had not been to meetings in 8 months.

    (https://jehovahswitnesstrial.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/podcasts-11-12.pdf – See subheading “The Verdict”).

    Yet somehow we are to acknowledge the fulfilment of the scripture that prophesies that what is to be said before the courts when being ‘on public display’ for ‘righteousness sake’ will be given at the appropriate time (1 Corinthians 4:9; Luke 12:12)! One of two possibilities occur (1) Either there is no supernatural event taking place during Geoff’s ‘evidence,’ or that (2) that prevarication is practiced in the heavenly realms. I am confident it is the former.

    As Stewart points out; what is Jackson doing claiming to be a part of the ‘top brass’ of this organisation if he can’t quote chapter and verse on policies that the group he belongs to has direct involvement with?

    With the release of the booklet, Return to Jehovah, likely the eventual agenda will be to place a yes or no choice for faders to come back to the fold. Even a cursory glance at this typical piece of WT propaganda reveals that no lessons have been learned by the organisation and certainly no responsibility is taken for the exodus that has taken place over the years. All blame is placed on the deluded victims of Satan’s world.


Leave a Reply

Website Apps