Why I Will Leave

Posted by Seeker on June 11, 1997 on Hourglass2 Outpost

Index:

• Part 1: Reasoning on the "Generation" Change
• Part 2: How Does the Society Deal With Its Own Past History?
• Part 3: Quotations and Research in the Society's Publications
• Part 4: Reasoning on the Meaning of Prophecy
• Part 5: The History of the Organization
• Part 6: Summary

Part 1: Reasoning on the "Generation" Change

If you are curious to know where all my doubts began, it started when the Society made the change in our understanding of "generation" in the November 1, 1995 Watchtower. I remember reading that article, sitting on my couch, and thinking that this changes everything. They took away the one thing that lent any sort of time element to the time of the end. The implication of that was the end could literally be any time in the future. After all, if the "generation" referred to was the generation of people who see the sign of the end, then the end could be tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade, or hundreds of years in the future. There was no way to tell from the point of view of time. It would all depend on how long is "the time of the end". From a human point of view, it could be very long indeed, barring any time element to say otherwise.

But aren't there other time elements? True, there were other signs that seem to indicate a time element, but none of them held up to scrutiny.

Consider:

1. The anointed are dying off, therefore the end can't be too far off.

True, most of the anointed are old and it would seem that this is a limiting factor. But have you noticed how the number of partakers is increasing in recent years? How is that possible? Clearly some are partaking that didn't used to partake, but who? Certainly not new ones, as attendants at the Memorial are trained not to count such ones that are obviously not anointed. So it must be others who have been around the organization for a while and who the attendants must consider potentially worthy enough to be counted.

With that happening, theoretically the number of anointed ones might never die off, as long as more and more persons began to partake. After all, we now have members of the Governing Body who weren't even in the organization in 1935, so clearly one can be younger than other anointed ones and still be considered true anointed ones too. That opens the door to a steady stream of anointed ones and the end of the time element for this factor.

Still, that seems far-fetched. Yet there is another reason for thinking that the time element is not a factor here. In recent years there have been several articles talking about "given ones" to assist the Governing Body. In the May 15, 1997 issue it clearly implies that all of the anointed will be taken to heaven before Armageddon is over, so they can be a part of the marriage of the Lamb. In those same articles the idea of the "given ones" is reiterated and enlarged upon. They are now implying that these ones could do just about everything in the future. They don't say they could be part of the Governing Body and the Faithful and Discreet Slave, but that seems inevitable as the anointed ones die off. If I'm right, within a matter of years we will see a change to the teaching that only anointed ones can be part of the Governing Body. When that happens, the time element disappears for this factor.

2. Conditions on earth are getting so bad the end must be close.

If you think about it, you'll see that's not quite true. In fact, for every bit of pollution or war that gets worse, there seems to be another bit that improves. In my lifetime, I have seen the air quality in New York City improve dramatically, not get worse. Water pollution is much less today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Some diseases are worse, some are better, but overall life expectancy grows longer, not shorter.

For example, the Society is always pointing out how severe the problem of famine is during our day, but is this really so? Note this quote on the subject of famine:

"Between 1961 and 1994, it says, "per capita food supply in developing countries increased by 32 percent and mass famines on the scale seen in the 19th and mid-20th century have not recurred." The ranks of the hungry and undernourished have also fallen over the same period, from 35 percent to 21 percent." [UN Commission on Sustainable Development January 1997]

So, is there famine in the world? Yes, of course there is. But is it steadily getting worse? No, in fact it is considerably better than it was a hundred years ago. Just because a few cases have been widely publicized, it doesn't mean that overall conditions are getting worse. In fact, the percentage of hungry and undernourished is much smaller than it used to be.

I'm not saying there aren't serious problems, as we all know there are. What I am saying is that none of the problems prevent this system from continuing for another 10, or 20, or 50, or 100 years. What realistic condition can you think of that would prevent mankind from surviving for another 50 years?

The next time someone suggests that the earth can't last another 10 or 15 year, remember this quote:

"I know enough of what is going on to assure you that, in fifteen years from today, this world is going to be too dangerous to live in." [Truth That Leads To Eternal Life, p. 9, 1968 edition, quoting Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1960. Note that the 1981 edition deleted "in fifteen years from today" i.e. in 1975]

Oops, didn't happen. We are now thirty-seven years from that date and in many ways the world is in better shape than it was then. Certainly pollution has been cut back considerably, war is minimal compared to what the sixties saw, civic unrest is nothing compared to that decade, etc. For all the problems that remain, the earth has been designed to bounce back remarkably well, no matter what the problem.

3. All of the signs of the end have been fulfilled, so the end must be close.

That is true, the signs have been fulfilled. The problem is you could say the same thing 50 years ago and the end is still not here. Oh sure, the preaching work is more advanced than it was in 1947, but couldn't it advance far more if, say, China completely opened up? Just think of the growth if Gilead graduates could reach another billion-and-a-half persons! Might we not look back 50 years from now and say, my how the preaching work has advanced since 1997! Thus the time element disappears from the equation.

So what's the point of this section? Just that all of this went through my mind as I read the change in "generation." So what's the problem? The problem is the Society continues to stress that we are urgently close to the end, yet they give no credible reasons for thinking that. Their arguments now center on points 2 and 3 above, but only in the most general terms. 'The end must be close because the signs of the end are all fulfilled.' 'The end must be close because things are too bad on the earth to continue.', etc. No in-depth discussion of these points, just a sentence thrown out there and we are expected to accept it.

The recent Question From Readers (w97 5/1) on this topic made things even worse. Illustrating the use of "generation" as being like saying "the soldiers of Napoleon's generation", they just made a bad situation worse. Consider the meaning of their illustration: Would you say that encompasses a period of, say, 100 years? Of course not, for that would stretch things into the 20th century. How about fifty years? Perhaps, but that would take things long past Napoleon's lifetime and would seem to negate the meaning of "the soldiers of Napoleon's generation." Twenty or thirty years? Yes, that is the meaning you would get if you asked 1,000 people what they thought of by the phrase "the soldiers of Napoleon's generation."

So now we see the problem. They used an illustration that is even more restrictive in time than the old use of the word "generation". They used to say anyone alive in 1914 counted. Now they use an illustration that carries, at most, 30 years of time, which is absurd! I know the point they were trying to make is that there is no time element, but the illustration they used absolutely does introduce a distinct, and short, time element.

So with all this in mind, I began to wonder why they were stressing the end being so close when there was no compelling evidence for thinking it has to be right around the corner. That's what got me to begin researching, to see why the Society would say such things. What I found made the most sense of all: The Society has always said the end is imminent! They were just as convinced a hundred years ago that the end was just a year or two away as they are today. Consider the following quotes and see if it doesn't sound like what the Society says today. Then ask yourself if the quotes were accurate for their time-period:

The very first issue of Zion's Watchtower, July 1879, stated on page 1 that the object of its publication was to present, not theories, but facts:

"That we are living "in the last days" -- "the days of the Lord" -- "the end" of the Gospel age, and consequently, in the dawn of the "new" age, are facts not only discernible by the close student of the Word, led by the spirit, but the outward signs recognizable by the world bear the same testimony."

Of course, they were not living in the last days in 1879, as we now know, yet Russell wrote that both the outward signs "recognizable by the world", as well as studying the Bible and being led by God's spirit indicated they were in the last days. He discerned it, but he was wrong. He obviously misinterpreted the outward signs he saw. He called them facts, but it was not true at that time. Naturally, if you had said he was wrong at the time, you would have been looked at as one who lacked faith.

This is a common theme, by the way. Looking at current conditions and saying 'We must be at the end because of how bad things are' is a statement that was being said over 100 years ago (actually, people have said that for the last two thousand years). Today we look back 100 years and describe that time-period as being so much better than today. We use this in service to show people how things have deteriorated since then, yet here we have Brother Russell saying things were so bad then that it must the end of the system!

Let's consider some more quotations and see if that theme, that the end must be absolutely imminent, doesn't show up throughout the history of the Society. I know there are a lot of quotes, but take the time to ask yourself how you would have reacted, at that time, to reading each quote. Then ask yourself if the quote turned out to be right or wrong:

"God's Kingdom, the Kingdom of Jehovah's Anointed... will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion.

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove:

"-- Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." [The Time Is At Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II, pp. 76-77]

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." [The Time Is At Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II, p. 101]

"Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in MILLENIAL DAWN, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable.... Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain.

"We see no reason for changing the figures -- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the view presented in the WATCHTOWER of January 15, '92. We advise that it be read again." [w1894, 7/15, p. 226]

"The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world -- a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness. All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before the year 1914 (See MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II, Chapter IV)" [w1892, 1/15, p. 19]

"As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925. At that time the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized.... Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection." [Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920 Edition, pp. 89-90]

"Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will be still on the earth in 1925. Then, based upon the promises set forth in the divine Word, we must reach the positive and indisputable conclusion that millions now living will never die." [Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920 Edition, p. 97]

"This is without question a fulfillment of the prophecy testifying to the "time of the end." These physical facts can not be disputed and are sufficient to convince any reasonable mind that we have been in the "time of the end" since 1799." [The Harp of God, p. 239]

"The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the "time of the end" began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874." [The Watch Tower, March 1, 1922]

"Twelve hundred and sixty years from 539 A.D. brings us to 1799, which is another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of "the time of the end."" [Creation (1927), pp. 294, 295, 298]

".... the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D. This proof is specifically set out in the booklet entitled Our Lord's Return." [Prophecy (1929), pp. 65, 66]

"We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need?.... There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914. The fact that all the things that some looked for in 1914 did not materialize does not alter the chronology one whit. Noting the date marked so prominently, it is very easy for the finite mind to conclude that all the work to be done must center about it, and thus many are inclined to anticipate more than has been really foretold. Thus it was in 1844, in 1874, in 1878 as well as in 1914 and 1918. Looking back we can now easily see that those dates were clearly indicated in Scripture and doubtless intended by the Lord to encourage his people, as they did, as well as to be a means of testing and sifting when all that some expected did not come to pass. That all that some expect to see in 1925 may not transpire that year will not alter the date one whit more than in the other cases." [The Watch Tower, May 15, 1922]

"The chronology of present truth might be a mere happening if it were not for the repetitions in the two great cycles of 1845 and 2520 years, which take it out of the realm of chance and into that of certainty.... where the agreements of dates and events come by the dozens, they cannot possibly be by chance, but must be by the design or plan of the only personal Being capable of such a plan -- Jehovah himself; and the chronology itself must be right.

"In the passages of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh the agreement of one or two measurements with the present-truth chronology might be accidental, but the correspondency of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designed both pyramid and plan -- and at the same time proves the correctness of the chronology.... It is on the basis of such and so many correspondencies -- in accordance with the soundest laws known to science -- that we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed by the dates and events of 1874, 1914, and 1918. Present-truth chronology is a secure basis on which the consecrated child of God may endeavor to search out things to come." [w22, 6/15]

".... all Europe is like a boiling pot, with the intensity of the heat ever increasing. If any one who has studied the Bible can travel through Europe and not be convinced that the world has ended, that the day of God's vengeance is here, that the Messianic kingdom is at the door, then he has read the Bible in vain. The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile times; and as the Lord foretold, the old order is being destroyed by war, famine, pestilence, and revolution.

"The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before 1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed." [w22, 9/1, p. 262]

"Question: Did the order go forth eight months ago to the Pilgrims to cease talking about 1925? Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood?

"Answer:.... There was never at any time any intimation to the Pilgrim brethren that they should cease talking about 1925.... Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures, marking the end of the typical jubilees. Just exactly what will happen at that time no one can tell to a certainty; but we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world that the people will begin to realize the presence of the Lord and his kingdom power. He is already present, as we know, and has taken unto himself his power and begun his reign. He has come to his temple. He is dashing to pieces the nations. Every Christian ought to be content, then, to do with his might what his hands find to do, without stopping to quibble about what is going to happen on a certain date." [w23, 4/1, p. 106]

"Let no one now be deceived by calculations as to just when the Lord will cease his work with the Church on earth. The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year." [w24, 7/15]

"...the scriptural evidence and the physical facts strongly indicate that such witness work is now almost done; and when it is done the universal war will begin. Universal war is absolutely certain to come and that soon, and no power can stop it... during the few remaining months until the breaking of that universal cataclysm the powers that rule the nations of the earth will continue to make treaties and tell the people that by such means they will keep that world peace and bring about prosperity." [Universal War Near (1935), p. 3, 26, 27]

"...mark the words of Jesus, which definitely seem to discourage the bearing of children immediately before or during Armageddon.... It would therefore appear that there is no reasonable or scriptural injunction to bring children into the world immediately before Armageddon, where we now are." [w38, 11/1, p. 324]

"Would it be scripturally proper for them to marry and begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the scriptures.... It will be far better to be unhampered and without burdens, that they may do the Lords will now, as the Lord commands, and also be without hindrance during Armageddon.... Those... who now contemplate marriage, it would seem, would do better if they wait a few years, until the fiery storm of Armageddon is gone." [Face the Facts (1938), pp. 26, 47, 50]

"The abundance of Scriptural evidence, together with the physical facts that have come to pass showing the fulfillment of prophecy, conclusively proves that the time for the battle of the great day of God Almighty is very near and that in that battle all of God's enemies shall be destroyed and the earth cleared of wickedness." ... "Likewise today, all the nations and peoples of earth are face to face with the greatest emergency. They are being warned as God commands, that the disaster of Armageddon is just ahead." [Salvation (1939), pp. 310, 361]

"The year 1940 is certain to be the most important year yet because Armageddon is very near. It behooves all who love righteousness to put forth every effort to advertise The Theocracy while the privileges are still open." [Informant, April 1940, p. 1]

"The Kingdom is here, the King is enthroned. Armageddon is just ahead. The glorious reign of Christ that shall bring blessings to the world will immediately follow. Therefore the great climax has been reached. Tribulation has fallen upon those who stand by the Lord." [The Messenger, Sept. 1940, p. 6]

"The prophecies of Almighty God, the fulfillment of which now clearly appears from the physical facts, show that the end of religion has come and with its end the complete downfall of Satan's entire organization." [Religion (1940), p. 336]

"Armageddon is surely near, and during that time the Lord will clean off the earth everything that offends and is disagreeable.... From now on we shall have our heart devotion fixed on The Theocracy, knowing that soon we shall journey forever together in the earth. Our hope is that within a few years our marriage may be consummated and, by the Lord's grace, we shall have sweet children that will be an honor to the Lord. We can well defer our marriage until lasting peace comes to the earth." [Children (1941), p. 366]

"Receiving the gift, [the book Children] the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." [w41, 9/15, p. 288]

"The New World Is At The Doors... The time is short. Those who do not inform themselves and who do not now choose the new world which Higher Powers shall establish will never live to enter into blessings and glories." [The New World (1942), p. 10]

"the disaster of Armageddon, greater than that which befell Sodom and Gomorrah, is at the door." [Let God Be True (1946), p. 194]

"After almost six thousand years of human sorrow, suffering and death, at last permanent relief is near at hand and will be realized within this generation." [New Heavens and a New Earth (1953), p. 7]

"in the light of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy it is becoming clear that the war of Armageddon is nearing its breaking-out point." [You May Survive Armageddon Into God's New World (1955), p. 331]

"The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." [w89, 1/1, p. 12 -- Note that the bound volume changed "20th century" to "day"]

Why do I include these quotes? It is not to get into the old 1975, or 1925 issue (in fact, you'll notice I skipped from 1955 to 1989 above precisely to avoid the old 1975 issue). But it is to show that the Society has always been dogmatic about the end being absolutely imminent. They were just as certain in the 1920s as they are today, even though 70 years have passed. Their argument in defense of this is that they are just eager and so they sometimes make mistakes. Fine, but then why should we expect that the end is imminent in our day and not another 70 years hence? If you ask a Witness today if the end could be 70 years away, they wouldn't even consider such a thought. But then, neither would a Bible Student have considered such to be possible back in the 1920s! Yet it happened. Eagerness does not always translate into accuracy, as the past has shown. They were wrong before so why can't they be wrong again? In fact, looking at the above quotes, they were wrong a lot of times! How can we know that they are not wrong in our time? At every other point in the Society's history they have been "overly eager" about when the end would come. Time and again they said things that they were convinced of, but turned out to be wrong. Regardless of motive, the facts are clear. So why not consider that they might be wrong again by saying the end is here?

In summary, what reason can you give for saying the end must be imminent? Not just a feeling or a belief, but "reasoning from the Scriptures" to show the end has to be very, very soon? If you can't come up with a compelling reason, why does the Society continue to insist on it? Just to keep us from slowing down and losing out in the future? If that's the case, why don't they tell us they are just trying to keep us in line? Why insist the end is immediately in the future as they have been for over one hundred years? And if they believe the end is so close, why don't they give compelling reasons for saying that, instead of dogmatically repeating what they have repeated for over a hundred years?

Part 2: How Does the Society Deal With Its Own Past History?

As I pondered these questions, I began to notice those quotes above. I thought it was funny how I knew almost nothing of these past predictions, just general observations that seemed to 'sanitize' the past. So I began to wonder what else was said in past years that is no longer referred to today?

Have you ever noticed how the Society quotes publications, including their own, without giving a complete reference? In other words, they say this quote comes from 'such-and-such' a publication, but gives no date, no page number, and so forth. Not always, of course, with the Creation book being an obvious exception [and one that will be covered under the next heading]. Even when they quote from the Watchtower, they are sometimes vague when making their quotes. Why is that, I wondered? So I began to check. And what I found was disturbing, for I found cases of seeming dishonesty and deception in what they were doing.

That's a serious charge; can I back it up? Here's an example of this. In From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained it says on page 170:

"In the "Watchtower" magazine of March 1880, they said: "The Times of the Gentiles extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then." Of all people, only the witnesses pointed to 1914 as the year for God's kingdom to be fully set up in heaven."

The point being made here is a familiar one, namely that the Society predicted, decades in advance, that the year 1914 would be the year God's Kingdom would be established in the heavens. Sounds familiar, right? We all know they said this, and this excerpt from the book confirms it by quoting from the Watch Tower of 1880. So what's the problem? Well, did you know that this is an incomplete quotation? That the complete quotation gives an entirely different viewpoint? Here's the complete quotation, and this time you can note that it is on page two of the March, 1880 Watchtower in case you want to check for yourself, as I did. [The Kingdom Hall library has all of the old volumes, so feel free to check these references to prove to yourself that I am not lying.]:

""The Times of the gentiles" extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then, but as a "Stone" the kingdom of God is set up "in the days of these (ten gentile) kings," and by consuming them it becomes a universal kingdom -- a "great mountain and fills the whole Earth.""

Notice the difference? The entire quotation shows that 1914 was expected to be the year that the kingdom of God would be set up in the earth, not heaven. The quotation from the book From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained says the partial quote shows that they expected 1914 to be the year God's kingdom would be 'fully set up in heaven'. The full quote is really talking about how that meant it would be extended to the earth in that year.

Now, you're probably thinking 'Well, that quote isn't the clearest, so I guess this is all blowing stuff out of proportion'. But the problem is that Brother Russell could not have been talking about the kingdom of God being set up in heaven in 1914. Why not? Because he believed that the kingdom was already set up in heaven in the 1870s, as will be clearly shown below.

So, if Russell believed that the kingdom was established in the heavens before he wrote that article in the 1880 Watch Tower, what was he saying? That the kingdom would be set up in heaven in 1914? Clearly not. That it would be 'fully set up in heaven' in 1914? Yes, that is what the Paradise book says. So what does that mean, to be fully set up? That it would extend its rule to the earth that year. That is what Russell believed back then.

Just to take a few examples to prove this point, note the following:

Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, entitled The Time Is At Hand, originally published in 1889, said concerning the Times of the Gentiles, on pages 76-77:

"God's Kingdom, the Kingdom of Jehovah's Anointed... will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion.

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove:

"-- Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions."

On page 99 The Time Is At Hand further said:

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914."

On page 101 The Time Is At Hand said:

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."

On pp. 206, 209, God's Kingdom Of a Thousand Years Has Approached said:

"It is true that the editor and publisher of Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence calculated that the "presence" or parousia of the heavenly bridegroom began in the year 1874 C.E. [...] In the year 1943 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free." In its chapter 11, entitled "The Count of Time" it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man's existence into the decade of the 1970's. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E."

So, the Paradise book uses that quote to show that the Society believed, decades in advance, that the kingdom would be fully set up in the heavens in 1914. What's deceptive about that quote, what they are not telling you, is that Russell really believed that the kingdom was already set up in the heavens by then and that it would extend its rule to the earth in 1914. Both ideas, of course, proved to be wrong. So by selectively quoted the 1880 Watchtower, the Society made it seem they had successfully predicted one thing, when the actual quote clearly shows they unsuccessfully predicted two other things entirely.

Is this earthshaking? Nope, not a bit. But it is a pattern and one that repeats itself on many occasions. The Society in this case made it look as if they got more right than they really did in the past. They selectively chose the parts that seemed to make themselves look good, and ignored the part that made them look bad. Ask yourself, if you believe this is trivial, did you know that the Society taught for some sixty years that the kingdom was established in the 1870s? If not, why not? Do you only recall some vague references to wrong ideas that were quickly corrected? The Society is always publishing its own history, so how could something that central to the Truth be ignored, such that almost no one knows it even happened today?

Here is another example of what I feel is deceptive quoting:

"... Bible chronology also fixes the time for Christ's second presence and the assuming of his right to rule as at 1914; this date was published in The Watchtower as early as 1879, 35 years before 1914." [The Sign of Christ's Presence, p. 3]

Again, a familiar thought, that the Society taught, decades in advance, that Christ's second presence would begin in 1914. However, what if you wanted to check this reference? Where in the 1879 Watchtower would you go? Which issue? What page number? Isn't it funny that they never tell you where to check this reference? Not just here, but in any publication, you won't find a specific reference to look up to prove the above quoted assertion. Why not?

Sad to say, it's because you won't find anything in the 1879 Watchtower that would support the above quote. Not surprisingly, really, because in 1879 Brother Russell firmly believed that Christ's second presence had already begun, so it would have been silly to say it would begin in 1914! What will you find in the 1879 Watch Tower or in years near then? That the Gentile Times would end in 1914. That is there, but the idea of Christ's second presence, or the kingdom being established, in 1914 was never mentioned. Interestingly, if you look at the above quote carefully, you will see that is says two things:

1) The Bible indicates Christ's second presence and kingdom rule began in 1914; and

2) The date 1914 was published as early as 1879.

See the point? They don't come out and say that in 1879 they wrote that in 1914 Christ's second presence would being, merely that the date 1914 was published (for some unmentioned reason) then. It is the juxtaposition of the two thoughts that makes it sound as if the 1879 Watchtower predicted more than it really did, and that is what makes the above quote deceptive.

Consider another quote:

"The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence... that Jesus' presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914." [w93, 1/15, p. 5]

'Consistently'? Only if you consider since 1943 to be consistent. For the previous sixty years or so the Watchtower consistently presented evidence that Jesus' presence in heavenly kingdom power began in the 1870s. That doesn't sound consistent at all, which makes the above recent quote deceptive.

Now, could it be that the authors of these incomplete or deceptive quotes just didn't know what the earlier Watchtowers said? Hardly. How can you get one part of a quotation and completely miss the very next part? And wouldn't the Writing Committee be aware of what the Society itself taught about Christ's presence? Even if the actual author of the 1993 Watchtower article quoted above was unaware of the history, wouldn't the proofreaders catch that? Or the Governing Body members who approve each article, all of whom were alive back when the Society taught that Christ's presence began in the 1870s? No, this has to be a deliberately selective approach to history. Here's another example: The 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio, convention is regularly referred to in Watchtower publications as a major milestone in the organization's history. Today the Society sometimes quotes a small portion of the keynote address in support of 1914. It ignores the fact that 1799 and 1874 figured with equal strength in the argument advanced and in the conclusion the audience was called upon to reach. The November 1, 1922 Watchtower reproduced the talk:

"Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable... Since [Christ] has been present from 1874, it follows, from the facts as we now see them, that the period from 1874 to 1914 is the day of preparation. This in no wise militates against the thought that "the time of the end" is from 1799 until 1914.... For six thousand years God has been preparing for this kingdom. For nineteen hundred years he has been gathering out the kingdom class from amongst men. Since 1874 the King of glory has been present; and during that time he has conducted a harvest and has gathered unto himself the temple class. Since 1914 the King of glory has taken his power and reigns. He has cleansed the lips of the temple class and sends them forth with the message. The importance of the message of the kingdom cannot be overstated. It is the message of all messages. It is the message of the hour. It is incumbent upon those who are the Lord's to declare it. The kingdom of heaven is at hand; the King reigns; Satan's empire is falling; millions now living will never die.

"Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign?

"Then back to the field, O ye sons of the most high God! Gird on your armor! Be sober, be vigilant, be active, be brave. Be faithful and true witnesses for the Lord. Go forward in the fight until every vestige of Babylon lies desolate. Herald the message far and wide. The world must know that Jehovah is God and that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom."

Interesting how this speech is referred to so often today, yet the 1874 date that is a key part of that speech is completely ignored! Yes, in 1922 "the King reigns", but they believed he had been reigning since 1874! I never knew that until I saw the full context of the usual short quote.

Consider just a few more quotes, dealing with the Society's own history around 1914:

"There is no doubt that many throughout this period were overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended, and while it was necessary for Russell to call attention to the certainty that a great change was due at the end of the Gentile times, he still encouraged his readers to keep an open mind, especially as regards the time element." [Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, p. 52]

The Society has said this sort of thing on several occasions. The idea being that it really is the friend's fault for being overzealous in their expectations. But was Brother Russell really 'encouraging his readers to keep an open mind, especially as regards the time element'?

"But I am not willing to admit that this calculation is even one year out" [Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World, 1877, p. 84]

That doesn't sound like encouragement to keep an open mind, does it? Did the actual year matter all that much? Yes:

".... Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the "very elect" had not all been "changed" and without the restoration of natural Israel to favor under the New Covenant (Rom. 11:12, 15). What then? Would not that prove our chronology wrong? Yes, surely! Would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck to the parallel dispensations and Israel's double, and to the Jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called "Gentile Times," and to the 1,260, 1,290, and 1,335 days.... none of these would be available longer." [w1907, 10/1, p. 295]

Of course, as things turned out differently than expected, the Society's viewpoint changed accordingly:

"October 1914 passed, and C. T. Russell and his associates were still on earth. Then October 1915 passed. Was Russell disappointed? In The Watch Tower of February 1, 1916, he wrote: "'But, Brother Russell, what is your thought as to the time of our change? Were you not disappointed that it did not come when we hoped that it would?' you will ask. No, we reply, we were not disappointed...." ... No, the Bible Students were not 'taken home' to heaven in October 1914. Nevertheless, the Gentile Times did end in that year." [Proclaimers, 1993, p. 62]

So in 1907, the Watchtower said it would prove a great disappointment, would work irreparable harm to all their calculations. In 1916, however, suddenly they were not disappointed at all.

Finally, note how the 'time element' shifted:

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914." [The Time is at Hand, p. 99, pre-1912 editions]

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915." [The Time is at Hand, p. 99, post-1912 editions]

Is this so serious? I think it is. Consider the many times the Society publishes information showing how they have made mistakes in the past and have moved on to brighter and brighter light. Wouldn't it be more honest, and more openly candid, to admit the full extent of their mistakes, instead of glossing over the more serious ones? Wouldn't that be more like Moses, recording his worst failings, or the apostles recording their endless mistakes? Wouldn't that give us more confidence in the honesty and candor of the Society? Isn't that the example set for us in the Scriptures? What does the Bible say about the one "covering over a matter"?

In summary, these are only a few examples out of many where the Society has selectively picked from their past history to make themselves look more accurate than they really were.

Part 3: Quotations and Research in the Society's Publications

Now that I noticed problems with the Society quoting their own publications from the past, I began to wonder about quotes taken from secular sources. How accurate were they?

Here's one recent, minor, example of how the Society sometimes will use a quote to imply more than the authors intended. I say 'minor' because this is not the most obvious example, nor is it of a subject that I think is that important. I only include it because it is representative of the way the Society likes to imply things.

In the June 15, 1997 Watchtower article titled "Jerusalem in Bible Times", it talks about archaeological discoveries in recent years, and how it confirms the Bible record on conditions in Jerusalem during that time-period. That's all fine and accurate. Then they quote from a book written by two archaeologists, Tarler and Cahill, and then make an application of the quote as follows (page 12):

"Thus, the Bible's picture of Jerusalem from David's time down to its destruction in 607 B.C.E. has in many ways been verified by archaeological excavations made during the past 25 years."

What's the problem here? The date 607 B.C.E. is the problem. The archaeologists being quoted do not believe that is the date for Jerusalem's destruction, and never said anything about that date in their book that is being quoted. The Society threw that in and made it sound as if these archaeologists agreed with them. But they don't agree as the following quotes make clear:

"I have never heard of the Watchtower Society, I have never published anything suggesting that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, and -- as far as I know -- Yigal never published anything like that either. I would respond that I know of no evidence supporting such a date." [Jane Cahill, Appelbau@HUM.HUJI.AC.IL]

"I am not familiar with the article you cited -- and I would appreciate receiving a copy of it -- but I never said that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. I do not think that, today, archeologists could differentiate between 607 B.C.E. and 587 B.C.E. material cultural remains. Assuming that there are material remains from a 604 B.C.E. destruction at Tel Miqne/Ekron and from a 587 B.C.E. destruction at the City of David/Jerusalem, comprehensive analysis of these remains conceivably could yield chronological indicators for other sites, but even then, the archeological conclusions would derive from those assumed dates; the dates themselves would not derive from the archeology." [David Tarler, david_tarler@nps.gov]

I included the archaeologists email addresses after their names in case you wish to ask them yourself if this is true or not. It was just such an email query that confirmed that the Society was implying more than they should have in that quote.

Here's another example:

"Some seismologists believe that the earth is now in an active earthquake period. For example, Professor Keiiti Aki of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology speaks of "the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years," though stating that the period from 1500 through 1700 was as active." [The Watchtower, May 15, 1983, p. 6]

Professor Aki, when contacted, provided his full letter that was written to the Society, and it is as follows:

"The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years is, in all probability, due to improved recording of earthquakes and the increased vulnerability of human society to earthquake damage. The main reason is the well established plate tectonics which indicates a very steady fault motion over the past many millions of years.

"A measure of earthquake strength more objective than casualty is the Richter scale. It is in general difficult to assign the Richter scale to earthquakes more than 100 years ago. An attempt, however, has been made in China, where historical records are kept in better shape than in other regions. Enclosed figure shows the Richter scale of earthquakes in China during the period of about 2000 years. The past 100 years are certainly active, but there have been periods as active as that, for example, from 1500 to 1700."

Does he say that the earth is in an active earthquake period? Yes, but no more active than other periods. Still, that part of the Watchtower, quote is correct. What is deceptive, however, is the excerpt "the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years," without continuing with the rest of Professor Aki's sentence. The full sentences says that this 'surge' is "in all probability" not a surge at all, but just better recording techniques and the fact that more humans are now more vulnerable to earthquake damage. In other words, he sees nothing remarkable about our time, the exact opposite viewpoint the Society indicated he held. Professor Aki, commenting on the use of his quote, said:

"It is clear that they quoted the part they wanted, eliminating my main message." [Keiiti Aki, aki@usc.edu]

Again, these are minor examples, but illustrative of the kind of problems you can find when the Society quotes secular sources. Let's take a much more serious set of examples, all taken from the Creation book.

The Society has a large staff for writing and researching its articles and publications. They claim to do thorough research when writing its books. So why is it that they don't notice quotations from other sources being pulled out of context and twisted to say something the author didn't mean? The Creation book, above all others, invites us to do research by including a large reference at the end where it tells you where it got its quotes. Have you ever taken the time to look up some of these references? If you do, you will be surprised and disappointed.

First, consider the forward:

"Millions of people today believe in evolution. Other millions believe in creation. Still others are uncertain what to believe. This book is for all such people. It presents a thoroughly researched examination of how life got here and what this means for the future." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 4]

So we have a claim that the book is a "thoroughly researched examination." Let us see.

"The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 15]

The ellipsis hides that what is under attack is Darwinism not evolution. Reading the full story in Discover will show that nobody here questions evolution, only one explanatory theory.

"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism. [...] Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."

As you can clearly see, Creation misinforms the reader. What reader will get the impression that the Discover article discussed the pace of evolutionary change? Stephen Jay Gould definitely does not abandon the theory of evolution.

Here's another problem:

"Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 15]

The argumentation in this chapter relies on statements like these. Now, who is this Francis Hitching? He is called an evolutionist. What impression does this word give in this context? Evidently that he is a scientist specializing in evolution science. Actually, however, he has no credentials in science. He is just a typical author with an education limited to private boys' school in Warwick, England according to his own information given in Contemporary Authors. [Contemporary Authors, vol. 103 p 208, Detroit: Gale Research]

Some will deny that the word evolutionist conveys the idea that he is a scientist. Why, then do we see the following in the publication The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?

"How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." [The Bible -- God's Word or Man's, 1989, p. 106]

This error obviously occurred because the writer of gm took his information from Creation. If the Society itself misunderstood its own book, the casual reader will also.

If you examine the references in Creation you will see that Hitching is the most important source for major parts of the book. Even more, if you read The Neck of the Giraffe you will recognize many lines of thought that are used in exactly the same way in Creation without indication of source.

What else do we know about Hitching? Well consider what else he has written: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection. Also, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained. Further, did you know that he says he was member of Society for Psychical Research, British Society of Dowsers and American Society of Dowsers? If you knew that, would you want to read anything Hitching wrote, or would you think his writings would be spiritistic in nature and you would want to stay far away from them?

What else do we know about Hitching? Doing a search on the Internet found this excerpt on him from the talk.origins usenet group:

"Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin. Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather than being quoted directly from their original sources. One magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter, 7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:

"Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching's book is strongly anti-Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled his information from the creationist literature." This is indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably (Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-Men Fact or Fallacy?, but Bowden accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology."

So this is the person the Creation book relies on for much of its argument. A paranormalist and psychic. A creationist of the 'earth was created in six literal days' movement who gets his arguments from the young-earth creationist movement, a movement that the Society ridicules, yet through Hitching, the Society is really quoting this very movement to support its arguments.

Every time you see Hitching quoted, remember that he is not the evolutionary scientist the Society says he is, but a book author with an anti-Darwinist ax to grind. The Society is hardly quoted a reputable scientist who believed in evolution and now is having second thoughts. What other examples of misquoting can be found in the Creation book?

"Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 18]

Now, did Darwin really "acknowledge this as a problem"? Not at all. Read the full quotation:

"To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." [The Origin of Species, p. 133]

So the single point Darwin was making, was that while intuition seemed to make evolution of the eye improbable, reason told him that this was 'not subversive of the theory.' Quoting like Creation did is clearly dishonest.

The next quote is:

"Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." It will be useful to consider some of this evidence." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 143]

Nobody reading the original article from Scientific American will get this impression. Lewontin begins his article with a short summary of the ideas people had in the 19th century before Darwin:

"Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.

"It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation."

From these sentences, where Lewontin summarizes the ideas he is going to refute, a few sentences have been lifted and made it appear like this was his opinion. Lewontin himself was not very happy when this misquote was made by someone else. The newsletter Creation/ Evolution allows him to answer under the quite explicit headline Misquoted Scientists Respond:

"But the point of my article, Adaptation, in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the perfection of organisms is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. The past tense of my article (It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment [...] that was the chief evidence of a 'Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist Parker in his attempt to pass of his ancient doctrine as modern science." [Creation/Evolution, autumn 1981, p. 35]

Earlier in the same article he says:

"Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called scientific creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists."

Now, would not Lewontin have reason to question the sincerity of the writer of Creation? Here's another misquote:

"At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." [Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, p. 39]

Now, does Dawkins know deep inside that he's really telling the reader a fairy-tale? The selective quote leaves this impression. Look at it in context:

"This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, stranger than fiction expresses exactly how I feel about the truth." [The Selfish Gene, p. ix, 1976]

Why didn't Creation give the whole quote?

Where do misquotes like these come from? You may be relieved to hear that nobody in Brooklyn seems to have been responsible for lifting these passages viciously out of context. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in San Diego, CA, has for a long time provided endless lists of misquotes, misrepresentations and general quasi-science. One of their periodicals is called Impact, and in the issue for October 1980 we find a short article by Gary E. Parker [Gary E. Parker, Creation, Selection and Variation, Impact, No. 88, Oct 1980, San Diego: ICR, pp i-iv] that obviously meant a lot to the writer of Creation. On page (ii) we find Darwin's statement about the eye (ce18) and Lewontin's infamous statements about a Supreme Designer (ce143).

Even if the writers of the Creation book didn't take these quotes out of context themselves, isn't it disturbing that the very creationists that the Society has tried to distance themselves from support the foundation of the book? And since the Society claims that this book is well researched, why didn't they go to the original sources, instead of just pulling quotes of quotes from some creationist journal? And if they did go to the original sources, how could they miss noting that they were misquoting their sources in a way that completely twists their words around?

The Creation book is full of such misleading quotes. Please take the time to look up the actual references in the back and see for yourself. Then remember this the next time the monthly campaign is with the Creation book. Just hope you don't meet anyone knowledgeable enough to recognize the misquotes.

Is this such an important thing? On its own, probably not. One could chalk it up to sloppiness. But the pattern of misquotes, misleading quotes, selective use of history is disturbing in an organization that claims to be so honest and open and thorough. The forward of the Creation book, which says "It presents a thoroughly researched examination", is false. It was sloppily researched and the result is a book that is misguided at best or dishonest at worst. To summarize thus far, I began by wondering about the Society saying the end must be imminent despite the change in "generation." From researching how the Society has always believed the end was imminent, I noticed that their quoting of their own past history was selective at best, and deceptive at worst. That then led me to examine other, secular, quotes where I found that the pattern of deceptive quotes got even worse.

In other words, I found a pattern of selective honesty. But isn't that really another way of saying dishonesty? Think about what the meaning of "selective honesty" is. What parent is pleased when their child tells them only part of the truth, leaving out the inconvenient parts that make the child look bad? Isn't that called dishonesty on the child's part? If so, why should the Society be held to any less of a standard? Reasoning along this line then made me think about the standard the Society should be held to. Should we just view the Society as a group of imperfect men who make mistakes?

Part 4: Reasoning on the Meaning of Prophecy

Earlier I quoted extensively from the Society's publications to show how they have been constantly expecting the end to come imminently. Several of the quotes contained dogmatic, but incorrect, predictions about specific dates. What does this mean? Are they just imperfect men making lots of mistakes along the way?

Opposers sometimes make the claim that the Society is a false prophet, and they point to those failed predictions as proof. What does the Society say to such charges? Note the Watchtower of March 15, 1986, on page 19:

".... we might consider what the Society has published in the past on chronology. Some opposers claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are false prophets. These opponents say that dates have been set, but nothing has happened.... Yes, Jehovah's people have had to revise expectations from time to time.... we display our faith in God's Word and its sure promises by declaring its message to others. Moreover, the need to revise our understanding somewhat does not make us false prophets.... How foolish to take the view that expectations needing some adjustment should call into question the whole body of truth! The evidence is clear that Jehovah has used and is continuing to use his one organization, with "the faithful and discreet slave" taking the lead."

So here they clearly say they are not false prophets, leading one to believe they are just imperfect men, not inspired, trying to discern Bible truth and needing to revise their expectations from time to time. This is the view we have all been told. But is this correct? This denial made me wonder just what it is they are denying.

Let's get our terms straight. What is a prophet? A prophet, according to Vol. 2. of Insight on the Scriptures, page 694, is:

"One through whom divine will and purpose are made known."

A prophecy, according to Vol. 2. of Insight on the Scriptures, pages 690, 691, is:

"An inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. As shown under PROPHET, prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages.... yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.... The Source of all true prophecy is Jehovah God."

The Society says they are not prophets, not inspired of God. But looking at those definitions listed above, what does it sound like to you? Furthermore, did you know that the Society has, on occasion, explicitly said they were God's prophets? In the publication, 'The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah' -- How? on page 61, par. 16-17, it says:

"Certainly, then, back there in the postwar year of 1919 there were none among the war-guilty religious elements of Jewry and Christendom who qualified to be commissioned as the modern-day counterpart or antitype of Ezekiel. Was there no one, then, whom Jehovah could raise up to serve in a way that corresponded to that of that ancient exile in Babylon? Whom could the real "chariot" of Jehovah's organization roll up to and confront that he might bestow upon this qualified one the commission to speak as a prophet in the name of Jehovah? Ah, there was a group whose members had suffered religious persecution during World War I at the hands of Babylon the Great, ... Who were they? They were a small minority group of men and women who had dedicated themselves to Jehovah as God by following in the footsteps of his Son Jesus Christ."

It continues on page 66, par. 24:

".... It is a composite Ezekiel. It is composed of those dedicated, baptized proclaimers of God's kingdom, who have been anointed with His spirit for their work. (Isaiah 61:1-3) It is manifest that in the year 1919 the invisible heavenly organization of Jehovah, like the celestial chariot seen in Ezekiel's vision, rolled up and stopped, not before Christendom's advocates of the League of Nations, but before the anointed proclaimers of the heavenly kingdom... From atop this celestial chariot like organization Jehovah commissioned this dedicated, baptized, anointed class of servants to speak to all the nations in his name... It was most fitting that... they embraced the distinguishing name of Jehovah's Witnesses."

So here it says there was a commission to speak as a prophet in the name of Jehovah, and that it was the anointed ones who were to speak to the nations in Jehovah's name. Explicitly, it calls the anointed ones prophets.

Similarly, note the following:

"A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives. In ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers. While these men foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God's will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities. People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... Identifying The 'Prophet'. These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? The clergy of the so-called 'Christian' nations hold themselves before the people as being the ones commissioned to speak for God. But as pointed out in the previous issue of this magazine, they have failed God and failed as proclaimers of his kingdom by approving a man-made political organization, the League of Nations (now the United Nations), as the 'political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth'. However, Jehovah did not let the people of Christendom, as led by the clergy, go without being warned that the League was a counterfeit substitute for the real kingdom of God. He had a 'prophet' to warn them. This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as international bible students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses." [The Watchtower, April, 1, 1972, p. 197]

Or consider this quote:

"A 'prophet to the nations' is what Jehovah made him. (Jeremiah 1:5) Now today, if anything, there needs to be a 'prophet to the nations'.... Jehovah has considerately raised up his 'prophet to the nations.' Jehovah has done this during this 'time of the end,' since World War I ended.... the 'prophet' whom Jehovah has raised up has been, not an individual man as in the case of Jeremiah, but a class.... At this late date there is a mere remnant of this 'prophet' class yet on earth.... One thing is now certain: if the "prophet" class, the Jeremiah class, is facing Har-Magedon" [The Watchtower, October 1, 1982, p. 26-27]

In the book, Holy Spirit -- The Force Behind the Coming New Order, p. 176, it says:

"He [God] has put his word, his message of the hour, into the mouths of the spiritual remnant for them to confess openly before all the world, for their salvation and for that of responsive hearers."

Remember, a prophet, according to Insight, is "One through whom divine will and purpose are made known." So, according to the Holy Spirit book, is the spiritual remnant a prophet? They said 'God put his word into the mouths of the remnant', didn't they?

In the book, Preparation (1933), p. 28 it says:

"This is proof that the interpretation of prophecy does not proceed from man, but that the Lord Jesus, the chief one in Jehovah's organization, sends the necessary information to his people by and through his holy angels."

Later in the same book the thought continues:

"Certain duties and kingdom interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which include the transmission of information to God's anointed people on the earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it; and the Scriptures and the facts show that it is done." [Preparation, 1933, p. 36-37]

Does this sound as if they were claiming the divine will and purpose were being made known to them?

Consider this quote and ask yourself, if it is not the opinion on any man, where does this message come from?

"The Lord has graciously provided for the publication of his message in the form of books, that the people many be informed of the truth... those books do not contain the opinion of any man." [Riches, 1936, p. 384, 385]

The Watchtower, January 15, 1959, p. 40-41 says:

"Whom has God actually used as his prophet... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them.... Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths."

Isn't that very clear? If they are not claiming to be prophets, what other interpretation for that passage can you give?

Really, looking at the definitions of prophet and prophecy, we can see that the Society acts as a prophet. Common sense tells us this. Their own publications have explicitly said they act as prophets. The only time they deny this is when they are answering the charges of opposers. Then suddenly they are not prophets anymore. They are just 'revisers of expectations.'

So clearly they can be called prophets. What about the rest of the charge? Can they ever be called false prophets? Forget about motive, just consider their actions whether rightly or wrongly motivated. Well, how does one tell a true prophet from a false one? According to Deut. 18:20-22:

"However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: "How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him."

So, a prophet makes known the divine will and purpose. Prophecy is an inspired message, in other words, a message from God. And there are standards which a prophet must meet; failure to meet any one makes them a false prophet

Ask yourself, has the Society spoken 'in the name of Jehovah'? Of course they have. Have they spoken words that did not occur or come true? Yes, as we have seen, and we will see more below.

Note also the Watchtower May 15, 1930, pp. 155-156, where it says:

"The false prophets of our day are the financial, political, and clerical prognosticators, they assume to foretell future events; but their dreams or guesses never come true... In 1914-1918 these same three classes told the whole world that the great world war would end all wars and make the world safe for democracy.... their prophecies did not come true, therefore, they are false prophets; and the people should no longer trust them as safe guides...."

The Society accuse others of being false prophets when they simply say something that didn't come true, i.e. guesses never come true. It's very clear that these secular authorities didn't claim to speak in Jehovah's name, yet the Society calls them prophets for saying something would happen. When it didn't happen, they were called false prophets. So what can we expect when we see the predictions quoted earlier that the Society made? They spoke in Jehovah's name, they said this is what God has said, and yet, it didn't come true.

Biblically, according to Deut. 18, is this the mark of imperfect men honestly making mistakes, or of false prophets? The March 1, 1979 Watchtower advances another argument that would prevent the Society from being classed as a false prophet:

"But let us never forget that the motives of this "slave" were always pure, unselfish; at all times it has been well-meaning."

Deut. 18 says nothing about motive, nothing about making allowance for sincerity. It says nothing about revising expectations, so why add to the scriptures? Where in the Bible does it say that "pure motives" are of any value in determining whether the words of a prophet are true or false? The Society itself often says that God will destroy members of all false religions no matter how sincere they may be, since God's standard is truth, not sincerity.

So, now that I could see that the Society has claimed to be prophet, and certainly has acted like one, and certainly common sense would tell you they are acting like prophets, I now set out to see just what they had predicted over the years. We all know that the Society admits to past mistakes, but were you aware (as I was not) of just how many, and how many explicit, predictions were made over the years? Please note the following as a selection, and remember what it means to be a prophet in the scriptural sense:

"The End Of This World; that is the end of the gospel and the beginning of the millennial age is nearer than most men suppose; indeed we have already entered the transition period, which is to be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation Dan. 12:3." [Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, p. 17]

"Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom in 1874.... at the beginning of the Gospel harvest." [Zion's Watch Tower, 1879, p. 4]

"We need not here repeat the evidences that the "seventh trump" began its sounding A.D., 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of trouble, and the end of "The times of the Gentiles," A.D., 1914, and that it is the trouble of this "Great day," which is here symbolically called the voice of the Archangel when he begins the deliverance of fleshly Israel. "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince (Archangel) which standeth for the children of thy people and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." Dan. xii. 1. Nor will we here, again present the conclusive Bible proof that our Lord came for his Bride in 1874, and has an unseen work as Reaper of the first-fruits of this Gospel Age. [Zion's Watch Tower, 1880, p. 1]

"The outlook at the opening of the New Year has some very encouraging features. The outward evidences are that the marshaling of the hosts for the battle of the great day of God Almighty, is in progress while the skirmishing is commencing. [...] The time is come for Messiah to take the dominion of earth and to overthrow the oppressors and corrupters of the earth, (Rev. 19:15 and 11:17, 18) preparatory to the establishment of everlasting peace upon the only firm foundation of righteousness and truth." [Zion's Watch Tower, January 1886]

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1888, p. 76, 77]

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's word." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 101. (The 1915 Edition changed "A.D. 1914" to read 'A.D. 1915')]

"In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 98-99]

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence which indicates that six thousand years from the creation of Adam were complete with A.D. 1872; and hence that, since A.D. 1872 are chronologically entered upon the seventh thousand or the Millennium." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 33]

"Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in Millennial Dawn, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable. What changes have since occurred, and what velocity is gained daily? 'The old is quickly passing and the new is coming in.' Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures-nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." [Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894]

"...this measurement is 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years.... This calculation shows A.D. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble...." [Studies in the Scriptures: Thy Kingdom Come, Series III, p. 342, 1897 edition (1916 edition changed to read: "We find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years.... Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble....")]

Note: the measurement was the length of an interior passageway discovered inside the Pyramids, believe it or not!

"Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874, A.D.... and the formal inauguration of his kingly office dates from April 1878, A.D." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol.4, p.621]

"When Uranus and Jupiter meet in the humane sign of Aquarius in 1914, the long-promised era will have made a fair start in the work of setting man free to work out his own salvation, and will insure the ultimate realization of dreams and ideals of all poets and sages in history." [Zion's Watch Tower, May 1, 1903, p. 130-131]

"According to our expectations the stress of the great time of trouble will be on us soon, somewhere between 1910 and 1912, culminating with the end of the 'Times of the Gentiles,' October, 1914." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 6, p. 579]

"Studying God's Word, we have measured the 2520 years, the seven symbolic times, from that year 606 B.C. and have found that it reached down to October, 1914, as nearly as we were able to reckon. We did not say positively that this would be the year." [The Watch Tower, November 1, 1914, p. 325]

"The present great war in Europe is the beginning of the Armageddon of the Scriptures Rev 19:16-20). It will eventuate in the complete overthrow of all the systems of error which have so long oppressed the people of God and deluded the world. We believe the present war cannot last much longer until revolutions shall break out" [Pastor Russell's Sermons, p. 676]

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915. [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1915 edition, p. 99]

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1915 ed., p. 101]

"So it was in this harvest also up to A.D. 1878 the time prophecies and the fact of the Lord's presence, substantially as here presented, though less clearly, was our message. Since then the work has widened, and the view of other truths has become brighter and clearer; but the same fact and scriptures, teaching the same time and presence, stand unchallenged and incontrovertible." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 2, 1915 ed., p. 236]

"The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ's Reign, began in 1873." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, Foreword, p. 2, 1916]

"The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the greatest corporation in the world, because from the time of its organization until now the Lord has used it as his channel through which to make known the glad tidings...'" [The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22]

"There will be no slip-up... Abraham should enter upon the actual possession of his promised inheritance in the year 1925" [The Watch Tower, October 15, 1917, p. 6157]

"And the mountains were not found. Even the republics will disappear in the fall of 1920. And the mountains were not found. Every kingdom of earth will pass away, be swallowed up in anarchy." [The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, p. 258]

"Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity." [The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, p. 485]

"As the fleshly-minded apostates from Christianity, siding with the radicals and revolutionaries, will rejoice at the inheritance of desolation that will be Christendom's after 1918, so will God do to the successful revolutionary movement; it shall be utterly desolated, "even all of it." Not one vestige of it shall survive the ravages of world-wide all embracing anarchy, in the fall of 1920. (Rev. II: 7-13)" [The Finished Mystery, 1917, p. 542, (The 1926 ed. reads: "in the end of the time of trouble.")]

"In all his (Russell's) warnings he claimed no originality. He said that he could never have written his books himself. It all came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit." [Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, p. 387.]

"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." [Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89]

"Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will be still on the earth in 1925. Then, based upon the promises set forth in the divine Word, we must reach the positive and indisputable conclusion that millions now living will never die." [Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 97]

"'The time of the end' embraces a period from 1799 A.D., as above indicated, to the time of the complete overthrow of Satan's empire and the establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah. The time of the Lord's second presence dates from 1874, as above stated. The latter period is within the first named, of course, and in the latter part of the period known as "the time of the end." [The Harp of God, 1921 p. 236]

"The period must end in 1925. The type ending, the antitype must begin; and therefore 1925 is definitely fixed in the scriptures. Every thinking person can see that a great climax is at hand. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the climax is the fall of Satan's empire and the full establishment of the Messianic kingdom. This climax being reached by 1925, and that marking the beginning of the fulfillment of the long promised blessings of life to the people, millions now living on earth will be living then and those who obey the righteous laws of the new arrangement will live forever. Therefore it can be confidently said at this time that millions now living will never die." [The Golden Age, January 4, 1922, p. 217]

"The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the "time of the end" began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874." [The Watch Tower, March 1, 1922]

"We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? Using this same measuring line.... it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably in the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." [The Watch Tower, May 15, 1922, p. 150]

"It is on the basis of such and so many correspondencies -- in accordance with the soundest laws known to science -- that we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed by the dates and events of 1874, 1914, and 1918. Present-truth chronology is a secure basis on which the consecrated child of God may endeavor to search out things to come." [The Watch Tower, June 15, 1922]

"This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct...." [The Watch Tower, July 15, 1922, p. 217]

"1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures... the Christian has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had (so far as the Scriptures reveal) upon which to base his faith in the coming deluge" [The Watch Tower, April 1, 1923, p. 106]

"Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874." [The Watch Tower, January 1, 1924, p. 5]

"The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914." [The Watch Tower, 1924, p. 211]

"It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work." [The Watch Tower, 1925, p. 262]

"The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything." [The Watch Tower, 1925, p. 56]

"Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not so state." [The Watch Tower, August 1, 1926, p. 232]

"The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything." [The Watch Tower, February 15, 1925, p. 57]

"The time of the Lord's second presence dates from 1874, as above stated." [The Harp of God, p. 236, 1928 edition]

"If these prophesies have not been fulfilled, and if all possibility of fulfillment is past, then these prophets are proven false." [Prophecy, 1929, p. 22]

"The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D." [Prophecy, 1929, p. 65]

"God's faithful people on earth emphasized the importance of the dates 1914 and 1918 and 1925. They had much to say about these dates and what would come to pass, but all they predicted did not come to pass." [Vindication, vol. 1, 1931, p. 146]

"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918 and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date, but to rely (and they do rely) upon the Word of God as to the events that must come to pass." [Vindication, p. 338-339]

"...the scriptural evidence and the physical facts strongly indicate that such witness work is now almost done; and when it is done the universal war will begin. Universal war is absolutely certain to come and that soon, and no power can stop it. [...] during the few remaining months until the breaking of that universal cataclysm the powers that rule the nations of the earth will continue to make treaties and tell the people that by such means they will keep that world peace and bring about prosperity. [Universal War Near, 1935, p. 3, 26-27]

"... mark the words of Jesus, which definitely seem to discourage the bearing of children immediately before or during Armageddon.... It would therefore appear that there is no reasonable or scriptural injunction to bring children into the world immediately before Armageddon, where we now are." [The Watchtower, November 1, 1938, p. 324]

"Would it be scripturally proper for them to marry and begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the scriptures.... It will be far better to be unhampered and without burdens, that they may do the Lords will now, as the Lord commands, and also be without hindrance during Armageddon.... Those... who now contemplate marriage, it would seem, would do better if they wait a few years, until the fiery storm of Armageddon is gone." [Face the Facts, 1938, p. 46, 47, 50]

"The abundance of Scriptural evidence, together with the physical facts that have come to pass showing the fulfillment of prophecy, conclusively proves that the time for the battle of the great day of God Almighty is very near and that in that battle all of God's enemies shall be destroyed and the earth cleared of wickedness." ... "Likewise today, all the nations and peoples of earth are face to face with the greatest emergency. They are being warned as God commands, that the disaster of Armageddon is just ahead." [Salvation, 1939, p. 310, 361]

"The year 1940 is certain to be the most important year yet because Armageddon is very near. It behooves all who love righteousness to put forth every effort to advertise The Theocracy while the privileges are still open." [Informant, April, 1940, p. 1]

"Armageddon is surely near, and during that time the Lord will clean off the earth everything that offends and is disagreeable.... From now on we shall have our heart devotion fixed on The Theocracy, knowing that soon we shall journey forever together in the earth. Our hope is that within a few years our marriage may be consummated and, by the Lord's grace, we shall have sweet children that will be an honor to the Lord. We can well defer our marriage until lasting peace comes to the earth." [Children, 1941, p. 366]

"Receiving the gift, [the book Children] the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." [The Watchtower, September 15, 1941, p. 288]

"Now, with Armageddon immediately before us, it is a matter of life or destruction. Those who would be of the Lord's other sheep that shall compose the great multitude of Armageddon survivors and live joyfully on earth forever must find the answer to a very personal question, and very important." [The Watchtower, April 1, 1942, p. 139]

"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." [The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, 1971, 2nd ed., p. 216]

"Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that not reason to increase our activity?... Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end." [Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p. 3]

"If the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century (the year 2000), which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that "the conclusion of the system of things" is moving fast toward its end." [The Watchtower, October 15, 1980, p. 31]

"Some of that "generation (of 1914)" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" [The Watchtower, March 1, 1984, pp. 18-19]

"These definitions embrace both those born around the time of a historic event and all those alive at that time. If Jesus used 'generation' in that sense and we apply it to 1914, then the babies of that generation are now 70 years old or older. And others alive in 1914 are in their 80's or 90's, a few even having reached a hundred. There are still many millions of that generation alive. Some of them 'will by no means pass away until all things occur." [The Watchtower, May 15, 1984, p. 5]

"Prophetic information in the Bible about our day detail the following: ... (4) The survival of at least some of the generation that saw the beginning of "the conclusion of the system of things." [True Peace And Security, 1986, p. 70]

"The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." [The Watchtower, January 1, 1989, p. 12 (bound volume changed "20th century" to "day")]

"Today, a small percentage of mankind can still recall the dramatic events of 1914. Will that elderly generation pass away before God saves the earth from ruin? Not according to Bible prophecy. 'When you see all these things,' Jesus promised, 'know that he is near at the doors. Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.' -- Matthew 24:33, 34." [The Watchtower, May 1, 1992, p. 3]

"[Discussing the generation of Mt 24] "apparently refers to the peoples of earth (now) who see the sign of Christ presence but fail to mend their ways." [The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, p.12]

"Why Awake is Published":

[Before November 8, 1995] "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."

[After November 8, 1995] "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."

I think the idea is clear. The Society has clearly predicted things, in Jehovah's name, and those predictions have failed. In what sense can they not be called false prophets?

When answering the charges of opposers, wouldn't it be better to follow the example of the apostles and admit they had been false prophets in the past? Why the verbal song-and-dance to get around that? It would be so much better to just say "Our expectations led us to make claims in God's name that turned out to be wrong. Yes, by acting in this way as a prophet we made mistakes, but that was just due to our own eagerness with a right motive, not a wrong one. It is not that we are false prophets in general, but in a few specific cases we admit that we made predictions and those predictions turned out to be false. Therefore in those specific instances we have to say we acted as false prophets. We meant the best and we were not trying to fool anyone. We made a simple error and moved on." That would be so much more effective in dealing with opposers than blindly saying, "It never happened! We never acted as false prophets!" when the facts are there in black and white.

By looking at the definition of a prophet, and the way a true prophet can be distinguished from a false prophet, I realized why they get so defensive when called 'false prophets.' They really do fit the definition! Sincere or not, the scriptures and their own past writings are crystal clear.

Realizing that the Society would resort to cover-ups and deception in dealing with their own past made me wonder about the Society itself. If they were willing to be deceptive, even perhaps dishonest, then was the Society acting in harmony with scriptural principles?

Certainly the Society has not acted like the apostles, carefully recording their every mistake and being completely open and honest about their failings. The Society is like the guilty person who admits to shoplifting a $1 item to keep people from realizing he has also looted the store vault! This is very un-Christlike in their approach, in my opinion. This pattern of deception was disturbing to me. Like the child caught raiding the cookie jar when he isn't supposed to, the fact that the child later lies about the matter is far more disturbing than the fact that he wanted another cookie. I wouldn't have been upset about the fact the Society had occasionally acted as false prophets if they had admitted it. Because they tried to hide the truth, to cover over their past, it made me wonder why they would act this way. Thinking about the way Christ and the apostles acted, and especially studying the Greatest Man book for the bookstudy, led me to the answer of why the Society acts this way: Like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and therefore are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain it. The problem stemmed from the way the modern-day organization has developed.

Part 5: The History of the Organization

"Beware of "organization." It is wholly unnecessary. The Bible rules will be the only rules you will need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far as you can understand God's Word today." [Zion's Watch Tower, September 15, 1895, p. 216]

That was certainly an interesting quote from Brother Russell. It made me wonder what he would think of our modern-day organizational structure. That, in turn, made me think about God's use of earthly organizations in general. The Society maintains that God has always used organization when dealing with humans and I had always accepted that. But with all of the deception I found from the Society, I thought I had better examine what the Bible says on the subject.

Let's go back through history, beginning with Adam and Eve. God dealt directly with them before they sinned, and then through angels after they sinned. He dealt directly with Cain and Abel, pronouncing judgment on Cain. No organization in evidence here at the beginning.

The next period of note is Noah's time, and here we have a favorite Society organization "type" -- the ark representing organization. Although it is true that to survive the flood you had to be on the ark, there is no mention of any kind of organizational arrangement. Noah acted as a prophet in that he made God's pronouncements made known, and as a family head he took the lead to represent his family before God. But there is no indication that anyone else on the ark would have to "follow" Noah in some sense other than to get on the ark. We don't expect people to follow us when we study the Bible with them, do we? So Noah's example is merely one of God dealing directly with a family through the family head.

After the flood, how did God deal with humans? Well, he communicated with individuals by means of angels, dreams and visions. He also sent prophets to proclaim divine messages. But there was no central organization in place.

What about Abraham and his descendants, leading to the Mosaic Law? Isn't that a clear example of organization? Yes, but what kind of organization? A favored family and people, certainly. But God still dealt directly with that family. With Moses he also spoke directly, giving him a commission.

What about the Mosaic Law arrangement? Here was a special covenant relationship with God, codified by hundreds of laws. But how was Israel organized during this time? Is it similar to the way the Society is organized today?

Who directed things in Israel? The Levites? No, they carried out the religious functions, supervising the offerings and religious procedures, but that's it. The nation was divided along tribal lines and then by chieftains over large groups of family members. There was no human form of government or rule, other than the elders of a particular community who acted only within that community. Lawbreakers were judged by the people under the supervision of the community elders. Because of the Law, each individual was responsible before God, his family and the community for his own behavior. In other words, things were set up theocratically, with God as king in place of human rulers.

There was no correlation in ancient Israel to the current organization today. There was no group of persons to consult about community affairs except those in the community themselves. Things were dealt with as families, communities and tribes. When the nation finally demanded a human king, it was a step in the wrong direction. Theocratic rule worked, but human rule caused one problem after another. Human, visible, centralized rule was untheocratic, and the results bore that out. Soon the nation was divided into two separate kingdoms, hardly a good example of organization for the Society to claim they follow.

Even with human kings, there was no central administrative body existing in Israel that even remotely resembles the structure of the Society's organization today.

What about Jesus' day? Did Jesus set up, or describe a new way of organizing God's people? The Society says so, referring to the account of the Faithful and Discrete Slave, as well as the implied Governing Body of Acts 15. This is where the Society says they get their authority to organize the modern-day work as they have. So let's examine those biblical examples and see what they say.

The Faithful and Discrete Slave

Matthew 24:42-48 says:

"Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming. "But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. On this account YOU too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming. "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings. "But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, 'My master is delaying,' and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be."

Here is what the Insight book says under the heading "Faithful and Discrete Slave":

"Commentators often view this as a general exhortation to any and all who have individual positions of responsibility in the Christian congregation. The requirement of faithfulness in discharging responsibility clearly applies to all such. (Compare Mt 25:14-30; Tit 1:7-9.) Yet, the impossibility of each and every one of these individuals being placed over "all" his master's belongings at the same time, the time of the master's arrival, is obvious. This, however, does not require that the "slave" prefigure only one particular person who would be so privileged. The Scriptures contain examples of the use of a singular noun to refer to a collective group, as when Jehovah addressed the collective group of the Israelite nation and told them: "You are my witnesses [plural], ... even my servant [singular] whom I have chosen." (Isa 43:10) Similarly, the figure of the unfaithful "evil slave" could apply to a collective group in the same way that "the antichrist" is shown to be a class made up of individual antichrists. -- 1Jo 2:18; 2Jo 7."

Notice how the Society first says it can't refer to all Christians for how could every one of them be placed over "all" his belongings, then they turn right around and say that it can refer to multiple persons! It can't be plural, and then it can be, in fact must be plural. What does the actual scripture say, though? It clearly is an exhortation to Christians to remain vigilant, to stay awake. And until the appearance of the 'other sheep' class, even the Society would claim that it referred to all true Christians since they teach that the Faithful and Discrete Slave means all of the anointed ones on earth. Where does it describe any kind of centralized, organized governing body in that scripture?

The Governing Body

Who would be channel of communication for Christians after Jesus' death? Consider John 14:16, 17:

"If YOU love me, YOU will observe my commandments; and I will request the Father and he will give YOU another helper to be with YOU forever, the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU know it, because it remains with YOU and is in YOU."

Also, John 16:13-15:

"However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming. That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to YOU. All the things that the Father has are mine. That is why I said he receives from what is mine and declares [it] to YOU."

The scriptures clearly indicate the holy spirit would be the helper after Jesus' death. For how long would this be? "Forever" it says, not just for a few years. Jesus did not say he would set up a centralized group of human representatives for guidance and direction.

So where does the idea of a governing body come from? The Society takes it from Acts 15. However, if you look at the account in the whole chapter, and compare it to Paul's version of the same events, recorded in Galatians 2, you'll see that this is merely one way to look at this event. Another way to look at it is that Paul and Barnabas had to go to Jerusalem to set the brothers there straight! Read those two chapters and see if you don't agree. Certainly there is no evidence of the type of organization we see today.

During this time the governing body was supposedly in operation, what do we see happening? If you read the book of Acts, you will see Jesus directly involving himself, such as with the conversion of Saul. You will find angels being sent to free Peter from prison. You will see God sending visions to advance the work and directing individuals such as Phillip with the Ethiopian eunuch. We do not see the congregations constantly looking to the elders in Jerusalem for guidance and direction. Really, it is no wonder Brother Russell felt the way he did about organizations. What would he think of the situation today, where every move is dictated to us by a central body, including which things are conscience matters and which are not! Where to appoint a 21-year old brother to be a Ministerial Servant we have to consult with a circuit overseer who can then pass the recommendation on to the governing body so they can decide if this person, whom they do not know, is qualified to handle the magazines!

Think too about the way the governing body works today. Matthew 24 says that the faithful and discrete slave provides the food. The Society says that all of the anointed ones on earth are the faithful slave. That would mean that the spiritual food we receive should potentially come from all of the anointed, not just the members of the governing body. Is that how it works in real life? Not really. Think of individual anointed brothers and sisters you have known. How many of them have sent in suggestions or points to the governing body? How much time does the governing body spend poring over letters from anointed ones from around the world? Isn't it true that most of the input they get is from non-anointed circuit and district and branch overseers? Isn't that how decisions are made about which articles and letters to write? So really the way the Society does things is not even the way Matthew 24 says it should be done. Instead of the faithful and discrete slave providing the food, we have a small body of men providing the food suggested by a large group of non-anointed brothers. Is that what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 24?

With all this in mind, examine the history of the organization and see how it has steadily grown over the years, adding layer upon layer of regulations in a way never seen in the Bible (well, you could look at the example of the Pharisees, I suppose). Look at the way the congregations were set up a hundred years ago compared with the way they are set up today. Which one seems more like the first-century arrangement?

This now explained the deception I had seen in the Society's writings. When it comes to organizations, their primary function gradually becomes one of perpetuating themselves. This is done with sincerity, of course, and with a good motive. After all, if you believe this is God's organization on earth, perpetuating it is a very good motive, and an important one at that. Therefore, anything that would tend to tear down, or damage, that organization must be dealt with. This leads to situations where it becomes better to "gloss over" the past, so as not to disturb the brothers, even if doing so is essentially deceptive in its result. Keeping the organization intact thus becomes the prime thing.

Inevitably, bad results follow from following human organizations. Look at the ideals of the communist party upon its founding and see how it ultimately turned out. Their primary focus became their own survival to the detriment of their followers, even while telling their followers how good they had it.

This does not mean that I think the brothers are bad persons. On the contrary, I've seen almost nothing but good among the friends and I have no bitterness or anger toward anyone. They may have very good motives, and be quite sincere. But bad fruits can result from sincere individuals, and sincerity does not imply correctness.

Personally, I can't say I had problems with the Society's organization. I always followed its direction, so I was never bothered. But I knew many others who chafed under its close direction while, at the same time, sincerely wanting to worship God. But because they wanted to, say, grow a beard, they were restricted from all privileges. Had they lived in another time, or in another country, it would be fine. But in the U.S., at this time, the Society says No. It was not left to the person's conscience, but was legislated through the organization.

That's the problem with looking to a human organization for constant direction, even being afraid to think for yourself -- you never get to grow up and become more than a spiritual babe. Since I could now see that the Society acted deceptively, I realized that the problem was not with the persons involved, but with the structure itself. Having a central organization, while doing wonders for keeping unity and the brothers in line, also led inevitably to deception and oppression. I don't believe Jehovah would change and suddenly want humans to look to a human organization for guidance. We look to Jehovah through Christ by means of God's word. We exercise our conscience and look to the leading of the holy spirit. But to look to a human organization, and a deceptive one at that, is not what God has ever had in mind. We've always said, if Jesus wanted to teach a trinity, he would have made that very, very clear and obvious when he taught his apostles. Well, the same thing applies to organization. If this was God's arrangement, he would have explicitly said so. Brother Russell would have discerned this organizational structure from his Bible study. But it isn't clearly laid out in the Bible, and Brother Russell not only didn't discern one, he actually warned against such an arrangement.

Part 6: Summary

In summary, all of the above is why I must leave the organization. I've been thinking this for several months, and been researching and meditating on the question. I realize this is a serious step, one that means I am literally betting my life that I am right. But the scriptures are clear, and the history of the Society is clear, and the way the Society operates is clear. I do not believe Jehovah wants us to support such a Society, and therefore I must leave.

I do not know where I will go, although I'm certainly going to avoid human organizations. That's not the point. One doesn't need a new destination to know when it is time to leave a wrong organization.

If you disagree with the above, if you can live with the deception, then I will respect your decision. If you feel that thinking the way I do means I am an apostate, I also respect your feelings. Be assured, however, that I am not interested in drawing others after myself or away from the Society. That is a personal decision and one I do not choose to influence. For that reason, if you are reading this document, it is because you explicitly asked me to see it despite my warnings. I ask that you show it to no one else. I do not want this document spread about. I wrote it to explain my actions for any friend who was interested. What you do with this information is up to you.

Still, as I said in the beginning, even if one accepts all of the above, there are still some nagging questions that come up for any Witness considering leaving. I will deal with some of those questions in the Appendixes.

Appendixes

Appendix A

"The Society doesn't claim inspiration, so why can't they make mistakes?"

Please note Part 4, and see that they do claim to have been inspired, so that is one problem. The main answer to this, however, is that I don't care so much about the mistakes they made, but I do care about the way they have reacted to those mistakes. In Part 4 are some quotes leading up to the year 1925. Note how dogmatic they are, how definitive they are. Then see what they say shortly after 1925 came and went. The Society blamed the friends for wrong expectations! That is a very bad thing to do. Think about the generation change. They made the change and said that perhaps some Christian's expectations had made them try to count years from 1914. Well, of course we all calculated years! The Society had taught us to, until they changed the definition.

If the Society really admitted to their mistakes, instead of blaming others, I would admire them. Instead they sound like Adam, blaming God for "this woman you gave me" who ate of the fruit. The Society blames the friends for wrong expectations while rarely admitting that they were the source of those expectations in the first place. That is the mark of dishonesty.

Instead of showing the candor and honesty of the imperfect apostles, they try to pretend they never made the mistake in the first place. Yes, I know they sometimes admit mistakes, but always with an excuse, and never to the full extent of what they earlier said. It is this attitude that I find inexcusable.

Some will argue that these are examples of the 'light getting brighter' or of 'tacking'. But is that really the case? Unfortunately, those examples both imply a steady progress. Either the day is dawning and the light is gradually increasing, or you are in a sailboat going against the wind and tacking to the right and left, but always making progress. You never go backwards. However, the Society has on many occasions gone back and forth on an issue, not made steady progress. The light has turned brighter, then darker, then brighter. Is this because Jehovah changed his mind? Of course not. So was Jehovah trying to trick his people? Of course not. How else then can you then explain the light turning on and off as these examples show:

A. Are the anointed ones under the new covenant arrangement? In 1880 the answer was No. In 1881 it was Yes. In 1907 it was No. Finally, after Rutherford became president, it became Yes.

B. Will the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah come back in the resurrection?

• Yes: Watchtower, August 1879, page 8.
• No: Watchtower June 1, 1952, page 338.
• Yes: Watchtower September 1, 1965, page 479.
• No: Watchtower, June 1, 1988, page 31.

C. Can it be OK to perform alternative civil service? Originally the answer was Yes. Then it became No for a long time. Now again the answer is Yes.

D. Who are the superior authorities of Romans 13? Russell said it was the secular rulers of the nations. Rutherford said it was Jehovah and Jesus. We now say Russell was right.

Appendix B

"The organization is so unified and full of love so it must be from God."

Unity does exist, but think about why. Let's take as an example a person in the world who has feelings of racial prejudice.

When a person full of racial prejudice joins the organization, suddenly he is forced to associate with persons he never would have chosen before. He sees that they really are just like him and his old way of thinking changes. Many persons in the world never associate with anyone but persons just like themselves. Prejudice can flourish when you never deal with the group you dislike. By being forced to confront those issues head-on, most reasonable persons can see their prejudices have no basis in fact.

Or maybe they aren't able to think things through that much, but they are also taught that God wants them to love others, so perhaps he changes his heart in order to please God, even if he still has reservations.

With the more stubborn ones, however, it is also pointed out that if they don't change their ways God will kill them. What do you know? He changes his ways! Either love for God, or fear of Him has made his prejudice disappear.

Or has it? In some cases, yes, it really does disappear from their hearts. In most cases, however, the prejudice is still there, just not showing. As an elder, I have on many occasions seen brothers and sisters show an incredible level of prejudice and hatred for each other. Did it really disappear? No, it merely got hidden away from the elders until some provocation brought it out into the open. What we see in this case is a typical human response to being pressured to conform to a group mentality in order to fit in. The same sort of thing would happen with worldly persons if you fit them into similar surroundings.

And is the organization really that full of love? Haven't you noticed how many 'love' their brothers without really 'liking' them? How much gossip occurs in the congregation? How many brothers only associate with others when they have to at meetings? How many times there are 'personality conflicts' or downright feuding? Again, we are forced to love each other, but what is in our hearts sometimes never changes.

So the unity we see is the unity that is constantly being forced upon us by endless Kingdom Ministry articles telling us not to save seats and the like!

Appendix C

"We shouldn't question the Faithful and Discrete Slave."

What if they are wrong? How would you ever know?

Granted, if God appointed the Faithful and Discrete Slave, then it would be wrong to question them. The problem is, if they are not appointed from God, how would you ever know if you didn't question them? You would be trapped into following the leadership of men and would have no way of knowing this!

There is only one way to know if they are from God or not and that is to question them by means of the Bible. If you are sincere in your search, why would God be upset with you any more than he was with the Boereans in the first-century? In both cases, you are carefully examining these things to see if they are so.

Appendix D

"But this is where we learned so many truths about God's word, so it must be God's organization."

We've all heard this one, but think it through. Any religion that teaches the Bible will teach some good and some truths. The Catholics will teach you not to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. Those are all good things. You could read the King James Bible and learn God's name is Jehovah. How do we react out in service when a Catholic, confronted with the wrongdoing of his church in the past, responds by saying 'Yes, but look at all the good things my church does?' We respond back that all those good things do not excuse the wrong conduct, and that's correct.

As the Society says about other religions, if they have many good things but some bad, you must get out of them. I'm just applying this same principle. Yes, the Society taught me many good things, but they also involved themselves in wrong conduct, and so I follow their own instructions and leave.