Who or what is "truth"?
There are many "truths". It is "truth" that Germany has lost two world wars. It is "truth" that FC Bayern Munich is the record champion in German football. It is "truth" that there is man and woman. It is "truth" that fish cannot climb trees in the dry and Vienna is the capital of Austria, just as it is "truth" that Volkswagen and Mercedes are two car brands.
But what "truth" does the Bible speak of? And of what "truth" do the Jehovah's Witnesses speak?
Let us first look at the JW and then compare this with the Holy Scriptures.
If a JW (in the sense of the WTS) speaks of "being in the truth", then he means it as described in Dogma 4: There is only one true religion and we have it or we are in it. What this means and why this is not possible has already been said.
Let's take a look at the HS in comparison, because the term "truth" is also explained there. This happens quite clearly in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 6:
(New World Translation of WTS)
Here Jesus clearly says that he himself is the truth. Question: Is WTS like Jesus Christ? Wouldn't that be presumptuous if it said so? But does it not, knowingly or unknowingly (which we hope!)?
The WTS clearly establishes a (false) dogma here. At least she allows it from her followers benevolently.
The Watchtower Society is indeed in its view to be the Great Christ. It really claims that the 144,000 are together with Jesus the great Christ. Here a new Christ is invented and the false Jesus of the Watchtower Society is a part of it. [RH]
In this context, another curiosity within the WTS is of interest: The topic "Well-trained conscience".
The conscience must be well trained, it is always commonly said within the WTS and its members. Trained conscience? When and where and how does this term appear in Holy Scripture? Even a hint? Well, even after a long search one has to realize: Not at all.
Then why does the WTS, respectively today the JW.org, use this term? For a very simple reason: If one of its (fellow) members, the "0-8-15"-JW, should have a different attitude to a thing than the given guideline of the WTS indicates, let's say, for example, on the subject of blood transfusion, this "Otto-Normal-JW" could agree with his conscience to allow such a thing, then, according to the tenor of the WTS, his conscience is not properly "trained". One could also call this "adjusted" and he would then have to bring his conscience "up to speed", i.e. "train". Three times, dear reader, you may now guess how this has to happen.
That's right. Corresponding articles from the literature of the WTS are chewed through with the delinquent until his "conscience" has been restored. Should this procedure fail, however, the person in question proves to be a rebel and a) belongs to the gang of Korahs and b) "may" then finally draw the consequences from it: In the concrete case of emergency up to the exclusion. With all its consequences. Whether such a matter can and may be called "conscience" at all is the big question resulting from it. Therefore also the term "trained conscience". A single farce, at the end.