JW Defense Against Charges Of Being False Prophets

I was looking over the Yahoo! Answers page and found an interesting question and answer about how the jw's defend themselves when hit with charges of being a false prophet. I think you will enjoy Curious Jorge's response. (I copied/pasted it as is with no commentary or changes of any kind.)---
Q: Jehovah's Witnesses, what is your defense when the WTBTS is called a false prophet by many, according to scriptures?

A: From my experience, they have two primary defenses:-
1) They weren't really prophets; and
2) It's no big deal, because God's servants have been wrong before.

These two defenses are incredibly weak. Here's a brief rebuttal to each.

First, to the defense that the Watchtower/JW leadership weren't really prophets. While the Watchtower leaders have written articles describing themselves as "prophets" (see for example, chapter 4 of the book "The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah"), they claim that they are not "inspired."

Thus, the Watchtower Governing Body seems to have invented a new category for itself--that of the "uninspired true prophet."When it comes to the issue of the prophetic nature of the Governing Body, JWs parse words in such a way that would put former U.S. President Bill Clinton to shame (he's the one who said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is").

I am of the opinion that talk is cheap, and a person or group of people is best judged by its actions. So, it makes more sense to look at the *actions* of the Governing Body and see if they *act* like they think they're modern day prophets.

For example, the Governing Body claims that God uses it as the sole channel of communication. In other words, God only speaks through them. Now, in the Bible, who did God speak through? Prophets.

Also, the Governing Body requires its followers (Jehovah's Witnesses) to believe and follow every religious pronouncement they make. For example, when the Governing Body decided in 2008 that the "generation" of Luke 21 no longer meant "wicked people" but now meant "anointed Christians," every single JW was *required* to change his/her belief on this matter. In other words, the Governing Body's pronouncement had the *exact same* effect as if it were part of Scripture.

So, it looks like the Governing Body is trying to "have its cake and eat it too." On one hand, the Governing Body expects its followers to believe and adhere to everything it says as if it were Scripture. But on the other hand, the Governing Body accepts no accountability when it's wrong...typical of a man-made organization.

The second defense incorrectly equates wrong expectations held by some early Christians with blatant false predictions such as "millions now living will never die" and proclamations that 1925 is "God's date and not ours." I guess some people can rationalize anything.

Also, to address the answer of "Line Dancer" regarding the example of Nathan and David. This has got to be the weakest JW defense I've seen in a while. How can you equate Nathan's general statement that David should do what's in his heart and that God was with him with the wild-eyed predictions of the Watchtower society? what a stretch!

And I love that paragraph from the Watchtower quoted in the answer of "Line Dancer." It contains an amazing number of logical fallacies--even for a Watchtower article!The fact is that the Bible is rife with warnings about false prophets. So, when a man or group of men make false predictions, of course they are going to try to rationalize their actions...like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Anyone looking at the matter objectively can see right through their excuses and cover stories.