"Theocratic Warfare" - An Apostate Strategy?

by slimboyfat 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  unclebruce

  I give up lol.
• 

  lost_light06

  It's easy to come here and ask for wriiten proof that the WTBS has a theocratic warfare strategy. If the society instructed in writing that it's members lie to police, court officials or people in positions of authority it would then be culpable when the members actually did so. You are using the oldest trick in the WTBS handbook: set forth a rule or doctrine then when the r&f get busted doing it or are called out on it, deny you ever said it. I was raised a witness but have only been baptized less than a decade, I'm in my mid twenties and I heard of theocratic warfare long before even seeing this or any other "apostate" board. I had never even read a WT published in the 60's or 70's so you can't tell me I read it in some old dusty publications. I heard it at the KH, at assemblies. We were told "it's ok to withhold information from people who don't deserve to know when it protects the flock". This is common knowledge among the r&f. Do they all call it "Theocratic Warfer"? No, but a turd called by any other name is still a turd.
• 

  mkr32208

  I am not an active JW.

  I don't believe in JWism.

  Are these two lies listed here part of your "theocratic warfare?" If you as a JW log on to an apostate site and LIE about being a witness to try to get people to "come back" wouldn't' that be almost the textbook definition of theocratic warfare?

  Try in the future to not be such an idiot!
• 

  diamondblue1974

  I heard of Theocratic Warfare when I was a dub; it was their justification for being dishonest - I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. I havent made it up and I havent over dramatised it either - it is what it is.

  What I find annoying is that you make fleeting statements about apostates and you assume that they are but one grouping of people....apostates are not, they are individuals, there is no following, there is no theology its simply people who have moved away from JWism - just like you SBF.

  Stop trying to tar us all with the same brush and respect our (as well as your) right to individualism.

  DB74
• 

  AuldSoul

  sbf: Those references talk about "theocratic warfare" - but certainly not with the sense that apostates use the term!

  They refer to Theocratic Warfare and spiritual warfare in the sense that every act undertaken opposed to the unrighteous and in favor of the righteous (God's chosen organization included) is an act of warfare. If you disagree, that is only because you have not considered the references I cited in their context which is, as always, your prerogative.

  Since other articles clearly state that lying and deceiving in opposition to the unrighteous and in favor of righteousness (God's chosen organization included) is appropriate and righteous and godly, anyone who links the two together honestly can plainly see that such behavior would fall under the heading of Theocratic Warfare.

  An example would be whether or not a medical professional has an obligation to reveal confidential information despite her contractual and legal obligation to keep the confidence. On the one hand, in the balancing scales, we find choices (behaviors) that have been labeled ungodly by the organization claiming to have been chosen by God. On the other hand, in the scales, we have the law of the land and the contractual agreement to which all medical professionals in the US are voluntary signatories.

  The chosen organization says that such a person would possibly become personally accountable to God if they choose to honor their voluntary agreement and act in accordance with the law of the land. The interests of a clean organization (as defined by the organization) are of higher concern and playing false to an agreement as well as committing a crime is something that such an individual should do. This would clearly fall under the heading of Theocratic Warfare as described in the publications.

  Another thing that seems to escape your attention (and the attention of other borderline apologists) is that doctrine unchanged is still current doctrine no matter how dated it becomes. You want current references to show that Jesus is not the mediator for all mankind? The most current you will find that states the doctrine plainly is from 1989. However, the doctrine is still correct from the standpoint of the organization, despite the fact that it is now 18 years old. Other doctrine works similarly. Sometimes, the most recent plain statement of a given doctrine is from the 40s or 50s. Unless there is a later reference that specifically changes the doctrine being considered that is more recent, that aged reference is still current doctrine.

  The fact of the matter is, the doctrine of Theocratic Warfare established early on remains unchanged. The application made by myself is valid and is supported by (1) the fact that the doctrine is still acted on and (2) the fact that the doctrine has never been changed. It is acted on in that disciplinary action may result against any JW who chooses not to engage in Theocratic Warfare, determination of such inaction being entirely up to the discretion of a local BOE, a CO, and the Service Desk of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  greendawn

  The GB has this hypocritical mentality through which they can find justification for all their wrong doing. Eg why aren't the other anointed consulted for anything at all? Because today jehovah found it more expedient to concentrate all power in the hands of the GB.
• 

  truth.ceeker

  Sometimes, it would be nice to have a 'plonk' file for some people.

  ..my two cents..
  truth.ceeker
• 

  moanzy

  I too was aware of the term "theocratic warfare". When I asked an elder what it meant, I was told that the society uses it when needed against Government or any opposition that negatively affects God's org. Apparently that meant my husband too.

  He also said that as christians we are under obligation to "protect" God's org because that is who Jehovah is using. So as a christian we would use this when necessary with a GOOD CONCSCEINCE(SP).

  I also remember it being used at the Circuit Assembly in a talk just after 9/11. A very sad turn for an organisation that preaches it is above the standard of any church out there.

  Moanzy
• 

  AuldSoul

  sbf: UN nonsense

  Like yourself, I am troubled when those who have left make up accusations or make mistatements in their accusations against the Watchtower Society, local BOE, or others in positions of authority.

  However, there is no question in my mind that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. voluntarily applied for and was approved as an Associate member to the United Nations Department of Public Information. There is, further, no doubt that they retained this membership for almost 10 full years, and undertook all resposibilities attendant to maintaining this relationship.

  There is also no question that this membership violated their own published standards to which (they assert) all true Christians adhere.

  Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (2005) p. 155, par. 2
  Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.” (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement.

  There is no question that the United Nations Department of Public Information (UN/DPI) is an organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible (according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses) or that it is under judgment by Jehovah God (according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses). Therefore, they hold themselves to a different standard than that which they impose on others. Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for refusing to dissolve a membership to the YMCA per this same policy.

  Romans 2:1-2 — Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that the judgment of God is, in accord with truth, against those who practice such things.

  Why am I an advocate for rejecting their teachings? Because they have constituted themselves inexcusable by judging others for what they themselves do.

  I believe the "brothers" who responded to my letter challenging their involvement with the UN/DPI considered their response and their instructions to the local BOE/current CO to be an instance of Theocratic Warfare, because they certainly engaged in an active attempt to mislead and deceive my father and the other local elders, as well as an active attempt to misdirect the focus of attention away from their conduct and onto the person challenging their conduct—which is in keeping with what they have published regarding the rules of Theocratic Warfare.

  If you believe otherwise, please try to fully explain why you believe differently. I am curious.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  freetosee

  So why have Witnesses never heard of 'doctrine', yet apostates seem to promote it as the last word on Witness standards of honesty, integrity and decency? The answer is simple: apostates made the whole thing up!

  
  I grow up as a JW and I knew about it, I don’t remember it discussed at the meetings but do remember our PO discussing it at a meeting point for field service in relations to the military police back in the 80ties. “A lie is not a lie when spoken to someone not entitled to the truth” was often mentioned at meetings.
  But there are many things the r&f don’t know about the WTS that does not mean the leadership doesn’t do it. There is even a vast difference between elder and regular publishers.
  Freetosee