JW Children Lie in Custody Cases (page 19)

compound complex

Despite his degree of seminarian otherworldiness and his own recognition of his lack of practicality, he was handed the responsibility of making decisions in a very broad range of areas where he had no personal experience whatsoever --- and where the Scriptures themselves were essentially silent. To his credit, in one of the early Governing Body sessions I shared in, he expressed appreciation that such decisions were no longer left to him to make as an individual and that the responsibility was now shared with others. [Nonetheless, when the rightness of earlier positions and policies came into question, he generally argued against change and expressed this sentiment in his vote.] Unfortunately, the majority of his fellow Governing Body members were not much more in touch than he was with the problems of life most people experience, particularly if they had spent most of their life at the Brooklyn headquarters, as many had. [Contrary to what some might think, Nathan Knorr inclined to be more reasonable in these areas. He and Fred Franz thus at times were at "opposite sides of the fence," in some of the voting. Out of all the Governing Body members only one, Albert Schroeder, knew what it was to be a parent, and even in his case he did not know what it was to do so as the average working man does, since even after the birth of his son he continued to be employed by the Society in teaching assignments as a Kingdom Ministry School instuctor, with his housing and other needs cared for.] True, most of these men engaged in at least some door-to-door work among the public and had their social contacts with Witness friends living "on the outside" --- but, on the whole, these were somewhat like "excursions," quickly over and then they returned "inside," to their own self-contained "city" of Bethel, where all their needs were supplied. At Bethel their rooms were cleaned, beds made, clothes washed and pressed, meals cooked and served, shoes repaired or suits cleaned and pressed for a nominal fee, and they never had to think of rent, property upkeep and repair, health insurance, or anything other than a minimal amount of taxes. They shared in the good things other "on the outside" offered them, but rarely if ever shared in their difficulties and hardships. [ibid., page 251.]

compound complex

PREVIEWS:

What writings of FWF that NHK ordered destroyed.

The beginnings of the disfellowshiping process:

"...it is not for us to tell anyone what kind of work
he may or may not do."

This sounds nice, but in reality it simply means....

Junction-Guy

Thanks for starting this thread CoCo, Keep on posting. I will bring this topic to the top every few days, even if it is nothing more than a simple BTTT. It's important for lurkers to see this. Keep up the good work, and never get discouraged, and dont quit this forum.----------------------------------------------------------------------------Dave

compound complex

Hey Dave,

Thank you so much. We wish you success in the goal you've set for yourself --- we're behind you. We are all about the same purpose.

Peace and love,

CoCo

compound complex

In the course of time, the Service Department, then under the direction of Harley Miller as office overseer, began collating Fred Franz's replies and placing them in binders. They were regularly referred to when handling questions coming in "from the field." The department had several volumes of such memoranda accumulated when some years later the president, Nathan Knorr, made one of his periodic inspection visits to the department. Seeing the volumes, Knorr inquired as to what they were. After being informed, he instructed the department to eliminate them and they were subsequently destroyed. They no longer have those volumes in the Service Department. They have new ones --- composed now of the decisions that the Governing Body makes and they use them in much the same way as they used the old ones. Of course, many of the replies supplied by then Vice President Franz, had been eventually put in print in the columns of the WATCHTOWER magazine. And there is no question that the basic framework on which the whole system of the "great body of theocratic law" rests was developed during that earlier period. The Governing Body generally has done little more than build extensions onto that basic framework, or define more specifically certain details found therein. It would be impossible to discuss even a small fraction of the total but consider here a few examples:" [ibid., p. 252.]

"Theocratic Law" in Actual Application
[to follow]

compound complex

PREVIEW:

Employment that the organization has ruled unacceptable.

When you MAY perform services/accept payment:
Military- and Church-related

Violation of "code of rules"? - Isaiah 2:4

compound complex

"Theocratic Law" in Actual Application

The revised manual to be called CORRESPONDENCE GUIDELINES, as it was turned over to me for editing, contained thirteen pages on "Employment," a field of legislation into which the organization had not ventured previous to the 1950s. It began with the statement, found elsewhere in the Watch Tower publications, that:

While an individual's employment can affect his standing in the
congregation, it is not for us to tell anyone what kind of work he
may or may not do.

This sounds nice, but in reality it simply means that while the organization cannot control or dictate a person's choice of employment (an obvious fact), it nevertheless may CENSURE him for that choice or even DISFELLOWSHIP him for choosing or continuing in an employment that the organization has ruled unacceptable. [emphasis: RF.] That is the way it works out in actual practice. The manual as submitted contains several pages of examples to illustrate the policies set out. Under the subheading, "Work that is not itself unscriptural but that links one with a wrong practice or makes one a promoter of it," the manual supplied such examples as these:

EXAMPLE: Two women work as maids on a military base. One
is employed in a home by a family, the husband of which is in
the military. The other is a maid employed to clean the barracks.
Comments: The first woman concludes that she could accept
such work for the family and not be in conflict with Isaiah 2:4
[which speaks of beating one's swords into plowshares and not
learning war anymore]. She reasons that, despite the location
of her work and the fact that the "breadwinner" of the family
is in the military, she is providing a common service for
individuals in a home and is not employed by an organization
in conflict with the Scriptures. (2 Kings 5:2, 3; 5:15-19; Phil.
4:22) She continues to be a member of the congregation,
though if she sought the privilege of pioneer service consider-
ation might have to be given to how her employment is
affecting others and whether she is viewed as a good example.

The other woman, by her regular work, is performing a
needed service in the accomplishment of the overall objec-
tive of an organization the purpose of which is out of harmony
with Isaiah 2:4. She is paid by the military, works on military
property and is doing work regularly that makes her a part of
that organization and its objectives. She is in conflict with
Isaiah 2:4.

compound complex

bttt

compound complex

Thus, the first woman who works domestically for a military man in his household on the base can retain her standing in the congregation; the second, who cleans barracks, perhaps on the same base, cannot. As the rest of the manual and as all Watch Tower publications make clear, anyone "in conflict with Isaiah 2:4" is either to be disfellowshiped or pronounced "disassociated." [The use of the term "disassociated" came into being as a euphemism, being used in place of "disfellowshiped" where sensitive issues, such as entering the military, voting, or other such matters were involved. It later came to be used also of anyone who formally withdrew from the organization. Whichever term is used, the effect is the same, for "disassociated" persons today are treated the same as disfellowshiped persons.] The first woman might be paid by an officer, even a general, who orders the men in the barracks into combat. Her pay comes from him, true, but the money comes from his military salary. Still, her work does not make her "unclean." The second woman who cleans the barracks, because her pay comes from the military as an organization and because she is somehow viewed as contributing to the "overall objectives" of the military, is counted as bloodguilty and worthy of being cut off from the congregation. [ibid., p 253.]

compound complex

Tortured Reasoning and Unbalanced Thinking.............next

BTTT

JW Children Lie in Custody Cases

Share this