How I obtained my personal files from Bethel (page 8)

Mad Sweeney

Wow, that 4/26/00 letter to COs is as full of loaded language propaganda as any of their published crap, if not even more so. The COs and elders have to be continuously reindoctrinated, too, apparently.

jwfacts

Yes, I love the statement "there have been rare instances" of JWs having blood tranfusions. The magazines make the same type of statement. It is actually quite common for JWs to accept blood, smoke, fornicate, gamble, get drunk, cheat on taxes and so forth, but the Watchtower hates to admit that in print.

shopaholic

Regarding the blood issue, I believe you will only be DF'd if you willing accept it but not if its forced on you. I had a friend go through that whole thing in our late teens. It was forced on her and there were a ton of JC meetings to determine if it was really forced on her or if she lead the doctors to believe she wanted it.

Thanks for posting your files. It was all very interesting. I got a good chuckle on the letters about your seeking excessive entertainment and leading on sisters. I've known guys that have been forced to marry or lose their position because they "led" someone on. They are ALL divorced.

What was particular interesting was the letter from the branch to the CO/congregation which said something along the lines of non-belief not being a disfellowshipping matter.

lisaBObeesa

As a teenager, before the the internet, somehow I knew that all they cared about was the organization and not God. When they came to question me I just went on and on about how I doubted God exisisted. I told them that IF He did exisist, well then surely the WTBTS was His org (made me throw up in my mouth a little, but somehow I knew I had to say it), but that I just had these doubts about God himself that would not go away. (in fact, my views were just the opposite: I believed quite strongly in God, and was sure the WTBT was NOT his organization.)

It worked fine. After one very long Q&A/"encouragemet" session, they left me alone.

All these years later I love finally seeing the written proof that they could care less about God or your belief in Him.

And the written proof that taking blood gets you DA? priceless!

Thanks so much for all your work, JWfacts!

dissed

Thanks for sharing this very vital information with us.

I would love for everyone that comes to this site to read all of this in its entirety.

Meeting Junkie No More

First of all, THANK YOU for your dogged determination in pursuing this matter; Lord knows it takes persistence when dealing with any legal issues of any kind and your perseverence is/was OUTSTANDING!

This is the part that stands out for me:

The Watchtower responded that they do not fall under the $3 million turnover requirement, on the basis that the $16 million is mostly unsolicited donations. They quoted the taxation definition that turnover does not include donations for tax purposes. The Privacy Commissioner argued that the law was written to encompass the broader meaning of turnover to include donations.

The Privacy Commissioner was reluctant to pursue the case without absolute certainty of the correct rendering of the law, as they expected the Watchtower would drag it through the courts and they did not want to incur the substantial cost without being certain of winning. They were also conscious that this case set a precedent that affects all Australian religions and charities. This resulted in a 3-year period with both the Watchtower and the Privacy Commissioner involving external lawyers to determine the definition of turnover.

In 2009, after a period of 3 years, the Commissioner received legal advice that for a certainty the definition of turnover in the Privacy Act was intended to include donations. They wrote back to the Watchtower Society once again demanding they hand over my documents.

Talk about using any legal technicality/loophole to obfuscate the Privacy Commissioner's request! How is this in any way obeying the 'superior authorities'? Wonder how much money in donations was spent on legally 'determining the definition of turnover?' There's a good use of part of the 16 million in donations! (NOT) Anyhow, good on them to have the Commissioner finally nail them, albeit after 3 years; probably just as they figured they'd heard the last on this matter.

My opinion of the WBTBS has sunk to a new LOW. Once again kudos to you for your tenacity and THANK YOU!

Michelle365

Michelle365 - From what I heard through the grape vine I had apparently disassociated myself by my actions

This is a very unfair aspect of the whole process that being used more these days. Disassociation does not give you the opportunity to appeal and so can be even more unjust than d/f. When the WTS had issues with the Bulgarian government in order to obtain legal recognition they had to say having a blood transfusion is not a disfellowshipping offence. What they then did is made it a disassociating offence. That way the Bulgarian government thought they had done Witnesses a favour when in fact the situation became worse. It appears elders are using the same principle for apostates as well at times.

----Wow. I did not know that about Bulgaria. Thank you for taking the time to share that info!

Leolaia

Hi jwfacts...thanks for sharing all this information (which is private by its very nature) and going through the trouble and heartache to get all this. I am still reading through the documents, which are revealing especially with regard to the very particular way "organization men" view things. I was struck however by this comment in one of the files, in which the CO said that "non-belief is not a judicial matter". I thought it was really interesting how he put it that way. Particularly when, in your case, it isn't just doubts about a belief but that you "disbelieve the Bible and no longer believe in God". That sounds a lot stronger than merely having doubts. I would have thought that such statements would automatically be regarded as apostasy. But these are matters of "non-belief" in the same category as someone saying they are "confused" or "unsure" of what to believe?

Leolaia

Very interesting to see this board referenced in internal JW correspondence.

#1: "Attachment for Notification of Disfellowshipping or Disassociation", dated January 11, 2006:

Further, on a Jehovah's Witness discussion forum on the Web, the author of www.jwfacts.com asks how to make his website more widely known.
http://jwfacts.com/images/6-2006-full-disfellowship-documentation.pdf

#2: Posting by jwfacts on JWD, dated June 25, 2005:

Hi, I just put together a site that tries to logically show the Witnesses are not the true religion. Just wondering how to get the information out to people that most need it. Also any ideas on how to get the site found by search engines. And while i am at it, if anyone can be bothered reading it, any constructive thoughts about it. thanks

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/93220/1/just-created-a-site-www-jwfacts-com

jwfacts

Leolaia, it shows that the elders are willing to go online to research the flock. It would be a shame if fading Witnesses are intimidated into restricting their comments on boards like this, but at the same time it does show that care needs to be taken not to reveal too much personal information.

How I obtained my personal files from Bethel

Share this