by compound complex 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Terry, There was one person in the congregation that stated it was unacceptable to accept the Conscientious Objector status.
His reasoning was that since we are neutral, we cannot as "true christians" accept that status. Did you hear ths arguement before?
My Mother getting pregnant didn't help my family at all. My Dad went to prison in Seagoville a couple of months after I was born (late 1970).
Thanks, everyone!
New York:
Not to pre-empt Terry's further comments, but you may find the following, from IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, helpful:
The organization's own history shows that, basically, the so-called "great body of theocratic law" began its growth during the presidency of the second president of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph F. Rutherford (from 1916 to 1942), for during the presidency of the founder of the Society, Charles Taze Russell (from 1881 to 1916), the organization was notably free of legalism. Following Russell's death and Rutherford's election to the presidency, a totally different tone and spirit manifested itself in the organization's administration. Rutherford was not a person inclined to tolerate disagreement. We have already seen that A.H. MacMillan, a close associate of Rutherford, said that, "He would never tolerate anything that would be contrary to what HE [emphasis: RF.] clearly understood the Bible to teach." This statement reveals not only the propensity for control the Society's president had and the enormous authority with which he had vested himself, but also that it was HIS [emphasis: RF.] understanding of what the Scriptures taught which determined what all members must be guided by. Those of us among the Witnesses who lived during that presidency know that "being theocratic" came to mean that we would accept virtually without question whatever instructions were received from the headquarters organization. [p. 246.]
We have seen the manner in which "field service" became essentially a "work of law" for all members. This initial step was followed by others as additions to the "great body of Theocratic law." During Rutherford's presidency it came to include such matters as the refusal to salute a flag or stand for a national anthem, refusal to accept alternative service provided for those who had conscientious objections to military service---all issues not specifically dealt with in Scripture.
If individuals on the basis of personal conviction could not conscientiously engage in any, or all, of these things, then they rightly should abstain. (Compare Romans 14:5-12, 22, 23.) But none of these matters were left to individual conscience;they now became organizational law, and adherence to that law in all respects was required for one to be counted a faithful Christian. Nonetheless, during Rutherford's lifetime the volume of laws developed was tiny compared to what was to follow. While those failing to follow them were looked down upon as "compromisers," no punitive measures, such as disfellowshiping, were taken toward them on a congregational level. In other areas, only conduct that showed severe violations of morality brought disfellowshipment and during my early years of association these expulsions seemed quite rare. There was certainly not the inclination to scrutinize people's lives that later became so common. [ibid., p. 247.]
I don't know what the deferment's title is, but my hubby got his definitely b/c I was Pregnant. I guess it varied a lot from place to place-eg, how hard they wanted to enforce the rules. ( you know sort like the KH) We were both just kids, me mid teens.
Yes, Viola, the local draft boards were staffed by local CIVILIANS, not elected or appointed politicians. They reflected the values of their area. Thus, a draft board in Utah might be lenient toward Mormons but harsh on Dubs - as I know from one man's experience they were. The guys in New York were more liberal in their decision-making, since they had a wider spectrum of conscientious beliefs to deal it. I really think, looking back, that they wanted to determine a person's sincerity, not pass judgement on their church.
Even if the guys on the draft board did once serve in the Armed Forces, they were no longer working for the military. Many people who have had "the military experience" were opposed to the war in Vietnam. Some decorated veterans of 'Nam have said they would advise any young man in a draft situation to head to Canada.
The WTB&TS put many young men in a position of appearing DEFIANT of the Draft Boards and the US government because of the "hard line" stand the WTB&TS insisted these boys take. Ultimately, we're talking about kids here who are just trying to do what they were told was right, whether they chose to serve, volunteer for alternative duty, or "resist" and go to prison.
I don't have much respect for the guys who fled to Canada, because their actions showed they had no "courage of conviction" but were looking for the easy way out. Some may disagree with me, but to me they lacked the brains to maintain a scholastic deferment and lacked the willingness to accept even alternative duty. They skipped out. Eventually, they all got pardoned while those who served in the field or in alternative duty or in prison gave up some of their lives for their country.
Looks like the draft might be coming back. Wonder what will happen this time around?
By the way, the wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States is pretty good.
Terry, There was one person in the congregation that stated it was unacceptable to accept the Conscientious Objector status.
His reasoning was that since we are neutral, we cannot as "true christians" accept that status. Did you hear ths arguement before?
I heard a lot of different comments such as that, yes.
Those of us who had NOT had private conversations with the Congregation Overseer sort of puzzled it out and blurted out their
own opinion. Things were not clamped down the way they are today. The "Truth" was easy-going for awhile in the fifties and sixties before
the march to madness and 1975 destroyed the fabric of social equilibrium in the Organization.
I was in Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution too, by the way. From 67 to 69 followed by four years of parole.
Yep Pioneered from 67-73, draft lottery came in and my number was 47, FBI showed up within days and arrested me.
I had two F.B.I. agents show up at my house.
They came inside and sat down and conducted their interview and then left.
When I was arrested it was by telephone. The local Sheriff called me up and told me to come down
to the City Hall and turn myself in.
It was all so civilized:)
I was barely 17 and did not care what I said.
Our FBI guys were nice. I told them why we could not take the Co deferment( it is a political stance, alternate service is still serving military etc) they would DF you and they said they did think some of the jws they had talked to were under duress. I just quickly explained Df to them and how we all had all our families in and being Df is much worse than going to jail. They were nice and sympathetic to us. later I found out I was PG and that was the end of it. Our FBI guys were youngish ( 20's) and very cool. They were very interested in hearing how jws would DF someone for voting or joining military. They said no one of the jws they had talk to would tell them this, but they suspected we were all be threatened in some way. Strike one for all of us, and we got that deferment!!!!
I am only 29 and never had to live through any of this era. Your stories have made me cry. A bunch of men beyond draftable age sending 18 year olds to prison so they could seem rightous. I know others have sufferd far more in Malawi, but this is more personal, I know people who this could have happened to.
The stories I heard growing up, and the obvious revisionist history dont match what I am learning today. I had always thought it was some sort of easy thing you just tell them you are a conscientious objector....like some sort of draft board cryptonite. I had heard some went to prison which I thought was to avoid actually shooting someone. Is it really love for you neighbor to not work in a hospital to help them when they are wounded? Wouldnt the good samaritan do that? How could they make someone do 2 years in prsion over that?
It is just so sad and really makes me angry.
