Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

by Marvin Shilmer 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

  Today I added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on Jehovah’s Witnesses. It has to do with Watchtower’s legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.

  Joseph F. Rutherford proudly expressed that it’s improper to think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an organization, because it is not an organization. Watchtower has since repeated this; even in its most contemporary publications we find it. Yet we see organization, organization, organization repeated like a mantra over and over again in its publications. This is contrary to what Rutherford said in 1941, and is contrary to current Watchtower teaching. So what’s the point?

  It turns out Watchtower does a bait and switch that places a legal burden onto individuals who choose to let themselves be baptized under auspices of Watchtower.

  My article is titled Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization? and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/03/jehovahs-witnesses-organization.html

  This article highlights Rutherford’s unequivocal statement published in 1941. A linked article spells out the deceitful trickery Watchtower leverages against Jehovah’s Witnesses, complete with a 1996 letter written by a Watchtower lawyer.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  A reader asks privately whether the newspaper scan on this blog is the one found in the Watchtower_News_Scrap_Book.pdf that’s available online.

  Answer: No.

  The scan used in this blog article came from a hardcopy accessed at the St. Louis Mercantile Library only a few weeks ago. To the best of my knowledge this scan is nowhere else available. I retrieved it for sake of this article, and to make sure of the exact source.

  The pdf mentioned above contains a similar article, but the newspaper source is not identified and there are differences in the text.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  itsyou

  but you've 'photoshopped' the headline right? It doesn't look right.

  Just flaging it up - people will be suspicious about the rest of the text, just sayin'

  itsyou
• 

  Lied2NoMore

  Just had to post to your blog about this.............living thru the circle of deceit as we speak....
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “but you've 'photoshopped' the headline right?”

  I touched up the scanned text. So what?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  Interesting clip from the Judge era. Yes, it's an example of double speak, like probably hundreds of other examples of Watchtower double speak. But I don't understand the connection to shunning or a legal burden. They can direct the shunning of whoever they want from a legal standpoint in the name of religion regardless of what they call themselves. If they want to shun born-ins who are never baptized and never joined they could do that. If they want to shun all Catholics they could do that too. I don't see any legal burden that anyone getting baptized places themselves under, unless you are talking about agreeing to the jurisdiction of Watchtower kangaroo courts.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I don't see any legal burden that anyone getting baptized places themselves under…”

  Under Watchtower doctrine an individual has united themselves to the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a member at the moment of baptism. Under U.S. law at this moment the individual becomes legally bound to whatever internal governing is established by the Church.

  This legal bond is not something Watchtower explains to baptismal candidates.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  cedars

  Thanks Marvin - that's a great find.

  Cedars
• 

  Chaserious

  MS: "Under U.S. law at this moment the individual becomes legally bound to whatever internal governing is established by the Church."

  I don't think this is correct. What U.S. law?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I don't think this is correct. What U.S. law?”

  Case law at issue is found in the letter scanned onto my blog at the article Lawyer’s Response — Resigned and Withdrawn Elder available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/lawyers-response-resigned-and-withdrawn.html

  A related letter by another Watchtower lawyer is in the article Watchtower Lawyer Fills in the Baptism Blank available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/08/watchtower-lawyer-fills-in-baptism.html

  Nowhere does Watchtower explain this legal snag to folks entertaining the idea of baptism ala Watchtower.

  Marvin Shilmer