ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 24 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Clearly the JW organization's position has changed across the decades.

  Yes, but not when it comes to Watchtower's Theocratic War Strategy. That position has not changed.

  Though claiming ignorance of this as a doctrinal position, Toole as much as admitted the doctrinal position remains in effect because he offered some of the same explanations for why the position was invoked in the first place. So the doctrinal position of TWS remains intact, which means the part dealing with statements made under a sworn oath also remain intact.
• 

  ToesUp

  There's so many damn rules in this cult, who can keep up! We don't miss the rules and are enjoying the freedom.
• 

  blondie

  Actually it has been allowed long before 2003.

  *** w76 7/15 p. 447 Questions From Readers ***

  If a Christian must testify in court, is it proper for him to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth?

  There is no Scriptural objection to doing so, though each person must decide whether to comply or to ask to be excused from this.

  The practice of taking an oath while touching some object that is viewed as sacred has been widespread. For example, the ancient Greeks lifted up the hand to heaven or touched an altar while taking an oath. Among the Romans a juror held a stone in his hand and swore that if he were lying Jupiter should cast him away as he then cast away the stone.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Actually it has been allowed long before 2003.
  *** w76 7/15 p. 447 Questions From Readers ***
  If a Christian must testify in court, is it proper for him to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth?
  There is no Scriptural objection to doing so, though each person must decide whether to comply or to ask to be excused from this.

  Honestly, I don't recall a time when Watchtower expressed a notion that swearing on a bible was somehow wrong. But JWs have since the 1950s held a hesitancy to let themselves be placed under oath to tell the truth because of a peculiar aspect of the religion's Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. Old-timers know this and from them the hesitancy has some depth among JWs, but no so much among newer-comers. I recall JWs who didn't want to be placed under oath for simple civil matters because once under oath they feared that unannounced some official might come forth and use the opportunity to ask questions about something they'd rather not give answers to under oath.

  And, for readers, it's little wonder that Watchtower took its Theocratic War Doctrine underground because once it put it out there so blatantly in the 1950s law enforcement agencies all over the world were served notice that JWs may or not be telling the truth in response to investigations, that is unless investigators succeeded in putting a JW under oath to tell the truth before asking their questions.
• 

  Heaven

  3rdgen is probably on to something there. Either that or they know the Bible is bogus:

  
  
• 

  breakfast of champions

  What struck me about this exchange was how Toole went on to lament the tremendous 'stress' and 'pressure' these poor men endured being brought into a judicial setting. . . . . and thus their strange behavior.

  Let those words sink in. . . . . . .

  Yes, "our poor baby elder boys are crumbling under judicial proceedings,". . . .

  But as for the victims who are put the wringer in a JC. . . .

  To me, it was an implicit "Fuck 'em!" from Toole.
• 

  undercover

  Another orally handed down 'law', made enforceable by peer pressure.

  I remember that it was 'looked down on' to swear on the Bible. JWs, being a very black and white crowd, were told that 'christians' didn't need to swear on a Bible, and most took it to heart, all the way to refusing to swear on a Bible in court proceedings. Even when the WTS clearly called it a 'conscience matter', JWs were still afraid to go too far.

  That's where these court proceedings can be tricky. If an attorney starts harping on these minor little things, and then a WT lawyer trots out printed material that leaves it up to the follower, then it can make the accusing lawyer look at best silly, at worst misinformed.

  We know that real WT law is an oral tradition, and that words in a Watchtower are just a CYA for later, should someone accuse the WTS of something. Problem is that you can't easily prove this indoctrination method straight up. You have to experience it. You can't really prove it, unless you lived it.
• 

  steve2

  Wow as far back as 1976 the Watchtower stated swearing on the Bible is a matter for conscience. THis clearly did not filter through to my JW family.

  To be fair though, when a country already has an acceptable secular alternative such as reading out loud a civil statement that you understand the importance of telling the truth and the consequences of not doing so, why would you choose to swear on the Bible?

  If I were to appear before the Court, I would not swear on the Bible simply because I do not believe it is anything other than an old set of books composed by humans and that reflected the mores and superstitions of the age in which it was composed.

  Regarding that 1976 article, tHis would not be the first time a Watchtower says a practice is up to the individual's conscience but the weight of the wording is indirectly against it.
• 

  3rdgen

  Undercover, you are so right about so much of the religion is handed down orally. For a silly but true example: My parents believed all Jws must own at least one 4 door car to be used for FS. Those that didn't were considered selfish and "weak". Yet, that "rule" was nowhere in print. (that I know of). There are many many more.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Wow as far back as 1976 the Watchtower stated swearing on the Bible is a matter for conscience. THis clearly did not filter through to my JW family.

  It goes back much further than that.

  "There is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath to testify to the truth. This is called being "sworn in" as a witness. It is an agreement to tell the truth on matters that the court is entitled to know."--Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News, published by Watchtower, 1950, p. 19

  I've heard old-timers talk about how a JW should take great care about when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. I think because of misunderstanding and presumption there crept into JW lore a notion that it was somehow wrong to swear an oath with hand on the bible. The misunderstanding was that JW listeners did not understand the speaker was talking about the Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. The presumption was the oath was the typical oath with hand on the bible. But those old-timers knew they were talking about how JWs had to take care about oaths to tell the truth because when before a court once such an oath was given then the JW no longer had scriptural basis to deceive but, instead, had to tell the truth IF they opted to answer. Problem was, when before courts of law opting to not answer would leave a JW in contempt and probably incarcerated. Hence the JW had to take great care when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. Which is precisely what the old-timers said.