bringing up the 1954 Walsh Trial

by enoughisenough 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  My take on Walsh:

  In the Walsh trial, they were trying to get a draft classification as minister for Walsh, who was young (about 20), a company servant, and a pioneer. They had decades of statements in the Watchtower going back to the Russell days that they were not an established religion, they didn't have a clergy, they didn't have a creed which their ministers had to adhere to. These things had been the barrier to getting any of the JWs recognized as a minister of a religion worthy of the minister classification and thus exempt from the draft. So reading the Walsh transcript they hit those topics again and again. They asserted they did indeed have a 'creed', a set of beliefs, which their ministers (which includes all witnesses, since 'all JWs are ministers') had to adhere to or else they would be removed. I don't think it is a coincidence that the disfellowshipping practice includes non-belief and started in '52. Their legal posturing resulted in some really outrageous statements in the transcript.
• 

  slimboyfat

  enoughisenough yes I meant to joke about 🎩 - the Walsh case and Moyle case are both excellent sources. It’s amazing what we can access now online, that previous generations had to travel and spend a lot of money to access.

  dropoffyourkeylee is exactly right that everything in the Walsh trial should be read within the context of JWs wishing to be recognised as a bona fide religion. Some of the statements about complete obedience to the Watchtower can seem like rather odd admissions by the leaders from our perspective, but at the time the intent was to show that JWs were an organised, cohesive religion with an established structure and set of beliefs, so they could qualify as ministers and therefore exemption from military service.
• 

  cofty

  Some of the statements about complete obedience to the Watchtower can seem like rather odd admissions by the leaders from our perspective,

  They were utterly deranged by any sane perspective.
  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  TonusOH - “…It was fascinating to see how easily the attorney got them to admit that the most important thing was that the rank and file accept what they were told, regardless of whether or not they believed it, and regardless of whether or not it was right...”

  Yup.

  Thing of it is, though…

  …if you’re dishonest in your attempts to claim the moral high ground, you forfeit the moral high ground.
• 

  Phizzy

  Off Topic a bit, but Tonus O.H. also said these two perceptive things :

  " They know that they are lying to you. They think they have to.

  The GB are the original Twitter- they thrive on followers, not on honesty or truth."
• 

  ThomasMore

  Slim, the Moyle case was revealing, but especially in the way WTC spitefully paid the award - IN COINS. I can barely imagine the real problem Moyle had wrapping all those coins so that a bank would accept them. I speak from experience when I say it would take many months to wrap that many coins. Getting a bank to accept them would also be more than a task for the most determined.

  I thought that the court should have doubled or even tripled the award when that happened. It was a scummy thing and lots of people became aware of their reluctance to abide by the courts decision.