RUSSIA: Sacked for being Jehovah's Witnesses

by blondie 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  boa

  yikes, scholar takes on alanf....pretty much calls him a liar....oh boy
• 

  rekless

  Scholar. I know for a fact that brothers in positions at hospitals will sneak around and check records and follow others through medical precedures. I caught my son-in-law thumbing through my wife's med. records at the nurses station and another brother that worked in maintenance followed my wife down to the treatment room where she was getting kidney diealisis and then platelet transfusions. THEY ARE SNEAKS & SNAKES IN THE GRASS! I have heard COs and DOs state if the society told me to walk toward that wall and not stop, I would do it because I have enough faith in Jehovah's Organization that the wall would open up and I would pass through with out getting hurt, or I would be able to walk up the wall and disregard gravity. I have all the belief, if the Society told them to do something, they would unquestionably do it. I know, my son died of leaukemia.WE all refused blood and bone marrow transplant.
• 

  johnny cip

  hurray for the russians: yes jw will not work at meeting hours. convention times. or anything that will keep them from a wt precribed work. as i saw my father do to follow the craptower directives. and talk about pushing craptowers at work. jw's are known for this, as i can attest to my fathers fellow workers telling my dad . please don't give me a sermon. thank JEHOVAH the russians can see past the wt lies. if more companies would do these type of things maybe the word would get out that being a jw , makes you only acceptable to become an unpayed pioneer. i can see the wts sending food and rent $$$$$$ for these followers of the CRAPTOWER. to help them in their time of need> NOT. BUT LOOK AT THE POSITIVE side they might get their picture on an awake mag. cover, then they really will never get any work in russia. it's a spritual paradise ....,right scholar >>>> john
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Earnest,

  : While I agree with your contention above I think it would be difficult to convince most JWs that any "nefarious deed" which is clearly contrary to scripture is now approved by God.

  The question is not what's "clearly contrary to scripture" in an absolute sense. It's what the JW leadership can convince JWs is in line with scripture -- despite what the scriptures actually say. That's my whole point, that the JW leaders demonstrably can and do convince JWs to violate scripture.

  The Bible instructs God's worshipers not to violate oaths. Violating a sworn oath is among the worst things a person can do, according to the Bible. Yet according to the 1980s Watchtower I mentioned, violating an oath is right for JWs under the conditions the article described. Later I'll post the relevant excerpts from the article.

  So, I'd like your comment on this: since the Bible condemns breaking oaths, are not JW leaders demanding that JWs violate scripture in demanding that medical employees violate written employmnet agreements to keep confidentiality?

  : My gut feeling is that the number of JWs who would steal money from their employer if told to do so by their religious superiors is limited to those who are dishonest anyway.

  I don't think that's entirely correct. Plenty wouldn't do so under any circumstances, but there are plenty of true believers who would. Many, many people on this board know of many JWs who have deliberately lied about any number of things to get their way, especially where ex-JWs are concerned. The Watchtower Society itself takes the lead here. It's legal staff demonstrably has no trouble perjuring itself in court, or instructing JWs who testify in its behalf to do the same. You want examples?

  : I certainly do not know of any who would do so.

  I do. They consider themselves scrupulously honest, but will not hesitate to lie in the Watchtower's interests.

  I will deal with non-scholar's typically idiotic comments later.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Your comments concerning the WTS possible encouragement for Christians to violate ethics and to break government laws if expedient to do so is frankly an absurd and false.

  If a JW worked in a hospital and became aware that an active JW had taken a blood transfusion, would they violate their professional ethics by reporting this to the elders?

  I await your reply with interest.

  HS
• 

  RevMalk

  me too, very interesting question...

  Rev
• 

  toreador

  yeah me too!

  Toreador
• 

  Mulan

  If a JW worked in a hospital and became aware that an active JW had taken a blood transfusion, would they violate their professional ethics by reporting this to the elders?

  Sure they would.
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Alan,

  Thank you for your further comments. As evidence that the JW leaders demonstrably can and do convince JWs to violate scripture you refer to the article "A Time to Speak"-When? (w87 9/1 12-15) which discusses issues of professional confidentiality. You say :

  The Bible instructs God's worshipers not to violate oaths. Violating a sworn oath is among the worst things a person can do, according to the Bible. Yet according to the 1980s Watchtower I mentioned, violating an oath is right for JWs under the conditions the article described. Later I'll post the relevant excerpts from the article.

  So, I'd like your comment on this: since the Bible condemns breaking oaths, are not JW leaders demanding that JWs violate scripture in demanding that medical employees violate written employmnet agreements to keep confidentiality?

  Here is the article in question (my highlights) :

  MARY works as a medical assistant at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.

  One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer?s having legal problems? Or would Proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? This reads: "The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter."?Compare Proverbs 25:9, 10.

  Situations like this are faced by Jehovah?s Witnesses from time to time. Like Mary, they become acutely aware of what King Solomon observed: "For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak." (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7) Was this the time for Mary to keep quiet, or was it the time to speak about what she had learned?

  Circumstances can vary greatly. Hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way Mary did. Indeed, each Christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before Jehovah. (1 Timothy 1:5, 19) When sins ar

  e minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: "Love covers a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8) But when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal Christian out of love of God and his fellow Christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation?s purity be preserved?

  Applying

  Bible Principles

  What are some basic Bible principles that apply? First, anyone committing serious wrongdoing should not try to conceal it. "He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy." (Proverbs 28:13) Nothing escapes the notice of Jehovah. Hidden transgressions must eventually be accounted for. (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:24, 25) At times Jehovah brings concealed wrongdoing to the attention of a member of the congregation that this might be given proper attention.?Joshua 7:1-26.

  Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: "Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error." This "public cursing" was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses?likely from Jehovah?on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ?answer for their error? before Jehovah.

  This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is

  found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian "must obey God as ruler rather than men."?Acts 5:29.

  While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ?public curse? from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under "oath" to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they he

  lp others to remain clean.

  Personal

  Responsibility

  These are some of the Bible principles Mary likely considered in making her personal decision. Wisdom dictated that she should not act quickly, without weighing matters very carefully. The Bible counsels: "Do not become a witness against your fellowman without grounds. Then you would have to be foolish with your lips." (Proverbs 24:28) To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. (Deuteronomy 19:15) If Mary had seen only a brief mention of abortion, she might

  have decided conscientiously that the evidence of any guilt was so inconclusive that she should not proceed further. There could have been a mistake in billing, or in some other way the records may not have properly reflected the situation.

  In this instance, however, Mary had some other significant information. For example, she knew that the sister had paid the bill, apparently acknowledging that she had received the service specified. Also, she knew personally that the sister was single, thus raising the possibility of fornication. Mary felt a desire lovingly to help one who may have erred and to protect the cleanness of Jehovah?s organization, remembering Proverbs 14:25: "A true witness is delivering souls, but a deceitful one launches forth mere lies."

  Mary was somewhat apprehensive about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she protect the privacy of the medical records. Surely the sister would not want to become resentful and try to retaliate by making trouble for her, she reasoned. So when Mary analyzed all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this was a time to "speak," not to "keep quiet."

  Now Mary faced an additional question: To whom should she speak, and how could she do so discreetly? She could go directly to the elders, but she decided to go first privately to the sister. This was a loving approach. Mary reasoned that this one under some suspicion might welcome the opportunity to clarify matters or, if guilty, confirm the suspicion. If the sister had already spoken to the elders about the matter, likely she would say so, and Mary would not need to pursue matters further. Mary reasone

  d that if the sister had submitted to an abortion and had not confessed to this serious transgression of God?s law, she would encourage her to do this. Then the elders could help her in accord with James 5:13-20. Happily, this is how matters worked out. Mary found that the sister had submitted to an abortion under much pressure and because of being spiritually weak. Shame and fear had moved her to conceal her sin, but she was glad to get help from the elders toward spiritual recovery.

  If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If th

  ey decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of "leaven" existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah?s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.

  Thinking

  Ahead

  Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ?exhibit good fidelity to the full,? including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar?s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah?s law is supreme.

  Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.

  There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God?s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another?s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, "love covers a multitude of sins," and we should forgive "up to seventy-seven times." (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the "time to keep quiet." But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the "time to speak."

  My comments on this article is that while it does not demand that JWs violate scripture in demanding that medical employees violate written employment agreements to keep confidentiality, it clearly allows for it and encourages it in certain circumstances. My feelings are a bit mixed. My initial feeling is that it is wrong and I would never do it [i.e. break confidentiality]. But I thought about it further and wondered what I would do if I worked for a solicitor/psychologist and learned that a client of his was a brother in my congregation and had admitted to my employer that he was a child abuser and couldn't stop. I would certainly feel torn and suspect that confidentiality would take second place to the safety of the children (although I would have the grace to resign first). I cannot fault the conclusion :

  Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. This is the "time to keep quiet." But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the "time to speak."

  Earnest
• 

  Earnest

  Duplicate post.