Non-scholar said:
: 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.
Not so. My discussion below, which includes material from the September 1, 1987 Watchtower article ?A Time to Speak??When?", clearly shows that the Watchtower Society strongly encourages Jehovah's Witnesses to break government laws and violate sworn oaths and ethical principles when it's convenient to advance Watchtower interests. I do an in-depth analysis of the statements in this post. Of course, readers already know that any response you might make will ignore all of the important points and simply prove -- as if further proof were needed -- that the average Jehovah's Witness is a braindead moron.
: Your talk of ethics and principles sounds rather hollow when you have rejected Christaian beliefs
A goodly number of Christian beliefs are demonstrably nonsensical. Why would anyone in his right mind embrace nonsensical teachings originated some 5000 years ago by a bunch of nomadic Semitic tribesmen and expanded upon some 3000 years later by a Semitic magician named Jesus?
: and have even rejected ethics and teachings based on the Bible from your youth/childhood.
First of all, I haven't rejected "ethics and teachings based in the Bible". What I've rejected are the nonsensical parts of the Bible and the parts that have no relevance to today's society. Anyone who follows the posts in which you and I have interacted knows perfectly well that you completely reject normal standards of scholarly ethics, so it's hypocritical in the extreme for you to complain that I reject ethics, given your own demonstrable rejection of all scholarly ethical standards, and given that you can find no examples of my rejecting real Christian ethics. Of course, rejecting nonsensical JW beliefs doesn't count as a rejection of good ethics.
And of course, my views have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand -- the veracity of Watchtower claims. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate your hypocrisy and utter stupidity, using the Watchtower Society's own words. I will now show what the Watchtower Society teaches about fulfilling sworn oaths.
The January 15, 1970 Watchtower asked an obvious question in the article "Which Comes First -- Your Church or God?" In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the facts demonstrate that their Church comes first. The article said:
*** w70 1/15 pp. 37-39 Which Comes First?Your Church or God? ***
QUESTIONS FOR THE ?FIRST MAN?
The ?first man? represents the believers who remain faithful to their church out of loyalty to the religion they were brought up to believe in. Their attitude is: Right or wrong, it is my religion! Is that the way you feel? If so, you are certainly a loyal person. But to whom do you owe the greater loyalty?to your church, or to God?
In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the answer is obvious.
With so much disbelief rife throughout the earth, you are to be commended for maintaining your faith, but where should your faith be placed?in a religious organization, or in God?
Again for JWs, the answer is obvious.
Why do you go to church? Basically, is it not because you believe in God? Do atheists go to church? Is not the very purpose of churchgoing to worship God and gain his approval? So if it became clear that your church was not fulfilling its basic purpose, where would your first duty lie?
Yes indeed. Where would the first duty of a self-proclaimed Christian lie?
?But,? you may reply, ?how can one tell if one?s church is fulfilling its purpose?? Well, is your church drawing more and more people to God and helping them to serve him? Or are its best and most sincere members disappointed, disillusioned and disheartened?
Given the massive bleeding experienced by the Watchtower Society today, the answer is again obvious. Most of its best and brightest -- outside the unique and bizarre environments of the various Bethels, where there are men who have invested 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 years of labor -- have fled, leaving braindead morons like "scholar" here to carry on.
What kind of people do you see around you in church on Sunday morning? Are they fine people who produce the fruits of the spirit, such as ?love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control?? Or are they people who, behind the scenes, indulge in ?fornication, gross indecency and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things??
Anyone familiar with the inner workings of Jehovah's Witnesses knows that JWs tend to have plenty of people in both categories -- just like any other religion.
Since ?those who behave like this will not inherit the kingdom of God,? is it not obvious that a church whose clergy condone such behavior and whose members indulge in such practices cannot be pleasing to God and have his blessing??Gal. 5:19-23, Catholic Jerusalem Bible.
Do tell. We have only to write out the official policy of the Watchtower Society to see that the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses condones "such behavior" by prominent members and turns a blind eye to those "members indulge in such practices" with respect to molesting small children. We also have the testimony of the hundreds who have posted on Internet discussion boards and the thousands who have contacted various lawyers in an attempt to gain justice with respect to their molestation by various Jehovah's Witnesses.
Furthermore, to be pleasing to God, should not a church teach the truth?
That criterion immediately excludes the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Did not Jesus Christ emphasize this to the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar? He told her: ?Believe me, woman, . . . the hour will come?in fact it is here already?when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.??John 4:21-24, JB.
Notice that worship in ?truth? is a must. It is therefore impossible to worship God acceptably without a deep love of the truth. The true Christian religion must be founded on the truth, not on traditions, creeds, dogmas and articles of faith that are often hard to understand because they defy all the faculties of reasoning with which God created us.
If anyone stands self-condemned, this is it.
Now what is the Christian standard for measuring truth? Is it not the Bible? So if there should prove to be contradiction between the tenets of a church that claims to be Christian and the plain statement of truth found in the Holy Scriptures, which should come first in your worship?your church or God?s Word, the Bible? What will be your answer if you sincerely desire to be ?the kind of worshipper the Father wants??
The material below shows conclusively that the Jehovah's Witnesses come down solidly in favor of their Church -- not the Bible.
(Discussion of the trinity deleted)
Both the Protestant King James Version and the Catholic Douay Version speak of ?the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.? (1 Tim. 3:15) Hence any church that teaches error on such a fundamental point as the very person of God cannot be ?the church of the living God.? If you belong to such a religion, which should you put first?your church or God? Surely your love for God and of the truth will move you to seek the religion that will allow you to ?worship the Father in spirit and truth.?
Indeed, an important question for Christians is "which should you put first?your church or God?" Jehovah's Witnesses almost invariably answer the question by "your church" -- as long as it's the JW Church.
: I believe that people who have rejected beliefs that were previously convinced intellectually are deceived and weak-minded.
We've been over this before, you moron, and various people have explained that your claim is entirely self-defeating. Since the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have converted to the cult, your claim is one that I whole-heartedly embrace:
Jehovah's Witnesses who converted to the cult are people who "were previously convinced intellectually" to the truth of some other religion and have become "deceived and weak-minded" by being ensnared by the JW cult.
Do you see how it cuts both ways, you moronic excuse for a scholar?
Of course you don't! That's why I can call you a moron, not as an ad hominem term, but simply as a description of your complete inability to see points that are completely obvious to almost everyone else.
: Your state of mind is pitiful and merely displays a vile hatred of that which you formerly believed and held sacred.
My beliefs regarding Christianity are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Given that, and apart from that, the Bible states clearly concerning the taking of oaths:
'Do not love any false oath; for these are all things that I have hated,? is the utterance of Jehovah. (Zech 8:17)
?And I will come near to you people for the judgment, and I will become a speedy witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those swearing falsely, and against those acting fraudulently with the wages of a wage worker, with [the] widow and with [the] fatherless boy, and those turning away the alien resident, while they have not feared me,? Jehovah of armies has said. (Mal. 3:5)
Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ?You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.? (Matt. 5:33)
Now let's look at a few Watchtower teachings regarding the sacredness of taking oaths and swearing to tell the truth.
*** it-2 p. 518 Oath ***
Jesus was showing that a person should not have two standards. The keeping of one?s word, once given, should be viewed as a sacred duty and should be fulfilled just as an oath would be; the person should sincerely mean what he says.
If taking an oath is a sacred duty, then under no circumstances should a person violate an oath. Not even if a cult tells him to do so.
*** w73 1/15 p. 63 Questions from Readers ***
Since a true Christian takes his worship and his relationship with God very seriously, he ought to give careful thought to any oath he is asked to take. He should be convinced in his own mind that the oath will not cause a violation of his conscience or compromise his neutral position as regards the political nations and their controversies. (Compare Romans 14:5.) If, after reasoning on the matter, he finds that he can take a particular oath, he will have to bear his own responsibility. He should always keep in mind his prior obligation to the Supreme Sovereign, Jehovah God, before ever putting himself under any other obligation.
*** w72 1/1 p. 30 Do You Keep Your Word? ***
This means we should not operate under a double standard. Keeping our word should be our regular practice and it should not take some sworn oath on our part to guarantee that. Not that such sworn oath is prohibited if someone requires it of us, either because of wanting special assurance or because of doubt. But as far as we are concerned, with or without an oath our word should be reliable, trustworthy at all times. Is that true of you?
Obviously it's not true of people who follow the Watchtower Society's advice in the September 1, 1987 Watchtower.
Does your Yes always mean Yes? And when you say ?No,? do your actions always show that you mean it?
Ditto.
*** w56 2/1 p. 89 Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves ***
Never take an oath to do a thing and then prove false to it by failing to do what you swore to do. That means to prove false to the ?oath of Jehovah.? It means ?swearing falsely in making covenants.? (Hos. 10:4, AS; RS)
I don't see how anything could be clearer. If you swear an oath, either explicitly in the obvious way, or implicitly by accepting the ethical standards required by an employment contract, or by standards you know when you accept employment, if you violate these standards you're proving false to the "oath of Jehovah" and you're "swearing falsely in making covenants".
*** w53 3/1 p. 131 The World?s Integrity on the Wane ***
The World?s Integrity on the Wane
IN AMERICA, as well as in other parts of the world, graft and charges of corruption, government scandals of all kinds, have been spoken of almost daily in the public press. Many people appear to be completely indifferent toward it all. Little do they realize that our generation faces the greatest crisis of all time. True, in past times there have been some corrupt rulers and men, but today the position has grown much worse. Upon our generation they are pinning the labels: Lack of Integrity in Public Life, Breakdown of Morals, The Twilight of Honor. At all levels of the government, from the top right on down to the smallest employee, there appears to be a shocking lack of integrity. Harry S. Truman, the ex-president of the United States, was surrounded by men friendly with corrupt men. Members of his cabinet came close to the spotlight of corruption. Congressmen were sent to prison for law violation.
We can go right down the list. In the judicial department during our generation men have been found who were not men of integrity. We find corruption in federal agencies, in state and civil administrations. Police and firemen brazenly accept bribes and shake down businessmen, allowing all forms of gambling and vice to be carried on. The evils flourish. Tax collectors accept what they call ?gifts? from certain people, in this way amassing considerable fortunes. Immigration inspectors victimize immigrants coming to the United States. Yes, men in office, high and low, wherever you find them, take oaths of office to be loyal to their governments, to obey the laws of the land and uphold them, but many do this insincerely, with mental reservations. One of the most profitable items that is for sale in Washington is ?influence?, knowing someone in public office. In this way people who are not honest and upright clear their records and keep going, escaping punishment. The agencies that have been set up to preserve order and prevent wrongdoing, these too are found of questionable integrity. The highly touted FBI, the Department of Justice, and, yes, the patrolman on his beat, they all come in for scrutiny and questioning in the minds of the people.
*** g75 7/22 pp. 27-28 The Taking of Oaths ***
What Is the Bible?s View?
The Taking of Oaths
AN OATH has been defined as ?a solemn appeal to God, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one?s determination to speak the truth or to keep a promise.? How do you feel about oath taking? Some religious groups, such as the Mennonites and Quakers, refuse to take oaths...
A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human...
The baptismal vows of 1985 come immediately to mind. These essentially define a Jehovah's Witness as someone who blindly accepts Watchtower Society leaders as God's spokesment.
Let's proceed:
*** it-2 pp. 516-518 Oath ***
OATH
A sworn statement as to the truthfulness of what is said or that a person will or will not do a certain thing; it frequently involves an appeal to a superior, especially to God.
In the Hebrew Scriptures two words are used to denote what we understand as an oath. Shevu?`ah´ means ?an oath or a sworn statement.? (Ge 24:8; Le 5:4) The related Hebrew verb sha?va`´, meaning ?swear,? or take an oath, comes from the same root as the Hebrew word for ?seven.? Thus ?swear? originally meant ?come under the influence of 7 things.? (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich; translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1970, Vol. V, p. 459) Abraham and Abimelech swore over seven female lambs in making the covenant at the well of Beer-sheba, meaning ?Well of the Oath; or, Well of Seven.? (Ge 21:27-32; see also Ge 26:28-33.) Shevu?`ah´ has reference to a sworn statement on the part of a person that he will do or will not do a certain thing. The word itself carries no connotation of a curse upon the one swearing if he fails to fulfill the oath. This is the word used for the oath, or sworn statement, to Abraham by Jehovah, who never fails to fulfill his word and upon whom no curse can come.?Ge 26:3.
The other Hebrew word used is ´alah´, meaning ?oath, cursing.? (Ge 24:41, ftn) It may also be translated ?oath of obligation.? (Ge 26:28) A Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon by Koehler and Baumgartner (p. 49) defines the term as a ?curse (threat of calamity in case of misdeed), laid on a p[erson] by himself or by others.? In ancient Hebrew times it was considered the gravest matter to make an oath. An oath was to be kept, even to the oath taker?s hurt. (Ps 15:4; Mt 5:33) A person was held guilty before Jehovah if he spoke thoughtlessly in a sworn statement. (Le 5:4) Violation of an oath would bring the most severe consequences of punishment from God. Among the earliest nations and particularly among the Hebrews an oath was in a sense a religious act, involving God. The use of the term ´alah´ by the Hebrews by implication made God a party to the oath and professed a readiness to incur any judgment he might be pleased to inflict in event of the oath maker?s infidelity. This term is never used by God with reference to his own oaths.
The corresponding Greek terms are horkos (oath) and omny´o (swear), which both occur in James 5:12. The verb horkizo means ?put under oath? or ?solemnly charge.? (Mr 5:7; Ac 19:13) Other terms related to hor´kos mean ?sworn oath? (Heb 7:20), ?put under solemn obligation or oath? (1Th 5:27), ?false swearer or oath-breaker? (1Ti 1:10), and ?swear without performing or make an oath falsely? (Mt 5:33). The Greek word anathematizo is rendered ?bind with a curse? in Acts 23:12, 14, and 21...
Vows were regarded in Israel as having the strength of an oath, as sacred and to be fulfilled even though they resulted in loss to the vower. God was viewed as watching to see that vows were carried out, and as bringing punishment for failure. (Nu 30:2; De 23:21-23; Jg 11:30, 31, 35, 36, 39; Ec 5:4-6) The vows of wives and unmarried daughters were subject to affirmation or cancellation by the husband or father, but widows and divorced women were bound by their vows.?Nu 30:3-15.
Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, corrected the Jews in their practice of light, loose, and indiscriminate making of oaths. It had become common among them to swear by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, and even by their own heads. But since heaven was ?God?s throne,? earth his ?footstool,? Jerusalem his kingly city, and one?s head (or life) was dependent on God, making such oaths was the same as taking oaths in the name of God. It was not to be treated lightly. So Jesus said: ?Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one.??Mt 5:33-37.
Jesus Christ did not hereby prohibit the making of all oaths, for he himself was under the Law of Moses, which required oaths under certain circumstances. In fact, when Jesus himself was on trial he was put under oath by the high priest, yet he did not object to this, but gave an answer. (Mt 26:63, 64) Rather, Jesus was showing that a person should not have two standards. The keeping of one?s word, once given, should be viewed as a sacred duty and should be fulfilled just as an oath would be; the person should sincerely mean what he says. He shed further light on the meaning of his words when he exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees by saying to them: ?Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ?If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is under obligation.? Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gold or the temple that has sanctified the gold?? He went on to say: ?He that swears by heaven is swearing by the throne of God and by him that is sitting on it.??Mt 23:16-22.
By the false reasoning and hairsplitting casuistry of these scribes and Pharisees, as here pointed out by Jesus, they justified themselves in failing to carry out certain oaths,
This last statement precisely describes what the Watchtower Society itself does when it demands that individual Jehovah's Witnesses violate sworn oaths of employment and so forth, to further its ends.
but Jesus showed that such swearing on their part was being dishonest with God and was actually reproaching his name (for the Jews were a people dedicated to Jehovah). Jehovah plainly states that he hates a false oath.?Zec 8:17.
James corroborates Jesus? words. (Jas 5:12) But these statements of Jesus and James against such indiscriminate practices do not prevent the Christian from taking an oath when necessary to assure others of the seriousness of his intentions or of the truthfulness of what he says.
Such as signing one's name to an employment contract requiring that one obey universal standards of confidentiality.
For instance, as Jesus illustrated by example before the Jewish high priest, a Christian would not object to taking an oath in court, for he is going to speak the truth whether under oath or not. (Mt 26:63, 64) Even the Christian resolve to serve God is an oath or a swearing to Jehovah, putting the Christian into a sacred relationship. Jesus put swearing and vows in the same category.?Mt 5:33.
*** w99 9/15 p. 8 Why Keep Your Promises?
***Admittedly, keeping a promise may be difficult if unforeseen circumstances arise. But does a broken promise really do much damage? Should you take your promises seriously?
The obvious answer is, Yes.
Given all of the above, it's obvious that, when not dealing with organizational interests, the Watchtower Society requires that Jehovah's Witnesses speak the truth in all things, and in particular by speaking the truth when governmental authorities demand it. Indeed, it should be obvious that anyone with nothing to hide would welcome the opportunity to speak the truth.
Unfortunately, the article cited below makes it equally obvious that when the organizational interests of the Watchtower Society are involved, the Society demands that individual Jehovah's Witnesses sacrifice their "God-given" consciences on the altar of the Brooklyn Molech, namely, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The article is centered on the concerns and activities of one hypothetical JW "Mary", a "medical assistant at a hospital". Mary's activities include reading the confidential file of a fellow JW and figuring out what to do when she finds out that a fellow JW has had an abortion.
I'll intersperse my comments to prove my point.
*** w87 9/1 pp. 12-15 ?A Time to Speak??When? ***
?A Time to Speak??When?
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.
So we have "Caesar's law" at work here.
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.
Note how the Watchtower writer phrases the above quandary. It's not just a simple question. It's a question with an answer obvious to anyone trained in JW-think. The subtle message conveyed to all JW readers is: Mary should expose the 'wrongdoing' no matter the consequences to herself, and no matter what employment agreements she had made, even under oath.
So here we have a clear example of the Watchtower Society encouraging JWs to break governmentally assigned confidences to further the interests of the Society. Below we'll see how they go even further.
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?
In other words, would Mary violate her employment contract where she swore, under oath, to hold medical records confidential, or would she violate her oath in order to act as the Watchtower Society instructed her to, namely, to report to elders that a fellow JW had had an abortion?
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.
Rather a moot point, since Mary is a hypothetical composite of real JWs.
The point is that the Society is teaching that JWs in general, represented by the composite Mary, should violate sworn confidences if the Society's standards (which it equates with Jehovah's standards) demand it.
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 are 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?
Note the incredible amount of self-servingness in the above paragraph. This is building up to the final, unbelievable conclusion below.
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.
Note how this is invoking the standards of a 5000-year-old Patriarchal Semitic nomadic culture. To think that this applies to today's society is ludicrous. Of course, in the Society's view, it's "the Word of God", and so must be obeyed without question -- even if it violates other ancient Patriarchal Semitic nomadic standards such as not violating oaths even at great cost to oneself.
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.
Sez who?
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.
This paragraph completely proves my point. In my short post above, I stated:
There's absolutely no question that many JWs would lie, cheat, steal, violate various laws such as on confidentiality, and commit any number of nefarious deeds if the Brooklyn leaders convinced them it was God's will to do so. ...
A late 1980s Watchtower article stated outright that medical employees and other JWs in positions where sensitive information was handled were required by divine law to violate confidences if the employee found out that a fellow JW was doing something the Society forbids -- even if the employee violated "Caesar's law" and broke an oath of confidentiality and ethical standards, and even if it meant punishment for the employee. The article illustrated the idea with a practical example.
So it's a demonstrable fact that when Watchtower interests are involved, Jehovah's Witnesses are required by their religion -- perhaps on pain of disfellowshipping -- to violate moral and ethical standards, and even government laws.
Continuing with the Watchtower article, we find the Society justifying why Christians can, with a clear conscience, violate sworn oaths:
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 help others to remain clean. ...
So the Society has painted itself into a corner, with its biblically justified teaching that violating sworn oaths and confidences is a very bad thing, contrasted with its biblically unjustifiable teaching that violating oaths in the interests of the Watchtower organization is a good thing.
Continuing with the Watchtower article:
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.
No matter whether a person agrees to conditions of employment by a simple agreement orally to abide by the employer's wishes, or by written contract, the employee has still agreed -- promised, sworn an oath, whatever you like to call meaning "yes" to saying "yes" -- to abide by those rules. Thus, a violation of those rules is exactly that -- a violation of an oath, of a sworn statement, of "letting your yes mean yes" -- whatever, it means that Jehovah's Witnesses who follow Watchtower teaching are simply not trustworthy.
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.
Yet another clear instruction, to those who "speak the pure language", that violating oaths is fine as long as it's in harmony with Watchtower tradition.
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.
In other words, JWs who have an ounce of sense will avoid getting themselves involved in situations where Watchtower interests might demand that they violate law-mandated confidences. This again completely proves my point.
Next we come to where the Society's lawyers have inserted CYA (Cover Your Ass) language, which did not appear in various critiques of the WTS. This language instructs the in-tune JW as to exactly what he ought to do, but without overtly telling him.
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.?
[Footnotes]
Mary is a hypothetical person facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in similar circumstances.
It should be evident to anyone with a brain the level of a moron or above, that the Watchtower Society demands complete and unquestioning obedience to itself, no matter what "Caesar's law" says. Non-scholar here is a perfect example of the stereotype of the braindead JW cult member, who simply spouts nonsense -- the same as our resident crackpot Messiah JCanon does -- such as "the end is coming REAL REAL REAL REAL REAL soon now!
AlanF
