Until 1996 the Watchtower Society's official policy was that a young JW man who volunteered for alternative military service, rather than being imprisoned or letting a court sentence him to some kind of alternative civilian service, had violated Christian neutrality and therefore was either to be disfellowshipped or declared to have voluntarily disassociated himself from the JW organization. Beginning in 1978, the Governing Body voted on changing this policy a number of times, and generally had a simple majority who voted for change, but because the GB had a policy that all changes needed a 2/3 majority, and that was never reached until 1996, the policy remained.
In 1996, it appears that Jehovah changed his mind, and so via divine direction instructed the Governing Body to change its policy. In the May 1, 1996 Watchtower (pp. 18-20) the Society declared that it was now a matter of conscience if a young man opted for alternative military service, and elders should now respect that conscience by not disfellowshipping or disassociating him.
For the older position see 1991 Yearbook pp. 166-167, 1982 Yearbook pp. 226-227; The Watchtower 9/1/86 p. 20; Awake! 12/8/74 pp. 22-25, 9/22/66 pp. 21-23.
The relevant statements from these references are quoted below:
From the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, pp. 18-20:
Compulsory Military ServiceIf a dedicated, baptized Christian lives in a country where exemption from military service granted to ministers of religion, he may avail himself of this provision, for he is in fact a minister... What, though, if the Christian lives in a land where exemption is not granted to ministers of religion? Then he will have to make a personal decision following his Bible-trained conscience... While taking the authority of Caesar into account, he will weigh carefully what he owes to Jehovah...
Civilian Service
However, there are lands where the State, while not allowing exemption for ministers of religion, nevertheless acknowledges that some individuals may object to military service. Many of these lands make provision for such conscientious individuals not to be forced into military service. In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as nonmilitary national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience... citizens in some countries today are required by the State or by local authorities to participate in various forms of community service... Where such civilian service is for the good of the community and is not connected with false religion or is not in some other way objectionable to the consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses, they have often complied... What though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national service under a civilian administration? Here again, Christians must make their own decision based on an informed conscience... Christians faced with a requirement of Caesar should prayerfully study the matter and meditate on it. It may also be wise to talk the matter over with mature Christians in the congregation. After this a personal decision must be made.
At this point the reader might have gotten the impression that, since both have been declared "matters of conscience", compulsory military and civilian service is exactly that, and the Watchtower Society is now "allowing" (meaning, "will not disfellowship for") such service.
Not so! As the material below shows, alternative military service has always been "a matter of conscience", but JWs who violated the Society's intent found themselves disfellowshipped.
The real answer is found in paragraph 21 on page 20:
What if the Christian's honest answers to such questions lead him to conclude that the national civilian service is a "good work" that he can perform in obedience to the authorities? That is his decision before Jehovah. Appointed elders and others should fully respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing. If, however, a Christian feels that he cannot perform this civilian service, his position should also be respected. He too remains in good standing and should receive loving support.
Note that only "national civilian service", which includes alternative military service, has been explicitly allowed by the Society's instruction to elders to "respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing". This is WTS jargon for "While for political/legal reasons we have to pretend that these are individual decisions, here is the real policy on thus-and-so." The policy on a given item is found, not by its standing as a matter of conscience, but by whether the Society instructs elders to disfellowship JWs for going against the Society's non-publicly-stated policy in these "matters of conscience".
Confusing? Sure. But that's by design.
The next quotations show the Watchtower Society's old policy on alternative military service:
From Awake!, December 8, 1974, pp. 22-25, article entitled "The Netherlands Frees Imprisoned Witnesses":
Jehovah's witnesses in the Netherlands have refused, not only military service, but also any noncombatant work offered as a substitute. The Scriptural reason for their stand will be considered later in this article... [p. 22]On March 26, 1971, three representatives of Jehovah's witnesses met with a forum representing the ministries of Defense and Justice. The discussion lasted two and a half hours.
One of the first points of discussion presented by the forum was this: "That you wish no part in perfoming military service is clear and needs no further explanation. But what really is your objection to civil, alternative service?"
The Witnesses explained that it is not that they are opposed to civil service as such, but, rather, it is a matter of strict neutrality. Therefore, any work that is merely a substitute for military service would be unacceptable to Jehovah's witnesses.
Other question narrowed the issue down still further. "When a person objects to military service," the government's agents declared, "he passes from military jurisdiction on to civil jurisdiction and from that moment has nothing at all to do with the military. Why, then, is the accepting of such civil service still so objectionable?"
Willingly accepting such work is objectionable to the Christian because of what God's law says about the matter: "You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men." (1 Cor. 7:23) Civilian servitude as a substitute for military service would be just as objectionable to the Christian. In effect, he would thereby become a part of the world instead of keeping separate as Jesus commanded.--John 15:19; 17:14-16. [p. 24]
From Awake!, September 22, 1966, pp. 21-23, article "Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden Exempted from Conscription":
[ In Sweden] every male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-seven who is not handicapped is liable to undergo military training and serve for a specified period of time. If one has serious conscientious objection against the use of weapons, he may apply for noncombatant service, now called "weapons-free" service. Since 1943 this has consisted mostly of working in the forest or some other job for various governmental purposes, though the person would still be under martial law. But because of their religious beliefs Jehovah's witnesses in Sweden refused, not only military service, but also any noncombatant work offered as a substitute. However, many judges and prosecutors saw the injustice of sending otherwise irreproachable men to prison just because of their religious convictions.Committee Appointed to Study Matter
As a result, a committee was appointed to look into the matter and make suggestions for a new law. A number of suggestions were then submitted to this committee, among them a proposal that Jehovah's witnesses be allowed whatever kind of work would be acceptable to them, and if there were no such, then for the government to leave the Witnesses alone.
So in time the committee suggested to Jehovah's witnesses various kinds of work. One was to work for some private institution or employer for the same length of time as the required term of military service, but part of their wages would go to some charitable institution. However, these offers presented to Jehovah's witnesses subject to conscription were refused. Their individual decision based on their own understanding of the Bible was that they could not conscientiously participate in any work that would be a substitute for military service. As ministers representing God's heavenly kingdom, they stated that they must remain neutral regarding this world's political and military affairs, just as an ambassador from one nation must refrain from participating in the political and military affairs of another country in which he may live. (2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 6:20) And anyone who has talked to Jehovah's witnesses in Sweden realizes that they take their obligations to God seriously.
Therefore, in their comments concerning a new law the committee stated that Jehovah's witnesses had not accepted any proposal for substitute work. [pp. 21-2]
Commenting on the Swedish government's decision on how to handle conscientious objectors who are Witnesses, the 1991 Yearbook said (pp. 166-7):
Renewed Attempts to Seek CompromiseAfter this decision was made by parliament, attempts have been made to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task. They showed that Jehovah's Witnesses already do a form of social work in their house-to-house ministry, helping people clean up their lives and become decent, law-abiding citizens. Then one of the committe members came up with a most surprising idea.He wondered if we would agree to engage in that house-to-house ministry on a full-time basis within our own congregations for a period--corresponding to that of compulsory service--and report this to the authorities as a substitute. The brothers explained that our service to God can never be compulsory or a State affair. Finally, the committee suggested retaining the 1966 decision, concluding in its final report: "According to the committee's opinion, there do not exist, at the present, other religious groups in our country that can be compared with Jehovah's Witnesses."
Despite the Society's lying claims that this avoidance of compulsory alternative service is purely a decision reached by JWs on their own, the following article lumps such service with killing and saluting the flag, both disfellowshipping issues. From the September 1, 1986 Watchtower, p. 20, the article "Christian Neutrals in a Bloodstained World" said of Jehovah's Witnesses:
These Christians continued to pay back Caesar's things to Caesar. They obeyed the laws of the land as upright citizens. (Matthew 22:17-21; Romans 13:1-7) But more importantly, they paid back to God the things that belonged to him, including their dedicated lives and Christian worship. Hence, when Caesar demanded to have God's things, they acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and 5:29. Whether the issue was shedding blood, noncombatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were executed because of this stand.-Matthew 24:9; Revelation 2:10.
Finally, the Society has admitted that a number of young JWs went to prison unnecessarily. From the 1982 Yearbook, pp. 226-7, concerning events in Italy:
As the number of Witnesses increased, the issue was continually brought to the attention of the public and the authorities alike. Finally, a law was approved decreeing that those who do not agree to do alternative service shall be sentenced to one single prison term, so that our young brothers are now given from 12 to 15 months' imprisonment...From 1978 to 1980 there have been, on an average, 500 young brothers a year in prison on account of the neutrality issue. It is calculated that up to the present, several thousand Witnesses have kept a clear conscience before Jehovah God in this respect. In December 1980, the defense minister announced over national television that a parliamentary bill that would further improve the position of our brothers is under consideration. During the interview he described the Witnesses as "decent people" and declared that with the new law "the State will show respect for all religions."The conduct of young Witnesses with regard to Christian neutrality has served to enhance the esteem enjoyed by Jehovah's people.
Finally, let's briefly consider how the Society has stated that all violators of "neutrality" should be dealt with.
The elder's manual Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock states on page 101, under the subtopic "Implications of Disassociation":
Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against unrepentant wrongdoers, disassociation is an action taken by an individual who has decided that he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses... If an individual takes a course contrary to the neutral position of the Christian congregation, the congregation is compelled to view him as one who has chosen to separate from us."
Concerning how such people are to be treated, this manual states on page 103:
Disassocated one are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah.
In summary, then, in literature written for the general public, the Watchtower Society has usually declared alternative military service to be a matter of conscience. But its actions toward those who had the audacity to follow through and actually exercise their consciences in a manner different from the JW leadership's private directives showed that this was a lie. Explicit policy has been that persons who accepted alternative military service would be declared to have violated "Christian neutrality" and would be declared to have "disassociated" themselves by their actions, which is just another form of disfellowshipping or shunning.
It is ironic that, by a simple stroke of the pen, the Society has nullified the sacrifices all those young men made in the name of "Christian neutrality", those who went to jail rather than accept non-military alternatives. One can only wonder how such young men can accept this pen-stroke as "spiritual food" from Jehovah, channeled through "the faithful and discreet slave". It seems clear that this self-declared "slave" is neither faithful nor discreet.
Writing in Crisis of Conscience (pp. 101-3, 129-31), Raymond Franz indicates that these policies were developed by Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr (vice president and president of the Watchtower Society) during WWII. After the current Governing Body arrangement came into effect in 1976, the matter of alternative military service was brought before the new Governing Body at least six times between 1978 and 1980. On most occasions the majority voted to change the policy, as was done in May, 1996, but because it takes a two-thirds majority to change a previous policy, and only a simple majority voted for the change, no change was made. For more details see Raymond Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom, pp. 256-270.
Of course, most Jehovah's Witnesses will pretend that all this nonsense is brought to them courtesy of Jehovah.
AlanF