WATCHTOWER AND TOBACCO INDUSTRY??? (page 9)

Whiskeyjack

Thx T.

My brothers and I are still trying to quit. Good for you if you've kicked 'em!

W.

As stated before, can the Watchtower truly claim that they are living up to the example of Jesus Christ if they (allow) their name even to be associated with H.M Riley or Phippip Morris, when others would be disfellowshipped for doing so?

Even if the Watchtower (never) took one dime of contributions from Phillip Morris, can the Watchtower say that they are (innocent) from stumbling others?

It is not our fault that JWs have been so deeply brain-washed, that the only evidence they will accept is Watchtower documents. But because things are that way, and because JWs come here to this forum, then we must (require) a Watchtower document that (denies) such donations were ever received, recently or in the past!

That request is (not) un-reasonable! That request has still (not) been met!

The religious organization that truly is serving God, in harmony with the example set by Jesus Christ, concentrates on preaching and teaching the liberating truths of his Word and does not become involved in commercial businesses. Following the Bible's instructions, it does not involve itself in "the commercial businesses of life."-2 Tim. 2:4.

Expatbrit

Whiskeyjack

That would seem a pretty simple and straight-forward thing for them to do wouldn't it?

Anybody want to lay odds?

Voyager

whiskeyjack:

That was good whiskeyjack, I liked that comment! No-body is going to (pee) down your back and tell you its raining! Good show whiskeyjack!

Thanks!

hopelesslystained

so who will or has confronted them with this chalengeing information?

hopelesslystained

chalengeing - sp- sorry- firefox does not give me the option of spell checking challenging

Voyager

Well considering that (Expatbrit) posted the information (years) ago, there has not been even (one) document produced from the Watchtower to discredit his information exposing them. But the JWs can keep trying if they like!

And after all of the (other) lies the Watchtower has told, why should anyone believe them anyway? They lied about their relationship with (Regi--Rand Cam), then they lied about the (United Nations), then they lied about the (pedophile situations) in the congregations, so why would anyone want to believe them now?

Would (THEY) believe (YOU) if the tables were turned?

Thanks!

Oroborus21

Greetings,

I am surprised that this thread is still going.

Rebel8: Yes it is perfectly fine for a beneficiary to refuse to accept any proceeds from a trust. (thus the Society could refuse the donation) In such a case, the trustee must look to either a substitute beneficiary or in some other way attempt to fulfill the purpose of the trust-settlor if that is possible otherwise the trust will fail. IN this specific case it is obvious that the trust-settlor established the trust for his own estate planning and tax savings purposes. Obviously he had some connection or dedication to the Witnesses. But in terms of the trust itself any charity would serve the purpose in the event the Society were to refuse the money. Just speculating but I imagine that if the settlor/trustee received a rejection letter with reasons from the Society that he would simply liquidate any obnoxious holdings and use the proceeds to acquire investments that were not offensive to the Society.

I would like to come back to the point that I conceded previously and address the larger issue. I stated previously that perhaps the Society SHOULD refuse to accept donations that are known to be derived from an obnoxious and offensive source. (IN this I do agree with some other commenters in this thread and to an extent I even agree with Voyager).

After all, even the unrighteous leaders of the Sanhedrin refused to accept back from Judas the 30 pieces of silver.

Certainly, it is not only unreasonable but impractical to "kosherfy" every small coin that is dropped into the donation boxes, but in circumstances such as this where the Society is most probably aware of the existence of the trust, it SHOULD demand to verify that all holdings of the trust would not be offensive to it. It should do this as I stated before: 1) the sake of the conscience of others including the Christian brotherhood and 2) because it holds itself out as essentially being God's representative organization on Earth (the only one actually). Thus it should make every reasonable effort to ensure that any such donations and donation arrangements will not violate its own principles and mores and that it expects its own membership to follow.

Having said this there is no reason either to be dogmatic nor overly critical on the matter. Afterall, consider a single dollar bill itself. It contains many masonic and pagan emblems and symbology, in addition to other objectionable things for a Christian. Shouldn't then the brothers prevent any of the friends from dropping these leaves of Mamon into the donation boxes into the Kingdom Hall?

I think Christ's example with the Denarius settles the point. Although he recognized that the Roman coinage was sacrileges and offensive to God's commands regarding idolatry, by permitting the rendering to Caesar "his due" he also recognized that life in this world requires the Christian to live in an imperfect condition and to tolerate such sinfulness. At other times both Jesus and the apostles, made use of worldly/ungodly riches whether as the donation to the Temple or to benefit others, thus showing further that it is not the thing itself but rather how it is used that truly matters.

This whole debate over this issue of the Society supposedly violating some morality because of taking in "polluted riches" is really no different than what Jesus had to say about "polluted food".

Jesus said that it was not what goes into a person's mouth that defiles the one, but rather what proceeds "out of the mouth" that causes defilement (and sin).

Likewise, it is not the origin or the intaking of money from a "tainted" "objectionable" "polluted" "unscriptural" "un-Christian" source that "DEFILES" the Society (or any Church) BUT RATHER it is how those worldly riches are put to use (or expended).

To that end, I think there is much to be concerned about in terms of caring for the "widows and orphans" and general charitable work for which the Society has always been tremendously and inexplicably derelict.

But as for the subject of this irrepressible thread, the bottom line for me is that I do not fault the Society for either refusing to accept the funds of this specific trust or for not making a better effort to monitor all such donations and sources; because frankly, I don't expect the Society to have such high moral standards.

It is left to those that do, those that still believe that the Society is the paragon of God's Truth that it claims to be, to find such fault, if there is any to be found in the first place.

-Eduardo

Whiskeyjack

Well, you're definitely a lawyer Eduardo!

W.

Voyager

Whiskeyjack:

Good point Whiskeyjack! I'll bet that he is such a good lawyer, that he could convince the Watchtower (not) to disfellowship (him) if the (trust) was in (his) name!--------Yeah-right!

Thanks Whiskeyjack!

WATCHTOWER AND TOBACCO INDUSTRY???

Share this