"Theocratic Warfare" - An Apostate Strategy?

by slimboyfat 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  Who here had ever heard of this so-called 'doctrine' of "Theocratic Warfare" when you were a Jehovah's Witness?

  Who has not heard of the so-called doctrine now that you are an apostate?

  So why have Witnesses never heard of 'doctrine', yet apostates seem to promote it as the last word on Witness standards of honesty, integrity and decency? The answer is simple: apostates made the whole thing up!

  Of course, old Witness publications, mainly from the 50s and 60s, did talk about something called "Theocratic War" - but it patently did not mean what apostates later twisted it to mean. Witnesses faced difficult situation in Nazi Germany and especially Communist countries that meant that they felt they would conscientiously have to lie to some in authority in those lands to protect themselves and their brothers. Yet apostates have twisted that simple and honest pragmatic measure and made it into something sinister - almost as if Jehovah's Witnesses promoted lying in general! What a lie that is! What a travesty against those honest people. Apostates should be ashamed of themselves when they promote such a distorted picture of such a gentle people.

  The worst of the lot has to Bergman, who has written the most wicked tract claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses apply some general "Theocratic Warfare" and use this to justify lying in court. He even quotes a sister out of context as using the 'doctrine' to lie to the police - an act condoned in the Watchtower. What he fails to mention in his booklet is that this sister lived in Nazi Germany and that the 'police' with whom she was dealing was in fact the Gestapo! I am sure some Witnesses and lawyers have lied in court (like many other in such situations I am sure some Witnesses would stop at nothing to keep their children - is that so unusual?) - but to pretend that it is part of some wider strategy or 'doctrine' is just plain dishonest!

  Let us call an end to this "Theocratic Warfare" of apostates!
• 

  blondie

  Theocratic strategy has been practiced in many countries under ban. I can remember my mother changing clothes and switching to a different block after calling on 2 doors.

  I can remember 2 sisters being coached how to answer during a custody trial so not to give the wrong impression to the judge. One told me later that she felt like she was being dishonest and was surprised that it was considered acceptable.

  Many JWs in the US, Canada, and the UK don't remember the persecution days

  Also, I know for a fact that the elders get a different letter with more information than the ones that are read to the congregation or letters the congregation never see or know of. Why? Because the publishers don't need to know.

  So the tactics are there even if the terminology has changed.

  Blondie
• 

  vitty

  I never felt it applied to me as I wasnt being persecuted or in danger, but I always thought it would be OK if for some reason in the future and we were banned, that I would lie for someone (maybe if I was hiding a person) .

  I was aware of theocratic warefare, I just didnt think about it much or how it could be used.
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  I am all for having criticisms be legitimate. I think any criticisms have to be FAIR to be effective. If you have to resort to cheap shots, then it tends to indicate that you don't have anything legitimate to complain about.

  I think the "Theocratic Warfare" strategy may be one of those areas where "apostates" take some liberties and make it sound like something it is not.
  

  Here is my paraphrase of what the WT says, "You cannot lie outright but if someone does not deserve to know something, or if it is not in their best interests to know something, then the Witness can be evasive"

  Now I do think that is less then the legal standard of the truth, which is "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

  This legal standard is carefully worded to require the person to neither add, nor leave out any relevant fact that could be brought to bear in determining whether or not something is true.

  The "Theocratic Warfare" doctrine does allow the witness to omit things under a rather vague case where the witness decides the person doesn't "deserve" or it is not in their "best interests" to know. I can't fault them for using such evasiveness to avoid persecution. I think that is a legitimate use for such evasiveness.

  But to be evasive with a person, who only seeks to serve God, and who is therefore trying to determine if the jw is in fact God's organization, is frankly despicable. They claim to be open to all questions and examinations, but only to the extent that it is in "a persons best interest", which they believe is to only reach a single conclusion.

  Keep in mind, a witness and the GB as well will think that it is not in your best interests to know something that might lead you to the conclusion that they are not the Faithful and Discreet Slave. This does mean they think it is ok to omit facts, no matter how decisive, damning, compelling, and conclusive, that might refute this claim.

  I do therefore think the strategy puts a huge dent in their credibility, and the way they frame all topics and discussions are highly suspect and biased.

  You always have to ask, "so what is the rest of the story"?

  By their own admission, you'll get "nothing but the truth", but you won't get "the whole truth", therefore you are not going to get "the truth" from "the truth".
• 

  integ

  According to "Insight on the Scriptures", LYING is not telling the truth to someone who is entitled to know it. The truth is the truth no matter how you want to spin it. If the Society says it's okay to lie in certain circumstances, then that's fine, just don't call yourselves the "TRUTH" anymore, just because they may have the correct "understanding" of a few scriptures. I heard a brother say that he couldn't wait for the new assembly program, because "NEW TRUTHS" would be revealed. There is no such thing as "NEW TRUTHS". If he would have said; "I cant wait for the new assembly program, because of the new beliefs that will be presented", it would be more accurate.

  Integ.
• 

  ljwtiamb

  The answer is simple: apostates made the whole thing up!

  Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that at the JW HQ in the US, the term is used quite freely, especially in the upper circles. Even recently, it is understood to refer to tactics in the 'spiritual fight' against modern enemies, not just during the Nazi crime period.

  why have Witnesses never heard of 'doctrine'

  This is not uncommon, that the average rank & file witness is not acquainted with the phrase (although I do question this fact among anyone with tenure). There quite a few tactics, phrases & nomenclature to which many witnesses are not exposed, unless they happen to rise up through the ranks of WT responsibility.

  The average witness has only limited familiarity with what is printed in WT publications, since very few are able to read most of these. I remember so many being surprised at the findings of a bethel tour. Then even more are surprised at what they learn while a temporary worker. Yet even more are shocked once they become regular bethel family members. The list of surprises continues as ones' responsibility and exposure expands.

  Just my two cents from REAL WTS EXPERIENCE!
• 

  metatron

  "Theocratic Warfare" is not an 'apostate' invention. It is a practise started in the Rutherford era that

  quietly continues today. Old timers ( and the Judge) took Rahab as their example. She lied to the Jericho

  officials - and God blessed her, so it was OK.

  Let's not be ridiculous - the Society would never be so stupid as to allow any explicit allowance of lying

  to be printed. This is no different from other totalitarian structures like the Nazis, for example. Himmler

  referred to mass executions of Jews as a work 'never to be named'. They weren't stupid and neither is the

  Watchtower. Any plain statement about lying to officials would be a disaster in courtrooms around the world.

  In addition to the above, it may be more instructive to simply consider a brief list of examples

  in which the Watchtower Society did lie in public, such as:

  Lying about not being disfellowshipped for the blood issue ( in Europe - you're "disassociated")

  Lying about Witnesses being the "happiest people on earth" - while congregations are rife with depression

  and so on

  metatron
• 

  ithinkisee

  So why have Witnesses never heard of 'doctrine', yet apostates seem to promote it as the last word on Witness standards of honesty, integrity and decency? The answer is simple: apostates made the whole thing up!

  As someone who has dealt with Society lawyers I can tell you it is never specifically stated, but is instead implied. A review of the Nazi Germany persecution could be conducted with a final message of "protecting Jehovah's organization". If you directly ask the lawyer - "are you saying I should lie?" The lawyer will tell you, "I'm not telling you anything. I am just showing you the lengths faithful witnesses in the past have gone to in order to protect Jehovah's organization."

  This is a key ace up their sleeve. You will not see this in print, as it would shatter their credibility.

  You'll also never see in writing that the Society has arrangements with Kingdom Halls that Kingdom Hall records are to disappear if they congregation comes under investigation - or is raided - or subpeona'd.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  doogie

  semantics, semantics. like blondie said.

  for the record, i did know about 'theocratic warfare' or the 'rahab technique' while i was a witness. so i guess that kind of blows your theory.
• 

  Pole

  I have heard at least two elders boasting they had used tricks, white lies and half-truths under oath. That was back in the days of communism when consciencious objectors were thrown to prison for 2 years. I'd probably do the same thing to save my butt.

  I would have other problems with other aspects of the "theocratic war strategy", though. Like "protecting" the organization by making it difficult to oust pedophiles from the congregation. As others have mentioned, part of the stategy is not naming it explicitly. You can fool others well once you fool yourself.

  Pole