Posts by anon

I found this transcript on another site. Can anyone verify accuracy?
If genuine, does this represent typical thinking of those in responsible positions, such as GB, traveling overseers?
For those who publicly expressed disagreement, what reaction did you experience?
______________________________________________________________________
The following is the text of what I read from a site. The contents do not seem to be out of line with what would have happened. The information may be verified. Now, it is clear: anyone in the organization may be sacrificed for Unity. It is as Covington said, Unity at all costs. Long post it is. But iformative.
************************************
In November 1954, the Douglas Walsh trial was held in the Scottish Court of Sessions, in which the Watchtower Society tried to establish before the British court that certain of its members were ordained ministers. High ranking leaders of the Society testified, including vice-president Fred Franz and legal counsel for the Society, Haydon C. Covington. Covington’s testimony before the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service included the following:
<DIR>
Q. Is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of Holy Writ from time to time?
A. There is every reason for a change in interpretation as we view it, of the Bible. Our view becomes more clear as we see the prophesy fulfilled by time.
Q. You have promulgated - forgive the word - false prophesy?
A. We have - I do not think we have promulgated false prophesy, there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.
Q. Is it a most vital consideration in the present situation of the world to know if the prophesy can be interpreted into terms of fact, when Christ’s Second Coming was?
A. That is true, and we have always striven to see that we have the truth before we utter it. We go on the very best information we have but we cannot wait until we get perfect, because if we wait until we get perfect we would never be able to speak.
Q. Let us follow that up just a little. It was promulgated as a matter which must be believed by all members of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Lord’s Second Coming took place in 1874?
A. I am not familiar with that. You are speaking on a matter that I know nothing of.
Q. You heard Mr. Franz’s evidence?
A. I heard Mr. Franz testify, but I am not familiar with what he said on that, I mean the subject matter of what he was talking about, so I cannot answer any more than you can, having heard what he said.
Q. Leave me out of it?
A. That is the source of my information, what I have heard in court.
Q. You have studied the literature of your movement?
A. Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," and I have not studied this matter that you are mentioning now of 1874. I am not at all familiar with that.
Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ’s Second Coming was in 1874?
A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.
Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?
A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erronious statement in fulfilment of a prophesy that was false or erronious.
Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.
Q. You do not believe in the worldly armies, do you?
A. We believe in the Christian Army of God.
Q. Do you believe in the worldly armies?
A. We have nothing to say about that, we do not preach against them, we merely say that the worldly armies, like the nations of the world today, are a part of Satan’s Organisation, and we do not take part in them, but we do not say the nations cannot have their armies, we do not preach against warfare, we are merely claiming our exemption from it, that is all.
Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?
A. I agree that.
Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. That is correct.
Q. If a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erronious and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.
Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?
A. That is correct.
Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think - - -
Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.
Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Do you call it Christianity?
A. I certainly do.
</DIR>
Fred Franz, then vice-president of the Society, also answered questions for the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
<DIR>
Q. In addition to these regular publications do you prepare and issue a number of theological pamphlets and books from time to time?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me this; are these theological publications and the semi-monthly periodicals used for discussion of statements of doctrine?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these statements of doctrine held to be authoritative within the Society?
A. Yes.
Q. Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those who wish to be and remain members of the Society?
A. It is obligatory. . . . . . . . .
</DIR>
The British government counsellor later directed attention to certain teachings that the Society had in time rejected, including some involving specific dates. What, he asked, if someone, at the time when such teaching was promulgated, had seen the error in it and had therefore not accepted it? What would the organization’s attitude toward such one be? The testimony explains:
<DIR>
Q. Did [Pastor Russell] not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?
A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus’ Second Coming spiritually.
Q. Do you say, used to be understood?
A. That is right.
Q. That was issued as a fact which was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. Yes.
Q. That is no longer now accepted, is it?
A. No.
. . . . . . . .
Q. But it was a calculation which is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?
A. That is correct.
Q. So that am I correct, I am just anxious to canvas the position; it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation?
A. Yes . . . . . . . .
Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see.
Q. And in the meantime the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.
Q. Error?
A. Well, error.
</DIR>
Again the question as to how great the authority attributed to the Society’s publications is came in for discussion. While at one point the vice president says that "one does not compulsorily accept," his testimony thereafter reverts back to the earlier position, as can be seen:
<DIR>
A. These [Watchtower Society] books give an exposition on the whole Scriptures.
Q. But an authoritative exposition?
A. They submit the Bible or the statements that are therein made, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scripture to see that the statement is Scripturally supported.
Q. He what?
A. He examines the Scripture to see whether the statement is supported by the Scripture. As the Apostle says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
Q. I understood the position to be - do please correct me if I am wrong - that a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses must accept as a true Scripture and interpretation what is given in the books I referred you to?
A. But he does not compulsorily do so, he is given his Christian right of examining the Scriptures to confirm that this is Scripturally sustained.
Q. And if he finds that the Scripture is not sustained by the books, or vice versa, what does he do?
A. The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.
Q. What does a man do if he finds a disharmony between the Scripture and those books?
A. You will have to produce me a man who does find that, then I can answer, or he will answer.
</DIR>
Note Franz’s waffling. He is unwilling, even under oath, to admit that present understanding can be in error, even though he just finished testifying that what is published as truth today may be error in a few years.
<DIR>
Q. Did you imply that the individual member has the right of reading the books and the Bible and forming his own view as to the proper interpretation of Holy Writ?
A. He comes - - -
Q. Would you say yes or no, and then qualify?
A. No. Do you want me to qualify now?
Q. Yes, if you wish?
A. The Scripture is there given in support of the statement, and therefore the individual when he looks up the Scripture and thereby verifies the statement, then he comes to the Scriptural view of the matter, Scriptural understanding as it is written in Acts, the seventeenth chapter and the eleventh verse, that the Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness, and they searched the Scripture to see whether those things were so, and we instruct to follow that noble course of the Bereans in searching the Scripture to see whether these things were so.
Q. A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake"?
A. He must accept those.
</DIR>

17

Questions and Answers

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

questions and answers.

should dissidence exist among dedicated jehovahs witnesses?

answer:.

anon

Interesting discussion. Not trying to be antagonistic but some have stated just walk away and have direct relationship without org. How then obey Heb 10:24,25? If no org. then would you say that 1 Tim 3 & Titus 1 about elders and servants is obsolete? If not, does that not imply some sort of organization?
Dissent - If someone at some point did not dissent there would be no change. 'Generation' would mean the same. No blood fractions would be allowed. Are not these changes a product of dissent? At some point some human raised the question, 'Hey, isn't this wrong?' This privilege is apparently restricted to only a few at the top. Compare this WT comment:

*** w94 12/1 29-30 Fulfilling a Basic Human Need Through Recognition ***
Thus, when elders meet, and they pray for Jehovah’s guidance to shepherd the flock of God, they will strive to make decisions that are Scripturally sound. Christian modesty, meekness, and humility will prevent any elder from trying to exalt himself, dominate over his brothers, and impose his opinion at these meetings. (Matthew 20:25-27; Colossians 3:12) Whenever possible, the chairman of the elder body would do well to invite input beforehand from fellow elders and then provide an agenda far enough in advance to allow time for careful and prayerful thought to each point itemized. During the elders’ meeting, he would try, not to shape the opinion of the elders, but, rather, to encourage them to exercise “freeness of speech” on matters under discussion. (1 Timothy 3:13) In turn, fellow elders should carefully listen to the expressions of one another and gladly benefit from the insight of elders who have many years of Christian experience.—Exodus 18:21, 22.
Overseers understand, however, that Christ can use any elder on the body to provide the Bible principles needed to cope with a situation or to make an important decision. A good spirit will prevail among the body when proper recognition is given to each elder for his contribution in caring for the spiritual interests of the congregation.—Acts 15:6-15; Philippians 2:19, 20.

At what point is this no longer true? Do policy makers believe that they could be corrected by someone in the field? If many write in about the same point would that fact get filtered up to GB? What is the trigger to bring about some change? Is atmosphere of paranoia regarding asking questions accidental or a product of design?

This is partly what led me here, since it is hard to know who it is 'safe' to talk to without being looked at suspiciously.

For those who are or were elders, do you feel there is any change in the positions expressed in these quotations?

*** w99 6/1 15 Appreciating the "Gifts in Men" ***
These “gifts in men” do not seek to control the lives or faith of their fellow worshipers. Paul, although having apostolic authority, humbly told the Corinthians: “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.” (2 Corinthians 1:24) Paul did not wish to control the faith and way of life of his brothers.

*** w96 9/1 22-3 Living by the Law of the Christ ***
What if the Christian thereafter makes a decision that does not seem wise to the elder? If the decision does not directly transgress Bible principles or laws, the Christian will find that the elder recognizes the individual’s right to make such a decision, knowing that “each one will carry his own load.” The Christian should remember, however, that “whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.”—Galatians 6:5, 7.
13 Why does the experienced elder act in this way? For at least two reasons. First, Paul told one congregation that he was not ‘the master over their faith.’ (2 Corinthians 1:24) The elder, in helping his brother to reason on the Scriptures and make his own informed decision, is imitating Paul’s attitude. He recognizes that there are limits to his authority, just as Jesus recognized that there were limits to his authority. (Luke 12:13, 14; Jude 9) At the same time, elders readily offer helpful, even strong, Scriptural counsel where needed. Second, he is training his fellow Christian. The apostle Paul said: “Solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Hebrews 5:14) Hence, to grow to maturity, we have to use our own perceptive powers, not always relying on someone else to give us the answers. The elder, by showing his fellow Christian how to reason on the Scriptures, is in this way helping him to progress.

17

Questions and Answers

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

questions and answers.

should dissidence exist among dedicated jehovahs witnesses?

answer:.

anon

I concur with Anchor's opinion. It seems to me there is difficulty in distinguishing between matters of conscience, which should be left up to the individual, and the doctrines that should not be open to debate. Would a religion that could not be united as to whether or not the Bible was inspired have any value?
On the other hand is someone really disloyal if they question scriptural foundation of all facets of blood policy? Was it wrong not to be swept along with 1975 hysteria?
How can someone acknowledge this and remain a JW? John 6:68
I have mentioned this before and say thanks to some who have sincerely responded to this. However, in my opinion no viable alternative has been offered.

12

Two Different Views/Hypocrisy

by troubled in

jw
friends

what's hard is seeing things 2 different ways.. in other words, sometimes when i realistically look at things in the organization (without pushing away the uncomfortable thoughts or feeling guilty), i come to the conclusion that "yes, something is definitely wrong in this organization.".

but then when i go to the meetings, service, etc., i think differently (i.e., "this is the truth, and i'm just spiritually weak and need to study more).

since i seem to be influenced both directions, how can i be sure which viewpoint is right?

anon

Good questions. I have had the same ones. My viewpoint is it depends on what you’re doubting. 1 Kings 18:21 says we should get off the fence. James 1:5-8 also discourages doubts. Doubts in what? Doubts that there is a God, that he created us, that the Bible is inspired, that Jesus came as a ransom, that there is a hope for the future, etc. – these are the kinds of things I do not doubt.
The information on the internet about the Watchtower Society may be news to many JW’s. Others of us have been familiar with most of this information for many years. Not all elders will recoil at discussing questions you have about these matters.
Most here will dispute that there is any need to associate with anyone else in any organized fashion. Still, Heb 10:24,25 is in the Bible isn’t it? 1 Corinthians 1:10 urged them to be united. In your experience how many churches fit the bill? There are qualifications listed for elders too. If there were no need for any organization, there obviously would not be any need to appoint any elders.
The Bible does say that there will be last days and one of the identifiers of that time will be the preaching work. In another thread I posed the question ‘who else is doing the preaching work?’ Some say it’s not really expected of us. What about Matt 24:14; 28:19,20; Acts 1:8? Someone else said Mennonites and Mormons do it too. Draw your own conclusions about whether they are fulfilling command to preach.
I raised the neutrality issue as well. Usual responses – ‘some others do that too’, ‘it’s your duty to your country’. Do you believe it’s okay to get involved in world’s conflicts and kill your fellowman?
If you accept any of these points, the list of groups that meet that standard is very small. John 6:68 is generally mocked here, but mocking it doesn’t really answer the question does it?
AlanF suggested you had two options. Bury your head in the sand or leave. I suggest a third option. Confront the problems and stay.
Are there valid, troubling questions raised? People treated harshly, unjustly? Certainly. This is not new. Look at what happened in Israel and in 1st century Christianity. Plenty of problems there too. What would you have done if you personally knew David or were in the Corinthian congregation? Jehovah did not instigate or condone those things but he tolerated it. Even though these problems were among his people.
Today we have the same situation. Jehovah continues to tolerate injustice both in the whole world and also among his people. Does that excuse individuals responsible for problems in organization? No, but they will have to answer for it in time. Am I saying that ‘wait on Jehovah’ is a valid all-purpose excuse? No. I view it as a cop-out on the part of some who will not stand up and do what’s right. Many times I believe it would be more accurate to say that Jehovah is waiting on us. Waiting for responsible ones to get it right.
As far as not getting attention you need from your cong, have you specifically requested what would help you? I know that we may feel it should happen without our having to ask, but sometimes it just doesn’t happen. It is true that it is hard to find time to care for your family and needs of those in cong. If no one is in position to help you in your cong look in a different one.
Will this solve all your problems? No. Am I trying to discourage you from seeking help elsewhere? No. Much of the response you receive here will be pretty one sided. I just wanted to let you know that there are those who have struggled with doubts and injustice and have not left.

35

So Confused

by troubled in

jw
friends

hi.. i've been a jw for 15 years, have pioneered, been where the need is great, etc.

up until a couple of years ago, i was considered strong in the truth.

but then i had my first and only episode of major depression.

anon

I empathize with your situation. I have been in similar situations. If you would like to discuss further, please e-mail me. I am an active JW.

14

to Maximus

by anon in

jw
friends

thanks for your most recent e-mail.

will try again later.. briefly, i do disagree on some points (i am not violent though), agree on some others.

some i would prefer to discuss privately for sake of my own conscience.

anon

I took the time to look at Mennonite site referenced. They do take a stand against war. Amish groups do this also. The Mennonites do claim a worldwide membership. That is commendable in my view if they put that into practice. How many others do this? Not many, so it is still a notable distinction.
They also say they should be evangelizers. There appears to be several churches in my metro area. I have never been called on by a Mennonite in any of the states I have lived in. The only other group I have ever been approached by is the Mormons. I did not find any specific references to how they do the evangelizing that you mentioned. Do you have any more info on this?
The call for Christians to individually be evangelizers is quite common. The Catholic church states much the same. This caused quite a stir last year when Pope affirmed there is only one true church and Catholics should be evangelizers. I should think the Catholics could preach to everyone in the world in a relatively short time if the members could be motivated to do so. Protestants also have the same problem. Remember Key '73? When someone is approaching a home to preach the reaction usually is 'It must be JW's' (sometimes Mormons), not 'It must be those Mennonites (Catholics, Protestants, etc.) again!'
So while some groups (very few) do stay out of wars and some do preach as individuals (Mormons primarily), I conclude that only JW's really do both. Of course there are other requirements, but I only mention two.
As for the Hitler danger reference, if you had been born in Germany you would have been shirking your duty if you did not try to put the world under Hitler.
The last post I saw dealt with literature placements. I see value in the literature, so why wouldn't I offer it? The Ethiopian in Acts asked for help. Why is it an issue whether the help is spoken or written?

14

to Maximus

by anon in

jw
friends

thanks for your most recent e-mail.

will try again later.. briefly, i do disagree on some points (i am not violent though), agree on some others.

some i would prefer to discuss privately for sake of my own conscience.

anon

Ghandi was an individual. Note the events surrounding Indian independence from Britain and continued violence until now. Very few international groups could actually claim neutrality.

I am not sure of comment on only using Bible in service. I have at times done so. What problems should I expect?

14

to Maximus

by anon in

jw
friends

thanks for your most recent e-mail.

will try again later.. briefly, i do disagree on some points (i am not violent though), agree on some others.

some i would prefer to discuss privately for sake of my own conscience.

anon

Thanks for your most recent e-mail. My e-mails to you have not gotten through. Will try again later.

Briefly, I do disagree on some points (I am not violent though), agree on some others. Some I would prefer to discuss privately for sake of my own conscience.

Publicly I will inquire as to opinion (anyone's) of BMJ discussion on blood that Furuli was involved in.

Also, I have been going door to door for 35 years and would have to state that I do see a difference between JW's and other groups. Two examples:
Preaching - If JW's are not carrying out Matt 24 & 28, who is?
Neutrality - JW's stand out here too in not killing their fellow man.

[email protected]

8

Questions

by anon in

jw
friends

these are sincere questions directed to any who have first-hand knowledge.. i am new here, so i apologize if #2 is inappropriate for this board.. 1. how was it decided to ban 4 major blood components, rather than all or none?.

2. how is counsel on oral sex applied?

(judicial cases, behind-the-scenes, experiences?).

anon

These are sincere questions directed to any who have first-hand knowledge.
I am new here, so I apologize if #2 is inappropriate for this board.

1. How was it decided to ban 4 major blood components, rather than all or none?
2. How is counsel on oral sex applied? (judicial cases, behind-the-scenes, experiences?)
3. What reasoning for FDS not apologizing for errors?