http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0612hjs
The Report about child abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses is now live.
| Jehovah's Witnesses handle child abuse cases. Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Sexual Abuse, The Report - BBC Radio 4 | |||
|
AndersonsInfo
JoinedPosts by AndersonsInfo
-
50
The Report - BBC Radio 4 about Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Sexual Abuse can now be heard
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0612hjs.
the report about child abuse and jehovah's witnesses is now live.. jehovah's witnesses handle child abuse cases.
jehovah's witnesses and child sexual abuse, the report - bbc radio 4 .
-
-
AndersonsInfo
-
19
Will the Watchtower ever turn against K-12 public education?
by cappytan inwhen i was in school, you never heard about critical thinking skills...not till you started taking college level courses.. i work closely with the public education community.
now, the big rage in public education is instilling critical thinking skills from kindergarten on up.. and i'm in texas!
imagine what it's like in more liberal areas.. i would not be surprised if the watchtower started denigrating and discouraging public education (k-12).. it would likely start like this: .
-
-
AndersonsInfo
http://www.newsystemschool.org/aboutnss.html
http://www.newsystemschool.org/
History of New System School, Inc.
New System School, Inc., was created for the purpose of helping parents who were looking for an alternative to the public school system for their children's education. The school was started in North Carolina in 1980. In 1985 the school was incorporated in Missouri, and associated corporations have since been formed in many states. We have students and faculty in 35 states, several foreign countries...and we're still growing!
New System School, Inc., is an organization of parents who wish to be very closely involved in their children's educational process. They have made legal arrangements to be recognized as a private religious school. This is not a home school satellite situation, but a private religious school with a faculty and non-institutional campus arrangement.
We are a non-profit, private religious school created for the children of Jehovah's Witnesses. We are not sponsored by any local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
-
NYTimes Video: Ukraine's Explosive YouTube Stars. Guess where they met?
by AndersonsInfo inukraine's explosive youtube stars by grant slater | jul.
17, 2015 | 10:11 in luhansk, two men leverage youtube fame to shed light on and report about the realities of life in ukraines conflict-torn east.
watching this 10 minute video was definitely enlightening.
-
AndersonsInfo
Ukraine's Explosive YouTube Stars By Grant Slater | Jul. 17, 2015 | 10:11In Luhansk, two men leverage YouTube fame to shed light on and report about the realities of life in Ukraine’s conflict-torn East.
---------
Watching this 10 minute video was definitely enlightening. It was a surprise though to find out where the two young men met: "AT A JW GATHERING!"
Barbara
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003805968/ukraines-explosive-youtube-stars.html?em_pos=medium&emc=edit_fs_20150720&nl=video&nlid=72505290
-
5
Interview by Priest George Maximov with XJW Artem Grigoryan who was a volunteer at the Russian "Bethel" for 4.5 years. Here's what he said:
by AndersonsInfo intop of formhttp://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/78966.htm.
jehovahs witnesses do not need a search for the truth.
artem grigoryan.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
Top of Formhttp://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/78966.htm
“Jehovah’s Witnesses Do Not Need a Search for the Truth”
Interview with Artem Grigoryan, a former long-standing member of Jehovah's Witnesses
In association with the Russian SPAS (Savior) TV channel, Pravoslavie.Ru has begun publishing a series of remarkable stories about our contemporaries who embraced the true faith after following various false teachings.
Priest George Maximov: Hello. You are watching My Path to God. This program is about people whose path to Orthodoxy was challenging and who, in order to become Orthodox, had to change their lives drastically, give up many things and re-consider their ways. We will talk to our guests about things that motivate such people and give them strength.
Today our guest is Artem Valeryevich Grigoryan, a specialist on sectarianism from St. Petersburg. Prior to conversion to Orthodoxy, he was a long-standing member of the organization that is often considered one of the most dangerous among contemporary sects.
Artem Valeryevich, could you please tell us how it all started? Were you raised in a family of believers?
Artem Grigoryan
Artem Grigoryan: The search for some kind of supreme truth started fairly early for me and you can say that I was raised in a family that was always interested in something spiritual. Surely, everybody remembers the breakup of the Soviet Union, the time when many ideas and values came crashing down. That time, early 1990-ies, is characterized by mass interest in various spiritual practices, as people tried to find answers to urgent questions about their lives and set things straight. Being inquisitive, my parents were also into various eastern practices, such as Krishnaism, Roerichism and some mystic meditative practices. These were very popular at the time. However, despite such interests, my parents, as people raised in our culture, still considered themselves to be Orthodox Christians and occasionally we would go to church, pray and light candles. Of course, this can't be called conscientious spiritual life, but my childhood memories were always associated with some kind of soul searching, which is probably fairly unusual for children. For example, I clearly remember that when I was 6 years old, there was an accident and I was run over by a KAMAZ truck, but miraculously survived. This tragedy intensified the spiritual quest for our family. I remember that when I was in a cast with weights attached, I thought about God, the meaning of life and the causes of suffering, and discussed these issues with my parents.
This atmosphere of spiritual pursuit surrounded our family. My parents tried to find answers to their questions, but unfortunately in early 1990-ies the Church often could not give the people what they were looking for. As a result, the answers were found elsewhere. In 1996, after an attempt at following the church-based way of life, which failed as a result of a close acquaintance with one pseudo-elder who was practicing exorcisms, my parents met Jehovah’s Witnesses, smiling people who said that they were willing to spend their time and efforts to answer my parents’ questions. That is how we got closely involved with Jehovah’s Witnesses and stepped onto that path. I was 11 at the time. Read More: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/78966.htm
This is a long and interesting interview. Further along in the interview, Artem said the following:
It should be noted that in 2005 I was employed in the main Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, which is considered a very privileged position. In fact, for many Jehovah’s Witnesses working at the main Administrative Center is the ultimate dream. The center is located in the Solnechnoye village near St. Petersburg. I worked there for 4.5 years. Actually, if it weren’t for working in this center, I’d probably still be a Jehovah’s Witness.
Read More at: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/78966.htm
Bottom of Form
-
8
In case you haven't heard this, here's the link to "It's the Hard Knock Life" - JW Version
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ale8iq3vcw.
.
it's the hard knock life - jehovah's witness version.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
I can't get that melody out of my mind or stop my feet from tapping that beat. Probably I'll be humming it in my dreams tonight!
The version first appeared on YouTube last November but didn't get very many hits. Let us move it along and make it the JW mantra!
-
8
In case you haven't heard this, here's the link to "It's the Hard Knock Life" - JW Version
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ale8iq3vcw.
.
it's the hard knock life - jehovah's witness version.
-
-
-
10
Gwinnett Daily Post: See article and reader comment to Watchtower Convention PR piece about JW happy families
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2015/jul/02/jehovah8217s-witnesses-convention-to-feature/ .
the 2015 imitate jesus!
convention of jehovahs witnesses will be held july 3-5 at the arena at gwinnett center located at 6400 sugarloaf parkway in duluth.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2015/jul/02/jehovah8217s-witnesses-convention-to-feature/
The 2015 “Imitate Jesus!” Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses will be held July 3-5 at the Arena at Gwinnett Center located at 6400 Sugarloaf Parkway in Duluth. Organizers said the three-day convention will demonstrate how children and parents can follow Jesus’ example in order to build a more united family. The program will also include an examination of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.
“Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount offers timeless advice that can help parents to better use their time and resources to build a more secure and loving family environment,” Convention spokesman Mike Funston said in a statement.
According to Funston, crowds of thousands are expected to attend each day due to people having time off from work for the long weekend.
The 2015 “Imitate Jesus!” Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses will begin at 9:20 a.m. all three days. Admission is free, and no collection will be taken. The Convention will also be held July 17-19 at the Arena at Gwinnett Center.
READER COMMENT:
Please be forewarned about this 'religion.' Some individual JWs may be nice people, but their organization hardly "imitates Jesus." For example, they baptize minor children into a contract with their organization, not with God. If a child later errs or decides they don’t want to be JWs anymore they will be FOREVER SHUNNED by their friends and family. Hear it from their own mouths as part of this convention:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ-kzaIK_UA)
Their doctrine teaches children to hate others by forcing an “us vs. them” mentality, they think they are elite and everyone on earth is going to die in a fiery Armageddon, including the child’s school mates and non-JW relatives. Anyone who is not one of JWs is considered “worldly” and controlled by Satan. Due to their draconian and unscriptural doctrines child and domestic abuse are rampant within that ‘religion’ (anyone can search “jehovah’s witnesses, child abuse [pedophiles, crime, domestic abuse, etc.]. -
18
Time Magazine Article: Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/?xid=newsletter-brief.
june 28, 2015 .
nows the time to end tax exemptions for religious institutions.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions
une 28, 2015
Getty
ImagesMark Oppenheimer writes the biweekly “Beliefs” column for The New York Times and is editor-at-large for Tablet. He also reports for The Atlantic, The Nation, This American Life, and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits
Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”
But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.
I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.
The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most, property tax and state income tax. This system of tax exemptions and deductions took shape partly during World War I, when it was feared that the new income tax, with top rates as high as 77%, might choke off charitable giving. But whatever its intentions, today it’s a mess, for several reasons.
First, the religious exemption has forced the IRS to decide what’s a religion, and thus has entangled church and state in the worst way. Since the world’s great religion scholars can’t agree on what a religion is, it’s absurd to ask a bunch of accountants, no matter how well-meaning. You can read part of the IRS’s guidelines for what’s a bona fide religion here; suffice it to say that it has an easier time saying what’s not a religion. The site gives the example of the rejection of an application from an “outgrowth of a supper club … whose primary activities were holding meetings before supper, sponsoring the supper club, and publishing a newsletter” but which professed a religious doctrine of “ethical egoism.”
On the other hand, the IRS famously caved and awarded the Church of Scientology tax-exempt status. Never mind that the Scientology is secretive, or that it charges for its courses; or that its leader, David Miscavige, lives like a pasha. Indeed, many clergy have mid-six-figure salaries — many university presidents, seven-figure salaries — and the IRS doesn’t trouble their tax-exempt status. And many churches and synagogues sit on exceedingly valuable tracts of land (walk up and down Fifth Avenue to see what I mean). The property taxes they aren’t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens — in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches.
We’re also subsidizing wealthy organizations sitting in the middle of poor towns. Yale University has an endowment of about $25 billion, yet it pays very little to the city of New Haven, which I (as a resident) can assure you needs the money. At the prep school I attended (current endowment: $175 million), faculty houses, owned by the school, were tax-exempt, on the theory that teachers sometimes had students over for dinner, where they talked about history or literature or swim practice.
Meanwhile, although nonprofits can’t endorse political candidates, they can be quite partisan and still thrive on the public dole, in the form of tax exemptions and deductions. Conservatives are footing the bill for taxes that Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit, doesn’t pay — while liberals are making up revenue lost from the National Rifle Association. I could go on. In short, the exemption-and-deduction regime has grown into a pointless, incoherent agglomeration of nonsensical loopholes, which can allow rich organizations to horde plentiful assets in the midst of poverty.
Defenders of tax exemptions and deductions argues that if we got rid of them charitable giving would drop. It surely would, although how much, we can’t say. But of course government revenue would go up, and that money could be used to, say, house the homeless and feed the hungry. We’d have fewer church soup kitchens — but countries that truly care about poverty don’t rely on churches to run soup kitchens.
Exemption advocates also point out that churches would be squeezed out of high-property-value areas. But if it’s important to the people of Fifth Avenue to have a synagogue like Emanu-El or an Episcopal church like St. Thomas in their midst, they should pay full freight for it. They can afford to, more than millions of poorer New Yorkers whose tax bills the synagogue and church exemptions are currently inflating.
So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions (although, as long as the IRS is afraid of challenging Scientology’s exemption, everyone else is probably safe). But when that day comes, it will be long overdue. I can see keeping some exemptions; hospitals, in particular, are an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good. And localities could always carve out sensible property-tax exceptions for nonprofits their communities need. But it’s time for most nonprofits, like those of us who faithfully cut checks to them, to pay their fair share.
-
29
Royal Commission into Child Abuse - Australia
by biometrics insaw this in the paper today:.
the jehovah's witnesses church in australia is the latest religious group to come to the attention of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse.. the child sex abuse royal commission will hold a public hearing into controversial christian group the jehovah's witnesses, next month.. the inquiry, to be held in sydney, will hear from people who were allegedly sexually abused within the jehovah's witnesses church in australia.. it will examine how the jehovah's witnesses church and its company, the watchtower bible and tract society of australia, responded to claims of child sexual abuse within the organisation.. a victorian inquiry into how churches handle child sex abuse claims has previously taken submissions from former jehovah's witnesses who alleged instances of paedophilia, sexual assault, blackmail and death threats.. the organisation has 64,000 active "disciples" in australia but has also been described as a cult.. jehovah's witnesses believe their church is the one true religion and all others are wrong.
they are among a number of religious groups which have been examined by the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse including the catholics, anglicans, australian christian churches and the salvation army.. the jehovah's witnesses australian headquarters has been contacted for comment about the inquiry which is scheduled to begin on july 27.. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nsw/jehovahs-witnesses-to-appear-before-sex-abuse-royal-commission-20150622-ghue73.html.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
This opportunity for Australian victims of JW molesters to speak up is due to the never-ending and difficult work of Steven Unthank and a few other XJWs for more than seven years. Steven has been tireless in his fight for justice through countless government leaders and other authorities for those oppressed by arrogant JW leaders and their JW attorneys who refused to listen to cries for help from the machinations of some evil JWs.
Now that the Royal Commission will hold a public hearing, we can only hope that those who can will be at the hearing to tell their stories of the cover-up of their sexual abuse for the entire world to hear.
Many victims have lived in fear of disfellowshipping, or worse, for years if they spoke of their abuse to anyone. How wonderful that they are now given the opportunity to speak out without fear of retribution because the Australian government is listening and at this point, what the leaders of Watch Tower of Australia don't need are more complaints of their duplicity.
-
7
Church of God pastor writes what could be to some a helpful synopsis of Ray Franz "Crisis of Conscience."
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue92/crisiscn.html .
a 'crisis of conscience' opens eyes part 1.
he continues on page 346: .
-
-
AndersonsInfo
http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue92/crisiscn.html
A 'Crisis of Conscience' opens eyes
Part 1By Dave Havir
The writer pastors the Church of God Big Sandy and is a regular columnist for The Journal.
BIG SANDY, Texas--Since I like to help people who have been traumatized by domineering religious organizations, I would like to recommend a particular book to readers of The Journal.
Crisis of Conscience is a book about the struggle between loyalty to God and loyalty to one's religion. The author is Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Although he wrote the first edition in 1983, I read the fourth edition from 2002.
This book has 408 pages with another 20 pages of appendixes. There are 13 chapters. If you are pressed for time, you can consider reading only the first three and last three chapters.
This book is advertised as a penetrating view of a religion's supreme council and its dramatic power over people's lives.
What's the issue?
Let's go to the beginning of the book and identify Mr. Franz's main issue.
On page 1 he writes that the examples found in his book "may have little of the high drama found in the heresy trial of a John Wycliffe, the intrigue of the international hunt for an elusive William Tyndale, or the horror of the burning at the stake of a Michael Servetus."
From page 2:
"The people I write of are from among those I know most intimately, persons who have been members of the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure, and there is evidence to show, that their experience is by no means unique, that there is a similar stirring of conscience among people of various faiths. They face the same issue that Peter and John and men and women of later centuries confronted: the struggle to hold true to personal conscience in the face of pressure from religious authority. [All emphasis is Mr. Franz's.]
"For many it is an emotional tug-of-war. On the one hand, they feel impelled to reject the interposing of human authority between themselves and their Creator; to reject religious dogmatism, legalism and authoritarianism, to hold true to the teaching that Christ Jesus, not any human religious body, is 'the head of every man.'
"On the other hand, they face the risk of losing lifelong friends, seeing family relationships traumatically affected, sacrificing a religious heritage that may reach back for generations. At that kind of crossroads, decisions do not come easy."
Mr. Franz continues by showing a remarkable contrast about conscience.
On page 6 he writes:
". . . They [Jehovah's Witnesses] have taken some fifty cases to the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of their freedom of conscience . . . In other countries they have experienced severe persecution, arrests, jailing, mobbing, beatings, and official bans prohibiting their literature and preaching.
"How, then, is it the case that today any person among their members who voices a personal difference of viewpoint as to the teachings of the organization is almost certain to face judicial proceedings and, unless willing to retract, is liable for disfellowship? . . ."
Mr. Franz expressed his understanding for the need of unity, of order, of protection from pernicious teaching and of a proper respect for authority.
But on page 7 he asks some good questions:
- What is the effect when spiritual "guidance" becomes mental domination, even spiritual tyranny?
- What happens when the desirable qualities of unity and order are substituted for by demands for institutionalized conformity and by legalistic regimentation?
- What results when proper respect for authority is converted into servility, unquestioning submission, an abandonment of personal responsibility before God to make decisions based on individual conscience?
Hating sin, not sinners
At this time I want to cite for you some references to show that Mr. Franz's stated motivation is not bitterness. I believe his approach is to hate the sin but not the sinner.
Mr. Franz says on page 346 that his understanding of the root cause of the problems he has encountered
"enables me to be free from brooding or harboring bitterness toward the persons involved, either individually or collectively."
On pages 347 he writes:
"Bitterness is both self-defeating and destructive. I do not know any person among those men [who participated in his disfellowship] that I would not be willing to express hospitality to in my home, with no questions asked, no issue of apology raised . . ."
Let's look at the preceding page to see why he gives these people some slack concerning their actions. He claims to understand why the religious organization shields people from personal responsibility in hurting other people.
- He describes how the organization seems to take on a life of its own that supersedes in importance the actions of any individual. "It was the organization that did it, not us," seems to be the thinking. People do not feel a keen sense of personal responsibility for whatever hurt might be caused.
- He continues on page 346:
". . . And, believing that 'the organization' is God's chosen instrument, the responsibility is passed on to God. It was His will--even if later the particular decision or the particular authoritative teaching is found wrong and changed. People may have been disfellowshipped or otherwise hurt by the wrong decisions. But the individual member of the Governing Body feels absolved of personal responsibility."
Mr. Franz seeks not to condemn the people involved.
He continues: "I express the points above, not as a means of condemnation but as a means of explanation, an attempt to understand why certain men that I consider to be honest, basically kind individuals could be party to what I feel that they, in their own hearts, would normally have rejected."
Although Mr. Franz does not condemn the people involved, he still denounces their behavior.
He continues:
"I think the concept earlier described is tragically wrong, as pernicious as it is tragic. I believe the drastic actions taken toward those persons accused of 'apostasy' were, in almost all cases, not only unjustified but repugnant, unworthy not only of Christianity but of any free society of men. Yet this effort at comprehension enables me to be free from brooding or harboring bitterness toward the persons involved, either individually or collectively . . ."
Earlier in the book Mr. Franz gives some insight concerning why he has compassion for those who perpetuate certain myths.
On page 274 he writes:
". . . In a long-distance phone call, a former Witness said to me, 'We have been followers of followers.' Another said, 'We have been victims of victims.' I think both statements are true . . . In place of rancor, I feel only compassion for those men I know, for I too was such a 'victim of victims,' a 'follower of followers.' "
Not stuck in the past
Now let's go to the end of the book and see a glimpse of his conclusion. On the last page Mr. Franz recommends that mistreated people not stay in the past.
On page 408 he writes:
"Life is a journey, and we cannot make progress in it if our focus is mainly on where we have been; that could lead to emotional inertia or even spiritual decline. What is done is done. The past is beyond our changing, but the present and future are things we can work with, focus on. The journey inevitably contains challenge, but we can find encouragement in knowing that we are moving on, making at least some progress, and can feel confident that what lies ahead can be fulfilling."
LEFT: Raymond Franz in 1982 at age 59. TOP: Mr. Franz more recently. The writer of Crisis in Conscience is now 81.
Why write the book?
Someone could say: If Mr. Franz were really willing to move forward, why did he write about the past in his book?
We'll let him answer the question.
On page 33 he mentions that, after nine years on the "Governing Body" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, he resigned. For two years he maintained his silence about the reason and details of his decision.
On page 34 he writes:
"During those two years, the motives, character and conduct of persons who conscientiously disagreed with the organization were portrayed in the worst of terms. Their concern to put God's Word first was represented as the product of ambition, rebellion, pride, as sin against God and Christ. No allowance was made for the possibility that any of them acted out of sincerity, love of truth or integrity to God."
He was disappointed about the approach of the leadership toward people of conscience. He described their behavior in the following ways.
- Any misconduct or wrong attitude on the part of some who had left the organization was attributed to all who have left.
- For those who did display a wrong attitude, no effort was made to appreciate the part that frustration, disappointment and hurt may have played in that conduct.
- An enormous amount of rumor and even gutter-level gossip circulated among Witnesses.
Still, on page 34 he writes:
"The only ones who could have restrained such talk . . . in reality contributed to the spread of rumor by what they published."
Mr. Franz shows some excerpts of what the church's headquarters said about people who left the Jehovah's Witnesses.
On page 35 he analyzes the official material this way:
"Thus, in one paragraph, persons are described as like Satan, independent, faultfinding, stubborn, reviling, haughty, apostate and lawless. What had they actually done to earn this array of charges? Among the 'wrongs' mentioned is that of disagreeing in some unspecified way with some unspecified part of the organization's teachings . . ."
Mr. Franz describes his motive. On pages 37-38:
"This feeling for others is, I believe, a decisive factor as to the genuineness of motive . . . I know many persons who clearly evidence such [conscientious] concern, yet who are labeled as 'apostates,' 'antichrists,' 'instruments of Satan.' In case after case after case, the sole basis for such condemnation is that they could not honestly agree with all organization's teachings or policies."
Mr. Franz describes how the practice of disfellowship was used.
On page 38 he writes:
". . . After the reading of that [disfellowship] announcement no Witness was supposed to talk with the persons disfellowshipped, thereby shutting down any possibility of their expressing themselves by way of an explanation to friends and associates. For them to have done so before the disfellowshipping would have been counted as 'proselytizing,' 'undermining the unity of the congregation,' 'sowing dissension,' 'forming a sect.' For anyone to talk to them afterward would jeopardize that person's own standing, make him liable for similar disfellowshipment."
Mr. Franz mentions how disfellowshipped people found out they did not have as many true friends as they thought they had.
On page 38:
"The Scriptures tell us that, 'A true companion is loving all the time, and is a brother that is born for when there is distress.' I once thought I had many, many such genuine friends. But when the crisis reached a decisive point, I found I had only a few. Still, I count those few precious, whether they said little or much on my behalf . . ."
Mr. Franz said he believes his discussion of the absurdities that marked his time on the Governing Body is more valuable than anything he might have accomplished while he was a member of the body.
On page 39 Mr. Franz writes:
"If my past prominence could now contribute in some way to the conscientious stand of such persons being considered with a more open mind and could aid others to revise their attitude toward persons of this kind, I feel that such prominence would thereby have served perhaps the only useful purpose it ever had."
Although Mr. Franz mentions that he did not intend his book to be some kind of expose, some of the material would be shocking to unsuspecting Jehovah's Witnesses.
On page 40 he writes that his presentations of certain details
"demonstrate the extremes to which 'loyalty to an organization' can lead, how it is that basically kind, well-intentioned, persons can be led to make decisions and take actions that are both unkind and unjust, even cruel . . ."
Mr. Franz shows that he understands the difference between condemning people and discussing their actions.
On page 41 he writes:
". . . Undeniably, He [God] alone can fully and finally right all wrongs committed . . . Does this, however, call for maintaining total silence about injustice? Does it require keeping silent when error is propagated in the name of God? Is, perhaps, the discussion thereof evidence of 'disrespect for divinely constituted authority'?"
On page 42 Mr. Franz reminds the reader that the apostles and disciples spoke up against
"the very authority structure of God's covenant people--its Sanhedrin, its elders, and the divinely constituted priestly authority."
He writes:
". . . Those publicizing the wrongs did so out of respect for, and obedience to, a higher authority, and in the interests of the people who needed to know."
Mr. Franz reiterates his desire to help other people.
On page 43 he writes:
". . . My hope is that what is presented in this book may be of help and I feel it is owed to them . . ."
Protecting the organization
In the past decade many people have been appalled to watch the Roman Catholic Church ignore the children wounded by their priests as they sought to protect the image of the church and the priesthood.
Mr. Franz describes this kind of justification among the Jehovah's Witnesses.
He describes the words of a leader in the organization that reflected the thinking of others.
On page 118:
". . . In this particular session he [Ted Jaracz] acknowledged that 'the existing policy might work a measure of hardship on some individuals in the particular situation being discussed,' and said, 'It is not that we don't feel for them in the matter, but we have to always keep in mind that we are not dealing with just two or three persons--we have a large, worldwide organization to keep in view and we have to think of the effect on that worldwide organization.'
"This view, that what is good for the organization is what is good for the people in it, and that the interests of the individual are, in effect 'expendable' when the interests of the large organization appear to require it, seemed to be accepted as a valid position by many members."
His view changes
In his book Mr. Franz gives many informative details about the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Along the way he describes how he previously believed that the organization was the official channel of knowing God's will on the earth. Through time his belief changed.
Even though his view about government changed, notice that he was not opposed to authority, organization and teaching.
Not opposed to authority
On page 274 he writes:
"I was not opposed to authority. I was opposed to the extremes to which it was carried. I could not believe that God ever purposed for men to exercise such all-pervading authoritarian control over the lives of fellow members of the Christian congregation. My understanding was that Christ grants authority in His congregation only to serve, never to dominate."
Not opposed to organization
On pages 274 he continues:
"Similarly, I did not object to 'organization' in the sense of an orderly arrangement, for I understood the Christian congregation itself to involve such an orderly arrangement . . ."
On pages 274-275 Mr. Franz uses some interesting phrases to discuss organization.
- The organizational structure "was only as an aid for the brothers; it was there to serve their interests, not the other way around."
- "It was to build men and women up so that they would not be spiritual babes, dependent on men or on an institutionalized system, but able to act a full-grown, mature Christians."
- "It is not to train them to be simply conformists to a set of organizational rules and regulations, but to help them to become persons 'having their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.' "
- "It must contribute toward a genuine sense of brotherhood, with the freeness of speech and mutual confidence true brotherhood brings--not a society composed of the few who are the governors and the many who are the governed."
- It must not be "by 'making people feel the weight of one's authority' in the way the great men of the world do. It must be in the exaltation of Christ Jesus as the Head, never in the exaltation of an earthly authority structure and its officers."
Continuing on page 275 Mr. Franz writes:
". . . As it was, I felt that the role of Christ Jesus as active Head was overshadowed and virtually eclipsed by the authoritarian conduct and constant self-commendation and self-praise of the organization."
