Friend
Is it shady dealings when you work out your tax questions before a public judiciary?
Now it's my turn to ask a question. Do you really believe that shady dealings do not occur before public judiciaries? There is no place shadier.
On the matter of the illustration I believe that you are losing the point in the details. The point is not whether I would do the work without the 'gift'. The point is what do I call the 'gift'? Is it truly a gift or is it really payment for services received. Now let's look at our illustration again. Do you go out and ask people for donations unless they 'accpet' literature?. No, you don't. So what happens is that you place literature in their hands and then you tell the m you would like a donation. You ask for a donation only when literature is 'placed' with the householder just like the painter will ask for his 'gift' only if he paints the house.
We have been 'hammered' at elders' meetings by the C.O. to make sure that all the publishers 'explain the donation arrangement' (translation: Get some money when you place the literature ) each and every time they place literature. Place the literature in the person's hands and then let them know you are in a position to accept money. Accept money for what? What have you done? You have left literature for them. It doesn't matter what you call it, you are exchanging literature for money.
Now the issue is sometimes clouded by the fact that literature is sometimes left when no donation is forthcoming. Does that, in itself, actually change anything? No. We're on a fishing expedition here. Sometimes we lose the bait without catching anything but overall we more than make up for those that do not give us money. Our C.O. told us (the elders) one time that our circuit was not sending in 'its share' of contributions for the literature that was being placed. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was expected of us to correct that. How? Make sure the publishers are 'explaining the donation arrangement' and remind the brothers that 'ultimately the responsibility of sponsoring the preaching work is that of Jehovah's Witnesses'.
The agreement to receive the "gift" was part and parcel to the work performed. In the eyes of the tax-man it was trade, it was commerce.
How long do you think this distribution of literature would continue if no monies were collected? Honestly, now. So, in effect, the collection of money is, indeed, 'part and parcel' of the literature distribution work.
Neither explicitly or implicitly do we require or pressure for payment from a householder for our literature.
No pressure? No pressure is put on individuals to 'donate'? There they stand holding our magazines in their hand and we are telling them that the work of distributing the magazines they are holding is supported by donations and that we would be happy to accept a donation from them. This is no pressure? There is no implication here that something is expected in return for the literature?
I have spent a goodly portion of my life as a salesman. What we are doing is what is called the 'puppy dog' sale. It's an old trick and it works very well. Put the merchandise in the person's hands. Let them feel it, let them take possession of it. It's much, much more difficult to hand something back than just shake your head 'no'.
Pretend that it's free. "There's no charge for our literature". Once they take it, then you set the hook by letting them know in no uncertain fashion that the way this works is that people are expected to give a donation to perpetuate the work. This is another old sales trick as well.
You keep quoting publications from the Society. Surely you're not taking the stuff that we print out for the public to read at face value, are you? Certainly you know the difference between what is said and what in reality is really meant, do you not? Don't tell me that you actually believe, for instance, that JW's vote?
...Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society's worldwide word (sic) each time that they receive literature at the Kingdom Hall? No. As stated in the April 21, 1990, letter to all congregations in the United States: 'Publishers may… make their own donations to support the worldwide work according to their ability and desire, whenever they choose to do so...
Have you read this very carefully? Please note, first of all, what it does not say: It does not say:
Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society's world wide work? No.
Note carefully the following phrase and how it changes completely the first part of that sentence:
Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society's worldwide work each time they receive literature at the Kingdom Hall? (bold mine)
Do you see the difference here? They are not telling you that you should not feel obligated to contribute. They are just telling you that you don't have to do it every time you pick up your literature.
'Publishers may… make their own donations to support the worldwide work according to their ability and desire, whenever they choose to do so. (bold mine)
Do you understand that all you are being told here is that it's up to you
whenyou contribute, you are
not being told you don't have to.
