Posts by Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

You said,

Excuse me, but this makes no sense. You are saying that the Society has no time to send a form letter to the questioner, photocopy and forward a letter to the local congregation for additional followup; but they DO have time to PERSONALLY ANSWER all these letters?
[Theatrics sniped]

Your pleading presumes that a personal reply is the exception rather than the rule. In fact that Society’s policy is to respond to individuals regarding personal letters. Optionally the Society will copy local elders.

For the benefit of all, we would like to set out here the policy of the Watch Tower Society in answering questions received…. The Society is glad to be of help to all who sincerely seek answers to questions that call for a Bible answer. First of all, a personal answer is sent by mail to the one who inquires.—Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, 1960 11/1: 671.

It is the Society’s policy is to respond to individuals regarding their personal letters. While that is the policy that does not mean that there are no exceptions. For example, letters that are blatantly insincere are usually not responded to. However, whether the Society copies letters to local elders remains an option and is only done occasionally.

Now, RedhorseWoman, considering your penchant for mathematical probability, would you care to offer an opinion on how inclined the Society is to copy local elders on every personal letter sent AFTER having already expended time on a personal reply?

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

[Special pleading sniped]

You infer that I am somehow rationalizing. I have presented evidence of my views. All you have done I spout an opinion. For instance, you said,

Also, how long do you think it would be before a publisher was "counseled" about his "lack of donations" for the literature if he chose (or perhaps found it onerous) to contribute sufficiently? I doubt it would take long at all.

Such a comment as that presumes that elders can distinguish when publishers are contributing, to use your words, insufficiently. Such a presumption is sheer nonsense! Again, publishers were told in writing,

Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society’s worldwide work each time that they receive literature as the Kingdom Hall?
No… Some [publishers] have chosen to make their donations at the time they pick up a literature supply. They do this because it serves as a convenient reminder of their privilege and responsibility to support the worldwide work regularly. Others contribute personally at the same time they put in the voluntary donations received from interested ones met in the field ministry. Many have decided to make a specific donation each week. Still others set aside an amount for the worldwide work each month, just as they do for Kingdom Hall expenses. Whenever it is done, each one has to determine what he or she can personally do in support of the worldwide work. SUch giving should be done in an orderly way in accord with how the giver is prospering. (1 Cor. 16:2)—Letter to All Congregations Of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States, dated January 24, 1991, page 2.

Now, based upon that written direction, you tell me, just how are elders supposed to know who is contributing what? Do you think they have placed homing devices onto our wallets so they know if we pull them out in front of contribution boxes? Do you think elders have secret cameras trained on publishers during each meeting?

Also, considering the comment above, can you please tell me what "sufficient" is? And, exactly how are elders to know when we have met "sufficient"?

Can you (or will you) answer those questions in a logical fashion?

The rationalizing going on within this topic is yours. You are rationalizing away real facts to suit your own opinion.

The Society certainly has some monumental problems to work out. I suggest you concentrate on some of those rather than quibbling about things you clearly do not fully understand. As far as this subject is concerned, the Society is following its own directions to the letter. You are the one that presumes otherwise. And that is all it is, presumption. If you choose to continue on this line of thought then I suggest you first go back an intelligently respond to facts that I have presented. So far you have manifest a skillfulness at generously sharing opinion rather than dealing with facts.

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

spectromize

I have to tell you that every single time that I have sent a letter to the society my local cong. elders have received a copy and the content of my letters were very polite and had nothing to do about any questioning of doctrines.

1. Every time Johnny went outside he got wet. Johnny concluded that every time anyone went outside they got wet.

Do you see the problem with that conclusion?

2. Every time Johnny went outside he got wet. Bill told Johnny that he often when outside without getting wet. Johnny concluded that every time anyone went outside they got wet.

Do you see the problem with that conclusion?

Should experience dissimilar to your own be discounted just because it is not your experience?

Certainly the Society does on occasion copy local elders of correspondence received from a publisher. I know that for a fact because I have received them myself. I also know that local elders are not always copied. I know that from personal experience and the experience of a multitude of others known to me. You apparently have no idea of the huge volume of this type of correspondence received by the Society. Other then responding personally to such respectful letters they do not have the time to copy local elders each and every time. The notion is preposterous.

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

Frenchy

You talk about shady dealings. Is it shady dealings when you work out your tax questions before a public judiciary?

You try illustrating your case with an instance of a painter trying to avoid taxes by calling the trade for his services a trade for air with the money only becoming a gift. Don’t you see the relevant dissimilarity between that illustration and what the Society has directed regarding our literature?

Without getting into the legalities, just consider this one essential element:

Would your painter have completed his painting job without having an agreement to receive the "gift"?

Has the Society directed that we withhold literature based upon a person’s ability to provide a donation?

Surely you can see the difference between the two.

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.

Our work has no such agreement. Neither explicitly or implicitly do we require or pressure for payment from a householder for our literature. There is no commerce. Even publishers are told the same thing, explicitly. A letter dated January 24, 1991, addressed to All Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States the Society said, "Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society’s worldwide word 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.—2 Cor. 8:10-15; 9:6-14.’" [Bold added by Friend]

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 3 June 2000 10:40:1

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

Still sounds like simply refusing to pay Caesar what is Caesar's to me. Puts a few more bucks in the coffers, though.

Do you file an income tax statement in the United States of America? When you abide by the law is that tax evasion? When you take advantage of a tax break is that tax evasion? Is that refusing to pay Caesar’s things to Caesar?

Because the Society pays its taxes completely within the law do you consider that tax evasion? Are you serious? Please demonstrate where the Society has infracted any of }Caeser’s tax laws.

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

So, what are the statistics for personal replies? Do you know how many are copied to the local congregation.....actually know? Or are you also making suppositions based on a small percentage with which you are personally familiar?

First let me point out that the initial assertion was not mine that, "every time you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong. elders". Assertions require supporting evidence. As I said before, that evidence is lacking on this thread.

As for statistical information on this issue, you would have to contact the Society’s number crunchers. David Sinclair would be a good starting point.

Nevertheless, I know that every time someone writes the Society the Society does not copy local elders. From my early years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have never held back from sharing my views with the Society. Sometimes those views differed from the Society. Also I have on many past occasions requested clarification from the Society on various issues of interest to me. Some of them were sensitive and some were not. On not one of those occasions has the Society ever copied local elders on my letters to them. Not even once.

On the other hand, I do have some knowledge of what goes on with the Society’s mail. I do not see it necessary to divulge that to you on this issue. My personal experience more than disproves the initial assertion. Of course, you do not know if what I have expressed is the truth or not. However your own inexperience with such things has already been manifest. Therefore you have no idea if the initial assertion is true or false either. Will you draw a conclusion from ignorance?

Friend

42

Blood Transfusion?

by Friend in

considering the latest questions from readers article on blood transfusion, i was wondering what the feelings are among this forums participants about blood transfusion.

over the years the society has been receiving a growing amount of letters on the subject of blood and blood transfusion.

any interesting biblical perspectives here about whether "abstain from blood" means abstain from blood transfusion?

Friend

To All

Considering the latest Questions From Readers article on blood transfusion, I was wondering what the feelings are among this forum’s participants about blood transfusion.

Over the years the Society has been receiving a growing amount of letters on the subject of blood and blood transfusion. Any interesting biblical perspectives here about whether "abstain from blood" means abstain from blood transfusion?

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

Only occasionally? Not likely. I don't think they spend much time considering which ones should receive Brooklyn's attention and which ones should be copied and sent to the local congregation.
From a business (yes, business) standpoint, it would be much more expedient to just ship the problem out to the local constabulary and let them handle it.

That ideology is fairly prevalent on this thread. Problem is, no one has offered any compelling evidence to that effect. That an individual has knowledge that local elders were copied on a personal correspondence is not evidence that every such letter is copied.

I truly doubt that many concerned publishers receive personal replies from Brooklyn. Or are you saying that the ones that don't get routed to the local congregation simply get trashed? Now THAT scenario sounds fairly realistic.

With that comment you betray your own inexperience. Those who have written respectful letters to the Society know that they do likewise respectfully receive personally replies. Only occasionally does the Society copy letters to local elders. In my decades of working as an elder I have only seen local bodies copied occasionally regarding personal correspondence. In those cases there was some compelling reason for the copy.

As a policy the Society only chooses not to reply to anonymous letters received. Sometimes they will fail to respond to an endorsed letter because of circumstance. For instance, if a personal letter repeats the same question that has already been replied to toward the same individual then they may not respond at all.

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread about what an amicus curiae petition is and what it represents. (Some do seem to understand the matter more than others)

An amicus curiae petition does not make the petitioner party to the suit. It simply allows a third party to express an opinion on a point of law about to be decided.

An amicus curiae petition does not make the petitioner a friend of any particular party to the suit.

An amicus curiae petition does not mean that the petitioner is filing in behalf of any party in the suit.

Filing a amicus curiae petition means only that there is a pending matter of law that someone wants to offer an opinion on for consideration. That is all there is to it.

Also, the Society did not lose the suit in question. You cannot lose when you are not party to the dispute.

Regarding the Society’s expressed legal opinion in its petition of amicus curiae, it is true that the court’s decision was not entirely what the Society hoped for. On the other hand, such decisions cannot always be construed as winning or losing. Because attorneys are used to how the court system works they do not get too bent out of shape because such petitions are often sort of half won and half lost. That is, the court offers some middle of the road decision that is less peremptory on a particular issue than the petitioner wanted. In this case it is false to say that the Society lost because the Society was never a party to the suit. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries lost while the Society’s petition received less acceptance than they wanted. Whether the Society could otherwise successfully win their particularly favored opinion as party to a suit is yet decided. The Society filed its amicus curiae petition hoping to build further precedent without the expense of filing their own suit or being sued.

Additionally, the Society’s decision to change how we handle donations was not made because they lost a legal battle but because they wanted to save themselves from such a battle, which in my opinion they could win quite easily. Nevertheless, winning easily and conserving expense are not the same thing. Legal battles can be won easily and still cost a fortune to win.

Finally, congregations were made aware of circumstances at the time. In a letter dated 2/9/90 elders in the United States were informed that new donation arrangements was enacted based upon recent (at the time) Supreme Court decisions regarding religious activities. At the time it was common knowledge that the applicable rulings were those having to do with the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. With the Society’s permission elders passed on verbally the contents of that letter. Besides that, elders were instructed to read a letter to all congregation in the United States and its Territories stating the reasons for the change to a completely donation arrangement. In part that letter said, "Additionally, many have noted that secular authorities are increasingly viewing certain religious activities as commercial." (Letter dated 2/9/90 to All Congregations in the USA and its Territories) That comment was offered as one compelling reason for the change.

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

spectromize said:

The reason I bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that every time you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong. elders.

That is a preposterous comment. Only occasionally does the Society copy elders on personal letters received by local publishers. The idea that the Society copies local elders "every time" manifests ignorance of the huge load of such mail the Society receives each day. They do not have the time, inclination or resources to copy local elders each time a publishers writes them with some personal matter.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 2 June 2000 22:22:13