Posts by Friend

37

What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood in

hi, waiting, and all others concerned about this amicus brief:.

just to set the record straight - i have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and i assure you there is nothing shady about the society filing an amicus brief in regard to this swaggart thing.

an amicus brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.).

Friend

spectromize

I don’t know what you are getting so worked up about. In a letter dated February 9, 1990 and addressed to congregation elders the Society first informed elders and ministerial servants of changes resulting from the very issue under discussion here. The same letter gave permission that elders and ministerial servants could speak of its contents, including the parts about the recent (at the time) court rulings.

So, part of the whole point is this, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT OPENLY if you want to. It is no big secret or any sort of a big deal. In fact during the next service meeting (back then) THE ENTIRE CONGREGATION was informed FROM THE PLATFORM of the contents of that letter. Where were you?

Also, pardon me, but your whole notion about forming alliances smacks of ignorance. Go get educated on what an amicus curiae filing really represents before you sling that kind of innuendo, which is a false innuendo BTW.

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

SevenofNine

You said:

I have a positive attitude but can't help but feel for past victims of misinterpreted scripture.

Then we have something that is very important also very much in common.

Your
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

SevenofNine

You said:

Thank you for clarifying several of the Society's teachings. Your explanation made perfect sense to me but they'll never budge on the issue.

You need to cheer up a bit. have you carefully considered that June 15, 2000 Question to Readers article in The Watchtower?

Look at that inset box on page 30. It states,

If an medicine to be prescribed may be made of blood plasma, red of white cells, or platelets, ask: Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup? How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way?

In light of those questions, let me ask you some questions (just rhetorical, you need not answer):

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 1 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 100 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 1000 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 10,000 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

And the list could go on and on.

Do you see my point? You feel that the Society will not budge on this issue of blood transfusion when, regardless of what they may say, that June 15, 2000 Questions from Readers is a huge budge! Right now if some local JW judiciary was formed to hear a case of misuse of blood they would have a monumental task confronting them in view of that June 15, 2000 article. Judicially that article practically ended disfellowshipping over conscientious acceptance of some form of blood transfusion.

If you are thinking this is the end of the "budging", don’t. The Society knows that for some time they have been receiving good, conscientious and scriptural reasons from various publishers regarding why they will accept blood transfusion if it becomes a medical necessity. The Society has not seen fit to rebuke or otherwise take adverse action against those publishers. Also for some time now the Society has refrained from endorsing disfellowshipping action when publishers have accepted some from of blood transfusion. In the precious few instances where this has taken place over the past 10 years or so, the circumstances involved far more than just accepting blood. Most often those circumstances involved advocating the acceptance of blood.

So, take heart, the Society is budging. And we have not seen the last of it either.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

Re: Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession is a teaching that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment down until today. Unequivocally the Society teaches that Apostolic Succession is an unscriptural doctrine. As such, the Society does not apply notions of Apostolic Succession to itself or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sometimes persons confuse the historical and religious connection that Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have with first century Christians as though it were some sort of Apostolic Succession doctrine. However, historical or religious connection with a people is very different from a succession. One is based upon similarities and the other upon lineage of a sort.

Jehovah’s Witnesses will represent that their ranks go back to Abel. That position depends in part upon the text of Hebrews 11:4 through Hebrews 12:1. That text speak of persons faithful to God and they are termed "witnesses." Since Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have the same basic religious ideal as those "witnesses" had then they claim an association with them. They claim to be of the same brotherhood as such persons of faith. Again, this is a historical and religious connection, not one of succession.

Is there an unbroken history of "witnesses", such as Abel, from Abel to the writing of Hebrews? No, there is not. That fact is easily demonstrated in that the biblical record is the only authority for such a conclusion and there is no biblical record for hundreds of years before Christ. That demonstrates that showing an unbroken lineage is unnecessary for there to be an association between faithful persons from era to era.

In that case modern day "witnesses" can quite legitimately claim that their history goes back to Abel as long as they manifest the same "witness" behavior.

As for the period between the writing of Hebrews until today, Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that their history lay disbursed in the ranks of Christendom until the early part of this century. Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold that up to 1918 Christendom still had a standing before God. So, until that time discernible "witnesses" remained in Christendom. On occasion such ones will be highlighted in our publications.

So, in the strictest sense, Jehovah’s Witnesses will maintain 1) that their most ancient history goes back to Abel, 2) that their modern history has roots into the late 19th century, and 3) that their independent representation as "witnesses" was not until 1918/1919.

In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that their history is intertwined with that of faithful pre-Judaism, Judaism and Christendom. In that case, Jehovah’s Witnesses history goes back to Abel.

Friend

37

What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood in

hi, waiting, and all others concerned about this amicus brief:.

just to set the record straight - i have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and i assure you there is nothing shady about the society filing an amicus brief in regard to this swaggart thing.

an amicus brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.).

Friend

3acrewood / CJ

You said:

What it is saying, and ALL it is saying is: WE TOO OBJECT to this lawsuit for all the reasons stated by the defendant's attorneys, as any decision made against Swaggart's organization stands to do great harm to OUR organization as well.

Mostly your representation of a filing amicus curiae is correct. However, that last statement is more than an amicus curiae brief has to represent. You indicated that such a filing objects to a lawsuit (actually a prosecution in this case) for all the reasons stated by a defendants of attorney. Actually amicus curiae can be filed regarding a single legal argument. Also, regardless of legal arguments presented, if an outside party feels that some portion of law is about to be ruled on then they can ask for their relevant legal arguments to be heard, which may be an argument that a defense attorney has not made at all. In short, an amicus curiae brief need not have any connection whatsoever with the pending outcome of a case. In the case of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, the Society’s amicus curiae brief could have been completely successful with JSM loosing the case just the same.

Just for clarification, in the case of JSM the Society only presented arguments on one particular legal issue—of many raised by JSM—that the judge was likely to rule upon. Those arguments were different from those used by JSM attorneys.

From your comments it is clear that you understand that, in this case, much has been made out of nothing.

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

waiting

1. I WANT TO BUY GIRL SCOUT COOKIES, and I've been told not to do so for 30 years because we would be "supporting" an organization with religious/political overtones.

I like the peanut butter ones myself. BUY THE COOKIES. No one cares if you buy them or not. On past occasions the Society has rented Boy Scout halls for conventions. What do you think puts more money into that organizations coffers, renting a convention hall or buying $5.00 worth of cookies?

2. I WANT TO DONATE MY STUPID CLOTHES (which, BTW, are too small in spite of not buying girl scout cookies), but I've been told within this same time frame that we again do not IN ANY WAY lend support to another religious organization.

The Society supports the doing of good deeds, even if it assists someone in another religious organization. For example, the June 22, 2000 Awake! made this comment: "Help was extended to all, regardless of their religious beliefs. ‘We helped out the village priest. We cleaned the basement of his house,’ observed one Witness."

3. I WANT TO GO TO WEIGHT WATCHERS but their stupid meetings are in a stupid church building and again, Weight Watchers is renting the room from the church - so therefore, my $5.00 per week would - in the long run - end up in the church account. There are several of us chubby sisters here, and we have discussed this. One sister goes secretly so as not to "stumble anyone."

Go! Do you know how many past conventions have been held in buildings owned by armed services of whatever nation the convention was held in? Do you think those rentals were free? They were not. In most cases those were the only buildings that would rent to us or else they were less expensive than other buildings, so they were the ones used. Eventually the Society had circuits to stop using those type of facilities because it did offend some people’s sensibilities—as you can imagine it might—and besides, having your children playing on a battle tank or a infantry heavy artillery gun was not the best of situations for those learning war no more. Going to that Weight Watchers meeting is entirely up to you and your conscience.

I understand your argument that they weren't lending support - then they shouldn't have filed the Friend of the Court Brief because it looked liked they were lending support.

Tell me something. How do you keep from stumbling the ignorant? Just how do you do that? The fact is that the only ones that might be stumble by the Society filing that amicus curiae brief are those ignorant of what it represented and its potential effects. If we refrained from doing anything that might stumble someone we would be utterly paralyzed, literally. Neither the Society nor you should feel or act with that amount of restraint.

As for going to the donation system otherwise, practically that is what we have always had. Do you really believe that $1.00 for a Bible back in the 70’s and 80’s was anything but a donation? Do you recall any time when the Society instructed publishers to withhold literature from those who could not afford it?

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

waiting

You said:

The CO explained that's how the Society did it sometimes…

That is exactly what I have said. My first comment this thread said, "Only occasionally does the Society copy elders on personal letters received by local publishers.

Additionally, the Society will usually respond to publishers through local elders (COs, City Overseers, or local body of elders) if they perceive any sort f threatening situation. They may also do this if they feel face to face attention is needed. There is scriptural testimony to the benefit of face to fact communication. (See 2 John 12) Responding in person to some sort of perceived or real threat is only reasonable and natural; it hardly needs explaining.

An example of a threatening situation is some sort of threat of legal action toward the Society or anyone associated with the Society. It can be some perceived threat internal to some congregation, and so on. any perceived threat usually generates a copied letter to some local elder or elders. What you have represented is entirely in harmony with that and I have not represented different.

As for your situation, I cannot comment on its merits or offer advice because I do not know the details. As a general bit of counsel I would suggest that you call the Society’s Service Department and just ask them what is taking so long. They will talk with you. Just call your Branch Office, ask for the Service Department for whatever state or region you live and then explain your problem. Generally you will find them easy to talk with. Usually they offer good counsel and comfort. You need have no fear about such a call.

Finally, how the Society chooses to respond to personal letters is not dependent upon locality or local situations in some congregation or region. The Society’s policies are far more centralized than that.

Friend

33

What Has Happened To Us?

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

a few months ago during the elders' meeting with the c.o.

i could not help but express myself to him when the subject of meeting attendance came up.

now this is a nice guy as far as c.o.

Friend

Frenchy

I appreciated your comments on this thread especially those about faith. They are insightful, and I agree with them in full.

You mentioned something about brothers having more latitude in delivering public talks. That would help, but I’m sure you probably remember back when that luxury got quite a few into trouble. I’m not talking about doctrinal issues either. I’m talking about how far out into never-never land some speakers would go on issues like discipline of children, subjection within marriage, etc…. WOW! The problems some of those lunatics caused were tremendous!

On the other hand, today we witness something that gives merit to your words about latitude. Today some of the best talks given are those public talks that are given impromptu by one of the more gifted local speakers. The nature of an impromptu talk is that the speaker has great latitude, and it usually shows.

Anyway, I just wanted to applaud your comments on this thread.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

Jokemyster

You said:

Since the WT organization claims "apostolic succession"….

Please show us where the Society teaches apostolic succession. So far as I can tell the Society denies the notion outright. Quite explicitly the Society teaches that doctrines of "apostolic succession" are unscriptural. The Society also teaches that, without divine intervention such a succession would become an impossibility. Can you evidence that the Society has changed its teachings on this subject?

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

SevenofNine

I appreciate your input onto this subject. First, let me say that you are not alone in your plight. Many in our midst have encountered conditions and experiences such as yours, and it has raised some disturbing concerns.

You feel that sharing your feelings with the Society would be a waste of time. Actually the Society wants to know how you feel. Have you ever considered suggesting some change to them? Consider the following.

At times, some bring to the attention of the "slave" class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification.—Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order, The Watchtower, 1982 6/1: 20.

You can see from that information that requesting clarification of some teaching or suggesting a change in some doctrine is okay. The Society does not take umbrage at such letters as long as they are respectful.

You mentioned that there are no simple answers to the questions of does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion? Actually there is a simpler answer than you might expect. Below I will highlight some teachings of the Society followed by a question. Considering the Society’s teaching on those basic areas present a surprising answer to the question, does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion.

1. The Apostolic Decree (to "abstain from blood") is not based at all upon the Mosaic Law or elements of the Mosaic Law. The Apostolic Decree is based strictly upon events and laws predating the Mosaic Law. Regarding blood, AD is based strictly upon the Noachian Law. (See United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149, par. 8)

2. The Noachian Law applied only to the lower animals. It only prohibits eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (See The Watchtower of 1950 page 158, par. 1)

3. Deuteronomy 14:21 identifies that sanctity of life was the key element of the Noachian Law, not blood. That text indicates that eating flesh from an animal already dead (unbled) was okay for those under the Noachain Law, which was all mankind. Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence because besides being under the Noachian Law they were also under the Mosaic Law, which utilized blood for sacred sacrificial use, thus their complete abstinence from blood was legislated (even unbled meat from an animal found dead). (Read very carefully the text of Leviticus 17:10-12. It states the two-fold reason that Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence to the Noachian Law than the rest of mankind.) (See also Insight on the Scriptures Volume I, page 345, par. 6) Eating unbled animal flesh from an animal found dead was not a violation of the Noachian Law for those under it alone, because such an animal had not been killed for food. In the text of Deuteronomy 14:21 killing is the key element missing, which allowed eating the blood of the dead animal. Again, the Noachian Law only prohibited eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (Note that the "alien resident" and "foreigner" of Deuteronomy 14:21 were, in God’s eyes, under the Noachian Law.)

Here is the question:

Since the Society teaches that "abstain from blood" is only a reaffirmation of the Noachian Law and that law only applies to lower animals, then should we teach that ‘abstain from blood" means abstain from transfusion of donor blood?

Here is another question:

Since the Mosaic Law was admittedly required a higher standard of adherence to blood prohibitions and since Christians are not under that law, should we use elements of that law to clarify the Apostolic Decree?

Answers might be far more simple that we have taught in the past.

Friend