Posts by 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

I can see criticizing a tax-exempt organization from using that as vehicle to gain wealth for individuals. The Society has done this regarding various religious organizations. I do not know that the Society ever criticized the tax-exempt status of an organization just for growing, even though that growth could be at least partially attributed to the tax-exempt status.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the Society has criticized it use of funds because it has enriched individuals—plenty of them. Can you say the same of the Society?

As for paying Caesar’s things to Caesar, the Society is more than willing to do that. The issue is one fo equal application of law. If religious organizations meeting the definition of “X” are legally entitled to tax-exempt status and if the Society meets definition “X” then they should receive the tax-exempt status as well as anyone else meeting the same standard. The question here is not one of “do you pay your tax or not?. The Question is, is the law being fairly applied. That is what the Society is debating in countries like France.

As an aside, I remember years back Nnorr saying, “We are more than willing to give up our tax-exempt status as long as other religions must do the same thing.” That is the real issue.

As for guarding “riches”, the relevant difference is that the Society is not guarding anything to the material enrichment of individuals.

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

SC

You said:

Thank you for your interpretation of two ideas supporting another. What about two different ideas supporting each other

You entirely missed the point. I did not address the single aspect of two ideas supporting each other. I discussed four possibilities of how two different ideas relate to each other. Please reconsider what I said. Take your time. I am in no need of an immediate reply.

You said:

Right now I would ask you to read John 6:66-69 and tell me where the WTBTS is mentioned in these versus. It is not! As I said, I will post a new topic tonight and will be interested in your reply.

A lot of things are not mentioned in that verse. What is your point? As for the WTBTS, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, neither are a lot of things. Again, what is your specific point?

Jesus’ future followers were also not mentioned in that verses yet they are charged with teaching Jesus’ commands, making disciples and baptizing those disciples.

I will read, consider and respond to your new topic as soon as I can.

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

Pathofthorns

You asked:

Just wondering who actually owns the Kingdom Hall anyway?

Each local congregation should have a legal entity that holds that ownership. Usually those entities are corporations or trusteeships. In case of some type of default property is then dealt with according to bylaws or rules within those legal entities. In cases of default (i.e., congregation dissolves) most often what happens with the property is decided by a unanimous vote of members (usually a quorum of all baptized publishers at the time).

If a congregation has secured a loan with the Society with their Kingdom Hall (their property) then naturally if the congregation defaulted that loan then the Society could exercise their lean on that property and could eventually secure ownership of it if they wanted. The Society would not be entitled to anything more than the value secured. So, if the property were seized then it would most likely be sold so that the Society could separate its secured money and give the remainder back to the legal entity that secured the loan in the first place.

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

SC

You said:

[Friend’s] post reeks with double speak. I think I will start a new topic on this.

I will look forward to the discussion. Before you begin, though, please save us both some time by carefully considering what I have said here. You should pay particular attention to the idea of two different ideas accommodating one another. Let me explain.

Two different ideas have four (4) possible relationships to one another. As follows:

1) Two ideas can have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Sue can read.

2) Two ideas can support each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Sue learned how to read from Johnny.

3) Two ideas can oppose each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.

4) Two ideas can accommodate each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Johnny can do nothing without glasses.

In the instance of the Society’s teachings about itself (meaning: what it attributes to Jehovah’s Witnesses) versus ultimate salvation, too many times persons fallaciously argue that one is teaching an absolute about the other when in fact that is not true. All those teachings do is accommodate each other.

The Society’s teachings about itself have to do with their viewpoint of who is living and teaching as Christians. They see such merit in their beliefs and resulting aspirations that, quite naturally, they offer it as practically a must for insuring a good future. Whereas the Society’s teachings about ultimate salvation represent the bottom line of who will or will not be saved, who will actually get saved. They teach unequivocally that only God can and will make that judgment.

Those ideas are not 1) unrelated nor are they 2) supportive of each other nor are they 3) opposed to each other. Rather, they 4) accommodate each other. One gives a belief about acceptance of certain teachings and actions and results thereof, and the other represents who ultimately decides that resultsfor us. In the case of ultimate judgment, no Jehovah’s Witness that I know would take judgment away from Jehovah and His son and give it the the Society. The Society does not even teach that.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 11:17:38

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

Pathofthorns

P.s. Go easy on me Friend. I realize my post is full of….

LOL. Actually, I liked your post. You asked legitimate questions. Let’s take a look at them.

What I mean is, why would not the "received free-give free" principle have been instituted long ago?

The message of good news is what is free. On the other hand, even Jesus’ followers recognized the need for financing various activities. Otherwise, why have a money box? Why talk about an equalizing?

Did Jesus’ earliest followers require a measure of financing in their efforts of spreading the good news (which news was free)? In various forms, yes, they did. In some cases this was no more than subsistence for themselves personally. Later there was apparently some more organized assistance.

As for JWs today, money has been connected with our work of teaching what we believe only to the extent of covering unavoidable and necessary expenses. More or less, that is similar to what Jesus earliest followers did and Jesus himself. After all, how much pay-back has the Society received from shipping missionaries off to lands like Papua New Guinea?

Why only this year has the Society stopped charging interest to congregations borrowing money they themselves donated to the Society?

Actually they did not stop charging interest. What they did was lowered the annual interest rate (simple interest, BTW [BIG difference]). Off the top of my head they were lowered from about 6 or 7 % to 3 %.

Also, I have heard this objection of paying interest on borrowed-back-donated-money before. Let me ask a question. If a congregation really donates money then what are they doing? Are they saying, "Hey, hold this for us until I want or need it back?" Are they saying, "Hey, I am giving this money to you, but if I want it back unconditionally then that is what you should do?" Of course, that is not what they are doing. They are giving it into someone else’s charge to do with as they see fit. That is the nature of donated money.

Now, the Society does have an arrangement for conditional donations. In that case then congregations can do just as I alluded to before. They can then say, "Hey, hold this for us until I want or need it back?"

So, if a congregation has really donated their money then they have accepted that that money is now being used for other purposes and it is not theirs any longer. If they demanded that money back then would it really have been a donation in the first place? Furthermore, considering the rate of interest (and type of interest) paid on such loans, congregations are doing little more than paying the present value of past borrowed dollars. In other words, $1,000 borrowed today may be worth, let’s say, $1,300 dollars in 10 years. If the congregation uses the money over that period then they are doing nothing more than paying back the same value of borrowed-back-donated-money as they borrowed at the beginning of the period. In that way their original donation remains intact as just that, a donation; they have not asked back that which they gave.

As an aside, there are cases where congregations needed a building but could not afford the monthly payments of that borrowed-back-donated-money. In lots of those cases the Society has responded by saying, "Pay it back as you can afford it" with no conditions.

Why is the "donation arrangement" not universal in that some countries still charge for literature?

Same as above. The Society’s policy is to establish finances based upon local laws. In some lands that allows for what you call a "charge" for literature. In fact the Society is not seeking to gain from finances at all. That is why the tax laws of those lands allow it in that fashion. They are only seeking the same as Jesus’ earliest followers, to support the spreading of their beliefs. Regarding those "charges", it is hardly reasonable to say that those modest sums represent anything more than a token of what they are worth to those who give it.

As an aside, in poor lands the Society has long provided literature at no cost whatsoever (no charge). To this day the more affluent branches offset the needs of those other branches.

In short, the Society does different things in different lands because they are doing what works best depending upon laws which differ from land to land.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 6 June 2000 23:19:33

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

SC

Its funny how the WT can teach two different things at one time and very few notice.

Is there a true dichotomy or is it that you do not understand how two ideas accommodate one another? I do not see two views in opposition but rather views from two separate vantage points; one tableau is from the "we think we are right" position; one tableau is from the "But God is the ultimate judge of each individual" standpoint. The former holds strong views favoring association with us. (It cannot be any other way) The latter is an admission of what will ultimately determine our individual fate.

Salvation is only by being part of the WT organization.

Yes, that is taught from the perspective that we think we are correct in our intent and aspirations. We think we are true Christians, thus persons need respond as us in order to….

On the other hand, we do not teach that salvation (or not) of any individual is determined by us. Rather we teach that only God through His son will make that judgment. In that case, there is a quite explicit admission that salvation (or not) is in Jehovah’s hands, not ours. That is what Jehovah’s Witnesses actually teach on the matter of ultimate salvation and it has nothing whatsoever to do with public relations—not that you said it did. That teaching is firmly rooted in scripture. I do not know of a single JW in their right mind that would tell you otherwise.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 6 June 2000 21:16:32

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

While your logic is correct, and no one should be foolish enough to presume that only one person would be privy to the matter, my concern lies in the fact that several people have been shocked to receive a personal visit from the congregation elders in response to a letter they had written confidentially to the Society.

That is the part you are not dealing with. Persons responsible by the Society to respond to requests are appointed elders. Local elders are appointees of the Society just like those elders in Brooklyn, Patterson or whatever branch you are in. In fact, in some smaller branches you might be surprised that a local elder is opening and responding to your letter from the branch office.

Let me ask a question. Would those same persons be "shocked" if an elder from Patterson traveled to make the same visit themselves? Is it the face-to-face visit that concern you or the fact that the Society utilizes all its appointed elders?

If you write a letter to any other corporation or perhaps to a government agency, you would expect to be notified if the initial agency was forwarding it to a local branch for attention.

I don’t think that is true. If you write a letter to the United Stated Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with some request and they felt that they needed to first meet with you face-to-face then they would send a local field officer to do that. In so doing the FBI is still using an agent, just a local one.

The same can be said of probably most corporations large enough to have offices in your locale. I mean, why have an employee travel hundreds or thousands of miles when a local employee can do the same thing for them and you? In that case the notification would be made at the point of contact. large retail corporations do this all the time. Insurance companies do the same thing. They have a local agent make the call or visit.

The posts I have seen from several people here expressed their dismay at receiving no reply from the Society itself, but rather being visited by the local elders, which was a situation with which they did not feel comfortable to begin with.

If being visited by local elders is unwanted then all they need do is express that sentiment, either in the initial letter or upon receiving the visit. At some point people should be willing to express themselves. No one can read people’s minds. All the Society is doing is using appointed elders for what they feel they are competent enough for. They do the same with elders closer to Bethel or at Bethel. Again, to the Society they are all appointed elders.

The issue has to do with respect for an individual's rights and feelings. If someone felt comfortable enough with their local elders, they would have addressed the issue directly to them rather than seeking help through Bethel. [Emphasis added]

I don’t know of any "rights" being infringed upon in this situation. Can you explain that? What "right" do you have in mind. Please be specific.

As for feeling comfortable enough with local elders, you presume that elders at Bethel can read minds. Unless the individual expressed that up front then the Society does not assume such unless expressions make that obvious without it being stated explicitly. If the problem has to do with your own congregation elders then sometimes the Society may use elders living nearby but not in your congregation. But, again, at some point persons must be willing to express themselves.

I really do not see what is so unconscionable about that process, it is a quite natural process to me.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 6 June 2000 20:49:47

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

JW's are presumably supposed to stay free of politics. JW's are no part of this world. JW's support only Jehovah's rule. UNLESS something comes along that may financially affect the Society, then all bets are off.

Question: Am I “part of the world” if I dispute in court an IRS claim against me?

Question: Am I “part of the world” if I argue a legal interpretation before a court?

Question: Am I “part of the world” because I utilize the in-place court system?

I assure that my under garments are not tightened over this subject. I just do not understand how some of the opinions on the subject are formed. I mean, even opinions have to have a basis. That is what I am looking for. To me those opinions appear based upon an incomplete understanding of the processes at work. Can you clarify?

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

I still ask why the original questioner is not notified and it is considered unnecessary to obtain consent for forwarding personal correspondence in this manner.

If this response does not answer your question then please rephrase your question. I want to answer you, but am unsure about what you see as the problem.

My perception of your concern is has to do with confidentiality. That is, you think that a personal letter sent to the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society should not be revealed to anyone outside the walls of Bethel. You perceive the walls of Bethel as the extent of the WBTS and its representatives charged with responding to such letters. Therefore you feel that copying that letter to local elders breaches that confidentiality. If I am correct in that assessment of your concern then there is a misconception at work on your part. Let me explain.

You send your letter to the WBTS. My guess is that you understand that within the confines of Bethel that one or more persons will read your letter and decide what to do with it. If you found that as many as ten (10) various persons within the confines of Bethel read your letter and were instrumental in determining a response then you would probably understand that and have not problem with it.

Now, if you agree so far, just think about what we have just said. We have said that several different persons would read and help determine how to respond to your letter. Now let me ask you a question, what did all those persons have in common? Was their physical location the important factor? No. For all you know the Society consulted some distant person at some other branch that is also charged with helping to respond to requests such as yours. The key factor is that they are all appointed by the Society to read letters such as that and help respond depending on the need. What many fail to realize about this issue we are discussing is that, in the Society’s eyes local elders are also entrusted representatives to be used for similar purposes if necessary. In that case those asked locally to help determine how to respond are just another of in the ranks of those different persons asked to help. As long as none of those asked to help (including local elders) talks about your personal request with someone outside a Society appointee then confidentiality remains intact. Bethel elders and local elders are all elders to the Society.

The original correspondent is not notified about how many elders internal to Bethel are involved in responding to them any more so how many local elders are involved in responding to them. In the Society’s eyes they all are appointees of the Society and available for helping in such situations. Do you expect that the Society should inform you of how many Bethel elders were requested to read your letter (and who they are) toward determining a response? If not, then why would you expect the Society to reveal whether they requested local elders to do the same? Again, they are all Society appointees.

If that does not adequately answer your question then please explain specifically what is the area of concern.

Friend

42

Jesus or Jehovah?

by Seven in

i ran across this on truthsearcher.

i would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this.. __________.

who is the "alpha and omega" and the first and last"-jesus or jehovah?.

Friend

SC

For instance, I have not seen any Bible other than the NWT that inserts the word [other] when speaking of Christ in Colossians 1:16-20

Here are some interesting variations on translation of portions of that text:

"He is the likeness of the unseen God, born before any creature, for it was through him that everything was created in heaven and on earth…"—An American Translation, Edgar J, Goodspeed. [Italics added]

"For by him God created everything in heaven and on earth…"—The New Testament in Today’s English Version, Robert G. Bratcher. [Italics added]

Regarding insertions in Colossians chapter one, are you aware that most translations have made numerous insertions in that chapter? Look carefully at the text in your KJV. The italicized words are insertions.

The question becomes, where are insertions appropriate? As Frenchy said, "Even if the word 'other' were not inserted in brackets… the statement there still does not even suggest a trinity."

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 5 June 2000 23:57:6