Doctrine, Disfellowshipping and the IRS

by OrphanCrow in

i watched an episode of "lie to me" on netflix that piqued my curiosity.. .

in the episode truth or consequences, a cult leader is investigated by the irs to determine if his cult has tax exemption or not.. one of the criteria that has to be met in order to be a legitimate 'church' or 'religion' in the eyes of the irs is that the members have to display "genuine belief'.. here is the portion of the script that speaks of this:.

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=lie-to-me&episode=s02e02.

TerryWalstrom

I just saw this. Insightful, clever, ingenious, and persuasive!

Are you a physician, btw?

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

I am sorry if I didn't 'get' the title of your thread - when I read the thread title, it appeared like the thread is about legal scholars who say that the WTS legal strategies were accidental. Henderson's paper you quote from does not support this position.

_______________

I don't disagree you--all of us--need to speak up when we see misrepresentations by anybody at any time. Since you brought this to my intention, I can see how you would form the impression you formed. No fault, no harm, no foul.

I could have given more prudent thought to my Subject title.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll try to be more perspicacious in the future.

48

American Sniper - courage or cowardice?

by Simon in

the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.

some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".

it seems unfair to me.

TerryWalstrom

St. Augustine crafted something for Christians he called the JUST WAR THEORY.

The 'Just' part meant there was justice to waging that kind of war.

The Devil, of course, was in the details.

At best, self-defense on a national scale, is a Just War.

Push outward, the Slippery Slope quickly comes to view.

Pearl Harbor would give Augustine no problems, surely.

The war in Afghanistan might call for the Pope to convoke a counsel:)

As to my own personal opinion?

I remember the scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and agree with Butch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5f5_KdLEw4

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

Well, let's face it--I CHOSE that course after being counseled to do so.

I trusted. I was loyal. I did not and could not understand the WTS' reasoning on neutrality in any meaningful way, although I could articulate specifically what I was given to say.

There is an actual term which applies to people like me.

"USEFUL IDIOT"

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

OrphanCrow3 hours ago

Terry, I have read the article by Henderson and I think that your opening post misrepresents her paper and focus of research.

It appears, both from your title and your selection of text to use for quotes, that she is in agreement with the statements that you selected. The statements you selected from her paper were presented as opposing views to her thesis.

Henderson is not in agreement with the selected text - she is stating those things as pre-existing views in scholarly circles, and her paper is an attempt to correct those misconceptions.

________________________

Let's not get too excited!

Ask yourself how you were able to determine the author was in agreement with the WT and you'll have to answer, "I read it for myself in the link provided by Terry."

Unlike Watchtower selected quotes which ignore context, I provided the means by which you and all others can read the ENTIRE context and reasoning of the author.

At the first of the above article, Henderson presents the view of legal scholars which is reflected in my Topic Subject Heading.

If you can suggest a better subject heading, maybe we can get one of the moderators to change it to your preferred suggestion.

Eh wot?

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

I have written the following letter and e-mailed it a minute ago.

Professor Henderson,

I had the pleasure of reading the above attested article on the legal stratagems of the Watchtower Society in the 30's and 40's under J.F. Rutherford, Olin Moyle, Hayden C. Covington, et al. I am moved to bring three things to your attention to fill in some gray areas which are not mentioned in your well-researched paper.

Beginning in 1929, Watchtower President J.F.Rutherford unilaterally changed the historically accepted interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2. This verse had, for over 2,000 years, been taken at face value; to wit: obedience to government was incumbent upon Christians because it was God who had appointed them in their authority. In the Watchtower magazine Judge Rutherford reversed the interpretation summarily! ("The Higher Powers", Watch Tower, June 1929, pages 163-169, 179-185)

The official history of Jehovah's Witnesses, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE DIVINE PURPOSE, says about this change,

" There were many false doctrines and practices that had not yet been cleaned out

of the organization . Not all of them were recognized at once, but gradually over the

years that followed it became evident to what extent the brothers had been in Babylonish captivity at that time . With considerable misunderstanding they had

accepted earthly political governments as the "superior authorities" that God had

ordained according to Romans 13 :1 ; and as a result the Witnesses had been held in

fear of man, particularly the civil rulers ."

(Chapter 14, Par. 1) As you can see, even in 1959, Jehovah's Witnesses were still convinced the governmental and civil authorities were not to be submitted to, nor feared.

Why am I calling this to your attention? Because this capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical corruption of interpretation (measured by the fact it was later revoked in 1962) was solely instrumental in bringing enormous catastrophe into the lives of very trusting adherents to this faith who felt themselves bounden by Rutherford as the 'anointed' of God standing IN PLACE OF secular government.

During the Nazi era, Rutherford instructed German Bible Students to ignore Hitler's curtailment of public distribution of printed materials.

From the year 1922, the German branch of the Bible Students (called Earnest Bible Students) had been banned for their door-to-door peddling and preaching in the streets. 5,000 arrests were made. By 1932, charges were still pending in 2,300 cases.

Rutherford insisted German Witnesses hold a high profile and engage in banned public preaching campaigns leading to their arrest. Watchtower articles practically encouraged martyrdom. In the November 1, 1933 issue, printed a month later in German, Rutherford wrote:

“Some will say: ‘If in the face of so much persecution and opposition we continue to go out amongst the people and publicly tell these truths, then I fear we may be killed.’

That is true; and probably many of the faithful will be killed because they continue to faithfully proclaim the truth which they have learned in the secret place of the Most High.”(Watchtower, November 1, 1933. p. 328)

Additionally, in his Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 73, by George D. Chryssides states: "Of the 25,000 Witnesses and Earnest Bible Students in Germany, 13,400 spent at least some time serving prison sentences.

According to Gestapo files, more than half recanted."

13,400 German Witnesses spent time in prisons, often for years. 2,000 died. 270 were executed. (History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, pp. 218, 239, 266, 448, by Abraham J. Edelheit and Hershel Edelheit (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994)

Why did this happen? Because the President of the Watchtower had reversed the traditional Christian understanding of Romans 13: 1,2 and substituted his own authority in its place.

In your paper, Professor Henderson, your conclusions were affirming by my reading of it. I've sent this e-mail in hopes you might reflect up this additional information in moderating this affirmation of Jehovah's Witness legal tactics. Why? It was predicated upon fraudulent premise of authority.

I'll make one further point in support of this thesis, if you'll kindly indulge me. On November 23, 1954 in Scotland, Douglas Walsh was selected to be a test case regarding conscripted Jehovah's Witnesses. In the course of this trial, Vice-president Frederick Franz, and attorney Hayden C. Covington testified under oath. Within the questioning and testimony, a definitive statement was made, to wit: Jehovah's Witnesses are required, upon penalty of disfellowship (excommunication), to accept, believe, and carry out as though true, teachings which they personally do not conscientiously accept as legitimate, even if those teachings are later changed, nullifying the original 'truth'. (Transcript of trial: https://archive.org/details/WalshTrial)

I would argue, and you are free to differ, the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses against their own interests, and the interests of their local community, as well as nationally, were coerced by fear of excommunication at one extreme, or at least insidiously coaxed into their beliefs through loyalty and disinformation.

I served time in Federal prison from 1967-69 as a 'neutral' Jehovah's Witness as a result of conviction for violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. I was privately counseled by my congregation leaders to not accept alternate civilian service. I was further counseled to not reveal I had been influenced in any way by other than my own conscience. This same influence was seen to be the case nationwide.

During the Vietnam war 5,000 draft age men turned in their draft cards rather than be conscripted. These were protests. 200,000 men were accused by the Federal Government of being Draft Offenders. 25,000 were indicted. Out of the 25,000, only 8,750 were convicted. Out of the 8,750 who were convicted, only 4,000 were imprisoned. Most of these, with some exceptions, were young men--Jehovah's Witnesses, like myself.

Five years before my appearance before a draft board, the Watchtower Society had quietly and unceremoniously changed Romans 13: 1,2 rather quietly, back to the traditional interpretation Christendom had held for two thousand years! Ironically, the JW texts I was operating from had not been updated to include this change. I found out the hard way. The Watchtower headquarters would not provide me with a membership card nor a letter attesting to my ministerial status. I later found out this was only provided in special cases where a "special Pioneer" was involved who spent 100 to 150 hours monthly knocking doors.

While in prison, I was sexually attacked by a non-JW inmate. I should not have been there in the first place. I had the legal right to serve alternate service working in a hospital--had it not been for the private counsel of my JW elders in strict accord with their covert (by this time) policies on Christian neutrality.

This policy too, like the previous Romans 13: 1, 2 policy, was later reversed many years later.

I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time. Whatever personal bias my own treatment may impart to this e-mail, I hope you'll consider the facts and revise your views of the brilliance of Watchtower legal strategy.

I appreciate your time and wish you well in all future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Terry Edwin Walstrom

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

By the time my court case came along in 1967, the Organization would not provide either membership card (to prove I was eligible for a IV-D minister exemption from the Selective Service) nor would they provide a letter attesting in any way to my defense.

Why the change?

In 1962, twenty years after Juge Rutherford's death, Knorr and Franz revoked the bogus interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2 (see above.)

Ironically, I wasn't given Covington's booklet by my congregation, DEFENDING and LEGALLY ESTABLISHING the GOOD NEWS. Had that been available to me, I would have fully realized the flip-flop had been perpetrated just in time to hang me out to dry in facing off against the Universal Military Training and Service Act.

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

"The Witnesses' reasons for refusing to obtain a permit were not always accepted as valid by the Supreme Court justices. Justice William O. Douglas recalled Justice James McReynolds's disgust with Judge Rutherford's argument for supporting his client's refusal to obtain a permit in Lovell v. Griffin. At one point in Rutherford's oral arguments, McReynolds interrupted, saying, "Instead of applying for a permit, which seems to me a reasonable requirement, this lady defied the law. Tell me, why did she do it?" Rutherford pointed his finger to the sky and in his booming voice replied, "This lady did not get a permit, because Jehovah God told her not to." (87) McReynolds left the bench for the remainder of that day's arguments."

In fact, it was because Rutherford had wilfully cancelled the instruction given in the Bible.

Romans 13:1Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

13 Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God,

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

In effect, Rutherford WAS Jehovah.

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

Here is Olin Moyle's letter to J.F. Rutherford:

http://www.jwfacts.com/images/Moyles-letter-to-Rutherford.pdf

OLIN R. MOYLE Counselor

117 Adams Street. Brooklyn. New York

Telephone Triangle 5-1474

July 21, 1939

Judge J. F. Rutherford, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Dear Brother Rutherford: (see above)

24

Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."

by TerryWalstrom in

the outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.

legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.

for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.

TerryWalstrom

How many JW's today know, in the 30's, membership cards attesting to 'ordained' status as ministers were carried by Brothers and Sisters when they went out in field service?

Each publisher and pioneer carried an identification card indicating his or her ministerial status and connection with the society. These membership cards were the Witnesses' only "official" link to the headquarters and were used to identify themselves to the public, the police, and government officials.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' identification cards read in part, "Jehovah's witnesses are ordained and commissioned by God, and the signer of this card Scripturally claims such ordination and commission, as set for this the Bible at Isaiah 43:9 12; Matt. 10:7-12; Matt. 24:14; Acts 20:20; 1 Peter

2:21; 1 Cor. 9:16. Being one of Jehovah's witnesses, in obedience to God's commandments, preach the gospel and worship almighty God by calling upon people in their homes, exhibiting to them the message of the gospel of said Kingdom in printed form." (67) Witnesses were instructed to show the card "to any policeman who arrests them," (68) thus establishing themselves as clergy immediately upon being taken into custody.

The plan for legally establishing identification for Witnesses as ordained clergy was implemented prior to Covington's tenure. Olin Moyle, Covington's predecessor, also used the identification cards as evidence of ministerial work. In Schneider v. New Jersey, Moyle wrote that Clara Schneider's work "consisted of visiting residents of Irvington, exhibiting to them her Testimony and Identification Card (R. 35-36) and leaving or offering to leave with them certain printed literature." (69)

Identification as a minister was important to the legal cases of Witnesses. Covington insured that whenever possible, these identification cards were introduced into evidence as proof of the appellant's religious status. For example, Covington began the facts section of his brief in Marsh v. Alabama by noting that "Grace Marsh is an ordained minister of Almighty God.... The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, under the direction of which she carried forward her ministerial activities,

issued to her a certificate of ordination and identification." (70) "The Watchtower Society issues to its authorized agents, ordained ministers of Jehovah God, a certificate of identification and ordination (Exhibit 9, R 33)," Covington wrote in the Supreme Court brief for Largent v. Texas. (71)

Identification cards were used as the basis for two prominent legal arguments in Witness cases. First, the cards placed Witnesses squarely in the occupational category of clergy. Many of the community ordinances applied to specific vocations. By identifying themselves as ministers, Witnesses could be exempt from these regulations. Second, the identification cards issued by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society allowed Witnesses to claim that the distribution of their literature was, in fact, worship.

TerryWalstrom

Posts by TerryWalstrom

OrphanCrow3 hours ago

Romans 13:1Young's Literal Translation (YLT)