JW Insider

There really is no difficulty in translating this. The Greek is as perfectly simple and clear as any other verses in the Bible that discuss resurrection. The problem is finding a way to understand it that fits the common beliefs about the resurrection.

The explanation that the Watchtower article gives is very possible, but getting that explanation into the translation itself is just about impossible. Hardly anyone who studies the Bible would blame us for understanding it the way we do, however, because the verse actually says something that very few people can believe. In this particular place, the NWT is not really a translation, but as the Watchtower article quoted above indicates, it's a "rendering" that "does not confuse readers concerning the resurrection."

To get a better idea of what the verses say, follow an interlinear to see what the verses say in Greek. If this is done with an online tool, you can easily look up each word in a good Bible dictionary and you can quickly see how that Greek word is used in every other place it occurs in the Bible. There are now several ways to do this. Here's one:

• Go to blueletterbible.com
• Look up Matthew 27:52
• Click the link where the text of the verse is preceded by a column that says [TOOLS] and a column with the link: Matthew 27:52
• The link opens up a table under the English verse with the Greek text, then a link to each word in the text that acts like an interlinear, a concordance, a link to Strong's, and a link to Thayer's. There are also tabs that take you to a list of about a dozen different translations, or commentaries, and cross-references for the particular verse.
• Let the mouse pointer sit over any of the Greek words of the verse under "Textus Receptus"
  • 27:52  καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθη,
• Hovering the mouse over each word brings up the basic meaning of each word, which you can see in the table just below where each word is spelled out in its basic form for linking to other reference tools.

Using this method, it's a quick online interlinear with quick links to some of the same reference tools that the NWT translators have used. Hovering the mouse over the last word in that verse, ἠγέρθη [egerthe], you could see a small 'text tool' that pops up to say [ 'arose' - From the root ἐγείρω (G1453) ]. If you click on the link G1453 below that place, you will see the definition based on the Bible usage along with Strong's Dictionary definition, Thayer's Lexicon reference, and every place in the Bible that this word is used, starting from Matthew to Revelation. 

18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Participation here has a long last jarred my conscience to write the review I promised. I left this one with Amazon today:

Glad it did. That was an excellent review.

11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Some Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists

Most of us think we are pacifists, even if we remember that we have been told otherwise. So it's a good question and we should figure out why.

*** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble ***
Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject.

*** w79 11/1 p. 4 Neutrality in a Mixed-up World ***
These neutrals of World War II were no pacifists. They were fighters in a spiritual sense, well trained in the use of “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.” (Eph. 6:17) They were integrity-keepers. And often they sealed their integrity with their lifeblood. They were not afraid to die for a righteous cause.

*** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace ***
Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things. Of them the Bible says: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”—2 Cor. 10:3-5.

*** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers ***
Jesus said: “Whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also to him.” How does this harmonize with the right of self-defense that Jehovah’s witnesses believe in?—K. K., United States.
Jesus did not say if someone hit you with a club or with a clenched fist you should allow him to strike you again. If an attacker wants to hurt you physically he uses a weapon or at least doubles up his fist when he hits you. On the other hand, if he wants to insult or humiliate you or provoke you into a fight he may slap you with his open hand. A slap is not an attack with intent to injure or kill, but is to insult the one struck. Such personal insults or attempts to provoke one into a fight should not stir the Christian to retaliate. If the blow is struck and the striker then waits to see the result, the Christian will not retaliate and thus be drawn into a brawl.
However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense. Christ Jesus himself will go forth to fight Jehovah’s battle of Armageddon, at the head of heavenly armies. Christians resurrected as spirit creatures will serve with him in that war. In ancient times Jehovah’s people fought at his direction and with his help. Today Christians rightfully defend the Kingdom interests, their meeting places, their right to assemble, their property, their brothers and sisters and their own persons. They do not arm in advance, in anticipation of trouble. But when attacked they may ward off blows and strike in defense, though not in offense. If attacked on public property they will call on officers of the law or withdraw, if possible, but in their homes or at their meeting places they need not retreat. They have Scriptural and legal rights to take defensive action. They are not thereby violating Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:39, for those words pertain to personal insults, not to attacks designed to do serious physical damage to one’s person.

*** w51 2/1 pp. 67-68 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists
“Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.”—Ex. 15:3, AS; Yg.
. . . . We are not pacifists. . . . To charge that we are extreme pacifists is a lie.”
3 As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible.
4 When expressing a judgment upon Jehovah’s witnesses people are inclined to think of them as a religious body less than a century old. True, this unique name came into the limelight in 1931, when, by public acclamation, these faithful Christians all over the earth adopted resolutions rejecting the contemptuous names the enemies had tagged onto them and accepting the Scriptural name “Jehovah’s witnesses”. But their history is much longer than a century. Already in the eighth century before Christ the prophecy declared to God’s chosen people: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, AS) In fact, the history of Jehovah’s witnesses runs all the way back to Adam’s son Abel, whom his brother Cain killed because Abel had received favorable witness from Jehovah God. The apostle Paul, in chapters 11 and 12 of his letter to the Hebrews, shows that fact. In all that history of almost six thousand years the record fails to show Jehovah’s witnesses accusable of “opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose”, which is the definition of pacifism.
5 We could go through the list of Jehovah’s witnesses from Abraham onward to show they were not pacifists. The apostle Paul tells us about Abraham “returning from the slaughter of the kings” and receiving the blessing of King Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:1-4; Gen. 14:14-21) He tells of Moses who led the Israelites to the borders of the Promised Land. Then he mentions one high light in Joshua’s war to purge the Promised Land of the immoral pagan inhabitants, and adds: “And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David as well as Samuel and the other prophets, who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners.” (Heb. 11:30-34, NW) Every one that Paul there names was a fighter.

*** w51 2/1 p. 70 par. 13 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
13 Were Jehovah’s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make. Jesus Christ never did so, and he is Jehovah’s greatest witness, who has earned the title “The faithful and true witness”. (Rev. 3:14) Jehovah himself is no pacifist. Neither are his witnesses such, although they are conscientious objectors.

*** g97 5/8 p. 22 Should Christians Be Pacifists? ***
Is it Scripturally correct, however, to describe Jehovah’s Witnesses as pacifists? To clarify the matter, it may depend on what is meant by the word “pacifist.” Butler used the term to commend the Witnesses for their bravery in refusing, at great personal cost, to take up arms in warfare. Sadly, though, many people who are caught up in the fever of war see a pacifist only as “a coward or a traitor, who [is] anxious to shirk his responsibility to his nation.”

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

BUT.. I can GUESS out the wazoo without being intellectually dishonest if I clearly label what I say as a WILD GUESS ... which I hereby do.

Well put!

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have never seen such detail. It holds special interest for me as I live in Rochester, and was once  withing 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson Barbour. There are frequent mention of towns around where I live - some have merged into Rochester, some have grown, some have disappeared.

It's very, very good. I have both books by B. W. Schulz. I love the style. Not in it to find controversy. They just go wherever evidence takes them. A lot of it is trivial, but this is still the best type of research. They aren't trying to draw conclusions for you.

21 hours ago, bruceq said:

"And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report." {Num 13:32}. But the report was TRUE. Those critical complainers did  tell the truth but Jehovah still says it is a "bad" report.

The report was not true.

(Numbers 13:31-33) 31 But the men who went up with him said: “We are not able to go up against the people, because they are stronger than we are.” 32 And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report about the land that they had spied out, saying: “The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size. 33 And there we saw the Nephʹi·lim, the sons of Aʹnak, who are from the Nephʹi·lim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.”

They were able to go up against the people, whether they were strong or not. They had just seen that with "Moses v. Pharoah."

The land obviously does not devour its inhabitants. Many different tribes and people were seen to be living there:

(Numbers 13:28, 29) 28 Nevertheless, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the fortified cities are very great. We also saw the Anʹa·kim there. 29 The A·malʹek·ites are dwelling in the land of the Negʹeb, and the Hitʹtites, the Jebʹu·sites, and the Amʹor·ites are dwelling in the mountainous region, and the Caʹnaan·ites are dwelling by the sea and along the Jordan.”

It was not ALL the people who were men of extraordinary size. Only the Anakim were identified as being of larger size.

These were not actually the Nephilim, either.

The bad report included the exaggeration that the Israelites would have seemed like grasshoppers to the Anakim. If all of them were as tall as Goliath, it would still be a great exaggeration to speak of even a young David-sized Israelite as a grasshopper.

What made it bad was the attitude of unwillingness to fight for a land that was already promised, and would have Jehovah's backing, if they had a little faith in the promise.

(Proverbs 26:13) . . .The lazy one says: “There is a young lion in the road, A lion in the public square!”

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I would imagine this would be a hindsight assessment.

Yup. At the time, I didn't have a care in the world. Thought I would probably stay at Bethel as a 10 to 20 year career, and that there was a good chance this would also see me through the end of this system.

Got married, and had to go out and get a real job. That's when the hindsight kicks in.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He said that those who went to Bethel did so because they couldn't cut it in the real world and wanted someone to look out for them.

. . . . "No, Tom thinks only losers go to Bethel, who can't make it anywhere else," John replied for me!

I think John was just looking out for you.

Lot of truth in what he said, though, speaking personally, of course.

36 minutes ago, Jay Witness said:

Χριστόν - Christon - Christ 

Why render it Jehovah if you deny that very teaching? 

Note the footnote in the NWT Reference Bible:

“Jehovah,” J18,22,23; אBC(Gr.), ton Kyʹri·on; P46D, “the Christ”; A, “God.” See App 1D.

You can safely ignore the J18,22,23 as these have nothing to do with Bible manuscripts. But the א  (4th century Codex Sinaiticus), B (4th century "Vaticanus" and C (5th century Codex Ephraemi) all say "kyrion" ("lord") here.

P46 (2nd/3rd century Chester Beatty Papyrus) and D (5th/6th century Bezae Codices) have "the Christ"

A (the 5th century  Codex Alexandrinus) has "God" here.

Therefore, we have one piece of mss evidence for "Christ" from around the year 200 C.E.  The bulk of all other manuscript evidence, through the 4th century, has "lord" here. It is because of this word (lord) that there is an allusion to the OT quote, where the lord referred to "Jehovah."

If the Bible texts had actually confirmed the word "Christ" in this verse, then it would (and still could) mean that the Word, Jesus prior to his "incarnation," was representing Jehovah on earth at that time, which is quite probable based on other verses.

For some reason we used to call it having a G-job when someone had a second source of income while still at Bethel. Some would emboss and design book and Bible covers, and stamp a name on it. Some persons would use Bethel camera equipment to make enlargements for wedding photography, etc. Some would do carpentry, upholstery, and other jobs where they used skills and equipment they got from their work assignment. If you had a bindery, pressroom, cleaning, or laundry assignment then you didn't have the same opportunities, and it was unfair that $20 bucks a month couldn't go very far for some, while others were making the $20 and earning an extra $500 a month. But it's true that even a vow of poverty doesn't stop those whose family sends money to live high on the hog. Or if a person came in as a millionaire they didn't have to worry. And some persons, of course, were more susceptible to gifts, travel "bonuses" and "green handshakes" due to their position.

I went to Europe once with 4 average Bethelites and we scrounged for every bit of savings we could, even splitting the cost of Frommer's book "Europe on $5 a Day." I traveled another time through 6 countries with Brother and Sister Schroeder and lived like a king, and didn't spend a cent. And I'm pretty sure Brother Schroeder came back with much more (financially) than he left with. (Charlotte Schroeder, used to sell things to the elders who came in for Kingdom Ministry School, when Brother Schroeder had that assignment for many years in Pittsburgh.)

5 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

But now I am talking about this great order of masonry of which Jesus is the Grand Master.

The entire set of quotations used in the post about Russell supposedly claiming to be a Freemason are presented in such as way as to imply a false narrative. You can actually pick out the true meaning in the quotes you gave, especially if you imagine the emphasis he would have needed to use on certain words to make these same points. Just as with the quote I pulled out from it here, the obvious point should be the same as if he had said: "But I am not so concerned with the secular order of masonry that Freemasons follow, it has a few things right if you pick and choose, but, NO, I am talking about this GREAT order of masonry of which JESUS is the Grand Master"

When you give speeches in Masonic halls, you often come up with analogous illustrations to help make your point. The apostle Paul may have given speeches where Olympic games were played, and therefore he gives speeches with analogous illustrations comparing the Christian ministry to Olympic games. He spoke of running, boxing, wrestling, etc. Here's an example:

(1 Corinthians 9:24-26) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air;

By the logic intended in the quotes you made about Russell, the apostle Paul was clearly an Olympic athlete.

You should read the entire speech from which the out-of-context quotes are taken:

https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/11/temple.html

13 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

Well worth looking at, it only goes for 4 minutes.

It wasn't worth the time.

Adidas, and probably other companies have made soccer balls with the 5-pointed star design for a while now. 5-pointed stars are famous on flags, too. I suppose that Adidas or the United States has Satan behind them, too. (hmmmmm....)

Also, for a JW, a picture of a person wearing a cross represents the fact that they are NOT JWs, and in effect are still being blinded by Satan's system of things. It's a quick way of representing that the person is "worldly" or a non-JW. So, the person narrating the video is obviously not being honest when he pretends to draw the conclusion that it's supposed to represent what's behind the JW religion.

As to the fact that it is upside-down. I'm not concerned, but it may have been that the cross was upside down from the beginning and when it was noticed some of the scenes with it were reshot, but one of them made it back into the final edit. Or it's possible that, since JW actors do not own necklaces with crosses on them, that this was a makeshift prop that fell off in the middle of shooting, and was not put back on carefully when it fell off.

By the way, Russell was not a Freemason, and I think that AllenSmith presented the quotes to show Russell's own view of it. I understand that B. Anderson who apparently has no axe to grind for the Watchtower anymore, has researched the issue six ways from Sunday, and says that Russell could not have been a Freemason.   

On 5/27/2017 at 11:42 AM, Micah Ong said:

In the Royal Arch degree, the Freemason " acknowledge that the devil, in the guise of Jahbuhlun, is his sacred Lord"--the name Jahbulun being a "composite of Jahweh, Baal, and Osiris." He chants "Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Je-hov-ah" (Texe Marrs, Codex Magica, Ch. 4). Albert Pike discusses the Cabalistic/Masonic significance of IAHOVAH in great length in Morals & Dogma (66, 213, 401, 467, 519).

I haven't seen a post category like this before. The topic is locked, but I guess because it was directed at me, I have permissions to add a reply.

Problem is, I don't know anything about Freemasons really, and not much interest in them, either. So it's a vicious circle of willful ignorance on my part. I'll take your word for it that some book says that one or more Freemasons or groups of them have some sort of secret chant. I'm surprised that the chant would be worded as you have shown, but I'm not really concerned. If someone took your name and put it into a bad context, I'm sure it would not reflect on you personally.

On 5/27/2017 at 11:42 AM, Micah Ong said:

DEMONOLOGY

The secret of the ancient Egyptians, and their modern disciples, the Freemasons, is the art of demonology for gaining power--mainly through the devil, Jehovah.

That's quite a claim that that the "secret of the ancient Egyptians . . .is the art of demonology for gaining power mainly through the devil, Jehovah." From everything I've read so far that touched on this subject there were some Egyptian magicians who treated the name Jehovah like any other god. Egyptian magicians collected pronunciations of various names of God/gods in the belief that this was a way to gain magical powers. It's also true that some forms of Jewish-based and later Christian-based gnosticism, very popular in Egypt, formed a mythology that emphasized what appeared to be the failures of Jehovah/Yahweh and identified him with a less powerful god who was capricious, and perhaps "evil" in some ways. I suspect that if there is any basis to what you have said, that it is related to such things. Again, if someone took a good name and put it into a false mythology, or a bad context, it would not reflect on the person behind the good name, only the persons who are misusing that name.

On 5/27/2017 at 11:42 AM, Micah Ong said:

Russell, Pyramids & The Occult-

Mr. Russell introduced Occultism into his religion by teaching that the pyramids in Egypt are divine omens.  He taught that they contained prophetic secret which were known only to him.  Mr. Russell was so convinced of their mystic power & his exclusive knowledge of their secrets that he & his followers spent a small fortune in making a pilgrimage to Egypt in order to observe them.

There is some truth to what you claim here, but only a little bit. Russell only believed in a theory about ONE single pyramid. Russell was very much against Occultism, but he did succumb to a widespread interest in the pyramid discoveries of his day, which fueled all sorts of speculation.

Russell believed this world entered the "last days" in 1799 and that many of the great discoveries and inventions since 1799 were all part of God's purpose to bring mankind into the new millennium, which had just dawned around 1873. Russell incorporated the inventions of trains, cars, steam engines, telegraphs, telephones, and many other things into his beliefs about the time of the end and the comforts and conveniences of the new earth. He read some of the most "scientific-sounding" of the books on the Great Pyramid and came to believe that the pyramid held a lot of proofs that God had revealed knowledge many years before scientists would be able to understand it. Now that they were able to understand it in these last days, it meant that they would also understand that Bible knowledge had been revealed in the same stone monument. The idea was that God would use this method to reveal his Word to science-minded people who would otherwise have fallen into the trap of evolution and atheism.

In other words, Russell did not believe in any mystic power of the Great Pyramid of Giza or any other pyramid. He only believed that if it held enough evidence of a knowledge of science that Egyptians could not have known on their own, that it would attract their interest, and then they would also unavoidably notice that the zig-zagging lengths of drainage gutters and air shafts within the pyramid just happened to coincide with a Bible chronology that William Miller and other Adventists had made infamous. Since he had been convinced of an update to that "Miller" chronology, he was sure that it would match Nelson Barbour's version of the Adventist's chronology which currently focused on several significant dates in the history of Israel, then the first Christian century, 0 A.D., 33 A.D. then 1799 to 1844 to 1874 to 1914. He was sure that all those dates could be found to match the lengths of those inner chambers. When he looked at the charts from Piazza Smith's book on the Great Pyramid, he (or other persons he followed) thought there were ways to discover various locations within the Great Pyramid to match those major dates, including some of the B.C. dates.

Other so-called secrets of the Pyramid included some bits of astrology, and other items related to numerology that people had published prior to Russell's own beliefs, and unfortunately Russell included ways to interpret these things Biblically, too.

Most of what Russell wrote, right from the start, even if he made it look like he came up with it himself, actually was just copied from people before him. This was typical of many persons who wrote about the same chronology subjects that the various Adventists wrote about prior to Russell and Barbour. Russell didn't come up with much of anything about 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, or 1914 on his own. Even the article he wrote for the Bible Examiner in 1876 that tied the 7 times of Daniel chapter 4 to 2,520 years that would end in 1914, also came from someone else before him. Most of what Nelson Barbour supposedly came up with (and Benjamin Keith, and others) supposedly came up with were just specific items that they had partially "plagiarized" because there were so many chronology beliefs to choose from. They simply chose a particular subset and "laid claim" to them. It's the same with Russell and the Great Pyramid, and his beliefs about all these dates, including 1914.

But Russell's visit to the pyramids was also a matter of looking into something that he thought was important. Perhaps he thought he had to make sure there was at least some truth to it. I wouldn't blame him for that, unless perhaps he considered it merely a photo-op to help sell more books. ("Divine Plan of the Ages" with the Pyramid Charts, and "Thy Kingdom Come" were always the two best-selling of the books.) I do think the entire enterprise was pretty silly, however. I don't think it was really a teaching from the demons, however, as Joseph Rutherford claimed. 

On 5/27/2017 at 11:42 AM, Micah Ong said:

The calculations were first printed in 1897 within which he stated: “…this measurement is 3,416 inches, symbolizing 3,416 years…This calculation shows A.D. 1874 as marking the beginnings of the period of trouble…” –Thy Kingdom Come, Series III, p. 342, 1897 edition.

Then in the 1916 edition it was changed to read: “We find it to be 3,457 inches, symbolizing 3,457 years…This calculation shows that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble...”  Mr. Russell’s pyramid actually grew 41 inches in 19 years.

Yes. This was embarrassing. All date-setting Bible chronology doctrines, so far, have ultimately resulted in either dishonesty or humility by their promoters. Russell, like most Biblical chronologists, chose not necessarily dishonesty, but a lack of humility and a lack of honesty by not explaining why he made the changes.  I expect to see a level of dishonesty among all persons who have set chronological limits based on dates: even dates like 1914 (or 1914 + a generation, or 1914 plus two overlapping portions of a generation, etc). To keep from having to admit total failure, there will always be some who are anxious to exaggerate and pretend that some of the predictions came true, even if what came true was just a matter of making adjustments to hedge the bet. 

But you should also know that it was NOT the 1916 edition that was changed to add the 41 inches. This change was made before the 1910 edition came out, so it's not like they waited until it failed and then changed the length. It's true though that Russell was beginning to hedge the idea everything he had expected could happen before 1914 and he reconsidered some of the claims about what would happen before 1914. But it is also true that 1914 was initially supposed to be the END of the time of trouble, and this was changed to the BEGINNING of a time of trouble. But this idea didn't wait until after 1914. In fact it started around 1904. But it's true that several edits were added around the time of the 1915 and later editions of Russell's books, so that expressions like "the close of 1914" were changed to "shortly after 1914" (or shortly after 1915). 

PART 6 of 6:

[Be aware that this one will be the longest post, and will contain the longest direct quotes from the book by R.Franz.]

On pages 164-170 R.Franz does provide 2 more reasons for the discrepancy, and he gives considerable weight to these reasons, too.

p.164:

Notice that Jehovah's Witnesses COULD function as a religion in Mexico, it's just that we could not own property outright. But it would also have meant that missionaries and ministers (clergy) would have to be from Mexico. The Branch office in Mexico would not be run by "white" appointees from Brooklyn or major European branches (which was still the case in the 1960's for every other non-US and non-European branch). Gilead-trained missionaries would have to come from Mexico to New York for training, and then be assigned back to Mexico, which is a  common practice now, but not at the time. So rather than choose to be a religion, the decision was as follows. [The footnote (¹⁸) is also quoted from the book]:

[Although the set-up that the Society wanted in Mexico was very likely based, as R.Franz says, on the desire to own and control property that the Society would need to use, this is not given as a the explanation for the continued disparity among various policies that were related to matters of conscience. On it's own this could not explain the disparities, nor why such policies would not be immediately changed as more and more members of the Governing Body became aware of them.]

p.166: R.Franz makes a point about a further disparity of policy comparing Mexico with the United States. (Another reason the chapter is titled: "Double Standards."

[It's unfortunate, but when the facts are looked at this way, it really does give the impression that "control" is more important than the spiritual welfare of the brothers and sisters. The term "accruing advantage" (in the quote above) is taken from the Society's response that the Watch Tower Society spoke about when responding to the question of whether bribery and lying should be left up to the conscience of the individual.]

p.166: R.Franz connects the two ideas (tenuously) as follows:

[I first read some of these lines above as if they were the conclusions of R.Franz, and not directly from the 1995 Yearbook. His conclusion is that the situation in Mexico must have been set up primarily with the idea of owning property, as the other regulations were not onerous. All the more surprising is that this article became another indirect admission, that the book Raymond Franz first wrote in the early 1980's was considered correct, and this was an opportunity to correct the problem. There are similar points to be made for what the book had said would need to happen to the definition of "generation," what would inevitably happen to the "alternative service" doctrine, and these problems with the policy imposed in Mexico.]

Overall, however, it's a combination of all these reasons that kept the discrepancy between Malawi and Mexico with respect to one's conscience. To R.Franz it was based on the legalistic approach that an organization might take with respect to emphasis on rules instead of conscience and the desensitization that legalism produces. (Legalism produces a sense that existing rules and policies are the most important things to protect.) It was also the personalities of individual members of the Governing Body. It was also the special case of having voluntarily set up this particular situation in Mexico back in the 1940's that had already created a pretense, which is a kind of dishonesty imposed upon the brothers there. It was also the practical matter of desiring the kind of control that the Brooklyn Headquarters wanted by owning their own property. I don't doubt there were some other factors, too, but these were the ones that R.Franz was able to provide evidence for.

"PART 5 of 4" --  a.k.a. PART 5 of 6

[Sorry for miscounting the number of PARTS. Looks like it will take 2 more, this one and a last one. Had to go back to the previous chapter of his book, Crisis of Conscience, to make sense of what R.Franz is saying about the REASONS for the Mexico/Malawi discrepancy. He presents multiple factors. When I read/skimmed the book 20+ years ago, I thought he was supporting the popular "real estate" theory. On a second read, it appears that he is giving weight to about 4 different factors.]

p.161-2: R.Franz suggests that most of the Governing Body appeared not to have known about the policy in Mexico which had been set up nearly 20 years earlier by Brothers Knorr and Fred Franz. By 1978, the Governing Body had attempted to resolve the issue of alternative civilian service several times when R.Franz presented this information about Mexico to the rest of the Governing Body as part of a presentation on that issue of "alternative service."

p. 162: R.Franz offers the conundrum, that if the leadership of the WTS really believed in their rigid stance taken in Malawi over a political party card then it would seem that at least some of the Governing Body might have been moved to reconsider whether they should also take a more rigid stance against bribery, lying and claiming to be a part of the military's first reserves in Mexico. On the other hand, if they really believed that the lenient policy stance taken in Mexico could rightly be based on conscience, then surely some of the members of the Governing Body might have been moved to reconsider whether the issue in Malawi, too, could be a matter of conscience.

After all, brothers and sisters were being tortured, raped and killed for the rigid stance in one country while brothers were freely serving as Branch personnel, District Overseers, Circuit Overseers and elders if they illegally bribed and lied to indicate that they were part of the political war machine in another country.

p.162: When R.Franz brought up the matter of Mexico in the discussions about "alternative civilian service" he was surprised that there was absolutely no word of disapproval about the situation in Mexico by the same Governing Body members who were so forceful and unyielding, and uncompromising when it came to alternative service. There were no expressions of dismay against the double standard applied to Mexico compared to Malawi, even though the third (1972) and fourth (1975) waves of persecution had hit Malawi Witnesses.

p.162 R.Franz considered the reasons for the lack of change or concern after all of the Governing Body members were made aware, and the following is the first part of his conclusion, in his own words: [emphasis added in all quotations below]

p. 163: The backdrop of the entire discussion in the context of attempting to resolve the issue of alternative civilian service in 1978, 1979 and 1980 is specifically referred to in a previous chapter in his book, and is referenced again here.

[Note that there is an emphasis on the "individual members involved" which would seem to belie his claim above that it was NOT a matter that resolves down to the personalities involved. On this second reading, I realized that I had ignored the word "simply" which is subtle, but changes the meaning completely, especially in the context of the unusually high level of information about the individual members, and the specific points made about them.]

[The previous chapter, on "alternative service," gives a better sense of the reasons for the frustrated tone of R.Franz' concerns in this chapter. It seems that the exact same Scriptural issues were brought up again and again from several sources, and usually resulted in a majority of the Governing Body voting to change the policy. But a simple majority, even multiple times, is not enough to overturn a current policy; it has to be more than 66.666%.]

p.135:  After mentioning that R.Franz had presented 14 pages of historical, Scriptural and lexicographal evidence that would lead in favor of the change in policy, letters from various branches had been coming in with specific questions about various alternatives offered in the countries which those Branches served, and these letters often referred to the same lines of Scriptural reasoning. The significance of a two-thirds majority is highlighted in the previous chapter. If the "alternative service" vote was 9 in favor of changing and 4 not in favor, the change would still not be made because even though that's over two-thirds, three GB members were not present to vote. On November 15, 1978, 11 of 16 voted for the change, which WAS a two-thirds majority, but then one GB member changed his mind after an intermission. [Percentages added in the quote below.]

[The further details about "alternative civilian service" are quite interesting, but an important point that relates the discussion of Mexico and Malawi is this point about whether matters of conscience really are based on conscience. The focus on the one changed vote of one single member of the Governing Body becomes representative of how nearly 100% of Jehovah's Witnesses would "follow their own conscience" in one direction, whereas, if that one member had not changed his vote, then nearly 100% of Jehovah's Witnesses would "follow their own conscience" in the opposite direction. Several of the Branch letters also admit, perhaps inadvertently, that it was never a matter of following their own conscience, but they always give assurances that they are only following the direction from the Society's headquarters. A survey of various Branches around the world had revealed that the majority understood that from a Scriptural viewpoint the evidence showed that "alternative service" was acceptable. Some "cognitive dissonance" is fairly obvious in Watch Tower Society's publications about alternative service and the purchase of the Malawi party card, where it was always emphasized that it was each individual's conscience. -- g72 12/8, yb99 p.175, w98 8/15 p.17 ]

*** yb99 p. 176 Malawi ***
It was obvious from the outset that these officials were hoping that Brother Vigo would tell them that the Watch Tower Society had clearly told its members that it was wrong to buy party cards. Instead, he stressed that the Society does not tell anyone what to do and that each person must make his own decision on the matter.

*** w98 8/15 p. 17 Strengthening Our Confidence in God’s Righteousness ***
Feelings of Having Suffered Needlessly
⁶ In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in an activity that their conscience now might permit. For example, this might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel that he could conscientiously perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present system of things. ⁷ Was it unrighteous on Jehovah’s part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he now might do without consequences?. . . ⁹ In modern times, there have been some Witnesses who were very strict in their view of what they would or would not do. For that reason they suffered more than others. Later, increased knowledge helped them to expand their view of matters. But they have no reason to regret having earlier acted in harmony with their conscience . . .

(The 1998 Watchtower article above was also quoted by R.Franz in the chapter on alternative service.)

p. 136:

 p. 137: Highlighted below is the point that Scriptural evidence was not considered to be as important as maintaining traditional policy:

Summary of PART 5 of 6:

To R.Franz, the basic issue was the problem of considering current policy to have the greatest value. He claims that this comes from creating a legalistic organizational arrangement that emphasizes rules instead of conscience, even where the Bible gives clear evidence that the rule is incorrect. The legalistic arrangement therefore produces an emphasis on those rules as opposed to a true interest in the feelings and well-being of the brothers and sisters. They become merely "rank and file" -- who must simply follow instructions -- in the view of detached persons in their "ivory tower."  While it is true that personalities played a part, it was not simply the individuals making up the Governing Body. R.Franz elsewhere gives evidence that there can be a level of manipulation to hold onto current policy instead of making changes, and this can come from the fact that any new persons on the Governing Body are likely to make sure their vote is in line with the vote of F.Franz, considered the "Oracle" of the Society. [An expression that many, myself included, heard at Brooklyn Bethel in the 70's and 80's.] Another factor is the idea that the free use of one's conscience was not even the guiding principle in Mexico, where they were told to continue with the policy in place. It was put in terms of "conscience" but the letters show that it is guided by strict adherence to the current policy. The explanation for this is the idea, that "Bible-trained conscience" was evidently seen by Fred Franz, as a euphemism for imposing policy as of much higher importance than using one's individual conscience. R.Franz implies that F.Franz uses the term "Bible-trained conscience" to mean current Watch Tower policy. R.Franz finds further evidence of this, especially spelled out in the previous chapter, showing how the Watchtower announces the change in policy as a change in the way an individual's conscience can now allow him to act.

R.Franz finds further evidence of the "ivory tower" legalistic mentality in the way that individuals are told how they should feel about their previous suffering and, instead of a hint of apology, the same articles pointed out how a false understanding of Scripture is sometimes a more effective way to lead Jehovah's people than a true understanding of Scripture. This is seen from the end of p.137 to the middle of 138:

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

Not a clue.

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

And I see you are ignoring the obvious with childish wordplay!!!!

I'm not ignoring you at all, nor am I ignoring the childish wordplay. It's just that you claimed Banda initially was praised as a kind and compassionate man, and you say "That's the position Ray took." You gave a source that might have explained why someone else might have said this during his first few years, but why would you say that this is the position that Ray Franz took?

If you are right, then that might be something interesting. But, it would depend on which years you are referring to. Since all your subsequent posts merely describe the history and  government from the perspective of other people, it appears that you have nothing to back up what you said. So I think we can now safely assume that you just made this up about Ray Franz, too.

The way that Brother Johansson told it was that the only really peaceful time under Banda was when he was the installed Prime Minister, before there ever was an election. And it was even before Banda was elected, that the problems started for the Witnesses. In fact it was during the preparation for the long-awaited, upcoming election and Banda was behind this idea that he personally was to be the face of complete independence from Britain. So a three-week election registration period started with the 1964 New Year. It became a time of nationalistic excitement about the "new era." It was during those first three weeks that Witnesses first saw great trouble for not registering to vote. That's when Kingdom Halls and homes were burned and the threats became constant. Brother Johansson himself met with Banda just a couple weeks after the trouble started during that three-week registration and Banda seemed nice about it to Johansson. But it was just a few days later, February 3, 1964, still months before he was elected, that Witnesses saw the first death and major injuries. Brother Johansson went back to Banda a few days later and this time Banda acted very angry with the Witnesses. They never trusted him again, and Brooklyn was made aware immediately, even though Banda acted magnanimous around the time of his own election in July. There were additional deaths and injuries up until the election.

Then not much happened until April 1967, and the work progressed nicely, but this did not mean anyone in Brooklyn really trusted Banda. It was peaceful for the brothers, but it was still a time of uneasiness at the Branch. Brother Johansson knew that Banda did not like the fact that the Witnesses were successful and growing, and rebuilding. There was still a lot of misinformation about the Watchtower from several Watchtower groups and "Watchtower prophets" that had grown as sects all over Central Africa from the time of Russell and Rutherford. It was still being spread that the Witnesses were just another one of these "Watchtower" groups, some of which were very political. And Banda still saw the JWs as political, and at the very least, their growth meant more people who did not support him directlly -- more people who would refuse to carry a membership card. And it was Banda himself who pushed the persecution that worsened again in 1967, resulting in a ban and further persecution and loss of life into the 1970's. Waves of further persecution lasted off and on from the mid-70's until 1992. The ban was officially lifted in 1993.

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I noticed that you have not responded at all where you show the Watchtower endorsed or orchestrated the Mexican Military service card issue, much less the Malawi issue with thugs (MCP) causing harm and death by refusing to sign a Malawian Military service card, which is the basis for the apostate Ray to suggest "double standard".

Yes. I did not show that the Watchtower endorsed or orchestrated the Mexican issues nor the Malawi issues. That's because I have never believed they did anything like that. And, as you have no doubt already seen yourself, this was never a part of the basis for the apostate Ray to suggest a "double standard."  I can only guess why you have chosen to make this up. I think you believe it helps the Watchtower when you demonize an apostate and claim he said and did things he didn't believe or do. But in the long run, what are you going to do when people find out you made it up, or perhaps "fell for it" when someone else made it up?

Real research is not about just making stuff up because it makes you feel good, or sounds good. It should require a measure of honesty.

1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I was there for meetings in 1980. Maybe we were in the same room. I sat with Jack and Mildred Barr for the family WT as well.

Could very well be. Small world. Especially among JWs. I went to Paris about 10 times for my job, and twice I randomly met Witnesses I knew from Bethel.

16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Where did you meet?

The Hall was an extension at the back of the 107 Columbia Heights building, which is directly across from the 124 entrance. But about 35% of the publishers were from around the Brooklyn Heights area and, as far as they were concerned, it was the equivalent of "60 Willow Street," or "the Kingdom Hall on the corner of Orange and Willow" - because outsiders were only allowed to use the Willow Street entrance. That part of the building was all redone in 2005, although the Hall remained in place. The "Book Study" (Congregation Bible Study) was just up the street in a brownstone on Columbia Heights only 1 block away from 124.

PART 4 of 4:

[Refer back to photocopies in PART 3 of 4]

p. 156: In August 1969, just after the Malawi persecution, the Mexican Branch asked again for clarification, believing that they had perhaps left out an important point that the Society's HQ in Brooklyn had missed. They wanted to be very sure, so they emphasized the point that they previously had failed to mention:

"However, it was not mentioned in the question that when this document is obtained it places the receiver in the first reserve subject to being called if and when an emergency should arise the army in uniform could not handle. So our question is this: Does this change the policy set out in your letter of June 2, 1960 Page Two which answered our letter mentioned above?" . . . What has been quoted from your letter is what has been followed but it seems that there would be some modification in this when it is considered that these brothers are in the first reserves. . . . [T]he majority of the circuit and district servants and those in the Bethel family have followed this procedure. . . . We will await your answer on the matter." (p. 156-7)

p. 158: In September 1969, the answer to that "post-Malawi" request from Mexico merely repeated the same ideas and said basically that "nothing has changed." The Society wrote back from the Brooklyn HQ saying:

“We have your letter of August 27 (182) in which you ask a question about brothers who had registered in Mexico and are now in the first reserves. The letter that you quoted of February 4, 1960 (120) covers the whole matter. There is nothing more to be said. . . . If their conscience allows them to do what they have done and they are not compromising in any way then you just lay the matter on the shelf. . . . If the consciences of these persons allowed them to do what they did and be registered in the reserves that is for them to worry about. It is not for the Society's office to be worried about it. . . .  If the individuals are not compromising in the sense of taking up arms . . . then the decision rests with them. So leave things stand as they are and have been since February of 1960 with no further comment." (p.158)

[Note, I noticed a subtle point and perhaps trivial point not in the book and will comment about it in this bracketed section: When Fred Franz stopped answering almost all policy questions directly by himself and the Correspondence area of the Service Dept began handling them, Harley Miller began overriding some of the policies that Fred Franz had formulated. (Brothers Pruitt and Malone were friends of mine in the Brooklyn Heights congregation who handled much of the policy correspondence, and I know some of this from them.) Today, the Society will just say something like: "This letter takes the place of the previous letter dated {. . . .} Please destroy that previous letter and replace with this current one."  But in the past they didn't want to make it explicit that they were overriding Fred Franz, the Vice President of the WTS. So what happened from the mid-60's through the 80's is that the Society's previous letter is just completely ignored wherever possible. You just don't refer to it. There are several cases like this. You'll notice that this 1969 letter from the Society begins to sound a little more legalistic in the sense of actually putting some sense of wrongdoing on the individual JWs who entered into such an arrangement but making it clear that the Society is not going to worry about it, and not going to take any action or punish them.

"The responsibility will be upon these individuals if they are ever called up . . . and that is soon enough to take any action. In the meantime these brothers who have registered and who have paid a fee are free to go ahead in the service. Not that we are giving our approval in this matter, but it is their conscience, not ours, that has allowed them to take the course of action they have taken. . . . . it is for them to worry about . . . . not for the Society to be worried about it."

In the previous letter, unfortunately, the writer (most likely, Fred Franz) had used one phrase that could produce legal trouble in the answer the Society have given to the first inquiry back there in June of 1960:

". . . we have no objection."

I gave this to my oldest son yesterday to see if he'd notice it. He's an attorney, and he caught it immediately. Therefore, there can be no reference to the 1960 letter that the Society sent to Mexico unless it explicitly admitted that this was a mistake. Legally, it is also problematic to admit a past mistake due to any potential legal cases that might have arisen between 1960 and 1969. If you look closely, you will see that the 1969 letter from the Society is very careful to refer to the 1960 correspondence only with reference to the original question from Mexico, and never refers to the letter made in response. This is to be expected under the circumstances.]

From a policy perspective, the position taken in Mexico was quite different from the one taken in Malawi when we consider that the military is always considered to a political compromise. Raymond Franz makes this point:

[Note: In about 1974, I knew a brother in Missouri disfellowshipped for working for a local painting contractor who sent him with a crew to paint an abandoned barracks under threat of losing his job - a real threat, because the previous time he held his ground he did lose his job and managed to get it back. But a second offense was deemed to be the same as non-repentance and he remained DF'd for about 12 months. He was very well-liked and part of an extended family that made up at least 25% of our congregation. I pioneered with his wife who had to quit while her husband was out of work. I also remember the anxiety the congregation, and his wife, had about him being reinstated before 1975.]

p.160-1: Raymond Franz emphasizes that the disparity is about whether or not similar matters, Mexican military cards, Malawi political/loyalty cards, and a more international question of "alternative military service" should be left to conscience or not. Lloyd Barry had quoted a Branch Overseer's memo saying: "I shudder to think of putting these men on their own choice." Yet the letter to Mexico said there is no reason to decide another man's conscience. Yet Branch representatives in Malawi had decided what all native Malawian Witnesses were required to do in their situation.

[This is rather long, will have to add a "PART 5 of 4"]

23 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Now it sounds like you are doing that thing again where you resort to just making stuff up.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

I notice that you have not responded at all. I'm not implying that you need to nor that I expected you to, but people might read into your lack of response. The question was about why you think that it was Ray Franz' position that, as you said:

"BANDA initially was praised as a kind and compassionate man. That’s the position Ray took."

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Again I pose my original challenge ... if you can come up with a better explanation than what I HOPED would be an absurd premise ... I would like to hear your take on this.

I can't say that racism doesn't play at least a subliminal part in decisions that Whites make when they are "put in charge" of non-White populations. But knowing some of the brothers involved, it would definitely not be the first place I'd look at. There were several ongoing visits from Branch Offices from 1976 to 1980 at Bethel and I got to know several of them, as they ate with us, attended a few congregation meetings with us. (The Brooklyn Heights congregation I attended, hosted most of them since it was the most convenient.) They gave experiences to the entire Bethel Family. What did surprise me is that ALL, I mean 100% of the African Branch Committee members that I saw and met, were White Europeans, and sometimes White ex-pat Americans. 

But I sensed absolutely no racism, and usually a lot of unconditional love for the populations in the territories they served.

The decision made for the Malawi Witnesses was made by European Witnesses, and as Raymond Franz points out, was likely made with no input by native Malawians. The decision made for the Mexican brothers came from Brooklyn of course, but you get a sense through the Branch correspondence that it is non-Mexican Branch personnel, especially in 1960, asking what they should do about the situation of the local brothers down there.

So far, I still think that ownership of real estate was the most likely reason that kept the policy going in Mexico. That's based on some ideas that I heard from active Bethelites after R.Franz book came out. And it's something that R.Franz hints at, too, but he evidently thought that there were several factors involved. 

My old roommate, no longer at Bethel, but still an elder, thinks that having "martyrs" (whether death by refusing blood, refusing to give in to Hitler or Banda, or even just imprisonment due to persecution) has been a factor in some decisions the Society has made, and there is some evidence, but nothing specific that ties to Malawi.

I don't see the reasons to tie it to racism. And it's among the last places I would look.

13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

But I guess that's what trips up an engineer, as I am also one of many degrees most likely before you, back in the 70's.

You said you had 2 PhD's over on jw-archive.org.  And this is about the third time on theworldnewsmedia.org that you have mentioned having degrees. You said at least one of the PhD's was in Theology. Are both of them in Theology?

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

BANDA initially was praised as a kind and compassionate man. That’s the position Ray took.

Now it sounds like you are doing that thing again where you resort to just making stuff up. Raymond Franz spoke of all the despicable things done to Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi and indicates that the position of the Watchtower was correct when it stated that the "ultimate responsibility" for the injustice must be placed on President Banda.

On 5/29/2017 at 1:40 PM, AllenSmith said:

Politicians had to open every official speech by praising Banda and affirming his supremacy. He was always to be addressed by his official title, “His Excellency the Life President Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda, the Ngwazi.” Any speech that failed to do so could be taken as a sign of disloyalty and could result in dismissal from the party. Schoolchildren were required to regularly express their adulation of Banda,

I personally wrote letters to Banda using that exact same official title. It was similar back when I wrote to him in 1967 and then again in 1976 just a few days before starting at Bethel, and then again, directly from Brooklyn.