JW Insider

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.

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?

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. Notably, as regards the failure of the Malawian authorities to uphold the high principles of their Constitution, the Watch Tower Society had stated that the “ultimate responsibility” for the injustice must be placed on President Banda. (p.161) Recall that R.Franz had already worked in Latin American countries where persecution, which he personally suffered, was meted out by similar, murderous dictators like Trujillo in DR. His attitude toward Banda, "the government," and his party officials was already stated earlier: The brutality that was practiced upon defenseless people in Malawi can never be justified. There is no question in my mind about that. The government and party officials were determined to attain a state of total conformity to their policy that all persons should possess a party card; it was viewed as tangible evidence of loyalty to the governmental struc- ture. The methods used to attain that goal were depraved, criminal. (p. 145)

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.

Even worse! I wasted two pages of R.Franz' opinion on this matter. When I said that PART 2 was mostly commentary on the PART 1 photocopies, I was referring to the commentary R.Franz had included in his book. Only about one sentence [that I bracketed] was my own worthless opinion. The reason I was summarizing the words of R.Franz was to avoid too much direct quotation of R.Franz, lest someone would take offense at the idea of quoting an apostate. Then you subsequently quoted him at length, so I have decided that it's probably for the best that I quote him, too. Besides, your only good points included the idea that Ray Franz had equated the two situations in the two different countries (which he hadn't according to the very words you quoted from him). The only other good point you made was that R.Franz had called it a "political" card and that this was proof that he didn't realize that it was a "loyalty" card. But your point was pretty thoroughly discredited when it was pointed out that R.Franz himself had said that the card was really about "loyalty" to the corrupt President Banda. Why would you wait for that? The point is only that the Watchtower left it up to individual consciences for persons in Mexico, and said that they didn't want' to dictate their conscience. Then for the situation of "alternative service" in other places, and the buying of a 25 cent political/loyalty card in Malawi they made it clear that things like this should never be left up an individual's conscience. In the Dominican Republic and Latin American countries where the same type of situation occurred ---and where the Watch Tower Society has already admitted that similar bribes can be paid to avoid military service--- there were brothers who were serving multiple prison sentences. So, I don't think it was "racism," but something specific about the situation in Mexico. (Trying to figure out if there is any evidence that could lead us to the real reason why this occurred in Mexico, and yet the same principles were not applied in Malawi or other some other Latin American countries, well, that is the point of wasting all this space on worthless opinion, in my opinion.)

PART 3 of 4: [edited: PART 3 of 6] [Note that the last segment of photocopies included a Mexican Branch letter from 1960, and a Society HQ response from 1960, then included 2 pages from another Mexican Branch letter from 1969 and a 1 page response from the Society's Brooklyn HQ in 1969. The last photocopy shown was an additional portion of the more current 1978 Mexican Branch letter that put all these materials together due to additional questions from brothers whose conscience was disturbed, and due to additional threats and promises from Mexican officials that the illegal bribery practice will be dealt with shortly.] p.153: The June 2, 1960 letter from the Society in response to the February 1960 letter from the Branch to Knorr indicates that these bribes (called "money transactions") are OK because it's: no worse than what's done in other Latin American countries paying the bribe allows for freedom for theocratic activities it's the responsibility of the bribe-taking officials representing the nation, not the bribe-giving JW the bribe is not going to the military establishment but is pocketed by the person taking the bribe the brothers offering the bribes are using their own conscience to obtain continued freedom it's OK to let this smaller thing pass, as they can prove faithful in the larger test, when and if they were called upon real military situation [Added comment: Note that this is the opposite of: (Luke 16:10) "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."] But the same letter from the Society warns them: they are on their own if they get caught or get into trouble there will be no help from the Society if that happens if any brothers were to follow through on the commitment and support of the military that the card implies, then these brothers will be dealt with for lack of Christian neutrality. p.155: For this portion, it is so central to the point R.Franz wishes to make, three or four full paragraphs will be quoted verbatim: One reason why this information was so personally shocking to me was that, at the very time the letter stating that the Society had “no objection” if Witnesses in Mexico, faced with a call to military training, chose to “extricate themselves by a money payment,” there were scores of young men in the Dominican Republic spending precious years of their life in prison—because they refused the identical kind of training. Some, such as Leon Glass and his brother Enrique, were sentenced two or three times for their refusal, passing as much as a total of nine years of their young manhood in prison. The Society’s president and vice president had travelled to the Dominican Republic during those years and had even been made visits to the prison where many of these men were detained. How the situation of these Dominican prisoners could be known by them and yet such a double standard be applied is incomprehensible to me. Four years after that counsel was given to Mexico the first eruption of violent attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi took place (1964) and the issue of paying for a party card arose. The position taken by the Malawi Branch Office was that to do so would be a violation of Christian neutrality, a compromise unworthy of a genuine Christian. The world headquarters knew that this was the position taken. The violence subsided after a while and then broke out again in 1967, so fiercely that thousands of Witnesses were driven into flight from their homeland. The reports of horrible atrocities in increasing number came flooding in to the world headquarters. What effect did it have on the men leading the organization and their consciences as regards the position taken in Mexico? In Malawi Witnesses were being beaten and tortured, women were being raped, homes and fields were being destroyed, and entire families were fleeing to other countries—determined to hold to the organization’s stand that to pay for a party card would be a morally traitorous act. At the same time, in Mexico, Witness men were bribing military officials to complete a certificate falsely stating that they had fulfilled their military service obligations. And when they went to the Branch Office, the staff there followed the Society’s counsel and said nothing to indicate in any way that this practice was inconsistent with organizational standards or the principles of God’s Word.

This will probably take three or four postings so let's consider this PART 2 of 4 [edited: PART 2 of 6]. This part is mostly commentary on what was already presented in the photocopies in PART 1. p.149-153: RF presented the photocopy evidence from the Branch Committee in Mexico who were still questioning the position that the Organization had taken, and asking for clarification. [Most of the photocopy evidence was already presented in PART 1.] p.149 summary excerpts from Mexico Branch: "...although the law prohibits the military or members of the Draft Office to make out "Cartillas" by illegal means, such as payment, the great majority of the officials violate these laws. . . . Almost any person, under any pretext, can . . . pay an official . . . so that the document is given to them correctly legalized [completed/"liberated"]. In Mexico this is very common." p.150-1 [It appears that the reason the Branch Committee wants a clarification in 1978 is because the illegal bribery situation now appears to be on more dangerous ground in the previous few months, and they have been following instructions from Brooklyn that have not been updated for nearly 20 years.] The Branch references an updated 1977 Mexican law, and quotes a new recent threat from the military on May 5, 1978 where this law is now going to be enforced, announcing to 100,000 draftees in front of the Mexican President, that "the army will not tolerate illegal operations to obtain Military Service 'Cartilla' . . . . so that in brief period of time the . . . unlawfulness will be eradicated . . . to obtain their 'Cartillas.' " The Branch admits that this is illegal, but easy to do, and that the card is useful and sometimes required for employment and travel. p.151 The Branch also admits that most of the publishers who have it, many who are now elders and circuit overseers, illegally obtained the card that claims they supported the military. Note: "Publishers who wish to obtain a 'cartilla' go to one of the Draft Boards . . . then . . . they go to someone they know with influence or directly to an official. For this they have to pay a certain amount of money (according to what may be asked). In this way the publishers obtain their 'cartilla' or the majority of them have it." p. 152 RF was assigned to visit Mexico and Latin American countries in November 1978 [he often got these assignments because he spoke Spanish after his years as a missionary under Trujillo in Dominican Republic] and the Mexican Branch assures him they are still following the counsel and direction from Brooklyn, but that it is specifically the situation in Malawi that has caused many brothers in Mexico to "feel disturbed in their conscience." They still follow the instruction from 1960 when they had questioned the action, where they also admitted that back in 1960 that it has been the custom for publishers to pay the "bribe" and many of them are congregation servants and circuit servants. [See PART 1 for this letter to N. H. Knorr dated February 4, 1960.] p. 153-9 The Society's responses begin in a letter dated June 2 1960 included here, attached below, along with additional communications on the matter from the Branch and the Society Headquarters through 1969:

This type of situation has always resulted in double-think (a form of NON-thinking) or, as the psychologists say, a form of "cognitive dissonance." *** w76 12/1 p. 712 Insight on the News *** What Makes a Good Citizen? ● A Danish family was recently denied Canadian citizenship by the Federal Court of Appeal. Yet Mr. Justice George Addy of the court wrote that “both Appellants impressed me as being good, honest people with a deep religious faith which they translate into action in their daily lives. They are members of the movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Both he and his wife are apparently strong believers in the work ethic and have never taken advantage of the social benefits provided for in our society. . . . Their children are exceptionally clean-cut and alert and the family from all appearances is a model one.” Then why the denial of citizenship by this very judge? “The single obstacle to a grant of citizenship,” writes Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario law faculty, was the fact that, in taking the oath of allegiance, they would not agree to participate in any war effort. The very person who wrote this knew that in his own "Oath of Allegiance" he had promised to participate in the defense of the constitution from all enemies, both foreign, and domestic. His wife took almost the identical citizenship oath referred to in the article. Saluting the flag is just a preamble to the more serious "pledge of allegiance" that adults will be asked to sign or affirm if they are changing citizenship or will travel outside the country. The same person who wrote this also has claimed (to others) that he is finally withdrawing himself from defending the Watchtower's position on blood, after a quarter-century of not personally believing what he was famous for strongly defending. (For that matter, Ray Franz also claims that he defended the 1914 chronology for several years after discovering it was not Biblically supported, while researching the Chronology article in the Aid Book.) In an almost related story, I've read (never confirmed) that the reason the Society changed their views against vaccinations was because several brothers needed to travel to other countries, and vaccinations were required for travel.

@AllenSmith I appreciate the snide name-calling for reasons I stated before. It makes it easier to make a point when the other person is forced to resort to ad hominem. Caesar Augustus was a murderous dictator, as was Tiberius, yet when he or his military representatives asked for a coin with his name on it, even if that coin called him "a God" the Christian should hand over that coin. Why? Matthew 17:27 says so as not to cause a scandal or so they won't be offended. If the military representative of the murderous Tiberius Caesar, asked for your coat or impressed you into service to march with him for 1,000 paces, would you offer 2,000? Would you offer more than just your outer coat? Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't, but it shows you that Jesus wasn't asking us to judge the authorities on the basis of their specific morality or lack of bloodguilt, and he did not speak out against specific kinds of loyalty to others. But if it relates to "worship" then all Christians should have a problem. Another mistake you make is pretending that I think Ray Franz must be correct on this point. He was just as capable of making a mistake as any other member of the Governing Body was. I got the impression that his overall idea was that some individual Christian consciences would more easily say that the problem in Mexico was a real matter of keeping our worship pure and untainted, avoiding being a liar. And some other individual consciences would more easily say that adhering to the demands of a murderous dictator who asked for loyalty to the only party in the country, might be no different than accepting citizenship of say, Rome, another state where a murderous dictator demanded loyalty. Only if that obedience to a man conflicted with pure "worship" might there be a problem to that particular conscience. Ray Franz as much as says this here on 148: Of one thing I eventually became certain and that was that I would want to be very confident that the position adopted was solidly founded on God’s Word, and not on mere human reasonings, before I could think of advocating it or promulgating it, particularly in view of the grave consequences it produced. I no longer felt confident that the Scriptures did give such clear and unequivocal support to the policy taken toward the situation in Malawi. I could see how one might feel impelled by conscience to refuse to purchase such a card and, if that were the case, then one should refuse, in harmony with the apostle’s counsel at Romans, chapter fourteen, verses 1 to 3 and verse 23. But I could not see the basis for anyone’s imposing his conscience on another in this matter, nor of presenting such position as a rigid standard to be adhered to by others, particularly without greater support from Scripture and fact.

I don't see where he says it was ONLY a political card. Also, I can't see why you are speaking as if it were not a political card. Isn't that the way all of us described it? We never called it a loyalty card, and if we had it surely would have still brought up the same question about "to him who calls for the honor, such honor." *** w76 8/15 p. 491 Insight on the News *** Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi have experienced brutal persecution because they maintain Christian neutrality and therefore refuse to buy a political card that indicates membership in the Malawi Congress Party. (John 17:16; 18:36; Jas. 1:27) Yet, they show proper respect for governmental “superior authorities.”—Rom. 13:1-7. *** w70 4/1 pp. 218-219 pars. 15-16 When Building Disciples, Motivate the Heart *** Because they refused to buy a political card, they were beaten severely, sexually assaulted and their property was destroyed. Yet President Banda of Malawi could not get them to break integrity and renounce their God Jehovah. These Witnesses were motivated from the heart. They had true Christian qualities built in them. 16 When a Christian witness of Jehovah of Ntifinyire Village was beaten for refusing to purchase a political card, Banda’s youths took a knife and made cuts encircling his arms and then his legs and inflicted many cuts on his head. And of course, the real important question was whether an individual conscience might see it as a tribute, or honor, even if out of fear: [After all, yes, everyone knew he was a brutal, fearsome dictator who had killed many.] (Romans 13:5-7) 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor. No one ever called it a loyalty card, in the Watch Tower publications, but I did see that Raymond Franz was one person who implied that it included this idea on page 145: The brutality that was practiced upon defenseless people in Malawi can never be justified. There is no question in my mind about that. The government and party officials were determined to attain a state of total conformity to their policy that all persons should possess a party card; it was viewed as tangible evidence of loyalty to the governmental structure. The methods used to attain that goal were depraved, criminal.

I stumbled upon the site through a Google search almost 3 years ago. I started posting on jw-archive.org, and some messages on the site asked posters there to move over to theworldnewsmedia.org. I have received 2 private messages from The Librarian, and I think I remember messaging Eoin once, but I do not know either of them, and no personal info was exchanged. I believe Eoin is likely using his real name, but I have no idea who The Librarian is, much less the aD'-MiN, whose name probably has not been pronounced correctly for several centuries. (Some say ADMIN; some use a differing vowel structure and say IDI-AMIN.) I recognize one "real" person who has posted from the area of a mid-west congregation I am familiar with. And several persons have recognized local names of particular JWs we know in common. But it's not my plan to try to ever concern myself with personal details of anyone who has not chosen to give out those personal details. (That's just about everybody.) I think that a few people (e.g., Jay Witness) have stated some bits of the history of their affiliation with the Witnesses.

So here's what Raymond Franz said [summarized with excerpts]: This will probably take three or four postings [edited: it took six] so let's consider this PART 1 of 4 [edited: PART 1 of 6]. p. 144-5: RF says the info from Mexico was startling, disquieting and in stark contrast to the organizational position adopted toward Malawi. RF then describes Malawi persecution related to the purchase of a "party card" and says the vast majority of JWs in Malawi held firm to the position that buying the "party card" was a violation of Christian neutrality, even at great personal cost, and in a few cases, even the loss of their life. [edited to add p.146 does not appear in any way to imply that R.Franz equated the situation in Malawi with that of Mexico. This page sets up the idea that politics often becomes corrupt, but not everything related to politics is always bad. RF appears to be setting up the possibility that, to some individual consciences, for certain aspects of politics, Romans 13 can apply, speaking of the political state as "God's servant" or "minister." {Paul found value in his "citizenship" of the corrupt Roman state.} This sets up the idea that there may have been more room for individual conscience with respect to purchasing the one-state party card, and less room for individual conscience with respect to the idea of giving bribes to lie about having met the requirements of military service.] p.145-9: RF says that, while his own thinking is still not dogmatic on this point, individual JWs might find reason to question their conscience about whether the purchase of the party card for a one-party state was not the same as accepting that they were obedient citizens of the state, rather than it being considered "an act of worship" comparable to early Christians offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor, for example. If that were the case they may have considered Scriptures including Romans 13:7, Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 5:41, and Romans 14:1-3,23. RF mentions that the subject of "alternative service" came up regularly to the GB, and at this time in the light of the Malawi persecution, statements were mostly on the side of absolutely no hint of compromise. Quoting mostly memos submitted by GB members, RF included the following on p.148-9: We want no grey areas, we want to know exactly where we stand as non-compromising Christians.8 [Lloyd Barry] . . . doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is . . . a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one’s obligation to Caesar’s war machine. . . . A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly.9 [Karl Klein] For one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a “deal” with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God.10 [Fred Franz / William Jackson] . . . We should have a united stand all over the world. We should be decisive in this matter. . . . If we were to allow the brothers this latitude we would have problems. . . . the brothers need to have their consciences educated.”12 [Ted Jaracz] . . . Those who accept this substitute service are taking the easy way out.14 [Fred Franz] RF says these strong positions were all taken by persons very aware of the situation in Mexico, especially because RF presented the documents himself as part of the discussion on military "alternative service." The following was included from material that had been sent by the Mexican Branch Committee [posted without comment which will be added in next post]:

I just skimmed the chapter focusing on areas where this idea would have come up. I see that Raymond Franz never said that a loyalty pledge was equal to the construct on military service. In fact, he explicitly states the opposite. Which edition did you read that gave you the impression he had equated the two? I have the first and the pdf link to the fourth (last), so I can't imagine that he said something so different in the second or third. That appears to be an assumption. If you have evidence for the specific period in question, then that might be interesting. My guess is that the majority of Witnesses really were "draft-dodgers" by paying the bribe wherever possible. I'll read through the chapter by R.Franz and see if it adds any useful info.

I'd like to consider your points about the disparity later, but for now I will address these extraneous points and your question. I am not reliant on a book by Ray Franz nor do I endorse Carl Olof Jonsson. As you probably are aware from many posts on the subjects where their names come up, I do not think that what either of them have said on any subject is meaningful at all to my relationship with Jehovah or the Organization. As far as I can tell, I'd be, feel and believe exactly the same way if neither of them had ever existed. The Bible says we need nothing to be written to us about chronology because chronology is not to be a part of our faith. Patience and all the other fruits of the spirit, along with reliance on Jehovah and his Word are important. I appreciate what I've learned about patience when I dialogue with you, too, and I often see myself failing in this respect. All of my views on chronology and the Biblically-supported secular dates of events during the periods in question rely absolutely 0% on anything C.O.Jonsson or R.Franz have said. On this subject of Malawi and Mexico, I have no current concerns about it. I think they have all been taken care of. If Ray Franz brought up some points of concern, then I appreciate that too. After all: (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. True. It would not be any different, but the truth is that I never say the same thing in any manner. That's because I don't believe you are either a fool nor is Satan your God. I shared and still share many of the same feelings you have about attacks on the Witnesses and attacks on the Governing Body. I think most of what comes up by opposers is a foolish waste of time. But, as I've explained, there are also several areas of concern that we ought to consider. For that matter, I can say for a fact that persons in the Writing Department and a few people on the Governing Body took what he said very seriously and even made adjustments based on some of the things he said. No one in the Writing Department or Governing Body, as far as I know, ever said that anything Raymond Franz claimed was wrong or "riddled" with even one, single misinterpretation as you say. As far as I could tell, everyone in positions of higher responsibility felt that all his facts were correct. The WTS never claimed that anything he said was incorrect in any way. There was, on the other hand, an attempt to counter some of C.O.Jonsson's ideas, but, of course, in his case, these were not really Jonsson's ideas, but the ideas shared by nearly all the experts and professionals who study the particular range of chronology that he studied. He happens to agree with these others, so there is really no reason to include his name in any discussion of the chronology he studied. It's almost as if someone doesn't like vegetables, yet expert dieticians claim vegetables are healthy, so it's pointed out that Hitler was a vegetarian.

I saved those deleted posts, most of them at least, and I can assure you that you were not deleted for presenting any facts. Perhaps you do not remember, but you were attacking and insulting other posters with a vengeance! In a post above, you say: Calling people fools and saying that their God is Satan is really quite mild compared to the type of slander, name-calling, attacks and insults you were putting people through. Fortunately, you seem to reserve a good percentage of your venom on me, instead of many of the others, here. Also, you have changed your tone much of the time, so that you now tend more toward a kind of sarcasm and snide comments instead of going right after the person directly. Either way, I hope you stick around (under one of more of your aliases) at least, because the kind of people who are interested in truth and facts can usually figure out why anyone would resort to these diversionary tactics. In that way, the ad hominem attacks actually help. They don't help everyone, of course, but at least such tactics provide a kind of a "touchstone" by which to measure a good rational idea from another kind of idea.

While I was at Bethel, I really knew nothing about the WTS condoning Mexican bribes. I knew that it was by choice that the WTS had decided to set themselves up as a cultural organization, and had voluntarily decided not to have prayer, and not use the Bible in the door-to-door ministry. I asked Brother Bert Schroeder about it right after Ray Franz' first book came out (I was no longer at Bethel) and he was well aware that this was now seen as a "scandal." He said he wasn't sure how soon anything could be done about it. I then asked a roommate, who was still at Bethel in 1985, and he said it was only so that the WTS could own property in Mexico that the entire arrangement was the way it was there. I had not made the comparison to Malawi, but my fiancee (now my wife) and I hosted Jack and Linda Johansson for a three hour dinner, during the 1979 visit of the Branch Overseers to Brooklyn. He was the Branch Overseer in the Congo until he was kicked out just two years earlier (1977) when the WTS property was confiscated there and he was accused of working for the CIA. The government in the Congo had just executed religious missionaries and leaders from other religions. Brother Johannson had been in Malawi before and during the ban, there, too. He spoke with President Banda several times about it, starting in 1964. In fact, I think he said he was assigned to Malawi straight out of Gilead, several years earlier (although Malawi went by another name then.) Brother Vigo was the Malawi Branch Servant during the terrible persecution. We talked a lot about Malawi, and I didn't know enough to ask about the double-standard between Malawi and Mexico. Of course, he never mentioned anything to my fiancee or me about any controversy. (I would not have expected him to, but I mention this because he, Jack Johannson, evidently did bring it up to a Governing Body member during the same visit.) I think anyone who really wants to know the truth of this matter will have to rely on the book Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, which can be found as a PDF here: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/franz01.pdf It's in Chapter 6 called "Double Standards." In the 2004 edition found at the link it's on pages 142-169. It's on slightly different pages in my edition. It appears he knows the facts and he provides plenty more documentation, too.

This "News" was absolutely true, not fake. But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico. When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read. So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.

Which tells me that they weren't trying to hide anything, and considered the name sacred. Someone left the space for the name to be added later, so they must have known that another scribe or a different preparatory process was going to be used when the YHWH was going to be added. Adding the name in Paleo-Script reminds me of those who feel they must use 400-year-old English (typically from 1611, KJV) when they quote from Scripture, even if the rest of their sermon or writing is in modern English. But it also strikes the eye as something that is special, and gives them pause before pronouncing the name, just as putting the wrong vowel markings supposedly stopped the Masoretes from accidentally pronouncing the word out loud, and led them to use the word Adonai or Elohim instead. The vowels for each of those words have been found with the YHWH in Hebrew.

Starting with the basics, we have a quote like the following from the source: "The Divine Name Yahweh" already mentioned above. For ease of reading I'll transliterate instead of merely trying to reproduce Hebrew and Greek characters. THE proper name for God as the covenant God of Israel is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH). The original pronunciation is uncertain. By inference from its contracted forms in compound names -- יו (YW) or יהו (YHW) at the beginning, or יה (YH) or יהו (YHW) at the end1 -- it appears to have been pronounced Yahweh, and this is confirmed by independent testimony to its transliteration as 'Iabe2 or 'Iaoue.3 The tetragrammaton occurs some 5321 times in the OT and a separate short form of the divine name יה (YH), 25 times.4 We count 6,823 instances of YHWH rather than 5,321. But in general we agree with the ideas mentioned. The Foreword in the1950 NWT says that Yahweh is preferred as more accurate, although Jehovah is kept for recognizability and consistency. The footnotes included in this quote might be good for future reference: 1For the philological reasons for connecting these forms with יהוה, see J. Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, p. 611; B. Stade, Hebrew Grammar, par. 113; S. R. Driver, Studia Biblica, 1, pp. 4-6. 2Pronounced so by the Samaritans according to Theodoret of Cyros. See Quaestio 15 in Exod 7: kalousi de auto Samareitei IABE, 'Ioudaioi de AIA 3So Clement of Alexandria. See Strom. 5, 6, 34: to tetragrammon onoma to musticon ho periekeinto hois monois to aduton basimon en legetai de 'Iaoue. 4The forms יהו and יהה (probably erroneous) are found in the Elephantine Papyri. I should mention that it's likely that in a discussion of this type, that either form, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," will be used interchangeably. I prefer Jehovah as a common usage pronunciation, but as stated in another recent thread even the Watch Tower publications have said that Yah-weh' is likely more accurate: *** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 *** While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.

I think this is backwards. The evidence shows that the name was used more often in the earlier texts and began to be replaced in later texts. The entire book of Esther, for example, which was written later than the Babylonian Captivity, does not contain the name YHWH at all. Later Psalms show the same evidence. Books that scholars date as later, even where most fundamentalist believers do not accept the dates (Daniel, Ecclesiastes) also provide some pieces of evidence to the same trend.

That's a jump in logic that requires you to believe that the same name (YHWH, not a specific pronunciation) was added in about 6,000+ places in the Hebrew Bible. It turns this entire topic on its head because it means that you reject all the evidence for the correctness of the Hebrew text. And then you see it as a problem that Witnesses generally believe that the Greek text was tampered with. This is one of the reasons I wanted to start a brand new topic that goes through much of the scholarly evidence about the relevant Bible texts, but sticks more closely to that evidence and does not veer off on so many other topics.

That's just evidence that it would probably never have been pronounced that way by people who speak Hebrew. The Watch Tower publications have also sometimes stated a preference for "Yahweh" as the more correct pronunciation, and "Jehovah" only as a more consistent and familiar pronunciation: *** w02 4/1 p. 5 Search for God With Your Heart and Mind *** Some scholars prefer the rendering “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” [neutral] *** w80 2/1 p. 6 Does God Have a Name? *** “Yahweh” (sometimes “Jahveh”) is simply an attempt to express God’s name in a form nearer to the original Hebrew. *** w63 11/1 p. 650 par. 5 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial *** . . . the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, as some critical clergymen prefer to pronounce it today. *** g99 2/8 p. 8 Identifying the Only True God *** Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation. *** g73 3/22 p. 27 “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”? *** And further, the form “Jehovah” has a currency and familiarity that “Yahweh” does not have. “Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated. *** su chap. 1 p. 8 par. 8 What Will Become of Planet Earth? *** Much of the Bible was written originally in Hebrew, and in the Hebrew Bible text God’s personal name appears nearly 7,000 [6,823] times as a sacred tetragrammaton (יהוה). Some translators render it as Yahweh, but in English the most commonly used form of the name is Jehovah. *** na p. 9 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation *** Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names. *** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 *** While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.

As you know, we understand this as not direct worship of Jesus, but "relative" worship of Jehovah that can now only go through Jesus. Israelites bent the knee to their king, who was in effect a "Mighty God" to them, but understood that the Sovereign Lord Jehovah was the true Almighty King. I think you have jumped the gun when you insert "sovereign God" to verse 11. I should add that Jesus as the true Spokesman of God's own word, makes the spokesperson analogy of relative worship, just as strongly as the sovereignty analogy. Note Moses's position as spokesman (the one who gives Aaron the words) between God and Aaron, the spokesman for Moses: (Exodus 4:15, 16) 15 So you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with you and him as you speak, and I will teach you men what to do. 16 He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him. When we confess the good news about God and Christ that we learned through Jesus (the "Greater Moses") we are witnesses or spokespersons of someone who serves as God to us. It doesn't make Jesus the "Almighty" sovereign any more than Moses was the Almighty God, just "God."

A few of them also used Jesus' name from evidence I've read.

I agree completely. I have no doubt that such things and many more that we never thought of before will plague mankind. My point, however, is that there have been certain types of plagues and diseases that mankind thought they could do nothing about. Then some people start putting two and two together and realizing that some of these things are based on "cause and effect." When enough of these realizations come together, the effect can be unexpectedly positive. I think we have the entire world population as evidence of this. Populations of anything under normal circumstances without interference grow on a curve, something like the exponential curve you'd get if you graphed the x2 function. Yet, for thousands of years the population grew in a more subdued linear fashion, effectively flat, until suddenly in the last 100+ years, the growth shot up like the shape of a hockey stick. The largest single factors include "soap & clean water" and a better understanding of cause and effect where disease and plague comes along. Granted there were also wars in China and around the world that killed hundreds of millions in the several hundred years prior to 1919, but there have been huge death tolls in wars since 1919, too. The major explanation, therefore, is that something was done about the problems of plagues and disease through human understanding. For this reason, I thought it unwise to appear to be dismissing all the attempts to try to do something about the worldwide plague of child sexual abuse, just because we expect it to get worse. The Catholic Church has held internal conferences and even invited people of other religions to help them to try to brainstorm ideas that can help. The judge, McClellan, of the ARC has made suggestions to the Catholic Church and has looked for ways to get some good ideas implemented while accommodating the process structures of the religions and institutions he has now worked with. If a religious institution appears to have a problem admitting that they have a problem, or does not appear to want to accept help or does not wish to provide suggestions to give help to other institutions based on its own experiences, I think this makes that institution look worse than it really is.