Anna

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Just chiming in with a couple of thoughts. The fact that you (Tom) felt the need to encourage others to appreciate br. Lett indicates that you think some do not appreciate him, and the reason for that is because he is a little different, there is no denying that. So you felt the need to defend him. When I first saw him speaking on jw broadcasting I had to look away, because I couldn't stand looking at his "crazy" gestures. And I know I'm not the only one. But I think we all got used to them now. What did irritate me a little was his pre-school type delivery, but as I said in my comment to you on fb, it is not a big deal as I believe he is genuine, and doesn't mean to sound condescending. What I still can't wrap my head around though is this "need to listen to some type of survival instructions". It may follow a Biblical pattern in the past, but I cant see any indication in scripture that talks about the great tribulation/Armageddon that anything like that will be necessary then. I get suspicious of the kind of statements which urge obedience now, the reason being that we will need to obey later to survive...

Excellent, JWInsider!

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Yes. But I'll tell you the real problem I have with manipulating information. And I'm not saying you are the source of the manipulation. First of all, it's no longer "truth" in the most appropriate sense. If something purports to be from a specific source, then anyone who changes that source is putting words in the mouth of someone else. It's therefore the same as a misquote. Since it has very similar meaning, it's more of a paraphrase, but even a paraphrase should identify itself as such.
In the long run, it often weakens the impact of information even when people think it strengthens the impact. Imagine what would happen if a person has excellent information about some mistakes the Watch Tower Society was making. Imagine that some of these, if taken seriously by the WTS, could result in fairness and justice for thousands of people who are now being treated inconsistently and unjustly. There were persons who publicly pointed out the inconsistency between the WTS political stance in Malawi vs. Mexico, for example. But by pointing it out, the WTS may have taken quicker steps to fix the problem they had created in Mexico. And in many other countries around the world, thousands were being unjustly imprisoned for the specific choices they were told that they could and could not conscientiously take with respect to alternative civil service. They, the GB, had already decided that it wasn't that important or even Biblical to hold onto the old traditional practice, and that a change could happen as soon as they found the time to vote on it again. But it was put off for a couple of more years, until a very public reminder was published in an infamous book by an ex-JW. In the meantime, during the delay, hundreds more JWs were unjustly imprisoned, but as soon as the GB voted again, the problem was taken care of just as the ex-JW had said. So what would have happened if that particular ex-JW had a reputation for manipulating information. Obviously, it would have been easy to ignore what he said, and just say that it was more lies from ex-JW apostates. Information can have value no matter where it comes from. Why weaken the value with manipulation?
Also, in the specific case above where some JW-focused information was added, it came across as both pejorative and smart-aleck. Even flippant in the sense of borrowing slightly from the advertising slogan: "Coming to a theater near you!" This gives the impression that whoever wrote it wanted to "stick it" to JWs in particular. This can "back-fire" having a devaluing effect on the value of the information. It is useful to know that there may now be up to SEVENTEEN different victims and that one of them was abused perhaps 100 times. This is important information. But a lot of JWs might look at this poster and say:
"Look how we are being picked on talking about "Kingdom Halls" like that. Look how they are going after us unfairly. Look how they focus on Kingdom Halls. I wonder if they would say the same about using churches as a hiding place to find sanctuary." Maybe they would; I don't know. But I do know that everyone has a certain amount of defensiveness that is natural for people of the same "tribe." Our tribe is our worldwide organization, and many Witnesses are quick to defend and grasp at straws to do so. Don't make up evidence. The real evidence is all people need.
(See updated news release on this same criminal here: https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2009/122909.htm )

How can there be an argument about this? Isn't it one of the functions of prayer?
Me too.
I wish someone who actually through those times as a participant rather than a bystander could give us a comment.
 
 
 

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Actually I said that “Witnesses love this guy.”
I wouldn’t put it that way. Offense is more like it. Admittedly he is a cultivated taste and it is well that he is one of a kind among Watchtower ‘brass.’ But nobody would ever deny that he is genuine, nor of his concern for the flock. In a world of phonies obsessed with outward appearance that is a decided plus.
In general, the more ‘lowly’ our people are, the more they like him. The more enamored people are with the TV anchorman as role model, the more they choke on him.

This puts it in a nutshell and is overall perceptive and appreciative of the work of others. The reason that nobody knows anything today is because at the first misstep it is 'OFF WITH HIS HEAD!' leaving only inexperienced clods to run the show.
There are new battle lines being drawn today, and they have to do with human authority. The trend today is to despise it in every setting, not just JW. It is also one of the trademarks of the 'apostates' discussed in Jude and 2 Peter.
We have overall largely fought and won the battle of 'is there a Trinity?', blood transfusion, military non-participation, from the standpoint of nuetral observers. With determined opposers they will never be won, and each new 'weapon formed against you that will not succeed' will for them forever be a grand slam home run, but this is not where one must look. One must look at impartial parties.
Today it is largely 'apostates' who are succeeding in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses could never do on their own: putting Jehovah's name at the center of all creation.' In Russia it is anti-cult. In the West it is anti-cult and child abuse accusations. None of the reports are groundless, but they are all misframed and misrepresented. The trick will be to frame and represent them properly.
Amidst some of these accusations, Bethel seems to me to resemble 'a deer caught in the headlights' but it has shown many times in the past that it can adapt quickly. Sometimes I think that the lightning-like chariot image is applied too hastily, but then other times it actually moves lightning light and I am caught looking stupid for wondering about it.
Responding effectively to some of the modern accusations is complicated by the fact that there are some places that Bethel just doesn't go, in accord with verses to not even say a greeting to certain ones. They like the model of the plowman who is not much good if he keeps looking behind at the furrows. They like Jesus saying wisdom is proved righteous by its works and so not responding to critics who lambaste him no matter what he does. It may be for certain perceptive ones to 'go to bat' for them, and knowing that they may not even think it a good thing to do, and that it may not even be. However, in many instances, Bethel is cool toward something until they see someone who makes it work. This is true of computer and internet developments. It was true of the quick-build arrangements.
At present it is individual rights, all the rage today, versus individual responsibilities, which is downplayed and sometimes ignored. It is the rights of individuals versus the rights of organizations that would ensure some of those rights in the case of minority beliefs. 
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," are the words of John F Kennedy, thought noble for many decades after he said it. Today they would be the words of a cult leader.
I think the operating verse will be the one in Phillipians:
"True, some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivallry, but others out of goodwill. The latter are proclaiming the Christ out of love, for they know that I have been appointed to defend the good news;p but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are intending to create trouble for me in my prison bonds. With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this"
We might never have chosen the particular battlefields that opposers have chosen for us, but that does mean we cannot respond to them. 'They will lyingly say every wicked thing about you' Jesus said to his followers. Tell me about it.

I would be concerned, if I were you, about posting your "office" set-up.   #RussianHacking

....like a blind pig that occasionally will find an acorn  .... I suspect you are right on THIS one.
 

Jack Ryan is getting a little carried away, perhaps he needs to go for a jog or take up some kind of sports...?

Yes. I understand the confusion. I'm not sure of your native tongue, but likely you have a separate word for what is meant here. You know that the rather ambiguous language of English has many meanings attached to individual words. We call them "synonyms". Only regular usage helps with finding your way through this linguistic maze.
Anyway, the most appropriate synonym in this case would be (IMHO): "well known".
It makes sense that reporting defection by "well known" (prominent) brothers would be calculated to have the potential to alarm a greater number of faithful adherents than if such negative reporting was focussed on names of individuals that no one had ever heard of. I mean, isn't that why naming and attacking the reputation of members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is an attractive pastime for those who wish to discourage the morale and activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in general?
 

Then of course our understanding in context would have to be informed by whatever meaning the KGB attached and whatever criteria they used in deciding who was or was not "prominent".
For those with an interest in applying bible definitions, the counsel Jesus gave at probably stands up whatever the language used. "But the greatest one among you must be your minister." Matt.23:11.

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

What some also fail to see is that Child Abuse is all over, at the same time, people are trying to make Pedophilia legal, and the firestorm that will ensues should such ones succeed in their conquest for such a thing will cause quite the chaos in the states, we already have the drag-queen situation among children already and they have won.
The same way we teach kids about strangers, we do the same on teaching them about Child Abuse early, for this is something of high importance, for even children teach others on the matter. But it would seem instead of fighting the issue in itself, people will often gun for the a whole community for the actions of a single person.
As I always have said, no one is immune to child abuse, even Jehovah's Witnesses for Pedophilia is common and is unexpected, and it is known that abusers always, 100% targets religious and education institutions as well as clubs for the majority of the abuse case is done by a member of the family and or a close friend of the family. If the abuser is a woman, they tend to get not a strong of a sentence vs. an abuser who is a man, mind you, there have been some abusers that have gotten off the hook or a very small sentence depending on how good they look, for if said abuser looks like a Barbie, expect the judge to obviously take it easier on her, which sparks conversation of double standards within the justice and legal systems, this also goes for the race of the individual as well at times.
Learning of the signs and to teach it to others if they are not well equipped for this is the best course of factions, mainly when it comes to finding a way to mix this in a way of out a community already operates, but sadly to others, they would have to learn after the crime was committed. Weeks ago a man whom people looked up to be a hero among children and helping them out, turned out to be a a man who took a very uneasy interest in kids, turned out to be a Pedophile.
But the thing is here this is among the states that have quite the rules for age of consenting ones, another factor, mainly for this case is if the minor victim is male and the older person is female, cases in this sense whereas the abuser is an adult female tends to be tricky ones because of double standards in sentencing.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

The problem with this is that the state considers the age of consent to be over 16. Not only that but according to a legal website: "Delaware considers having sex with someone under 16 rape. Having sex with someone under 18, if the offender is over 30, is also considered rape. Compared to some other states, the penalties for violating Delaware's age of consent laws are very harsh".
So in view of that, the fact that the 14 year old boy is considered a "consensual participant" by Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't going to go down too well.....
 

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 
Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

You neither understand nor correctly report my position on this matter and, frankly, appear to demonstrate incompetence in both reading and comprehension by a pathetically shallow response. You're probably tired. No one could exhibit such inability intentionally. 

This is as good a place as any to post a letter that does not specifically address Delaware but does the overall situation. It is a response to three incendiary articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It starts here and continues on my blog, as it is very lengthy:
“The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote three incendiary articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all.
“As much as Jehovah’s Witnesses would love to say that child sexual abuse has not occurred within their ranks, they cannot. They can say, and do, that it is relatively uncommon within their ranks, but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. There is no experience that determines one’s viewpoint more than this one. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an ‘insular’ organization, and this ‘crime’ of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website after articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims.
“The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. One of four girls and one of six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil…”
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/three-incendiary-articles-from-the-philadelphia-inqurer.html

Fotr the life of me, I cannot see why this issue is such a thorny matter.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even an adult, was assaulted by another, and injured, then regardless of "rules", surely a referral would be made to the medical profession, and to the police for investigation of a criminal act, regardless of witnesses?
Every human institution, including the family, appears to be involved in this whole shoddy business which is clearly not limited to one group. No one appears to be able to get a consistent procedure together to deal with historic or ongoing issues. This is a hands down failure across the board.

"ALvi LanguorE iNsanabili: From the very first sentence, right up to the last one, you have reminded me of Allen. I would not have said anything except that the most famous member named Allen has also hinted that he may not have much time for this world due to serious health concerns. I hoped that the Latin was not a commentary on your condition.
At any rate, what you have repeatedly done here, so far, is exactly what I was hoping no one would do here. You keep claiming things like "some of Gerard Gertoux's claims can be considered fake news" without any examples or any evidence. With several opportunities to provide something substantial, making claims without evidence can "backfire" and even make it appear (to some readers) that Gertoux's position, in this case, might seem even stronger and more reliable than it really is. I'm sure that this is not your intent, but unsubstantiated claims come across just as empty as the ad hominem.
On the issue of "peer review" Gertoux has stated to me that scholars in this field refused to express their personal convictions on this topic, fearing reprisals due to the fact that religious institutions often fund their research and can therefore control the ability to get published. Gertoux himself says he was personally attacked and had to defend himself in the French courts.  ( https://univ-lyon2.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae ). Via email, he says this is why he has "become extremely careful and [will] only publish in peer-reviewed journals." Note his last article, for example:  http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042937130.pdf .