JW's in Malawi vs. Mexico: Why the Disparity?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

C'mon...surely someone knows the facts!

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.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

But may I also remind you the lengths you people went through last year to "delete" my comments while you allowed such advent lies to continue? You must have a different definition to what the word "FACT" means.

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:

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I'll state it again, aside from agreeing with fools, it doesn't make the argument any more factual unless your God Satan gave you a personal inside scoop, get JWinsider!!!!

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.

[TrueTomHarley]

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks.

5 hours ago, admin said:

I did not create this site to protect your corporate propaganda or anyone else's for that matter.

"Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.

This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.

In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.

Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s my point you just justified for me. “your” reliance on an “APOSTATE” book that is riddled with misinterpretations, just like your endorsement for Calf Olof Jonsson.

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.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Is it any different when you say the same thing, but in a more appropriate manner? I think not!! I'm just NOT a hypocrite to mask my true form.

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.

[JW Insider]

39 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I posed a question to Raymond: “how can a “loyalty” pledge be equal to the construct on military service.

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The majority of Mexican nationals complied with government laws, and that would include Witnesses.

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.

[JW Insider]

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]:

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Hitler was a vegetarian.

This I quote only to get attention. It has nothing to do with anything, least of all, JW Insider.

Having indulged Eoin and me with the identity of who runs this place, (it is 'Admin!' is that not somewhat like the answer to who is the true God?....why, it is 'The LORD!' - doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?)

I now wonder if I will be indulged if I ask the relationship between the players. For example, does the Librarian and Admin know each other from back in the day? Or what about JW Insider? Even some I regard as villains, such as Witness - did she once hang out with the crowd? O'Maly is a wild card (probably not), as is Anna (maybe). JTR is almost certainly not. (but you never know) And I haven't even begun to get my head around Queen Esther; she completely confuses me, but we seldom cross paths.

It peaks my curiosity. As Sherlock says, 'it's Game On,' though he does not add 'as time permits.' I even begin to imagine I know what makes certain ones tick - of the white hats, the black, and the gray.

As for me, I have no connections to anyone. My words are those of Sergeant Shultz: "I know nottthhhhiiiiiiiigggg."

And for whatever it's worth, I've yet to read Ray's book or visit posts about Australia. There is hardly a need, since it seems most everyone else has. Moreover, I readily accept that people can screw up, so 'scandals' involving such interest me little. I go for the overall picture. I get the facts distilled by certain ones here, which I guess I should say I appreciate, since it spares me from plowing though acres of turds in search of a few diamonds. I avoid the bile.

[JW Insider]

51 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Or what about JW Insider?

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'-M_iN, 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.

[JW Insider]

21 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

The issue hinged on the fact that the card was a “political” card representing membership in a “political” party.

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.

 

 

[JW Insider]

@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.

 

[Micah Ong]

54 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

You make even less sense than the question posted by a fool.

You remind me of the Pharisee's mindset, who were self-righteous and claimed to be God's people who knew his name.  Jesus rebuked this type of behavior Matthew 12:34.  

When one of them approached Jesus asking him the most important part of the Law he told him Matthew 22:36-40

@JW Insidermakes a good point when he says:

@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.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

.

It is the old classic "You are damned if you do... and damned if you don't."

If I take personal responsibility according to the dictates of my conscience and am wrong, Wrong WRONG ... I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.

I PERSONALLY HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR RUINING MY LIFE.

If I follow the advice of ANYONE , oh...say... a Governing Body of some religious organization, and they are wrong Wrong WRONG ...  AGAIN, I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.

THEY PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING MY LIFE !

.... and they NEVER, EVER .... even apologize.

 

.