Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Micah Ong

Recommended Posts

  • Member
18 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

White people are expected to be righteous and cannot do anything illegal, and can navigate the "legal" system.

"Brown" people are expected to be mostly good, and are allowed bribery, as they have trouble navigating the "legal system".

Black people are gullible, and expected not to be able to navigate ANY "legal system", or understand nuances.

A villain always imputes racism to his enemies. You, who likely never miss an episode of Rush Limbaugh, ought to agree with that point, for he frequently (and correctly, in my view) points that out.

I am (for a change) not necessarily accusing you of this. You did say something about your proposal being 'ludicrous.'  James, you enshroud your remarks with such crass snarkiness that is difficult to know your point. If that is by design, so be it. I also make no attempt to avoid 'out there' remarks. But if it is not by design, you should know about it. 

I never did get around to viewing your video. It had sound to it, presumably. There were other people in the room, and you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted with sound, any more than you can with graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 8.4k
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks. "Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, add

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 pos

. . 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 .

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

PART 4 of 4:

[Refer back to photocopies in PART 3 of 4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

". . . we have no objection."

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

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

What makes all this so utterly incredible is that the organization’s position on membership in the military has always been identical to its position on membership in a “political” organization. In both cases any Witness who enters such membership is automatically viewed as “disassociated.” Yet the Mexico Branch Committee had made crystal clear that all these Witnesses who had obtained the completed certificate of military service (by means of a bribe) were now placed in the first reserve of the military. The Witnesses in Malawi risked life and limb, homes and lands, to adhere to the stance adopted by the organization for their country. In Mexico there was no such risk involved, yet a policy of the utmost leniency was applied. There, Witness men could be members of the first reserves of the army and yet be Circuit or District Overseers, members of the Bethel family! The report from the Branch Committee in response to the survey makes this clear (as well as showing how common the practice of bribing to get the certificate was among the Witnesses).

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Where did you meet?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

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

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

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

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

"PART 5 of 4" --  a.k.a. PART 5 of 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once more, I do not think the matter simply resolves down to personalities, the individual members involved. I have come to the conclusion that this outlook is in reality a typical product of any authority structure that takes a legalistic approach to Christianity, enabling those sharing in the authority structure to see double standards exist without feeling strong qualms of conscience. To their credit, brothers in Mexico were disturbed in their consciences at learning of the intense suffering of Witnesses in Malawi who refused to pay a legal price in a lawful way for a party card of the government running the country, while in Mexico they themselves were illegally obtaining a military certificate through bribes. Those in Brooklyn, at the “top,” in the so-called “ivory tower,” however, seemed strangely detached from such feelings, insensitive to the consequences to people from such double standard.

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

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

All Governing Body members were fully aware of the policy in Mexico by the fall of 1978. Almost a year later, in September of 1979, the Governing Body again resumed discussion of the undecided issue of alternative service, this time brought to the fore by a letter from Poland. . . .  Ted Jaracz said that “our brothers are going to have problems and they look to Jehovah’s organization for direction,” that there was need to avoid diversity of opinions, that we should not give the brothers the idea that the Governing Body was saying, ‘go ahead and submit’ to alternative service orders. Carey Barber voiced the view that “there is no room here for exercising conscience, it is something where we just have to go right on through” without yielding. Fred Franz said our “conscience has to be Bible trained” and stated again his support for the traditional position against any acceptance of alternative service. By now, Ewart Chitty was no longer a member of the Body, having submitted his resignation in accord with the Governing Body’s wishes. Grant Suiter was absent from the session, both he and Chitty having voted for a change in policy at the November 15, 1978, meeting. But there were two new members on the Body, Jack Barr (from England) and Martin Poetzinger (from Germany), and they were present at the September 15, 1979, session.  When a motion was finally presented, the vote was split right down the middle, eight in favor of changing the policy, eight (including the two new members) against doing so . In 1980, on February 3, the subject was once more placed on the agenda. By this time more than a year had elapsed since my visit to Mexico and Albert Schroeder had made another annual visit there. The Mexico Branch Committee members again expressed to him their concern about the practice of bribing to obtain falsified documents of military service, and Schroeder related this continuing situation to the Body after his return. Remarks by the various members during the session made it evident that no two-thirds majority would be attained either way on the alternative service issue and there was not even a motion made. The matter was “shelved.” From . . .  November 1977, until February, 1980, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses had tried on six separate occasions to resolve the issue without success. What, though, of the people affected by the policy that continues in force, those of what the Watchtower had called “the rank and file”? Could they also “shelve” the issue? To the contrary, the inability of the Body to achieve that indispensable two-thirds majority meant that male Jehovah’s Witnesses in any country of the world who acted according to their conscience and accepted alternative service as a proper government requirement, could still do so only at the cost of being viewed as outside the organization, equivalent to expelled persons. It also meant that the Governing Body as a whole was willing for the twenty-year-old policy in effect in Mexico to continue in effect while a totally different policy in Malawi remained unchanged.

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

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

At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor [69.23%] of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, [56.25%] no change was made. On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy [68.75%] so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation. This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority [62.5%]. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention [60.0%]. Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight. Incredible as it may seem, this was the position taken, and most members of the Body appeared to accept it all as nothing to be disturbed about. They were, after all, simply following the rules in force. A year later, on September 15, 1979, another vote was taken and it was evenly divided, half for a change, half against. [50%] (p.135)

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

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

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

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

p. 136:

For another 16 years the policy remained in effect, until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower abruptly decreed that acceptance of alternative service was now a matter of conscience. During those 16 years, thousands of Witnesses, mainly young men, spent time in prison for refusing to accept assignments to perform various forms of community service as an alternative to military service. As late as 1988, a report by Amnesty International stated that in France, “More than 500 conscientious objectors to military service, the vast majority of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, were imprisoned during the year.” For the same year, in Italy, “Approximately 1,000 conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, were reported to be imprisoned in 10 military prisons for refusing to perform military service or the alternative civilian service. That is just a partial picture. If that one Governing Body member had not changed his vote in 1978, virtually none of these men would have gone to prison—for the branch office committees’ reports give clear evidence that it was not the personal, individual consciences of these young men that produced the imprisonment. It was the compulsion to adhere to an organizationally imposed policy.
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, . . .  It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority. Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably, the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position enforced for over half a century. (p. 136)

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

In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence. They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect, shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place. (p.137)

Summary of PART 5 of 6:

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

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

Even error—if it is Watch Tower error—is presented as somehow beneficial. This same 1996 Watchtower discusses the organization’s earlier erroneous interpretation of the “higher powers” or “superior authorities” of Romans chapter 13, which interpretation rejected the clear evidence that these referred to human governmental authorities and insisted that the “higher powers” referred only to God and Christ. This wrong interpretation had replaced an even earlier, correct view and was taught from 1929 until 1962. The May 1, 1996 Watchtower (page 14) says of this wrong understanding:
        Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it
did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to
maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period
[that is, the period of World War II and of the Cold War].
This in effect says that to have had the right understanding, the understanding the apostle Paul intended when he wrote his counsel, would either not have been sufficient in guiding, or would not have been as effective in protecting against unchristian action, as was the erroneous view taught by the Watch Tower organization! (p.137-138)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

PART 6 of 6:

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

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

p.164:

It may help to understand the reasoning of some Members if other circumstances then prevailing among Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mexico are reviewed. As a result of the Mexican revolution, and because of the Catholic Church’s long history of holding immense quantities of land and other property in the country, the Mexican Constitution until recently forbid any religious organization the right to own property. Churches and church property were, in effect, held in custody by the government, which allowed the religious organizations to use these. Due to past exploitation by foreign clergy, no foreign missionaries or ministers were allowed to function as such in Mexico. (p.164)

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

The administration of the headquarters organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses many decades ago decided that, because of the existing law, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mexico would present themselves, not as a religious organization, but as a “cultural” organization. The local corporation there formed, La Torre del Vigia, was so registered with the government of Mexico.18
18 I have a photocopy of the registration dated June 10, 1943, in which the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores) authorizes the registration of La Torre del Vigía as a “Non-Profit Civil Association Founded for Scientific, Educational and Cultural Dissemination” (“Asociación Civil Fundada para Ia Divulgación Científica. Educadora y Cultural No Lucrativa”). This arrangement remained in effect over a period of some 46 years.

So, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mexico for many decades did not speak of having religious meetings or Bible meetings but of having “cultural” meetings. At these meetings they had no prayers or songs, and this was also true of their larger assemblies. When they engaged in door-to-door activity they carried only Watch Tower literature (which they said the Watch Tower Society provided them as an “aid to them in their cultural activity”). They did not carry the Bible while in such activity since that would identify them as engaging in religious activity. A group of Witnesses in a given area was not called a “congregation” but a “company.” They did not speak of having baptisms but did the same thing under the name of performing the “symbol.”

This “double talk” was not done because of living in some totalitarian country that took repressive measures against freedom of worship. It was done largely to avoid having to comply with government regulations regarding ownership of property by religious organizations.20 Nor should it be thought that the arrangement was something originating with and decided upon by the Mexican Witnesses themselves; it was an arrangement worked out and put into effect by the international headquarters at Brooklyn.
20  . . . President Knorr . . . . commented directly on the legal status of a “cultural organization” held in Mexico and he specifically mentioned as a primary reason for this unusual status the fact that it allowed the organization to keep control of its properties in that country. (p.165)

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

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

It is interesting to contrast the deliberate elimination of prayers and songs at Witness meetings in Mexico with the action of the Watch Tower Society in the United States, where they were willing to fight case after case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the country rather than give up certain practices, such as offering literature from door to door without a license and without having to register with the police, the right to use sound cars, distribute literature on street corners, and many other such practices which are covered by Constitutional rights. The organization did not want to relinquish any of these things. It fought to hold on to them, even though these particular practices are certainly not things that were done by early Christians in the first century and hence cannot be counted as among primary Christian practices.

But congregational or group prayer was a primary religious practice in early Christian meetings and has been among servants of God from time immemorial. The Mexican government said nothing against prayer at religious meetings. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, were instructed to say that their meetings were not religious. Few things could be viewed as more completely related to worship of God, as more purely spiritual, than prayer. When an imperial decree in Persia prohibited prayer to anyone except to the king for a period of thirty days, the prophet Daniel considered the issue so crucial that he risked position, possessions and life itself in violating the decree.

The headquarters organization, however, considered it expedient to sacrifice congregational prayer among Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Mexico. With what benefit, what “accruing advantage”? By giving up congregational prayer and song and the use of the Bible in public witnessing activity, the organization could retain ownership of Society property in Mexico and operate free from governmental regulations that other religions complied with. They were willing to say that their organization was not a religious organization, that their meetings were not religious meetings, that their witnessing activity was not religious activity, that baptism was not a religious act—when in every other country of the world Jehovah’s Witnesses were saying just the opposite.

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

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

Since they knew of this arrangement, some Governing Body members may have been inclined to accept the paying of bribes for falsified documents as being not far out of line with the overall policy for Jehovah’s Witnesses in that country. This may explain in part how they could at the same time speak so adamantly for “no compromise” in other lands. It seems evident that in the minds of some members it was not a question of a double standard. In their minds there was just the one standard. That standard was: doing whatever the organization decided and approved.
p.167: R.Franz speaks of feeling that the impressive language about 'staying clean from the world' seemed hollow, not to fit reality. He goes on in the next segment to repeat the idea that he is not adversely judging individual brothers in Mexican congregations whose conscience would have allowed them to reason, that soliciting the bribe is not so different from being extorted for a bribe. [R.Franz doesn't mention it, but in several countries the RBC proactively offered free construction work to officials to get favorable treatment, sometimes to get entire shipments of building supplies released that might have been held up for several weeks, otherwise.] Although R.Franz obviously considered what was wrong was, not that individuals might see it this way, but the creation of an unnecessary policy that was not based on Scripture but on expedience:
 
I could not relate in any way to the reasoning that allowed for such expressions in the face of facts that were well known to all members speaking and hearing those expressions. I lived in Latin American countries for nearly twenty years and paid no bribes. But I know full well that there are some places, not just in Latin America but in various parts of the earth, where, although the law is on your side and what you seek is perfectly legitimate, it is almost impossible to get certain things done without money being paid to an official who has no right to such. It is not hard to see that a person confronted with this situation may view this as a form of extortion, even as in Bible times tax-collectors and also military men might exact more than was due and thus practice extortion. It does not seem fair to me to judge adversely persons who feel obliged to submit to such extortion. More than that, I am not presuming to judge those in Mexico who, not having the law on their side, acted against the law, who did not simply submit to extortion but instead deliberately solicited the illegal actions of an official through an offer of money to get a falsified, illegal document. This is not what I find so shocking and even frightening about the whole affair.
 
It is instead the way that religious men in high authority can allow supposed “organizational interests” to be counted as of such enormous importance as compared to the interests of ordinary people, people with children and homes and jobs, individuals many of whom give evidence of being every bit as conscientious in their devotion to God as any man among those men who sit as a court to decide what is and what is not within the realm of conscience for such people.  It is men in authority who accord to themselves the right to be of divided opinion, but who exact uniformity from all others; men who express mistrust of others’ use of Christian freedom of conscience, but who expect such others to put implicit trust in them and their decisions, while they grant to themselves the right to exercise their conscience to condone illegal maneuvering and obvious misrepresentation of fact. It is men in authority who, because the change of one vote reduces a majority down from 66% to 62%, are willing to allow this to keep in force a policy that can cause other men to undergo arrest, be separated from family and home for months, even sent to jail for years, when those men do not understand the Scriptural basis for the policy they are asked to follow and, in some cases, believe that the policy is wrong.
 
[The men who believed the policy they were following was wrong, included the brothers in the Mexican branch who compared their own situation with that of Malawi and found it disturbing to their conscience. Also, in the previous chapter and in another book by R.Franz, he details much more of what the Branches were asking and saying about "alternative service" showing that many believed the policy was wrong even though they were willing to suffer out of obedience to the policy. This is another indication that many were going against their own conscience in favor of the Society's policy.
It seems incredible that R.Franz was going through the feelings he mentions next, and still willingly served on the Governing Body, and still appeared to be the most active member of the Governing Body in terms of writing productivity, congregation activity, working in service with his congregation, etc. (Many GB members were rumored to never go in door-to-door service, and almost never attended meetings in their local congregations.)] 
p. 168:
All this is what I find shocking. And, however sincere some may be, I still find it frightening.
 
I could not personally comprehend how grown men could fail to see inconsistency in all of this, could fail to be repelled by it, could not be deeply moved by its effect on people’s lives. In the end it simply convinced me that “organizational loyalty” can lead people to incredible conclusions, allow them to rationalize away the grossest of inequities, relieve them from being particularly affected by any suffering their policies may cause. The insensitizing effect that organizational loyalty can produce is, of course, well documented, having been demonstrated again and again throughout the centuries, both in religious and political history, as in the extreme cases of the Inquisition and during the Nazi regime. But it can still produce a sickening effect when seen at close quarters in an area where one never expected it. To my mind, it illustrates forcefully the reason why God never purposed that men should exercise such excessive authority over fellow humans.
 
[The above quote seems unnecessarily harsh, and I far as I could tell, it did not fit his demeanor from 1976 to 1980, the years I heard him handle the Bethel text (morning worship) during all his weeks at Bethel. He kept his reputation as being the most humble** and "kind" of the GB whenever Bethelites compared or commented about whoever would have "morning worship" that particular week. (**Brother John Booth usually won the prize for most humble, but Booth rarely had much to say and often missed his rotation for handling "morning worship.") There seemed to be a lot of joy and activeness that doesn't fit this depressing view of his life among the Governing Body. Also, I saw him active through the week going to his congregation meetings with his wife, Cynthia, during a period when so many other GB members had a reputation for almost never going to their congregation meetings, or out in field service. As far as I remember, this upbeat, kind and smiling attitude does not fit what he is describing.]
 
p.169-170 describes another problem R.Franz points out in the way that the change was described. The points that were left out of the 1990 Watchtower would seem very dishonest, based on the information described above. I just read the article in the Watchtower and I think he is correct on this point. I can't see it any other way. 
 
It may be noted that, after nearly a half century of holding the status of a “cultural” organization in Mexico, the Watch Tower organization finally changed to that of a religious organization. The Watchtower magazine of January 1, 1990 (page 7) announced that a “change of the status” of Jehovah’s Witnesses had taken place in 1989. It described the Mexican Witnesses as for the first time being able to use the Bible when going from house to house, and for the first time being able to open meetings with prayer. The magazine described how “thrilling” this change was to Mexican Witnesses and that it brought “tears of joy” to them. It attributed an immediate jump in “publishers” by over 17,000 to this change. The article told the reader absolutely nothing as to what the previous status had been, why it prevailed, or how the change in status came about. Anyone reading the article would assume that the change in status, with the benefits described, was something the organization had wanted all along. From reading the article one would assume that it was the government of Mexico or its laws that had till now prevented the Witnesses from praying at meetings or using the Bible in their door-to-door activity. It never told the reader that the reason the Mexican Witnesses were deprived of these things—for at least a half century—was because their own headquarters organization chose to have it so, voluntarily opted in favor of another status. It did not tell the reader that these “thrilling” changes that brought “tears of joy” had been available all along, for many decades, requiring only an organizational decision to abandon its pretense that the Witness organization in Mexico was not a religious organization but a “cultural” one. The only reason the Mexican Witnesses had not engaged in these things before was because the headquarters organization instructed them not to do so, in order to protect the status chosen of a “cultural” organization. These are facts known by those in responsible positions in the Mexican Witness organization. They are not known by the vast majority of Witnesses outside that country and the January 1, 1990, Watchtower let them remain in the dark on the subject. It presented a “sanitized” picture of the occurrence, one that was as misleading as the pre-1989 practice of pretending to be something other than a religious organization while knowing full well that they were.
 
As more recent articles both in the July 22, 1994 Awake! and in the 1995 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses show, the Watch Tower organization’s willingness to abandon its decades-long pretense was connected with the amendments to the Mexican constitution that have been progressively adopted by the legislative bodies there. The Yearbook (page 212) acknowledges that ownership of property was a factor in the decision to adopt the pretense of being—not a religious organization—but a civil society back in 1943, resulting in replacing the term “congregation” with “company,” calling meeting places “Halls for Cultural Studies,” eliminating audible prayers and “every appearance of a religious service” at meetings there, as well as avoiding “direct use of the Bible” in their door-to-door activity. It states (pages 232, 233) that in the 1980s the organization came under increasing governmental pressure. It acknowledges (page 249) that from December 1988 “one could foresee that there would be a change in policy regarding religion. The conclusion was drawn that it would be advantageous from the standpoint of relations with the government to come out into the open, dropping the pretense of not being a religious organization, and that this was subsequently done in 1989 with Governing Body permission. Under new constitutional amendments, churches were once again allowed to own buildings and property. This was true not only of the Catholic Church but of all denominations.” In view of all this, the evidence is that the opting for a change in status by the Watch Tower organization was made, not primarily because of concern over spiritual issues and principles, but for pragmatic reasons.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.