JW Insider

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

Not a clue.

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

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

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

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

12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

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

1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

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

16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Where did you meet?

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

PART 4 of 4:

[Refer back to photocopies in PART 3 of 4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

". . . we have no objection."

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

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

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

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

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

23 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

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

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

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

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

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

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

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

7 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

In the meantime, you've wasted 2 pages of your worthless opinion on this matter.

Even worse! I wasted two pages of R.Franz' opinion on this matter. When I said that PART 2 was mostly commentary on the PART 1 photocopies, I was referring to the commentary R.Franz had included in his book. Only about one sentence [that I bracketed] was my own worthless opinion. The reason I was summarizing the words of R.Franz was to avoid too much direct quotation of R.Franz, lest someone would take offense at the idea of quoting an apostate. Then you subsequently quoted him at length, so I have decided that it's probably for the best that I quote him, too.

Besides, your only good points included the idea that Ray Franz had equated the two situations in the two different countries (which he hadn't according to the very words you quoted from him).

The only other good point you made was that R.Franz had called it a "political" card and that this was proof that he didn't realize that it was a "loyalty" card. But your point was pretty thoroughly discredited when it was pointed out that R.Franz himself had said that the card was really about "loyalty" to the corrupt President Banda.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

I'm still waiting where the Watchtower orchestrated this scheme or endorsed such action.

Why would you wait for that? The point is only that the Watchtower left it up to individual consciences for persons in Mexico, and said that they didn't want' to dictate their conscience. Then for the situation of "alternative service" in other places, and the buying of a 25 cent political/loyalty card in Malawi they made it clear that things like this should never be left up an individual's conscience. In the Dominican Republic and Latin American countries where the same type of situation occurred ---and where the Watch Tower Society has already admitted that similar bribes can be paid to avoid military service--- there were brothers who were serving multiple prison sentences. So, I don't think it was "racism," but something specific about the situation in Mexico. (Trying to figure out if there is any evidence that could lead us to the real reason why this occurred in Mexico, and yet the same principles were not applied in Malawi or other some other Latin American countries, well, that is the point of wasting all this space on worthless opinion, in my opinion.)

PART 3 of 4: [edited: PART 3 of 6]

[Note that the last segment of photocopies included a Mexican Branch letter from 1960, and a Society HQ response from 1960, then included 2 pages from another Mexican Branch letter from 1969 and a 1 page response from the Society's Brooklyn HQ in 1969. The last photocopy shown was an additional portion of the more current 1978 Mexican Branch letter that put all these materials together due to additional questions from brothers whose conscience was disturbed, and due to additional threats and promises from Mexican officials that the illegal bribery practice will be dealt with shortly.]

p.153: The June 2, 1960 letter from the Society in response to the February 1960 letter from the Branch to Knorr indicates that these bribes (called "money transactions") are OK because it's:

• no worse than what's done in other Latin American countries
• paying the bribe allows for freedom for theocratic activities
• it's the responsibility of the bribe-taking officials representing the nation, not the bribe-giving JW
• the bribe is not going to the military establishment but is pocketed by the person taking the bribe
• the brothers offering the bribes are using their own conscience to obtain continued freedom
• it's OK to let this smaller thing pass, as they can prove faithful in the larger test, when and if they were called upon real military situation  [Added comment: Note that this is the opposite of: (Luke 16:10) "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."]

But the same letter from the Society warns them:

• they are on their own if they get caught or get into trouble
• there will be no help from the Society if that happens
• if any brothers were to follow through on the commitment and support of the military that the card implies, then these brothers will be dealt with for lack of Christian neutrality.

p.155: For this portion, it is so central to the point R.Franz wishes to make, three or four full paragraphs will be quoted verbatim:

This will probably take three or four postings so let's consider this PART 2 of 4 [edited: PART 2 of 6]. This part is mostly commentary on what was already presented in the photocopies in PART 1.

p.149-153: RF presented the photocopy evidence from the Branch Committee in Mexico who were still questioning the position that the Organization had taken, and asking for clarification. [Most of the photocopy evidence was already presented in PART 1.]

p.149 summary excerpts from Mexico Branch: "...although the law prohibits the military or members of the Draft Office to make out "Cartillas" by illegal means, such as payment, the great majority of the officials violate these laws. . . . Almost any person, under any pretext, can . . . pay an official . . . so that the document is given to them correctly legalized [completed/"liberated"]. In Mexico this is very common."

p.150-1  [It appears that the reason the Branch Committee wants a clarification in 1978 is because the illegal bribery situation now appears to be on more dangerous ground in the previous few months, and they have been following instructions from Brooklyn that have not been updated for nearly 20 years.] The Branch references an updated 1977 Mexican law, and quotes a new recent threat from the military on May 5, 1978 where this law is now going to be enforced, announcing to 100,000 draftees in front of the Mexican President, that "the army will not tolerate illegal operations to obtain Military Service 'Cartilla' . . . . so that in brief period of time the . . . unlawfulness will be eradicated . . . to obtain their 'Cartillas.' " The Branch admits that this is illegal, but easy to do, and that the card is useful and sometimes required for employment and travel.

p.151 The Branch also admits that most of the publishers who have it, many who are now elders and circuit overseers, illegally obtained the card that claims they supported the military. Note: "Publishers who wish to obtain a 'cartilla' go to one of the Draft Boards . . . then . . . they go to someone they know with influence or directly to an official. For this they have to pay a certain amount of money (according to what may be asked). In this way the publishers obtain their 'cartilla' or the majority of them have it."

p. 152 RF was assigned to visit Mexico and Latin American countries in November 1978 [he often got these assignments because he spoke Spanish after his years as a missionary under Trujillo in Dominican Republic] and the Mexican Branch assures him they are still following the counsel and direction from Brooklyn, but that it is specifically the situation in Malawi that has caused many brothers in Mexico to "feel disturbed in their conscience." They still follow the instruction from 1960 when they had questioned the action, where they also admitted that back in 1960 that it has been the custom for publishers to pay the "bribe" and many of them are congregation servants and circuit servants. [See PART 1 for this letter to N. H. Knorr dated February 4, 1960.]

p. 153-9 The Society's responses begin in a letter dated June 2 1960 included here, attached below, along with additional communications on the matter from the Branch and the Society Headquarters through 1969:

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Please note that on each of the Governing Body's passport applications it it crystal clear that it is an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ... and that before Jehovah God they all swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" ... and WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION, AND THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES,  FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

This type of situation has always resulted in double-think (a form of NON-thinking) or, as the psychologists say, a form of "cognitive dissonance."

*** w76 12/1 p. 712 Insight on the News ***
What Makes a Good Citizen?
● A Danish family was recently denied Canadian citizenship by the Federal Court of Appeal. Yet Mr. Justice George Addy of the court wrote that “both Appellants impressed me as being good, honest people with a deep religious faith which they translate into action in their daily lives. They are members of the movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Both he and his wife are apparently strong believers in the work ethic and have never taken advantage of the social benefits provided for in our society. . . . Their children are exceptionally clean-cut and alert and the family from all appearances is a model one.”
Then why the denial of citizenship by this very judge? “The single obstacle to a grant of citizenship,” writes Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario law faculty, was the fact that, in taking the oath of allegiance, they would not agree to participate in any war effort.

The very person who wrote this knew that in his own "Oath of Allegiance" he had promised to participate in the defense of the constitution from all enemies, both foreign, and domestic. His wife took almost the identical citizenship oath referred to in the article.

Saluting the flag is just a preamble to the more serious "pledge of allegiance" that adults will be asked to sign or affirm if they are changing citizenship or will travel outside the country. The same person who wrote this also has claimed (to others) that he is finally withdrawing himself from defending the Watchtower's position on blood, after a quarter-century of not personally believing what he was famous for strongly defending. (For that matter, Ray Franz also claims that he defended the 1914 chronology for several years after discovering it was not Biblically supported, while researching the Chronology article in the Aid Book.)

In an almost related story, I've read (never confirmed) that the reason the Society changed their views against vaccinations was because several brothers needed to travel to other countries, and vaccinations were required for travel.

@AllenSmith I appreciate the snide name-calling for reasons I stated before. It makes it easier to make a point when the other person is forced to resort to ad hominem. Caesar Augustus was a murderous dictator, as was Tiberius, yet when he or his military representatives asked for a coin with his name on it, even if that coin called him "a God" the Christian should hand over that coin. Why? Matthew 17:27 says so as not to cause a scandal or so they won't be offended. If the military representative of the murderous Tiberius Caesar, asked for your coat or impressed you into service to march with him for 1,000 paces, would you offer 2,000? Would you offer more than just your outer coat? Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't, but it shows you that Jesus wasn't asking us to judge the authorities on the basis of their specific morality or lack of bloodguilt, and he did not speak out against specific kinds of loyalty to others. But if it relates to "worship" then all Christians should have a problem. 

Another mistake you make is pretending that I think Ray Franz must be correct on this point. He was just as capable of making a mistake as any other member of the Governing Body was. I got the impression that his overall idea was that some individual Christian consciences would more easily say that the problem in Mexico was a real matter of keeping our worship pure and untainted, avoiding being a liar. And some other individual consciences would more easily say that adhering to the demands of a murderous dictator who asked for loyalty to the only party in the country, might be no different than accepting citizenship of say, Rome, another state where a murderous dictator demanded loyalty. Only if that obedience to a man conflicted with pure "worship" might there be a problem to that particular conscience. Ray Franz as much as says this here on 148:

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:

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.

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]:

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 5/26/2017 at 7:54 PM, AllenSmith said:

Wow! talk about FAKE NEWS,

This "News" was absolutely true, not fake.

But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society  had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico.

When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read.

So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.

1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

If you take a look at the four letters YHWH in the Dead Sea Scrolls , they are FOREIGN to the rest of the script both as to STYLE and also the SLANT of the letters. These are in PALEO Hebrew an ancient alphabet prior to the Babylonian captivity. They are not in conformity with the previous written script.

Which tells me that they weren't trying to hide anything, and considered the name sacred. Someone left the space for the name to be added later, so they must have known that another scribe or a different preparatory process was going to be used when the YHWH was going to be added. Adding the name in Paleo-Script reminds me of those who feel they must use 400-year-old English (typically from 1611, KJV) when they quote from Scripture, even if the rest of their sermon or writing is in modern English.

But it also strikes the eye as something that is special, and gives them pause before pronouncing the name, just as putting the wrong vowel markings supposedly stopped the Masoretes from accidentally pronouncing the word out loud, and led them to use  the word Adonai or Elohim instead. The vowels for each of those words have been found with the YHWH in Hebrew.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you discount the apparent acrostics noted at, for example, Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7?

I should add that I have no idea whether these so-called acrostics are purposeful or not, or if they really are random or if they were put there on purpose either in the original text or a later text. I might find them problematic if we put a lot of emphasis on them, because then it would seem that we weren't using the same measure of wisdom and discretion in comparing 100 other places if these were really so special. Also, Esther seems to have one of each type. If this is something very significant, then the odds are good that these were designed on purpose. But trying to read into the differences of each type - backwards, forwards, end letters, beginning letters, and one "I am" for good measure has resulted in the same type of thinking that goes into reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, bird entrails, and zig-zagging vents and gutters in the great pyramid. Little find-a-word puzzles seem NOT to be a true reflection of the all-powerful Almighty God, Jehovah. I wouldn't put it past a later copyist, though.