JW Insider

While at Bethel my table head shared a lot of really negative stories about Brother Rutherford. I had no idea if they were correct at the time, but I listened carefully to a lot of other brothers who knew Rutherford, and I even recorded several hours of interviews with older Bethelites and some of them volunteered information about him. These tapes were for use when I traveled to other congregations to give public talks, because they made giving a public talk very easy. I had a lot of material that I could not use without editing because two of them gave a much more negative view than the publications give. The brothers and sister interviewed were F.W.Franz, Grace DeCecca, Maxwell Friend, Sam Friend, and Bert Schroeder.
 
But another side of Rutherford also shows up, not just in the interviews, but also in his own speeches and writing. Most of the brothers credit Rutherford as the one who promoted the changes made to doctrines single-handedly. He was fearless when he thought he was right. There were dozens of doctrinal changes made between 1927 and 1931, and a large number of those who were active in the organization decided to leave during that time period. But I believe that while he lost a majority for a while, he had an attitude that one brother likened to Judge Gideon, his all-time favorite Bible character. It didn't matter how many persons left the organization, if the change was the right thing to do. (Gideon went from 32,000 to 10,000 and after a final test ended up with only 300 faithful with whom he would fight the battle against Midian.)
 
With that in mind he wanted to root out "creature worship" from the organization. This was his word for the "cult of Pastor Russell" wherein people wanted to dress like him, look like him, talk like him, carry his picture, name their kids after him, etc. Rutherford did not want such a thing for himself, and knew he was the person with the "faith" to get rid of it, even if it meant the majority of Bible Students would leave. It was in effect, the "sword of Jehovah and Rutherford."
 
Also, there were very few progressive changes under Russell. Very early on they had already set a solid doctrinal course when it came to Trinity, Hell-fire, Immortal Soul, Ransom, Restitution, Salvation, Morality, Christian Character, but only a very few changes, except where these were forced upon them in the area of chronology. Rutherford, from the start, turned the Bible Students into a progressive organization that came to expect change, and that very soon would constantly looked forward positively to more changes. Naturally, he got a few things wrong, but I believe a majority of the changes reflected the Bible more accurately.
 
For example, if we were to solely give Rutherford the credit for being the author of these changes, we'd have to admit that he got the following right:
Getting rid of Pyramidology. Getting rid of Creature Worship Getting rid of almost all the complexities and methodologies of the old Barbour/Second Adventist chronology Ultimately turning a system that included 539 C.E. (not BCE) 1799, 1844, 1859, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, and 1915 into a simpler system that still included most of those dates but focused almost exclusively on just 3 or 4 dates. He put the organization on a road to a more consistent political neutrality including the view that flag salute was a form of idolatry helped true Christians see the folly of involvement in divisive wars and social movements helped Christians recognize political and religious hypocrisy He pushed for legal freedom of speech, and freedom of religion before the world was even ready for it, and these battles were hard-won. He also prompted true Christians seriously consider the relationship between national and religious holidays and their unchristian origins. He promoted the wider use of Jehovah's name Didn't hold back from using the "Old Testament" for life lessons Set an example as a strong personality, full of strong commitment, without mincing words, or pulling punches Prepared the congregations for persecution so that they were not surprised and not weakened Look at how well JWs handled persecution in many countries, not just Germany under Hitler Organized a very efficient organization in terms of ability to publicize and mobilize with the message Made use of all available technologies and venues to spread the word to large assemblies and audiences Organized for growth, envisioned and prepared for expansion Promoted practical, active Christian conduct and morality, but not the mere, quiet internalized form of worship Promoted a purpose and identity that helps Witnesses produce an international brotherhood that transcend class, nationality, and race. Lots of doctrinal specifics are left out to avoid too many off-topic doctrinal discussions, but even where disagreement exists, the bulk of most publications drove more attention to the Bible, Jesus, Jehovah, and Bible characters that we could learn from as examples in our daily lives  
And from the perspective of "executive leadership" he was both serious and successful with these changes. The numbers he lost from Russell's time were gained back again and multiplied a couple of times over before Rutherford died. Outsiders have been impressed with the levels of activity, and participation, and therefore the levels of growth and conversion over the years. Ultimately, a very strong and powerful organization has been built that rivals the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists in terms of its current size, rate of growth and stability. And those religions, for the most part, had a bit of a head start in the 19th century. It outpaces most other religions in terms of publications distributed internally, and definitely outpaces every religion when it comes to publications distributed externally. Most of the foundation for the current organization was made workable under Rutherford's watch. This has created an excellent foundation for an international brotherhood where people show love and generosity and good works toward one another and which continues to bring teachings into closer harmony with the Bible.
 

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.
As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.
Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.
You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 
Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 
What will their response be?
 

(Matthew 9:37, 38) Then he said to his disciples: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
Are we saying that the Master of the Harvest does not know when to end it? and we have to awaken him?
(Matthew 24:44)44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
We won't be able to work out when this day will come. See that Jesus said at Matthew 24:44. It will happen at a time we do not expect. Verse 36 says no man would know the day or hour (or year for that matter).  We have to be ready.  It is simple.
Jehovah God will give his Son and the angels the command to reap the harvest at the time he decides. (We must not minimize his role in it.)
(Revelation 14:14-16) 14 Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.
So whether a GB member, Bethelite, elder or whoever said it is fulfilled, it is Jehovah's harvest and he will intervene when the work is done TO HIS SATISFACTION.
 

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.

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"]

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.
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.
 

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.
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.
 

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

Me too. The address we were given was:
His Excellency the Life President of Malawi
Ngwazi Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda
Central Government Offices
Private Bag 301
Capital City
Lilongwe 3
Malawi, Central Africa
 
 Ngwazi meant "chief of chiefs" (more literally, "great lion", or, some would say, "conqueror") in Chicheŵa. (Wikipedia)

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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]:
 
 
 

"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, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.
This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.
In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.
Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)