Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 06, 1999 at 21:38:21 {p8g/8h8r5QhxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *My DA Letter...... posted by John W Wirtanen on November 06, 1999 at 20:10:44:
John W Wirtanen
These are irrefutable arguments that you presented.
I applaud Sunspot for acting in accordance with her/his conscience and I do not want to caste doubt upon that action. However, I do not agree with you that ideas presented are irrefutable. I believe several of her ideas are contrary to facts.
Comments about lying and the Bible indicate misperception regarding moral judgment of deception as applied in the Bible. There is more on that subject beginning with this link if you are so inclined to read it.
Comments regarding questions asked to baptismal candidates are practically judged as misrepresentative of Jesus command at Matthew 28:19,20 when in fact those questions asked have nothing whatsoever to do with that command and are not construed as that either. That is, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold that the two questions asked toward baptismal candidates are representative of that attributed to Jesus at Matthew 28:19,20. Furthermore those two questions asked are not representative of any sort of baptismal vows, as so many others have intimated. Those questions do only one thing, represent public acknowledgment that those being baptized are becoming associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses and their beliefs. It represents public acknowledgment of that acceptance, no more.
As for donations, yes, it is true that individual publishers can contribute for literature obtained at the Kingdom Hall. That does not mean they must each time. Publishers contribute what they want to and can afford, no more. Some publishers contribute only what is offered from the public. Some publishers contribute in excess of what is offered from the public. In both cases whatever publishers offer is what they can afford and want to. Why should the fact that the donation arrangement is in effect in some countries and not is others be of any more concern than other differences between branches? Should we be concerned that some branches do not allow personal magazine subscriptions and others do? Should we be concerned that some branches operate based upon their own local financial resources and others are subsidized by larger branches? I see not reason to be concerned about doing what works from locale to locale as long as what is done is legitimate.
Comments regarding interests on Kingdom Hall loans indicate misperceptions on what the Bible says about collecting interests. In the Bible collecting interest represented making a profit. Christians should not profit from their brothers neediness. Interest on Kingdom Hall notes is low and simple interest. All it does is maintain the valuation of the money, if that. No profit is intended and none is usually made. Quite often just the opposite happens.
Comments about Jimmy Swaggart are wrong in that elders were informed that the donation arrangement was enacted based upon recent (at the time) United States Supreme Court decisions regarding religious activities. At the time the it was common knowledge that the applicable rulings were those having to do with the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries (JSM). Besides what elders were told to pass on to congregations verbally they also read a letter stating the reasons for the change to a completely donation arrangement. In part that letter said, "Additionally, many have noted that secular authorities are increasingly viewing certain religious activities as commercial." (Letter dated 2/9/90 to All Congregations in the USA) That comment was offered as one compelling reason for the change.
Comments regarding filing as a friend of the court apparently do not consider it appropriate to fight for something perceived right regardless of who the defendant is. If your neighbor was a convicted thief but was on trial for murder would you just let him hang if you felt he was innocent and held exculpatory evidence? In the case of JSM the Society was not aligning itself with JSM but rather offering legal objections to a perceived misapplication of the law. It did not matter who the other defendant(s) was. It could just as well have been your or my favorite aunt. It was objection to an issue that was the point, not alliance with whomever. In this case JSM (or the favorite aunt) lost and the resulting potential tax burden was enormous. It required a change or else pay future taxes. The Society decided on the change which change is quite within the law.
Comments regarding the Society representing a "chosen channel" have a foundation. If anything were elaborated on that is the one I would have chosen. The best that Witnesses can offer is that that is what they believe based upon perceived blessings, which is pretty thin outside individual experiences.
Comments regarding God’s way as set out in the Bible versus men claiming to speak for God are also good. Certainly deciding to leave association with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society should not be construed as leaving God. I know that many JWs will take that position, but it is wrong.
I respect Sunspot’s choice and hope her all the best. I know that learning from the good news should enhance any life. My comments here are not intended as any sort of discouragement or criticism or Sunspots decision. It was a personal decision and I respect it.
Friend