by ThomasCovenant 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi
Am I correct in saying that in countries with conscription, JW's used to have to refuse alternative service provided by the state for conscientious objectors? Thus usually resulting in imprisonment.
Has this policy of not accepting alternative service changed?
If so could someone be so kind as to provide WT quotes.
Thanks in advance.
Thomas Covenant
Yes they can and this is another good example of how the Slobbering Body members' inability to "reason from the scriptures", has screwed over tens of thousands of JWs for the past 60 years. Originally, Charles Russell saw no problem either with entering the military or accepting alternative military service:
"...If, therefore we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare ... we should request to be assigned ... to some other non-combatant place of usefulness."-----Watchtower 1898 July 1 p. 2332
"(There is) no command in the Scriptures against military service."-----Watchtower 1898 August 1 p. 2345
Then along came Brother Drunkel Rutherfraud who forbade even alternative military service, probably because he wanted the JWs to appear "different" or "more righteous" than other groups who did accept alternative service. This warped doctrine stayed in place for 60 years as they continued to try and justify it:
"On March 26, 1971 three representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses [in The Netherlands] met with a forum representing the ministries of defence and Justice... One of the points of discussion presented by the forum was this: "That you wish no part in performing military service is clear and needs no further explanation. But what really is your objection to civil, alternative service?" The Witnesses explained that it is not that they are opposed to civil service as such, but rather, it is a matter of strict neutrality. Therefore any work that is merely a substitute for military service would be unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses. Other questions narrowed the issue down still further. "When a person objects to military service," the government's servants declared, "he passes from military jurisdiction on to civilian jurisdiction and from that moment has nothing at all to do with the military. Why, then, is accepting of such civil service still so ojectionable?"
Willingly accepting such work is objectionable to the Christian because of what God's law says about the matter: "you were bought with a price: stop becoming slaves of men." 1 Cor. 7:23 Civilian servitude as a substitute for military service would be objectionable to the Christian. In effect he would thereby become a part of the world instead of keeping separate as Jesus commanded.:---Awake! 1974 December 8 p. 23
"An examination of the historical facts shows that not only have Jehovah's Witnesses refused to put on military uniforms and take up arms but, during the past half century and more, they have also declined to do non-combatant service or to accept other work assignments as a substitute for military service."----United in Worship of the Only True God 1983 p. 167
"when Caesar demanded to have God's things, they acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and Acts 5:29. Whether the issue was shedding blood, non-combatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were executed because of this stand, Matthew 24:9; Revelation 2:10.----- Watchtower 1986 September 1 p. 20
Alas, in 1996, the goons in charge got new and improved light where alternative service was now a conscience matter:
What, though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national service under a civilian administration? Here again, Christians must make their own decisions based on an informed conscience... What if the Christian's honest answers to such questions leads him to conclude that the national civilian service is a "good work" that he can perform in obedience to the authorities? This is his decision before Jehovah. Appointed elders and others should fully respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing."-----Watchtower 1996 May 1 p. 20.
The WTS ban on alternative service had been enforced for about 60 years by threat of disfellowshipping anyone who disobeyed. The ban caused thousands of Witnesses to go to prison---sometimes for years and caused the death of some as noted above. As per usual, the Governing Body members refused to accept responsibility for f**king so many people's lives up and once again basically told those who were bitching and complaining to just suck it up:
"In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in an activity that their conscience now might permit. For example, this might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel that he could conscientiously perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present system of things.
Was it unrighteous on Jehovah's part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he might do without consequences... What reason could anyone have to regret having followed his conscience in taking a firm stand for Jehovah? By loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to prodding of conscience they proved worthy of Jehovah's friendship. Certainly, it is wise to avoid a course that would disturb one's conscience...
In modern times, there have been some Witnesses who were very strict in their view of what they would or would not do. For that reason they suffered more than others. Later, increased knowledge helped them to expand their view of matters. But they have no reason to regret having earlier acted in harmony with their conscience even when this possibly brought extra suffering. It truly is commendable that they demonstrated their willingness to suffer in faithfulness to Jehovah."-----Watchtower 1998 August 15 p. 17
The above shows that they put the blame solely onto the JWs themselves (as though they actually had any say in the matter) as well as blame Jehovah himself. Everyone was to blame except the assholes who actually enforced this doctrine.
If you live in Mexico there seams to be a different arrangment.
KT
Ray Franz's books provide many details on this subject.
TC:
"Year after year, hundreds of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested, tried, and imprisioned - because one individual on a religious council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ." [ISOCF, p. 269] | |
A point from another thread that needs to be emphasized, IMHO. A two-thirds majority was lost because ONE member of the GB changed his mind. CC | |
