Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Friend

  Frenchy

  You said:
  

  Do you really believe that shady dealings do not occur before public judiciaries? There is no place shadier.

  My meaning is that for the Society to go on public record is not evidence of shenaniganry. If someone want to make that claim then they must evidence it. So far on one has done that regarding the issue in question.

  You said:
  

  On the matter of the illustration I believe that you are losing the point in the details. The point is not whether I would do the work without the 'gift'. The point is what do I call the 'gift'? Is it truly a gift or is it really payment for services received.

  Whether you will do the work without receiving the gift is exactly one of the fire tests the tax man will apply. It is this simple, if you only receive the gift by completing the paint job then you can call that trade whatever you want and the tax man will still call it commerce.

  You said:
  

  Now let's look at our illustration again. Do you go out and ask people for donations unless they 'accpet' literature? . No, you don't. So what happens is that you place literature in their hands and then you tell the m you would like a donation. You ask for a donation only when literature is 'placed' with the householder just like the painter will ask for his 'gift' only if he paints the house.

  Your reasoning here is nothing but subterfuge. The real test is the same as I illustrated with the painter. If we only leave the literature for money then it might be construed as commerce. (I say might because several issues come to bear on that point that have not been addressed for our organization.) If we are willing to leave literature without charging for it then it is not commerce. It is just that simple. Here is the litmus test:

  Do we require receipt of money (or trade of any valuable) to leave literature with people? Yes / No

  If the answer is no then it is not commerce[/I]. If the answer is yes then it might[/I] be construed as commerce depending upon other circumstances.

  You said:
  

  How long do you think this distribution of literature would continue if no moneys were collected? Honestly, now. So, in effect, the collection of money is, indeed, 'part and parcel' of the literature distribution work.

  For the same amount of time as it would for any other tax exempt organization, not long.

  How long do you think the United Way could provide what it does without the collection of money? Does that make the United Way a commercial enterprise? How about the Red Cross? How about the Salvation Army? Should all those organizations be reclassified as commercial because their distribution efforts would be stymied "without the collection of money"?

  Regarding the question of pressure, have you ever solicited for United Way contributions? What do you call it when the put that brochure in your line of site—you know, the one with the crippled sad faced child on the front cover—and ask, "Can you share a few dollars a month? A few pennies per day? Can you?" Should the fact of informing persons about their donation efforts compromise their tax exempt status? Should it?

  You said:
  

  You keep quoting publications from the Society. Surely you're not taking the stuff that we print out for the public to read at face value, are you? Certainly you know the difference between what is said and what in reality is really meant, do you not? Don't tell me that you actually believe, for instance, that JW's vote?

  At least I have provided some measure of evidence for my claims on this and other threads, which is better than spouting sheer opinion. If you are implying in this instance that the Society has represented some dishonesty then I say, show your evidence! Otherwise your "Certainly you know the difference…" comment is no less than theatrical—it is an argument to the crowd.

  As for voting, a lot of JWs are registered voters. Some of them vote. Are you just going by what happens in your locale? What do you know of various voting issues in lands around the world? Who says that some of those public votes are not completely within Christian ideals? Just what do you know of these things?

  You said:
  

  Have you read this very carefully? Please note, first of all, what it does not say: It does not say:

  [Similar nonsense sniped]

  One phrase answers all that type reasoning, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

  Anything else?

  Friend
• 

  waiting

  Dear Friend, Your quote from the Kingdom Ministery quote:

  Some (publishers) have chosen to make THEIR DONATIONS at the time they pick up a literature supply. They do this because it serves as a convient REMINDER of their priveledge and responsibility to SUPPORT the world wide work REGULARLY. Others CONTRIBUTE personally at the same time they PUT IN the voluntary donations received from interested ones met in the field ministry. Many have decided to MAKE A SPECIFIC DONATION each week. Sitll others SET ASIDE AN AMOUNT for the worldwide work each month just as they do for Kingdom Hall expenses.

  WHENEVER IT IS DONE, each one HAS TO DETERMINE what he or she can personally do in support of the worldwide work. SUCH GIVING should be done in an orderly way in accord with HOW THE GIVER IS PROSPERING.

  An interesting sideline to this discussion is that the ending of the last sentence never refers to our conscience nor to our heart motivation.
  The whole paragraph is talking about giving money - and they end it with HOW THE GIVER IS PROSPERING.

  One reason I find this system is steeped in duplicity is that there are a lot of ignorant JW's who will do what the Society says. There are smart ones who will do the same. My 80 year old in-laws put their "donation in" every time they get literature. And when they get a solicitated donation from the field ministry, they are careful to put in the whole amount. And they are quick to point out that they "do their share just like we have been taught."

  That is double payment - in the form of publishers "donating" as they have been taught, and then we solicit donations from householders.

  According to someone on H20, the worldwide assoc. of JW's are all on a "donation" system now. We are paying for our literature here in the USA, then giving it to the householder, we solicit donations to the worldwide work and put it in the donation box in the KH.

  Are the brothers who are struggling in the poor Third World told to do the same? I do not agree with this practice. The Society gets our money to pay for the literature - then we ask for donations from the strangers at the door, and they get this also.

  Quite a good system for collecting money, huh?
• 

  Frenchy

  Friend: I won't be replying to your posts for reasons stated on the "What is an Amicus brief" thread.

  waiting: That is exactly what is happening. The C.O.'s come around and 'push' this to the elders who in turn get on the platform and brow beat the publishers. This is the self same tactic that was used in the 1975 business. They printed just enought to support what was verbally communicated by the traveling brothers and in such a way as to be able to back out of it by pointing to the literature and screaming "We didn't say that!"

  There are two sets of rules. The ones stated in the literature and the ones that those written rules really represent.
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  Your concerns are valid. And French is also correct in that some overseers (local and traveling) do push the envelope on what is expected regarding contributions.

  In reality the real life situation varies from congregation to congregation. How should the Society manage that? Typically a large organization does this by means of direct correspondence to its members—in this case the Society to congregation publishers via letters read to them and posted. The most an organization can do is try to educate its members on what is expected and needed. In this case, as has been pointed out, money is needed to continue. Telling members otherwise would be dishonest. As for insisting that publishers contribute for literature, the Society has told publishers to do this according to how they are prospering. What’s wrong with that?

  When we run into that overseer that wants to push some other ideas upon us then, in this case, all we need do is remind them of what the Society has told us in writing. Ask them, Has the Society changed its policy? Let them speak for themselves. As for the Society receiving double, the numbers do not indicate that. In most congregations overall donations to the Society have dwindled since the “complete donation arrangement” went into effect.

  Frenchy

  Yes, I read your comments on that other thread. Hopefully you will accept what I said in reply. Following is a link to that thread.

  [url]www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=267&site=3[/url]

  Friend
• 

  waiting

  Dear Friend, Where, exactly, are you that "A lot of JW's are registered voters. Some friends vote." I sure would like to know this to point out to our elders (I've always thought the Democrats were kinda cool the way they fight and stuff.)

  Where are you getting your figures on the amount of money for literature and for donations? Please share with us? I don't think this is the pertinent argument to this thread, however.

  It does not matter if we ask and receive a donation from the householder or whether they take literature or not. We have been instructed through our Kingdom Ministery - and in our congregation repeatedly been told from the platform - that the publisher is to donate to cover the costs of the magazines, etc.

  Then we have been taught, exactly how by demonstrations, to ask for donations from strangers and to deposit this whole amount into contribution box.

  It is receiving money from the publisher and solicitation of money from strangers. I am not saying it is wrong, shady, illegal, whatever.

  I am saying it is double payment and those less fortunate than us (and there are millions)will not see the double payment - just like we didn't for a long time.

  You said in a previous post to Frenchy that you had provided "at least some evidence of my claims on this and other threads, which is better than spouting sheer opinion." I've come to realize that you qualify your words quite carefully. But I've asked for voting information and for statistics, could you please supply the evidence?

  I've also come to realize that in your qualifying your, and our, words, that sometimes you are not presenting a different viewpoint - just wanting us to qualify our words properly. I fully agree that JW rank and file are notorious for not qualifying their wording - listen to any Watchtower study. The difference here is that on the computer we're corrected - in our KH - normally, we're not.
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  Where, exactly, are you that "A lot of JW's are registered voters. Some friends vote." I sure would like to know this to point out to our elders (I've always thought the Democrats were kinda cool the way they fight and stuff.)

  My location is immaterial. As for whether any JWs are registered voters, many government jobs require that the person be a registered voter as a condition of employment. For example, in the United States you will find that true for jobs working for the post office (at least it was last I checked a few years back). Brothers holding such jobs are registered voters.

  As for actually voting, my only evidence is no more than my own experience. In some lands various friends have voted on issues that are non-political (at least not overtly political). An example has to do with a referendum on whether to tax money to build a new school or renovate an older one or neither. Usually participants must be registered voters in the subject district. Friends have voted in such situation in the past and the Society is unconcerned about it. The most recent Watchtower about voting indicates that voting may perhaps be tolerable under other more political situations.

  Where are you getting your figures on the amount of money for literature and for donations? Please share with us? I don't think this is the pertinent argument to this thread, however.

  I’m sure that Frenchy can verify that the Society has sent letters to congregation expressing that donations are significantly down since the “complete donation arrangement” went into effect.

  Your other points I have already dealt with. The notion of double donations is absurd when you consider that some publishers may not put anything into the coffer until after receiving (or not) donations from the field. Additionally, considering that donations are down and literature publishing is up, it is not hard to realize that double donation is not happening.

  Friend
• 

  waiting

  Well, thank you, Friend,

  I had just given you a complement on "qualifying our wording" and you go and disqualify yourself.

  You said that some friends voted. You did not qualify what type of voting they were voting on.

  That's not playing fair - given the tone of the questions from readers discussion - I would naturally assume that we were talking about national voting. I assumed wrong - but you were ambiguious in your wording - and you have counseled me of that very transaction before.

  And, yes, if JW's are voting somewhere on national elections - I sure would like to know where. You had told Frenchy to produce some evidence - where's yours.

  As for the matter of producing evidence of financial matters, you want Frenchy to produce evidence for your discussion that contributions are down. I did not ask him - he did not make the statement. You made the statement, and I am asking for your evidence. Seems logical.

  The point of double payment is not absurd, in my ignorant opinion. I have respectfully argued this point with my PO, and he finally said, "That's what the Society said to do - and that's what we should do."

  You say, and rightly so, that some publishers do not donate at all. That is their right and circumstances, just as the KM article brought out. Are you suggesting that those who do pay are covering the cost for those who don't pay? Well, then the Society should spell it out for us so we can make up our own minds.

  I just felt it was proper for the publisher to take out of the solicited donations from strangers the cost of the magazines the publisher had already donated for. Still makes sense to me. Rather like that often quoted thought, "Let each one do what his heart determines." How can we determine if we do not know?

  Why is this not done?

  BTW, your educational background and job description was missing from your post. Are you going to share with us so that we can then say, "Ah, he's a lawyer, he knows about this stuff." Or, "Ah, he's a paralegal with many years of experience, he's knows probably more than most lawyers."

  Please enlighten us.
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  And, yes, if JW's are voting somewhere on national elections - I sure would like to know where. You had told Frenchy to produce some evidence - where's yours.

  I said nothing of national elections, though that is now a debatable option. Otherwise, as I said, my evidence is mostly anecdotal.

  As for the matter of producing evidence of financial matters, you want Frenchy to produce evidence for your discussion that contributions are down.

  I said it is found in letters received. One such letter dated 9/6/91 (after the CDA) states:

  "There has been in the United States a significant decline in donations toward the Society’s worldwide work."

  Between January of 1990 and January of 1991 it was fairly common for a congregation’s overall donation to the Society for literature and magazines to be down about 35-50%. That is what the Society’s letter was referring to.

  You say, and rightly so, that some publishers do not donate at all. That is their right and circumstances, just as the KM article brought out. Are you suggesting that those who do pay are covering the cost for those who don't pay? Well, then the Society should spell it out for us so we can make up our own minds.

  Yes, as you say, "that is their right." As far as the Society’s literature goes, the Society afforded that right. As for those that do contribute, yes, the Society has explained on several occasions that the "equalizing" principle is at work in this situation. (See 2 Cor. 8:14; Please note the referencing of that text in the km 10/91 page 7.)

  BTW, your educational background and job description was missing from your post. Are you going to share with us so that we can then say, "Ah, he's a lawyer, he knows about this stuff." Or, "Ah, he's a paralegal with many years of experience, he's knows probably more than most lawyers."

  Yes, it was missing. I said, "I do not intend upon doing that…" My reasons were given. Just consider me a friend. You can weigh the evidences I produce for whatever they are worth.

  Friend
• 

  Lark

  I was just thinking; What's the difference between helping to fight this tax in court and voting in an election. It all seems like a political agenda to me. And I thought JWs stayed out of politics at all costs.

  Lark
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Lark,

  You have again reiterated my feelings on the subject, although I stated it somewhat differently.

  JW's are presumably supposed to stay free of politics. JW's are no part of this world. JW's support only Jehovah's rule. UNLESS something comes along that may financially affect the Society, then all bets are off.

  Don't get your shorts in a knot, Friend, this is just my opinion, and in my opinion, the Society engages in an awful lot of doublespeak.