Christians and War and the Role of Conscience
______________
Christian Integrity vs duty to Superior Authority
From the Federal Government’s POV
The U.S. Government saw JW’s as one group within a larger group of men refusing military service within existing law - for reasons of deeply held convictions.
We JW Brothers weren’t the only ones affected, as evidenced by this list.
Quakers
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Mennonites
Amish
Church of the Brethren
Moravians
Hutterites
German Baptist Brethren
Shakers
Conservative Mennonites
Catholic Workers
War Resisters League
South African conscientious objectors during apartheid
Jewish war resisters of the Vietnam War
Muslim conscientious objectors in the U.S. military
Buddhist conscientious objectors in the Korean War
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **
Seventh-day Adventists / Church of the Brethren
**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, officially declared its opposition to military service in 1862. The church leadership declared that its members would not serve in any military capacity, including voluntary service. Instead, they’d be “neutral”.
The Federal government conducted the following analysis.
I located these documents online in the President Gerald Ford Library of records.
To the government analysts, we were an odd group of ages, races, and psychological types, each with unique motivations.
SEE BELOW
Read on…
Federal authority saw JWs of our generation as seemingly ‘going beyond’ a reasonable provision of Draft Law for people of conscience.
JWs asked for 2 exemptions instead of the 1 offered by Federal Authority
1. Exemption from Military Service
2. Exemption from Alternate Civilian Service.
This peeved legal authorities as reflected in sentencing severity.
JW boys didn’t accept the alternative offered by Caesar and suffered incarceration entirely because of that 2nd refusal of Alternate Service provision.
Without thinking much about it - don’t most of us only state that 1st refusal and ignore
the 2nd refusal as the actual reason for imprisonment?
(Excerpted from Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum:) https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0193/18558946.pdf
________
What follows is:
A Transcript from National Public Radio:
They prosecuted how many JWs? 4,500 because we weren’t opposed to ALL wars (Armageddon) plus, we Double-refused in avoiding hospital work as a civilian.
JW’s double-refusal of civilian alternatives
WHAT WAS IT ABOUT HOSPITAL WORK as ALTERNATIVE we rejected?
The Selective Service System was responsible for the administration of the National Service Program, which allowed individuals to complete their alternative service obligations in a civilian capacity.
Sources:
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/conscientious-objection
https://www.archives.gov/research/selective-service/alternative-service
There was nothing “Military” involved - everything was Civilian authority.
Point of Order
It was not a matter of “conscience” (i.e. personal internal deciding) for Jehovah’s Witness boys.
We accepted one authority (faithful slave) above another authority (Superior Authority). We were influenced by our local congregation leaders, our governing body directives passed on to us. I personally was told never to mention ANY influence as having come from Watchtower leaders.
While we complied with governing body policy in our day - let’s remind ourselves of the “New” policy in our present day:
It is the exact opposite of the policy of the governing body in our time period of the 60s and early 70s. Take SPECIAL NOTE of the use of the word: Conscience in the policy statement.
Apparently, the Faithful Slave can now see “Alternate Service” as a “meaningful contribution to society” rather than a compromise of integrity.
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS TURNAROUND, we must go back in time.
The Early Christian community under Roman authority faced extreme persecution until Pagan Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity and insisted on UNITY within a widely disagreeable, grumbling, opinionated mix of Christians arguing among themselves. (The apostles are now long deceased.)
Throughout the Empire, the Emperor gave the summons to all Christian leaders, forcing them to sit down and work things out at the Nicene Council in 325 C.E. then, squeezing out dissenters.
From this effort, a kind of policy statement or Apostle’s Creed got hammered out.
A Universal Church was born. (Note: the word “Catholic” means universal.)
___________________________________________________________________________
LEGACY of CONSTANTINE on Christian Anti-Military View
"With the accession of Constantine to power, the Church as a whole definitely gave up her anti-military leanings, abandoned all her scruples, finally adopted the imperial point of view, and treated the ethical problem involved as a closed question. Allowing for a little exaggeration, this is broadly speaking true.” [Cadoux: The Early Church and the World, pp. 588-589.]
When the Church is the same as the State (theocracy), what clash can a man of conscience suffer? Saint Augustine’s Just War Theory provided the foundation for avoiding conflicts in conscience.
Who was Augustine, and what is his Just War Theory that changed the minds of Christians?
[Augustine was a scholar and founder of the doctrine of original sin, which became an important part of the Catholic faith. Augustine's influential writings shaped early Christian thought, such as his book The City of God.]
In his book, The City of God, Augustine explained his thesis
Augustine insists there is no "private right" to kill for personal reasons and no private right to refuse to kill under Government Rule for private reasons.
One can kill only under the authority of God, as communicated by direct or implicit command from God, or by a legitimate ruler (Superior Authority) who carries out God's intent to restrain evil on earth. Augustine further suggests that one who obeys such a command "does not himself do the killing."
The Christian acts only as an instrument of the one who commands. (As in the days of Joshua, when entire populations were destroyed at the command of Joshua speaking on behalf of Jehovah).
It was not a matter of a personal yes or no decision of conscience.
Christians: (“We were only following orders.”)
Augustine concludes, "The commandment forbidding killing is not broken by those who have waged wars under the authorization of God, or those who have imposed the death penalty on criminals when representing the authority of the state, the most just and most reasonable source of power."
There was no such thing as a ‘Christian conscience’ in a Theocracy. That is - until LUTHER!
A Catholic monk, Martin Luther, protested against corruption in church authority and split the unity of “Christianity” into fragments for reasons of “conscience questioning authority.”
Protesting catholics had reasoned, “If the Catholic Church has no authority to declare the Just War—on what basis could conscientious Protestants now engage in military action?
Historical Christianity now shattered! Protesting (Protestants) faced “every man for himself.”
It took 30 years of bloody fighting to grapple with it. The “Christian conscience” was born.
Christianity was no longer a united Church deciding on behalf of Christians.
Each separate Protestant religious movement had its own governing body.
What is SUBJECTION TO SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES (Romans 13:1)?
Bible Students (forerunners of the later Jehovah’s Witnesses) asserted the belief that the “higher powers,” or “superior authorities,” were the governmental rulers of this world.
All major Protestant and Catholic Christian denominations agreed.
By divine permission, secular authority is the temporal master or Caesar because Jehovah declares it to be His arrangement until He turns it over to His Son, Jesus.
However, a Christian could not serve two masters.
He must obey God as ruler rather than men.
That was the sole exception to the rule.
It proved to be very tricky!
If any Christian exercised his personal CONSCIENCE by reading his Bible alone prayerfully,
whatever he decided was between himself and God alone.
But if he listened to his pastor or a governing body of humans, WHAT THEN?
Was he obeying GOD or MEN?
On the basis of their understanding (at the time), the Bible Students in Pastor Russell’s time concluded that any Christian drafted in time of war would have to serve in the army, don a uniform and go off to battle.
Why? Romans 13: 1,2 granted the human government its authority over Christians in time of war.
But it was morally advisable that, when it came time to actually kill a fellow man, the Christian soldier could only shoot in the air instead!
Why?
The idea of killing even under the Authority of Caesar troubled these particular Christians.
Why?
Was it personal conscience over-riding obedience to the Superior Authority?
Or was it Pastor Russell’s opinion as the “mouthpiece” of Jehovah?
It was Pastor Russell’s view, and those who believed him to be Jehovah’s mouthpiece simply obeyed as servants fed from Jehovah’s table of Truth.
[1886 Higher Powers: In Volume I of Studies in the Scriptures] released by Russell the "Higher Powers" of Romans 13 are identified as human government (p. 266).
"If, therefore, we’re drafted, and if the government refuses to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare (as they have heretofore done with 'Friends,' called Quakers); we should request to be assigned to the hospital service or to the Commissary department or to some other non-combatant place of usefulness, and such requests would no doubt be granted.
If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy, but need not shoot anybody."
(Zion's Watch Tower, 1 July 1898, p. 204).
"Obedience to the laws of the land might at some time oblige us to bear arms, and in such event, it would be our duty to go into the army, if unable in any legal and proper manner to obtain an exemption, but it would not be our duty to volunteer.
We are soldiers in another army, which battles not with carnal weapons, and whose contests are from an entirely different standpoint and in an entirely different spirit.
There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army. [Note: Russell is speaking corporately, as though human conscience is a collective and not a singular intellect]
Wherever we would go we could take the Lord with us, the Captain of our salvation, and wherever we would go we could find opportunities to serve him and his cause.
If it came to the point of battling, we above all would be obliged to draw the line when commanded to fire, and we could not, in harmony with the divine program, fire upon a fellow creature with the intention of taking his life. If we fired we should be obliged to fire either into the air or into the ground…
The governor of the state has the right, under the laws, to call for and to conscript, if necessary, soldiers for the defense of the state and of the nation; and if such requisition is enforced upon us we must render our dues and take our share in the trials and difficulties of the service, whatever they may be." [Zion's Watch Tower, 15 April 1903, p. 120]
What set I.B.S.A. (International Bible Student Association) policy at odds with other denominations soon began with Brother Rutherford’s campaign of preaching and publishing condemnation against Superior Authorities!
He was not neutral about these matters.
Brother Rutherford was very confident. WHY?
After Pastor Russell died, it was stated that he was still directing the work from heaven!
"Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work." The Finished Mystery (1917) p.144.
Pastor Russell wrote:
"October 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." Watch Tower 1911 Jun 15 p.190 reprints p.4842
Here is a checklist of Brother Russell’s teachings as Jehovah’s “mouthpiece.”
The Last Days began 1799
Jesus Parousia started 1874
Jesus started ruling in heaven in 1878
The Gentile Times would end in 1914, resulting in the:
end at Armageddon
fall of false religion
end of all earthly governments
heavenly and earthly resurrections
paradise on earth
Those who trusted Pastor Russell (not as the man) but as the “mouthpiece” listened to his teachings and believed his detailed predictions,
but they soon became disappointed, confused; then - divided off
into either dissent or a “wait and see” expectation.
Christian unity suffered.
Brother Russell’s successor, J.F. Rutherford, took the view of it being a case of only slightly in error and kept pushing the impending END into the very near future again and again. (Wrong each time.)
"What should we expect to take place? The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."
[Millions Now Living Will Never Die! p.88]
The Watchtower Society, led by Bro Rutherford went full-tilt confrontational with a combination of
(what were termed) anti-patriotic writings, letters to soldiers, distribution of anti-war propaganda to military facilities, and a non-compliant attitude toward government, politics, commerce, and fellow Christians of other faiths to put the world on notice, this religious leader was spoiling for a fight!
He was anything but neutral in his disposition.
How could Rutherford now go against the Superior Authority?
Wasn’t he violating Romans 13?
It is important in our look back in history to be honest with ourselves about personal ideas published and taught as THE TRUTH by Christian leaders over a long span of history. Time itself tests what is taught as either true and prophetic or wrong-headed and requiring adjustments.
Brother Rutherford was speaking from his own POV. but the Bible Students saw him as representing Jehovah’s and Jesus’ authority [in the same “mouthpiece” relationship] as ‘faithful slave’.
This conviction placed them in a precarious course of submission by going along with Rutherford’s inflammatory preaching, as evidenced by considerable persecution that soon followed.
Rutherford’s published words were bold, confident, and convincing. In fact, he mocks the clergy for following Romans 13!
He singles out the clergy for contempt because they are obeying Romans 13: 1,2 and following the JUST WAR principle of St. Augustine. Rutherford called it “satanic.”
"As a class, according to the scriptures, the clergymen are the most reprehensible men on earth for the Great War that is now afflicting mankind. For 1,500 years they have taught the people the satanic doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule. They have mixed politics and religion, church and state; have proved disloyal to their God-given privilege of proclaiming the message of Messiah's kingdom, and have given themselves over to encouraging the rulers to believe that the king reigns by divine right, and therefore whatsoever he does is right." Ambitious kings of Europe armed for war, because they desired to grab the territory of the other peoples; and the clergy patted them on the back and said: 'Go to it, you can do no wrong; whatsoever you do is all right.'"
General Bell of Long Island visited Rutherford to get his followers to submit to military service. Rutherford refused to do so. He wrote personal letters of advice to Bible students in the camps advising them not to don a uniform nor do anything even closely connected to the military.
These letters were intercepted by the censors.
All these factors added up to considerable opposition to the Bible students by the authorities.
[Tony Wills, in A People For His Name (pg 100)]
Rutherford was obstructing Caesar and directly influencing young Christian boys and directing them personally, fully willing to do so even if it meant their death in following his instructions.
Ten years after release from prison:
1929 Bro. Rutherford CHANGES interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2:
Bro. Rutherford flipped the script
PREVIOUSLY Up until 1929 Brother Rutherford held the opposite interpretation:
NOTE: Every subsequent persecution that happened to the brothers in WWII that landed them in jails, prison camps, and in courts directly flowed from the firm conviction Brother Rutherford was speaking FOR Christ and Jehovah in confronting secular authorities and refusing to follow the law of the land.
However, Brother Rutherford’s “authority” to change the meaning of that scripture came to a halt 20 years after his death. Brothers Nathan Knorr and Fredrick Franz aborted it.
1962 Returned to the PREVIOUS interpretation (“adjustment”)
In 1962, Rutherford’s successor, Nathan Knorr, quietly changed (the previously changed) interpretation about Superior Authority back to what it had always been before.
Brother Rutherford asserted authority to change the scripture interpretation in the name of Jehovah’s spirit-led guidance as ‘faithful and discreet slave” flipping a light switch.
Light on (Russell classic interpretation)
Light off (Rutherford interpretation),
Light back on again (Knorr and Franz interpretation).
Sola Scriptura had opened the door for this sort of personal interpretation - had it not?
We can better understand the role of personal conscience by considering the Boereans.
Boereans were mainly fishers, tax collectors, and other tradespeople who were followers of the ministry of Jesus. Jewish leaders regarded them as lower social standing and looked down upon them.
The Apostle Paul’s 2nd tour of Macedonia brought him in contact with them.
When Paul taught “new” things they hadn’t previously heard before, what did they do?
They "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
This is an example of Christian conscience.
They didn’t automatically obey Paul as a divinely appointed Apostle, but only as a teacher who was provisionally either conforming to scriptures or not. This is Martin Luther’s ‘sola scriptura’.
PASTOR RUSSELL was against this! Every one of his successors followed suit.
CATHOLIC AUTHORITY versus SOLA SCRIPTURA.
Applying Martin Luther’s Boerean principle of “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone), Protestants fell into the crisis of conscience. Christians were no longer unified by ONE central authority of the Pope.
“Luther's” teaching holds that the Bible is the only infallible and authoritative source of religious truth. This teaching is based on Luther's belief that the Bible is the only true authority in matters of faith and practice, and that all doctrines and teachings must be taken from Scripture alone.
[Eventually] Superior Authorities changed the Law to make room for Conscience
CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE in AMERICA
The first national effort at conscripting young men for war came in March 1863 after two years of the Civil War. Congress made it legal for any conscript to find a substitute combatant or pay a fine of $300 to commute his obligation. ($300 in 1863 dollars would be worth: $5,555.56 in today’s money.)
Northern states under Federal law amended previous provisions so as to recognize only those conscientious objectors who were members of religious denominations whose rules and articles of faith prohibited armed service. This was in order to discourage the ad hoc profession of religious pacifism.
In the Confederacy, the draft law of 1862 exempted Quakers, Mennonites, Brethren, and Nazarenes, with the understanding that they would either hire a substitute or pay $500.
($500 in 1862 dollars would be worth: $11,627.91 in today’s money.)
______________________________
Conscientious Objectors badly MISTREATED
These conditions were clearly unsatisfactory and many C.O.s could either not meet the monetary demand or would refuse to hire someone who might kill in their stead. The conscientious objector often found himself moved to camps in states where no one knew of him or his good reputation, in the hands of military officers who had little or no sympathy for his scruples.
For the first time, there are records of C.O.s who were tortured, hanged by their thumbs, or pierced by bayonets for refusing to carry a musket; many others were imprisoned.
Some C.O.s joined the army as cooks and/or would shoot over the heads of the enemy rather than kill them. Others, such as Mennonites in Virginia, hid out in the hills until the war was over.
(Source: Conscience in America: A Documentary History of Conscientious Objection in America, 1757-1967 ed. by Lillian Schlissel (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., NY, 1968), p. 15-26)
Conscientious Objectors in World War I found themselves shipped off to army camps.
It was up to them to convince unsympathetic officers and other officials of their sincerity.
Occasionally, the C.O.s were removed to prisons instead of camps. One unofficial source states that 3,989 men declared themselves to be conscientious objectors when they had reached the camps: of these, 450 were court-martialed and sent to prison; 940 remained in camps until the Armistice was fully enacted. The absolutist C.O.s who refused to drill or do any noncombatant service received court-martial and sentences of many years in federal prison at Alcatraz Island or Ft. Leavenworth. Within U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, many suffered persecution, manacling, and solitary confinement. Most C.O.s who had been imprisoned received release orders by May 1919.
(Source: The Politics of Conscience: The Historic Peace Churches and America at War, 1917-1955 by Albert N. Keim and Grant M. Stoltzfus (Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, 1988), p. 19-26, 144-146)
SHIFT IN POLICY?
Concerned citizens inside and outside of government braced themselves for a radical re-think for workable policies handling religious persons of conscience; this was called one-W in July 1952.
Provisions now offered Civilian Public Service as an alternative to combat (such as farming, welfare work, construction, and low-level health facility employment.)
Mennonites and Brethren were agreeable with the programs.
Many of the C.O.s went on to careers in education and social service because of this introduction to systemic ways of helping others.
Activists Pressure Law Changes
Of the nearly 10,000 one-W men from 1952-1955, only about 25 men left their jobs without authorization; 20 were Jehovah's Witnesses.
Vietnam War 1959 -- April 30, 1975,
The Vietnam War produced draft resisters working within organized networks. The rejection of conscription stemmed from a disagreement with the United States' foreign policy in Indochina.
Political activists pointed to perceived injustice against African Americans, the poor, and the uneducated. Civil rights groups and women's organizations soon jumped in and staged massive anti-war rallies in which hundreds of young men burned their draft cards. GI resister groups spread dissent inside the armed forces as well as targeting those not yet in the military.
For the first time in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that C.O.s need not believe in a Supreme Being! This was expanded in 1970 to include individuals objecting to military service on ethical grounds if such convictions "are deeply felt."
Conscription stopped three years before U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
(Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced on January 27, 1973, that the draft was to end,
as of that date, in favor of voluntary enlistment).
President Nixon opined ending the draft would end the massive opposition to that war, but in this he erred. The hollow victory declaration followed, and troops abandoned the battle.
______________________
The Strength Not to Fight: An Oral History of Conscientious Objectors of the Vietnam War by James W. Tollefson (Little, Brown & Company, Boston, MA, 1993), p. 6-7)
Important Distinction
The offer of alternate civilian work removed the basis of legal problems for conscientious objection.
However,
Jehovah’s Witnesses snubbed the neutral civilian hospital service.
WHY?
A total of 170,000 men received C.O. deferments;
as many as 300,000 other applicants were denied deferment.
Nearly 600,000 illegally evaded the draft;
about 200,000 were formally accused of draft offenses.
Between 30,000 and 50,000 fled to Canada;
another 20,000 fled to other countries or lived underground in America.
4,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses served time in prison for double refusing Alternate Service.
The Importance of JW UNITY demonstrated in a court case
Court of Sessions, Scotland; L Strachan v. Douglas Walsh (1954).
The complete transcript of the landmark trial to determine if Jehovah's Witnesses were to be considered a religious denomination in Great Britain.
Contains testimony from Fred W. Franz (then Vice President of the Watchtower Society), Grant Suiter (then Secretary-Treasurer), Hayden C. Covington (then Chief Legal Counsel for Jehovah's Witnesses), A. Pryce Hughes, Ewart C. Chitty. Also contains the complete legal decision by the Scottish Court.
Link to Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/WalshTrial
EXCERPTS from the Walsh Trial Transcripts:
Legal counsel for the Society Hayden C. Covington’s testimony UNDER OATH before the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service included:
Q. Is it not vital to speak the truth about religious matters?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of the Holy Writ from time to time?
A. There is every reason for a change in interpretation as we view it, of the Bible. Our view becomes more clear as we see the prophecy fulfilled by time.
Q. You have promulgated — forgive the word — false prophecy?
A. We have — I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy, there have been statements that were erroneous. That is the way I put it… and mistaken.
Q. Is it a most vital consideration in the present situation of the world to know if the prophecy can be interpreted into terms of fact when Christ's Second Coming was?
A. That is true, and we have always striven to see that we have the truth before we utter it. We go on the very best information we have but we cannot wait until we get it perfect, because if we wait until we get it perfect, we could never speak.
Q. Let us follow that up just a little. It was promulgated as a matter which must be believed by all members of Jehovah's Witnesses that the Lord's Second Coming took place in 1874?
A. I am not familiar with that. You are speaking on a matter that I know nothing of.
Q. You heard Mr. Franz's evidence?
A. I heard Mr. Franz testify, but I am not familiar with what he said on that, I mean the subject matter of what he was talking about, so I cannot answer any more than you can, having heard what he said.
Q. Leave me out of it?
A. That is the source of my information, what I have heard in court.
Q. Have you studied the literature of your movement?
A. Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," and I have not studied this matter that you are mentioning now of 1874. I am not at all familiar with that.
Q. Assume from me the Society promulgated as authoritative that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874?
A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.
Q. That was the publication of false prophecy?
A. That was the publication of a false prophecy. It was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.
Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity. We cannot have disunity with many people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.
Q. You do not believe in the worldly armies, do you?
A. We believe in the Christian Army of God.
Q. Do you believe in worldly armies?
A. We have nothing to say about that. We do not preach against them, we merely say that the worldly armies, like the nations of the world today, are a part of Satan's Organisation, and we do not take part in them, but we do not say the nations cannot have their armies, we do not preach against warfare, we are merely claiming our exemption from it, that is all.
Q. Back to the point now. A false prophecy was promulgated?
I agree with that.
Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. That is correct.
Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that a prophecy was wrong and said so, he would be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble because if the whole organization believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organization, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organization would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.
Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organization, the governing body of our organization, to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?
A. That is correct.
Q. And as you said yesterday expressly: he would be worthy of death?
A. I think —
Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.
Q. Do you call that religion?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Do you call it Christianity?
A. I certainly do.
Q. Did [Pastor Russell] not fix 1874 as some other crucial date?
A. 1874 used to be understood as the date of Jesus' Second Coming spiritually.
Q. Do you say, used to be understood?
A. That is right.
Q. That was issued as a fact that was to be accepted by all who were Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. Yes.
Q. That is no longer now accepted, is it?
A. No.
....
Q. But it was a calculation that is no longer accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society?
A. That is correct.
Q. So that am I correct… I am just anxious to canvas the position… it became the bounden duty of the Witnesses to accept this miscalculation?
A. Yes
....
Q. So that what is published as the truth today by the WT Society may have to be admitted to be wrong in a few years?
A. We have to wait and see.
Q. And in the meantime, the body of Jehovah's Witnesses have been following error?
A. They have been following misconstructions on the Scriptures.
Q. Error?
A. Well, error.
These [Watchtower Society] books give an exposition on the whole Scriptures.
Q. But an authoritative exposition?
A. They submit the Bible or the statements that are therein made, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scripture to see that the statement is Scripturally supported.
Q. He what?
A. He examines the Scripture to see whether the statement is supported by the Scripture. As the Apostle says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
Q. I understood the position to be — do please correct me if I am wrong — that a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses must accept as a true Scripture and interpretation what is given in the books I referred you to?
A. But he does not compulsorily do so, he is given his Christian right of examining the Scriptures to confirm that this is Scripturally sustained.
Q. And if he finds that the Scripture is not sustained by the books, or vice versa, what does he do?
A. The Scripture is there in support of the statement, that is why it is put there.
Q. What does a man do if he finds a disharmony between the Scripture and those books?
A. You will have to produce me a man who does find that, then I can answer, or he will answer.
Q. Did you imply that the individual member has the right of reading the books and the Bible and forming his own view as to the proper interpretation of Holy Writ?
A. He comes — -
Q. Would you say yes or no, and then qualify?
A. No. Do you want me to qualify now?
Q. Yes, if you wish.
A. The Scripture is there given in support of the statement, and therefore the individual when he looks up the Scripture and thereby verifies the statement, then he comes to the Scriptural view of the matter, Scriptural understanding as it is written in Acts, the seventeenth chapter and the eleventh verse, that the Bereans were nobler than those of Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness, and they searched the Scripture to see whether those things were so, and we instruct to follow that noble course of the Bereans in searching the Scripture to see whether these things were so.
Q. A Witness has no alternative, has to accept as authority and obey instructions issued in the "Watchtower" or the "Informant" or "Awake"?
A. He must accept those.
_________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
We Seagoville Brothers accepted the word of the men of the “Faithful Slave” as to our proper conduct.
They told us we would violate “neutrality” by accepting the Superior Authority’s alternate hospital work, and as we saw in the court transcript - WE MUST ACCEPT.
We did.
In double refusing Military Service AND Alternate Service, we were obedient to men representing ultimately Jehovah and Jesus (expressed through the faithful slave);
That understanding of divine arrangement did away with any reliance on personal “conscience.”.
_____________
Q. Is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of the Holy Writ from time to time?
A. There is every reason for a change in interpretation as we view it, of the Bible. Our view becomes more clear as we see the prophecy fulfilled by time.
Q. You have promulgated — forgive the word — false prophecy?
A. We have — I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy. There have been statements that were erroneous. That is the way I put it, and ‘mistaken.’
__________________
My personal opinion:
We are judged by our conscience |or| by our obedience to our belief in who is in authority.
Jehovah knows our hearts.
It is His ultimate judgment we seek and not the approval of men.
We choose our (Magisterium of Authority) carefully.
_____________________________The Conclusion__________________
21 Pages 5753 words
WAY TOO LONG!