WTBTS Innocent in Swaggart Case?

by troubled 46 Replies latest jw friends

  • troubled
    troubled

    Awhile back, I saw information on another web site about the WTBTS's involvement with the Swaggart case. The information was presented in a way that depicted the WTBTS as involved with the Swaggart case and, therefore, false religion.

    At first, I was shocked. However, I did some research on what an amicus curie is. I found out it is a legal brief that anyone can file in connection with a court case if the outcome could affect them as well. In this case, taxation. However, the info said that those who file an amicus curie ARE NOT parties to the actual case.

    So if the WTBTS was not supporting Swaggart as a witness or a party in his case, it doesn't seem to me to be a case of involvement with false religion. The only thing I see that wasn't handled well was the fact that they withheld full information to the publishers about why they were switching to the donation arrangement.

    Isn't that right?

    p.s. Just trying to get the facts straight and not jump to conclusions prematurely.

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    You are exactly right, troubled. People sometimes misunderstand legal matters, and think of them in terms of common usage. So they read "amicus curie" and think, Aha! The WTS is getting into bed with Swaggert! They are friends with the world!

    In fact, it's just a legal maneuver, and nothing more.

    However, as you point out, what is somewhat slimey is the way they then introduced the new donation arrangement at that exact moment, without telling the friends why there were doing it. "Simplification," they said, when the reality was taxation avoidance. The especially amazing thing is that this was not the worldwide switchover we all thought it was. To this day there are countries where the JWs charge for the literature as they always have. If you examine the laws, you'll see that the countries where they went to the donation arrangement coincide with those countries where they were at risk for taxes. Simplification indeed!

  • Naeblis
    Naeblis

    it is a lie of ommission. I remember this change and the buzz in the congregation on how much better this new arrangement would be and how it was done to further the work. When I look back on it now it just sickens me. If they've been dishonest in this way how can they have credibility when it comes to life and death matters? What stops them from lying then?

  • BoozeRunner
    BoozeRunner

    Good points! The WTS knew that they would be next if Swaggert lost his case, so -PRESTO CHANGO- on to the "voluntary donation" system for their publications.
    Still, lending support to someone you have bashed countless times reeks of hypocrisy. If you are truly Gods organization, you stand on your OWN credentials in the matter.

    Boozy

  • Billygoat
    Billygoat

    I've been out for about 10 years. I don't recall the donation arrangement when I was there - my parents contributed for me. Can anyone explain the "Donation" arrangment for me? When was it changed?

    Billygoat

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Billygoat,

    Well, you remember the old method:

    Sister Publisher goes to the magazine counter to pick up her 2 magazines. She pays the set amount to the Magazine Servant. She then goes in service, makes her spiel, and at the end she says, "...and you can have them for the suggested contribution of .50" Householder gives her the money. She keeps the money, since she already paid for the magazines in the first place. If householder wants the mags, but doesn't want to give any money, Sister Publisher may hesitate and give the magazines away (swallowing the loss), or she may say, "OK, how about I give you these older magazines instead?"

    Fast-foward to, I think, early 1991. The Swaggert case was in the courts, and a letter went out to the congregations instituting the new donation arrangement, which goes like this:

    Sister Publisher goes to the magazine counter to pick up her 2 magazines. Magazine Servant hands them over, no money changing hands. A conspicuous contribution box lurks nearby. Sister Publisher puts a donation in the box to "cover the costs of printing and shipping." She then goes out in service, makes her spield, and at the end she says, "...and you can have these magazines without charge. However, if you would like to make a donation to the worldwide publishing work that we do, it would be appreciated." Householder gives her $1.00 (or $5.00). She does NOT keep the money, but puts it in a special envelope marked "Kingdom Contributions." She gets to the Hall, she puts that money in the special contribution box. Society thereby gets twice the contribution as before.

    Now, that is the ideal world. Here's how it works in actual practice more often than not:

    Sister Publisher goes to the magazine counter to pick up her 20 magazines. Magazines Servant hands them over, with no money changing hands. While she's standing there, she zooms over to the Literature Servant and picks up some videos, CDs, Insight volumes, deluxe Bibles, and the rest of her library of WTS books. She slides right past the contribution box, because she is a little short that day. She goes out in service, makes her spiel, and feels funny about asking for money so she says, "...and you have have these magazines for free." Householder thinks, What the hell, why not? Society doesn't see a penny throughout the whole operation. Soon a new article appears in the KM saying how important it is to ask for contributions.

  • dedalus
    dedalus

    ROTFLOL @ Seeker!

    Best sentence:

    Magazine Servant hands them over, no money changing hands. A conspicuous contribution box lurks nearby.

    Terrific!

    Dedalus

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Glad you liked it, Dedalus. I had fun writing it.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    The only thing I see that wasn't handled well was the fact that they withheld full information to the publishers about why they were switching to the donation arrangement.

    Isn't that bad enough? Heck, isn't it just as bad as holding hands with Jimmy? Lie to your own people? Nothing new I realize, but to those still in, it must be especially shocking and sickening.

    Also, I can't help but feel that for a religion that encourages men and women to go to sometimes rediculous lengths not to be alone together, simply because of "how it will look", this little legal manuever is at least the equivelant of loose conduct Methinks they should df themselves.

  • Kent
    Kent
    So if the WTBTS was not supporting Swaggart as a witness or a party in his case, it doesn't seem to me to be a case of involvement with false religion.

    It's ALL false religion, but that's not the case here. You're right - the Watchtower did NOT defend the BELIEFS of Swaggart. They defended their money. Just as Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, the Watchtower is run for one purpose - and one purpose only: GAIN WELTH AND POWER!

    The Witchpower will do ANYTHING to defend their money - ANYTHING!

    In Germany during WWII, they assured Hitler Jehovah and Jesus would make Hitlers policy a reality, and agreed with him. The jews were trash, and they agreed to Hitler's Jew-policy!

    Look to Mexico - they were a "Cultural" society - not religious at all! They didn't use prayer, nor the bible. All because of "persecution". And what WAS this persecution? Religious churches wasn't allowed to own property! That's all!

    They said it was OK to bribe officials to get their "Cartilla", and was listed in the army reserves as a result. This was common. At the same time the blood-sucking bastards let JWs in Malawi die because they couldn't buy a card the government demanded the citicens to buy! (Of course, in Malawi there were only "niggers", and nobody in the friggin Governing Body cared about such "scum". They were expendable - useful for the great course! They needed some scapegoats, some martyrs, and who could be better than a few blacks in a country nobody had ever heard of?

    They didn't suppost false religion? @ LOL

    Yakki Da

    Kent

    "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
    http://watchtower.observer.org

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit