Jehovah's Witness Books

Mark of the Beast

2011-05-18T22:53:00.000-04:00

I am just gonna write this as my brain flows so forgive me for bluntness and irreverance!

I have struggled with this sign for a while because there are so many different ideas from many good people as to what this sign is. I have also written a few ideas on the identity of the composite beast in a few of my other blog posts which brings me to this point. I will tell you clearly what I believe this mark of the beast is. It seems to fulfill the scriptures well and can be very compelling in the future. I have to say that this mark is not here yet but the functions are happening right now. The facets of this mark will be brought together to seemingly benefit mankind but will be a move to enslave most of mankind.

I have reason to believe the mark of the beast is an oath of allegiance to support a new monetary system.

OK, lets get some back ground. There are two parts. The Mark is associated with being able to buy or sell. The Beast is an overall ruling entity that benefits from these beast marked souls.

The Beast, in short, is this world's rulers; visible or hidden. I have reason to believe that the hidden rulers of the world operate in secret by using secret oaths. This is how things get done in backrooms and lodges. I think that the world will be put in a situation that makes our old free market unappealing to the point that a new monetary system will have to be accepted but will only work if people "agree" to be part of it and enter into a relationship with the system itself.

Why do I think it may be this? Well I know the Mark is to be on the forehead and the hand. This indicates that value will be placed on your mental abilities and physical or labor abilities. The system of buying and selling would not be gold based like it is now. (By the way, this system, although causing some issues, gives people the ability to vote with dollars, things they like or want as a community.) The system I have heard coming down the line would offer you everything while taking away your freedom to decide anything for yourself. Keep your eyes open for a group called Desteni.

The saddest thing is that all of the things involved in this change to this system, we have already been doing in small ways. It will just be taken to the next level to where people deliberately give themselves over to it. One small way is our affinity for the fiat money systems like dollars. They are not backed by gold as the majority of us think they are. The world is conditioned to not rely on gold for exchange. We wouldn't see any difference if our exchange was suddenly based on our body count as long as the money kept coming. As far as making an oath to this system. This is as simple as filling out an application. We sign things online and agreements that are so long that we rarely know what we are signing anyway. If we are hungry and hurting it will be very hard not to "agree" to support a system that would put food or means in the palm of our hand.

The people behind this oath taking have been involved with this sort of work since the dark ages. Getting us to comply may be the easiest step yet. I'll say that most of mankind will be duped. I wish it wasn't the case but most of us will be. The reason why mankind's prosperity is such an easy in for the masses is that we naturally want to survive. Our living and breathing is a big part of our motivation scheme and if a system can make this easier, it seems almost idiotic not to accept it. This is exactly where Satan wants us to go so that we make a decision with no spiritual consideration.

The mark itself is symbolic but its effect fits everything else in the scripture surrounding it. Its not here yet because the world has to be broken down dramatically. first.

Within another blog post I discussed that the 2nd seal is about to be broken and with it the fulfillment of many prophecies will occur which will be a major wake-up call to those who recognize what is going on.

Just my thoughts.

Trinity

2011-01-08T12:52:00.000-05:00

Trinity - God, Son, and Holy Spirit

Babylon - Nimrod, Tammuz, and Simerimas
Babylon - Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar
Egypt - Osiris, Horus, and Isis
Greece - Zeus, Apollo, and Athena
India - Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva
Rome - Jupiter, Mars, and Venus
U.S.A. - Executive, Judicial, and Legislative (Lol!)

The Trinity is false. Look at history. It is human tradition that pulls us toward the Trinity as some viable explanation, not the simple truth that Jesus is God's Son and not God himself. If the bible has some allusions toward the Trinitarian ideal, its because of the amount of human tradition it has to contend with.

Secondly, Jesus has to stand as mediator between God and men. His sacrifice opens the way. I know its seems like the greatest compliment to worship Jesus as God, but when we do that we lessen his purpose. The same thing happens if we just call him a simple prophet. When we obscure his position, up or down, we loose the full force of the fact that Jesus is working right now as a mediator. He is not just some figure head.

Thirdly, Satan is the main entity attempting to obscure Jesus purpose. If the christian community continues to support the Trinitarian concept, they continue to allow Satan's construct (as seen through the list of historical false Gods) a way in to eventually try to over shadow God's original purpose. Which in turn leaves Trinitarian believers open, spiritually, for all sorts of other falsehoods.

The Trinity is a dangerous Satanic doctrine that is connected to human history and has always been related to the human belief system. It has not changed. The possibility that the truth, spoken by Jesus 2000 years ago, may have been infected with this, is highly probable.

God is one. Not more than one.

Watchtower Baptismal Question Change

2010-12-17T20:21:00.002-05:00

Note the following change in the baptismal questions made in 1985 to further attempt to isolate their members from Christianity by promoting loyalty to the Watchtower organization, rather than to the "elusive" Christ:

WT (The Watchtower) 1973 5/1 page 280 Baptizing Follows Discipling

(1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

CHANGE TO:
WT 1985 6/1 page 30 Subjecting Ourselves to Jehovah by Dedication

…Thus the decision to be baptized is by no means a sudden emotional reaction. Rather, each one has ‘proved for himself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God’ and wishes to submit to that will.—Romans 12:2.

At the close of the convention baptism talk, the baptism candidates will be in position to answer with depth of understanding and heartfelt appreciation two simple questions that serve to confirm that they recognize the implications of following Christ’s example.

The first question is:

On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

The second is:

Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?

_______________

[Added footnotes]

1 Those familiar with the WT procedure will know that some time prior to the day of the baptism, a number of questions are put to the candidates. However, according to the published list of questions, the above two questions are omitted. So these candidates are not given advanced notice of what could be the most important questions asked of them in their whole lives. Would this "sudden" imposition give them time for "understanding and heartfelt appreciation? Please notice if you read the whole article, from the above mentioned WT, that there is no explanation as to why the questions were changed.

2 Observe the crucial change of verb in Romans 12: 2. Paul was talking to baptised Christians: he entreats them, by saying "that you may prove (future) to yourselves" God’s will. The WT says: "has proved"

This change introduces a false premise, per se. But it is extremely wrong in its present context when introducing perhaps the most blatant U turn of all: the substitution of the "ORGANIZATION" for God’s Word the "Bible" and God’s "holy spirit". Furthermore, this is a secondary and not a main study article where the congregations have the opportunity to express their comments, even if closely monitored. Therefore it is not open for discussion.

Paul says, "may prove" and the WT says, "has proved"? What is the difference and is it crucial? The WT is addressing unbaptised ones. Paul is addressing baptised ones. He is inviting them to continuously "prove" the viability and efficacy of God’s will in their lives. The WT is trying to ‘ride two horses at the same time’ They want to be seen as applying the scripture but also they want to promote their own agenda. They are saying that these novices have already ‘ "proved" this for themselves’ in, maybe a few weeks of WT type study. Would this not be ‘suddenly’? It would be, relatively: the very thing that the WT has ruled out. Paul’s disciples are encouraged to apply Christian principles throughout their lives. Whereas WT disciples have been instructed in WT doctrine and have presumably proved it by academic study. Would the foregoing quotes from their magazine be representative examples of their teaching?

Martin Luther says on this verse, Romans 12:2:

" he [Paul] is preaching to those who are already Christians and godly through the faith in the new man, who are not to be forced with commands but to be admonished to do willingly what is to be done in regard to the sinful old man. For he who does it not willingly, solely as a result of admonition, he is no Christian, and he who compels it from the unwilling with laws, he already is no Christian preacher or ruler but a worldly clubwielder." A lawdriver insists with threats and penalties; a preacher of grace lures and incites with divine goodness and compassion shown to us; for he wants no unwilling works and reluctant services, he wants joyful and delightful services of God"

Please see Matthew 12: 34-37 (bold, italics and brackets added)

Charles Stanley

More on the end to the Gold Standard...

2010-10-28T17:03:00.002-04:00

The Specter of Protectionism
Death of the Gold Standard
The world has already experienced a tragic deflationary spiral once, which transpired during the turbulent years between the world wars. Up until then, the gold standard was in place nearly everywhere. People could exchange their money for a predetermined amount of the precious metal. Prices and exchange rates remained relatively stable for many years, and global trade flourished. But after the outbreak of World War I, the system didn’t work anymore because the national economies had drifted too far apart.

The widespread poverty and unemployment that came with the Great Depression finally forced the countries to make a radical transition. On Sept. 20, 1931, the UK dropped the gold standard. Within just a few months, the pound had lost nearly a third of its value against the dollar. This produced the desired effect: The British economy recovered quickly.

But the UK had revitalized its economy at the cost of its neighbors who had stuck to the gold standard, meaning that their currencies became relatively expensive. Economists call this type of protectionist policy “beggar thy neighbor.” The reaction came quickly. In the spring of 1933, the US unpegged the dollar from gold — and the US currency plummeted by 40 percent. Additional countries in the so-called gold bloc followed suit, and in the end, 25 countries had abandoned the gold standard.

Birth of a New System
Nobody could win this race, and it pulled down the entire world economy. Between 1929 and 1933, the volume of world trade fell from $3 billion to $1 billion. In order to put an end to this currency chaos, representatives from 44 countries attended a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944. They agreed to a new currency structure that was to ensure a regulated system of world trade. This system was designed to make it impossible to use currencies as weapons in global competition.

The dollar was chosen as an anchor and, from then on, the other currencies were moored to it. The US committed itself to converting the reserves that every country held in US currency to gold at a fixed price of $35 per ounce. The system collapsed in 1971 when the US could no longer maintain this commitment: It had printed too many dollars to pay for the Vietnam War.

Since then, there have been no more established rules, and everything is done according to the law of the jungle. So far, the US has been the strongest player. Thanks to the dollar, the world’s undisputed reserve currency, the Americans have been able to live beyond their means for decades. They have been able to amass excessive debts — because there is always someone who is willing to foot the bill.

Nowhere to Flee to
Although the value of the dollar has fallen over the past decades, the decline has been much less than what would have been economically justifiable. As long as the US is seen as a comparatively secure country, other nations will continue to place their reserves in dollars, thereby bolstering the US currency. But how long can the US continue to be seen as an economically secure country, if it fails to bring its government debt under control and keeps trying to solve its economic problems by bringing down the value of its currency?

The US still benefits from the fact that China and other emerging economies cannot shift their dollar reserves to other currencies without causing themselves massive damage. Not to mention the fact that there is nowhere to flee to — after all, not even the euro offers a safe haven.

Private investors can flee, though. They are increasingly viewing major currencies with mistrust and purchasing gold as a result. The price of the precious metal continues to set new records. Last week, it soared to over $1,300 (€943) a troy ounce, meaning that it has more than quadrupled in price since the turn of the millennium. Now that the financial crisis has led to a sovereign debt crisis, it is becoming increasingly clear just how fragile the foundation of the world economy is — and why new regulations are urgently needed.

Not surprisingly, there are increasing calls for a second Bretton Woods and a new world economic system with established rules. This is a recurring topic at G-20 summits.

The Role of China
The big unknown variable in such a future system is the role played by China. No new approach will last long if it doesn’t include the yuan, also known as the renminbi. The crucial question is whether China is prepared to gradually allow its currency to float more freely.

Up until now, the country has been unprepared to take this step — despite assurances made by the Chinese leadership on June 19 that it would end the fixed exchange rate with the dollar. The strong revaluation of the yuan that the Americans had hoped for has not occurred. Since then, it has only risen in price against the dollar by approximately 2 percent. China’s central bank continues to steer its “people’s currency” within a very narrow range.

The Chinese see the pressure from Washington as an attack on their sovereignty. It is true that experts in the Chinese central bank are debating the advantages that would come with an exchange rate reform, in order to free China from its dependency on exports. But if the communist leadership made too many concessions to the US, it would have to fear an enormous outcry from the patriotic Chinese public.

From the Chinese point of view, only a cautious revaluation would be an option. The Chinese want to avoid at all costs suffering the same fate as their neighbor Japan. After caving in to pressure from the US, in 1985 the former Asian superpower agreed to increase the exchange rate against the dollar. Within one year, the value of the yen had increased by some 60 percent. In order to balance out the negative consequences of the revaluation for the country’s export industry, the Bank of Japan lowered interest rates to nearly zero, thereby triggering a huge speculative bubble on the stock exchange and the real estate market. Even today, Japan has still not recovered from the prolonged crisis that ensued.

The pressure on Japan also failed to bring the US much relief. American industries, particularly in the automotive sector, still couldn’t effectively compete with manufacturers like Toyota and Honda.

Looking for a Scapegoat?
So it is questionable whether a reevaluation of the yuan would do the Americans much good. Between 2005 and 2008, the Chinese currency gained 21 percent, but the US trade deficit remained at record high levels. The problem is that Americans don’t save enough — and they have difficulties selling their own products around the world. Even a devaluation of their own currency didn’t help the Americans. Since 2002, the value of the dollar has slipped by over 30 percent against the euro.

That should have actually fueled the export economy. Instead, the US now has trade deficits with at least 90 countries, meaning that it imports more from those nations than it exports to them. Does this mean that the Americans are merely looking for a scapegoat for their own economic failure?

Before sanctions can be imposed on China, the Senate has to approve the proposed legislation. “It’s important to recognize that we’re not going to have a trade war, we’re not going to have a currency war,” said US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. That — assuming Geithner’s assessment is correct — is the good news. The bad news is that there will be no new regulations for the global currency system, either. And it will continue to remain unclear what role the yuan will play in the future.

The result? Unstable currency markets will remain, also in the future, a permanent threat to the global economy.

Prince and the 2007 Superbowl halftime show

2010-10-10T22:53:00.002-04:00

I was clearly hopeful when I saw Prince perform the superbowl halftime show. Up til then I knew that the Watchtower had gotten their claws into him. When this aired I wanted to say, hallelujah, he knows they are full of shit. Well after that he continued to support the rumors he was following the religious practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I wanted to round up two things to commemorate this period. One was an article written by Jeneane Sessum which fell right in line with my thinking and the possible response from those on both sides of the JW fence. The other is the actual performance. So without further adue!

February 05, 2007

Did Prince Just Say Goodbye to the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Any music fan who watched the Super Bowl last night could rightly walk into work this morning and say, "Did you see the bears and colts play football during Prince's Concert?"

It was that good. And, at other levels, it was interesting too.

For any artist familiar with the restrictive, cultish tactics of the jehovah's witnesses, watching the halftime show at this year's Super Bowl represented a lot more than catching a great live concert by Prince. The entire performance was riddled with symbolism that could only leave current and former JWs doing double take after double take, wondering what Prince was trying to 'say'.

I think Prince's merging of All Along the Watchtower with Foo Figher's The Best of You, followed up by Purple Rain, performed while doning his classic symbol, his signature guitar magnified as it rippled against the night sky, full and phallic, larger than life against a ghostly white backdrop, was Prince's way of saying goodbye to the Organization, was Prince's way of saying, "you're not messin with me anymore."

Maybe I'm projectiong. Maybe not.

It's not a simple thing -- the passionate belief and seeking of Truth, the sacrifice of self, the heart vs the mind, all targeted by well-honed thought control vs the single thread of hope for what being human means: Freedom of thought. You kind of have to have been there to grok it.

What I think? That Artist giving that performance at that event, performing those songs that way, wearing that symbol on that stage -- I think he just said goodbye to the Watchtower.

And if he didn't, and they don't disfellowship him for that display, well--it only further demonstrates the hypocrisy of the JWs that makes for madness in those who've ever been shamed at a Kingdom Hall.

(Video Transcription)
Prince's Watchtower Medley
All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view,
While all the women came and wept —
Their foot servants too.

Outside in the cold distance,
A wildcat did growl.
Two riders were approaching, and
The wind began to howl.

Are you gone and onto someone new?
I needed somewhere to hang my head
Without your noose
You gave me something that I didn’t have
But had no use

I was too weak to give in
Too strong to lose
My heart is under arrest again
But I’ll break loose
My head is giving me life or death
I will choose
I swear I’ll never give in
I refuse

Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?
Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?

Has someone taken your faith?
It's real, the pain you feel
You must
Confess

Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?
Oh…

Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?
Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?

Is someone getting the best, the best, the best, the best of you?

I’ve got another confession my friend
I ain’t no fool.

Jehovah's Witnesses and 2012

2010-05-23T14:51:00.000-04:00

I find it interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses and the 2012 fervor seem to mix like oil and water.

Matter of fact the psychology on the part of the Witnesses seems to be more of "ignore it and it will go away".

This is not surprising due to the stance the Witnesses have taken toward doomsday prophecies. Witnesses have always shown due concern for whatever dates that they themselves set. Dates that the world happen upon are considered fads and deserve no print time.

Just the existence of some future date that is relatively noted by the population places the JWs on edge. They have no response for it.

First of all, can they refute the date as bogus? This will call into question their own dates they have set in the past. All of which came to nothing.

Can they agree with the date? Well they could but this would require research that is based off of or agrees with worldly reasoning and that would further discredit the organization.

How about utter and total silence on the issue? This is the safest option because all they have to do is wait and hope beyond hope that nothing occurs so that after the fact they can smugly infer that the world's dates are wrong and they have the only truth.

During the wait time, it looks pretty pathetic if you think about it. One of the most vocal organizations about end-time dates and you here absolutely nothing about it from them. We can take the silence to possibly mean that they don't want to talk against it because they don't absolutely know for sure that 2012 is not a significant date. This speaks against their prophetic stance. If they are truly God's prophet then tell me yes or no that 2012 is not significant. They should know right?

Spiritual Abuse 12 question checklist

2010-04-26T19:41:00.002-04:00

This following survey was taken from here
I adjusted the original language into more easily understood Witness-speak. Abuse is abuse is abuse. It needs to get more attention.

Here is a questionnaire to determine just how healthy your local church is. To find out how well your church ranks, answer "yes" or "no" to the following 12 questions:

1) Does the faithful and discreet slave tightly control the flow of information within its ranks?

2) Does the faithful and discreet slave use public shaming as a method to gain the compliance of followers?

3) Is the faithful and discreet slave intolerant of questions or critical inquiry?

4) Is the faithful and discreet slave the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation?

5) Does the faithful and discreet slave have unreasonable fears about the outside world such as evil conspiracies or persecutions?

6) Are you discouraged to associate with disassociated or disfellowshipped members, being warned that they are "evil" or "defiling"?

7) Is leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses to join a church equal to leaving God?

8) Does the surrounding community view your Kingdom Hall as a cult?

9) Does the faithful and discreet slave consider it evil persecution when criticized or questioned?

10) Do the goals of the faithful and discreet slave seem to supersede any personal goals or individual interests?

11) Do you fear being rebuked, shunned, ignored, or brought into a judicial meeting for expressing a different opinion?

12) Do former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances?

If you answered "no" to all of the above 12 questions, your church is very healthy. If you answered "yes" to three or more, your church is showing signs of being unhealthy. If you answered "yes" to six or more, your church is very unhealthy. If you answered "yes" to eight or more, your church is more than likely a full-blown authoritarian cult.

Transcript From NBC Dateline

2010-03-25T21:59:00.000-04:00

SHOW: Dateline

DATE: May 28, 2002

WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

Announcer: From our studios in New York, here is Jane Pauley.

JANE PAULEY: Good evening. At some point it may stop being news--each time another person comes forward to say they were sexually abused as a child by a trusted religious figure--but not yet, though tonight it's not priests under fire. In fact, our story began long before the Catholic Church scandal broke last January. The scenario of alleged abuse is much the same, but the consequences of coming forward, for people whose faith was the center of their lives, would be harsh and profound. Here's John Larson.

JOHN LARSON reporting:

In a small town like Othello, Washington, neighbors are often friends, and
friends like family. Which makes the story you're about to hear even more
painful. Because, for Erica Garza, who grew up here, there was no one closer,
no one she trusted more than her parents' best friend.

(Othello; homes; Othello city limit sign; Erica Garza; Manuel Beliz)

Ms. ERICA GARZA: You would have never known by looking at him, or by the way he
acted what he was doing on the side.

LARSON: (Voiceover) What that friend, Manuel Beliz, was doing was molesting
Erica, sexually abusing her. She says it started when she was just five years
old.

(Photo of Beliz; photo of Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: I remember it just like it was yesterday.

LARSON: What was your reaction when he first started touching you?

Ms. E. GARZA: I didn't know any better.

(Voiceover) I just remember it hurt.

(Photo of Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: Out of anything, I just remember the hurt.

(From home video) (Unintelligible)...my brother.

LARSON: (Voiceover) A hurt that grew, she says, because her molester pressured
her to keep it all a secret. And while that may not be surprising, this isn't
a story about a molester trying to stay in the shadows. This is a story about
others who may have played a role not only in Erica's abuse, but the abuse of
other victims as well.

(Home video; Beliz; shadow; photo of congregation singing; people holding
hymnals)

Ms. E. GARZA: They didn't care about what had happened. Everything they did
was trying to hide the facts.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Both Erica and her molester were members of the same
church, Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Church sign)

(Excerpt shown from Watchtower Society video)

LARSON: (Voiceover) Jehovah's Witnesses are evangelical Christians best-known
for going door-to-door handing out Awake! magazine. Jehovah's Witnesses have
six million members worldwide, and some controversial rules--no birthdays or
Christmas, no blood transfusions, no military service, no saluting the
flag--all of which separates them, sometimes even isolates them from mainstream
America. In fact, in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses, anyone outside the
church--most of you watching tonight--are considered part of Satan's world, a
world which, as depicted in the church's literature, will be destroyed by God.
True Jehovah's Witnesses, those who closely follow the church's rules, will
survive to live forever on a perfect earth.

But now there are accusations that the church, run out of its headquarters in
New York, called the Watchtower Society, is covering up cases of child
molestation, protecting molesters and keeping secrets that put children at
risk. Consider what happened to Erica Garza. By the time she was 16, Erica's
family had moved away from Othello to a new home and new Kingdom Hall in
California where one day she found the courage to tell her family her terrible
secret. And what did her father, Reuben Garza do?

Report it to the police?

(Excerpts from Watchtower Society video; congregation; members of congregation;
woman being baptized; boy being baptized; books; artist's drawings; New York
City; Watchtower building; photos of Erica and others; Kingdom Hall; photo of
Erica and family)

Mr. REUBEN GARZA: No. Never mentioned report it to the police.

(Voiceover) Take care of it in the congregation.

(Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: (Voiceover) Reuben Garza, who was one of the church's lay ministers, or
`elders,' says that's precisely what Jehovah's Witness leaders had taught him.
And so instead of going to the police, he and his wife, Alexandra, called the
elders back in Othello.

(Photo of Reuben Garza; photo of Garza family)

LARSON: But let me say the obvious. I mean, your daughter's been raped.
Didn't you think, `I've got to go to the cops?'

Ms. ALEXANDRA GARZA: That was my first reaction. But as a Witness, first
you've got to go to the elders when you have a problem.

LARSON: (Voiceover) But the elders didn't go to the police, either. Why? Well,
legally, they didn't have to. Only 16 states require clergy members to report
any and all suspected child abuse, and Washington state is not one of them.
Instead, church elders opened their own internal investigation. It's one of
the things that sets Jehovah's Witnesses apart from most other religious
groups. The church has its own judicial system.

(Kingdom Hall; swings; Othello; Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: Whenever a church member is accused of doing something wrong--whether
it's breaking a church rule like smoking, committing a sin like adultery, or
even committing a crime like rape--the local church appoints a special
committee of elders to investigate the charge. Now, if the accused is found
guilty, they can be reprimanded or, in worst cases, kicked out of the church,
disfellowshipped, potentially cut off from their friends and family, losing
their chance, they believe, at everlasting life. For a Jehovah's Witness,
there can be no greater punishment.

(Voiceover) Erica Garza expected her molester would, at the very least, be
disfellowshipped. But after five months of waiting for the church in Othello
to act, she got angry and did the unthinkable.

Ms. E. GARZA: So I called my elders and I said, `Look, I'm taking it to the
police.'

LARSON: What did they say?

Ms. E. GARZA: `Don't. Or else.'

LARSON: Or else what?

Ms. E. GARZA: That's what I said. I said, `Or else what?' And he said, `Just
don't.' I said, `What? I'll be disfellowshipped if I take it to the police?
Is that what's going to happen to me?' And he said, `Yes. You will be
disfellowshipped.' And I was just, like, `What? You're going to disfellowship
me for being raped, yet they guy who raped me is still a Jehovah's Witness?'
And they said, `Don't. Don't take it to the police. You will be condemned by
God.'

LARSON: (Voiceover) It was October 1996, and Erica says she finally decided
whatever the penalty, she had to go to the police. Following an investigation,
Manuel Beliz was charged with molestation and rape.

And the church? Erica says her California Kingdom Hall not only shunned her,
but shunned her family as well.

(Erica; Beliz; Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: What happened?

Mr. GARZA: Was removed as an elder.

LARSON: So they kicked you out.

Mr. GARZA: Yes, they did.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica felt abused, abandoned by her church and alone. But
what she couldn't have known was that it would be four more years before
another Jehovah's Witness, this time, an elder 2,000 miles away, would take a
special interest in Erica's case. The elder had uncovered evidence, he says,
that there were many more victims like Erica within Witness Kingdom Halls. And
now he, too, was about to break with the church and go outside into what
Witnesses believe is the realm of Satan--the outside world--to expose the
church's secrets.

(Erica; Bill Bowen; meeting schedule)

LARSON: You talking to me right now, it's like you're talking to Satan.

Mr. BILL BOWEN: That's correct. I'm attacking God, is what they've said about
it.

LARSON: In the view of the church, sitting down with us right now.

Mr. BOWEN: Yes.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen is a candle maker in Kentucky, and a lifelong
Jehovah's Witness. It all began, he says, about two years ago when he was
filing confidential church records at the local Kingdom Hall and stumbled on
this letter. It described an admission dating back to the 1980s, a molestation
case that he says the church had swept under the rug.

(Bowen making candles; letter; excerpts from letter)

LARSON: About how old was this child that was involved in this case?

Mr. BOWEN: As I reviewed the material, it appeared to me she was about 11 years
of age.

LARSON: (Voiceover) And the admitted molester? A man Bowen knew well, a fellow
elder who got only a slap on the wrist from the church as was never reported to
police. Outraged, Bowen put a message on the Internet to see if there were
other similar cases. The response, he says, was an avalanche of pain and
frustration.

(Congregation singing; Bowen typing; responses on computer screen)

Mr. BOWEN: These were all Jehovah's Witnesses that had been molested and
silenced within the church.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen is not saying Jehovah's Witnesses have more
molesters than any other religious group. The problem, he says, is how the
church handles the cases that come to its attention. Like the case of Daniel
Fitzwater, a Jehovah's Witness elder in Nevada. Bowen discovered that
according to the church's own internal records, church officials knew of 17
girls who had accused Fitzwater of molesting them. But police say the church
never passed that information on to them.

Bowen also learned that in New Hampshire Paul Berry beat and sexually tortured
his step-daughter, Holly Brewer, from the time she was four. But Holly's
mother says that when she complained to church elders that Berry was beating
Holly and her other kids, the elders told her to be a better wife and to pray
more. She also says they never informed police as required by state law. The
church denies that, saying she never told them of the abuse. Holly later ran
away from home and says she disfigured herself with tattoos and piercings in
response to the abuse.

(Watchtower building; photo of Daniel Fitzwater; church records; excerpts from
records; photo of Paul Berry; photo of Holly Brewer; photo of family; Kingdom
Hall; photo of Holly)

Ms. HOLLY BREWER: It started out by me internalizing the pain. It really did.
It started by me, `I want to mess myself up. I want to make myself look as
ugly I can ***(as spoken)***. I don't want any guys to hit on me. I don't
want to be attractive to people.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Both Paul Berry in New Hampshire and Daniel Fitzwater in
Nevada ultimately were convicted of sexual crimes and are now in prison. But
Bill Bowen says many others in the church accused of sexual abuse have never
been reported to police. It's a claim he says he's heard, though not verified,
from several hundred current and former church members. His conclusion:
disturbing to day the least.

(Photos of Berry and Fitzwater; Bowen talking to reporter; text on computer
screen)

Mr. BOWEN: It's a pedophile paradise within the organization. I believe that.

LARSON: What's the danger that you've been consumed by this to the point
that--that you've blown it all out of proportion? I mean pedophile paradise?
Come on.

Mr. BOWEN: I believe it with all my heart.

(Voiceover) There is a massive problem in the organization.

(Bowen)

LARSON: (Voiceover) But Bill Bowen is just one man in one congregation in
Kentucky. This woman, Barbara Anderson, worked for a decade inside Jehovah's
Witness headquarters. When Anderson saw Bowen's messages on the Internet, she
says she realized she had to tell him there was much more to the story,
involving children in many of the 11,000 congregations across the country.

(Bowen; Barbara Anderson; letter on computer screen; Anderson)

Ms. BARBARA ANDERSON: I don't believe that they're safe within their church.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Anderson was a researcher at the Watchtower Society in the
early 1990s when a senior official there asked her to look into the church's
handling of sexual abuse cases. What she found, she says, sickened her:
hundreds of molestation cases on record, all kept secret in church
files--secret not only from the outside world, but from the members themselves,
the families, the mothers and fathers and children who trust the church is
looking out for them.

(Watchtower building; Anderson; filing cabinets)

Ms. ANDERSON: I believe that if they asked to see the congregation records,
they will find that there are many envelopes with letters that discuss men--or
women--in the congregation that were accused of molesting a child.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Why would the church want to keep these cases secret and
in-house? Anderson agrees that part of the problem is the church's distrust of
the outside world, but she says it's not that simple. Anderson says when
church elders investigate crimes like child molestation, they follow
instructions that may prevent them from taking action--ancient instructions
taken from the Bible itself.

(Watchtower building; Bible)

Ms. ANDERSON: They basically use a scripture in I Timothy 5:19 that states
you're not to make an accusation against an older man unless there are two or
three witnesses.

LARSON: What are the odds that there are going to be two or three witnesses to
an older man molesting a eight-year-old girl?

Ms. ANDERSON: No molester is going to have any witnesses, that's for sure.

Mr. BOWEN: The sum and total of their investigation will be going to a
pedophile and saying, `Did you do it? Nope? Well, OK. Guess we'd better go
on then. Sorry we bothered you.'

(Talking on phone) Did he ask you any questions?

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen says if you want to get an idea of how the
church sweeps cases under the rug...

(Bowen talking on phone; traffic on bridges)

Headquarters #1: (On phone) Good afternoon, Watchtower.

LARSON: (Voiceover) ...just listen to part of a conversation Bowen recorded a
little over a year ago with an official in the Jehovah's Witness legal
department.

(New York City)

Headquarters Receptionist: (On phone) Good afternoon, Legal Department.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bowen calls seeking advice on how to handle a suspected
molestation case involving a young girl and her father. Instead of being told
to report it to the police, Bowen is told to confront the suspected abuser.

(New York City; Bowen talking on phone)

Headquarters #2: (On phone) You just ask him again, `Now is there anything to
this?' If he says `No,' then I would walk away from it.
Mr. BOWEN: (On phone) Yep.

Headquarters #2: (On phone) Leave it for Jehovah. He'll bring it out.

Mr. BOWEN: (On phone) Yep.

Headquarters #2: (On phone) But don't get yourself in a jam.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Again, there was no insistence that this matter be brought
to the authorities in the outside world. Bowen says he was so upset by the
whole case he resigned as a church elder and vowed to help abuse victims. He
didn't know that halfway across the country, Erica Garza as feeling the same
frustration as she prepared to face her molester in court.

(Bowen and woman; Erica and family)

LARSON: Did any of those elders, any of the people in the church stand up and
speak on your behalf?

Ms. E. GARZA: No.

LARSON: (Voiceover) But Erica Garza was about to find out that she wasn't
really all alone.

(Announcements)

Announcer: DATELINE NBC, winner of 10 Headliner awards for excellence in
journalism. America's most watched, most honored news magazine, DATELINE, will
be right back.

(Announcements)

Announcer: From our studios in Rockefeller Center, here is Stone Phillips.

STONE PHILLIPS: She was just five years old when she says she was first
molested by a respected member of her Jehovah's Witnesses congregation. Now a
young woman, Erica Garza wants justice. She says church leaders threatened to
expel her if she went to the police, but she went anyway and now her alleged
attacker is on trial for molestation and rape. Here with the conclusion to our
story, John Larson.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica Garza's accused molester, Manuel Beliz, showed up in
court with plenty of support.

(Courthouse; empty court room)

Ms. GARZA: (Voiceover) His side was full of Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Empty court room)

Ms. GARZA: People I thought were my friends, but they were there to support
him. And on my side was my family.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even though Beliz had apparently confessed his crimes
before church elders, it appeared to make little difference. He was expelled
from the church, but only temporarily. Elders allowed him to rejoin the church
before the trial. John White, the congregation's top elder, explained at a
court hearing.

(Beliz and man; entering courthouse; John White)

Mr. JOHN WHITE: (From audio tape) We're satisfied that he was repentant and
could be admitted to the congregation again. To us, we don't see a problem.

LARSON: (Voiceover) White also told the court that when a church member is
called before the elders and admits to a crime, they consider it a religious
confession and that, just like a priest or rabbi, he and other elders have good
reason not to testify about it in court.

(Empty court room)

Mr. WHITE: (From audio tape) Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to harbor
criminals or dangerous people. But we want the confidentiality because if
that's taken away from us, why should a person ever confess anything?

LARSON: Did anybody say, `We understand the pain that this girl has gone
through?'

Ms. E. GARZA: They say we--they feel sorry for me.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even without the church's help or the testimony of elders
who, Erica says, knew what had happened, in August of 1998 Manuel Beliz was
convicted, guilty on two counts of rape and two counts of child molestation. He
was sentenced to 11 1/2 years in prison, but two years into his term, his
conviction was overturned on a technicality over how the jury had been
selected. Erica had stood up, faced her abuser, even challenged her church,
but now he was being let out of prison.

(Kingdom Hall; photo of Beliz; jail; empty court room; Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: I was so disappointed, I was sad, I was heartbroken and I didn't
know what to do.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Manuel Beliz was released from prison to await a new trial.
Last summer DATELINE found him back at the Kingdom Hall, about to join others
going door-to-door, evangelizing for the church.

(Beliz)

Ms. E. GARZA: It just makes me so sad because I was raped and I was--I'm being
shunned, and he raped me and--and he's being loved. It just--it--it gives me
chills up my spine just to think about it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) How do Jehovah's Witness leaders respond to complaints that
they're trying to bury cases like Erica's? They declined a request for an
on-camera interview, but spoke to us off camera, and provided us with a
videotaped policy statement by spokesman J.R. Brown.

(Watchtower building; excerpt from videotape)

Mr. J.R. BROWN: (From videotape) Jehovah's Witnesses feel child abuse is an
evil. It's an evil of our time, it's an evil in our society and so we abhor
it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Church officials say they publish articles like this,
educating members and training elders how to help abuse victims. The church
also says elders are required to investigate any allegations of abuse, and
steps are taken to protect alleged victims from further abuse. And while
officials acknowledge that molesters who repent are readmitted to church, they
say known molesters are not allowed to hold a position of responsibility within
the church. They also insist that the church complies with all laws on
reporting abuse in those states where it's required, even when there's only one
witness to the crimes. But in states where churches are not required to
report, they say they do not discourage victims from reporting abuse to
authorities.

(Magazine articles; church name on building; congregation singing)

Mr. BROWN: (From videotape) When it comes to the matter of reporting, then
that's something the parents can decide. We certainly never tell them not to
report a case of child molestation.

LARSON: (Voiceover) In a letter to DATELINE, the church's general council adds
that "it is possible that a few of the 77,799 elders of Jehovah's Witnesses
have not followed the direction that they have been given regarding
investigating and reporting child abuse."

(Letters; excerpts from letters)

LARSON: What remains unanswered, though, is why the church gets involved at all
with investigating what are criminal matters. And just how often do they turn
one of their own into authorities? We asked the church for some examples,
proof that they're as tough as they say they are on members who abuse children.
The church waited six months, but finally offered us two cases. And right away
we noticed something. In both cases, the victims were Jehovah's Witnesses, but
their alleged molesters were not. They were non-believers from outside the
church.

(Voiceover) In fact, we could only find two cases where the church took an
active role in turning in one of its own, including the case of this man,
Clement Pandello.

(Clement Pandello)

Offscreen Voice: Mr. Pandello...

LARSON: (Voiceover) Pandello, seen here in family videos...

(Excerpts from family videos)

Unidentified Girl: (From home video) ...in the middle.

LARSON: (Voiceover) ..confessed to church elders he'd molested his own
granddaughter.

(Excerpts from family videos)

Mr. CLEMENT PANDELLO: (From video) Have to kick you out of school if they put
one in your head.

LARSON: (Voiceover) How did the church handle it? The parents of the young
victim, Pandello's own son and daughter-in-law, also Jehovah's Witnesses, told
DATELINE the church pressured to agree to a deal in which Pandello pled guilty
to criminal sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child. He was
given only probation, no jail time. And what did the church elders tell
Barbara and Carl Pandello?

(Excerpts from family videos; Carl and Barbara Pandello walking on beach;
excerpts from family video)

Mr. CARL PANDELLO: We should just let it go, that it's not Jehovah's time to
deal with it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) The church says that's not true, and the church apparently
did disfellowship Clement Pandello two separate times. But each time they welcomed him back. So where is this convicted child molester today, a man who,
according to court records, has admitted molesting girls all his life?
DATELINE found him going door-to-door, a Jehovah's Witness in good standing,
evangelizing to people who know nothing about his record. His own son, Carl,
says the church should know better.

(Clement)

Mr. CARL PANDELLO: He's a sexual predator. When he goes door-to-door, he has a
craving for young, juvenile girls, as he puts it. He's looking at that child,
having those immoral thoughts in his mind while he's there.

LARSON: You know the church now says they don't have a special problem. It's a
societal problem and they do everything they can to stop pedophiles from
hurting children within the Jehovah's Witness church. What do you say to them?

Ms. E. GARZA: Liars.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even though her accused rapist had been freed on a
technicality, Erica Garza was not about to let him off the hook. Last summer,
nearly five years after she first came forward, Erica headed back to court.
Once again, not one Jehovah's Witness from her former church came to support
her. But this time, she wasn't alone.

(Beliz; Erica and others)

Mr. BOWEN: ...comments we've made from all over the country...

LARSON: (Voiceover) That out-spoken elder from Kentucky, Bill Bowen, was there.

(Erica talking to Bowen)

Mr. BOWEN: Just to even things.

LARSON: (Voiceover) And Bowen had set up a new support group for sexually
abused Jehovah's Witnesses. And more than 20 people who had heard about the
case through his Web site were there to support Erica.

Ms. GARZA: Thank you, everybody, for being here.

These are people who don't know me, who flew from all over the place for me, to
be there for me because they realize, `Hey, you didn't do anything wrong.' And
it was so encouraging to see people there for me...

(Voiceover) ...as opposed for him.

(People entering court house)

LARSON: (Voiceover) In court, Manuel Beliz took the stand. He denied molesting
Erica, but did admit touching her inappropriately. Once again, Beliz was found
guilty.

(Empty court room; photo of Beliz)

Ms. E. GARZA: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica Garza says she has found justice in spite of her
church.

(Erica, Reuben and Alexandra coming out of courthouse)

Ms. E. GARZA: Oh, I can't believe it. On all four counts.

Mr. GARZA: Just a little bit of justice. You deserve it.

Ms. E. GARZA: Thank you, God. Thank you, Lord.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Her molester has been sent to prison for 11 1/2 years.

Ms. E. GARZA: Thank you for all your help, Bill.

Mr. BOWEN: Everything's over.

Ms. ANDERSON: You'll sleep well tonight, won't you?

Ms. E. GARZA: Yeah.

LARSON: (Voiceover) All Erica wants now, she says, is for the church to change
its policy and give molestation victims simple advice.

Ms. E. GARZA: `Take it to the police.' Hey, encourage me to take it to the
police. Don't tell me not to.

PHILLIPS: Erica Garza and Holly Brewer are both suing the Watchtower Society
and their local congregations. The church is fighting the lawsuits. The
church also told DATELINE that while some known pedophiles still go
door-to-door, they are not allowed to do alone.

Finally, four of the people DATELINE interviewed--former Elder Bill Bowen,
Barbara Anderson and Carl and Barbara Pandello--are facing possible expulsion
from their congregations.

Before your next Judicial meeting...

2010-03-09T01:08:00.001-05:00

Hey this may help you establish some things before you enter your next Judicial meeting...

Our Letter to the Elders

Dear Brothers,

The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain matters and to secure and protect what we, Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, consider basic human rights in dealing with agents of the multinational Watchtower corporations.

Since you have asked us to respond to charges in what could escalate into a judicial committee, there are a few things that we must ask for and which we feel must be clarified before we consider meeting with the elders, judicially or otherwise:

1. We shall be notified in writing of any accusations against us, the names of persons making such accusations and the substance of all evidence against us.

2. We shall be notified in writing of the exact purpose of the meetings.

3. We shall be notified in writing of the time, place and purpose of any meetings with the elders, judicially or otherwise.

4. We shall be notified in writing exactly on whose behalf the judicial committee was convened and is acting: the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.

5. If any agency other than the one for whom the judicial committee has informed us they are acting for is consulted, reported to, or allowed to have any bearing on the outcome of the judicial process, we will consider the judicial committee as acting in the their behalf.

6. We shall be notified in writing as to our status as a member of any and all of the organizations for which the committee is acting or to which the committee will report.

7. We insist that the judicial committee immediately cease, and in the future desist from any actions toward or against us in behalf of any corporation or organization of which we are not members.

8. We shall be notified in writing of any and all of our rights and responsibilities involved in the judicial process.

9. We shall be given sufficient time between notification of any meetings with a judicial committee and the time of the actual meeting to prepare a response to any accusations.

10. We shall be allowed to have at least one person of our choice present during all meetings between the judicial committee and us as an observer. Since there is good reason to believe that the judicial committee may consult with one or more lawyers, specifically those employed by the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated, the person of our choice may also be a lawyer.

11. During the meetings with the judicial committee we and our observer will be allowed to document anything we feel is necessary.

Additionally, if the judicial committee takes any judicial action against us:

12. We will not recognize any action taken by the judicial committee as valid unless it is communicated to us in writing, stating the exact nature and reason for the action.

13. In this written communication the judicial committee must state exactly on whose behalf they have taken the action, specifically the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.

14. If the judicial committee has stated that it is acting only for the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is enjoined from notifying any agency outside the congregation of their action. If the judicial committee or anyone acting in their behalf notifies or reports to anyone outside the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we may take any appropriate legal action.

15. We may appeal any action taken by the judicial committee.

16. Before we will meet with an appeal committee, that committee must notify us in writing of the names of all of the members of the appeal committee and who each one represents: the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or it’s legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named

17. There shall be no contact between the judicial committee and the appeal committee other than to inform them of the time and place of our meetings with them. If we determine that there is any contact, communication or attempt on the part of any of the members of the original judicial committee or anyone acting on their behalf to, in any way prejudice or sway the appeal committee, we will insist that a new appeal committee be formed.

18. We shall be notified in writing of any and all of our rights and responsibilities involved in the appeal process.

19. We shall be allowed to have at least one person of our choice present during all meetings between us and the appeal committee. Since there is good reason to believe that the appeal committee may consult with one or more lawyers, specifically those employed by the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated, the person of our choice may also be a lawyer.

20. During the meetings with the appeal committee us and our observer will be allowed to document whatever we feel is necessary.

21. We will not recognize any action taken by the appeal committee as valid unless it is communicated to us in writing, stating the exact nature and reason for the action.

22. In this written communication the appeal committee must state exactly on whose behalf they are taking the action, specifically the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.

23. If the appeal committee has stated that it is acting only for the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is enjoined from notifying any agency outside the congregation of their action. If the appeal committee or anyone acting in their behalf notifies or reports to anyone outside the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we may take any appropriate legal action.

24. We understand that if we are disfellowshipped by the judicial committee and the disfellowshipping is upheld by the appeal committee that we are, at that point, no longer considered to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We also understand that you may make a brief announcement that we have been disfellowshipped. From then on, we will consider any attempt to convince by speeches, talks or teaching; to coerce by implied or actual threat of similar judicial action; or to encourage by private counsel or suggestion any of Jehovah’s Witnesses to treat us differently from any other persons that are not Jehovah’s Witnesses to be a serious violation of our civil rights. We may then initiate any legal action, civil or criminal, that we deem appropriate. This includes any attempt to convince by speeches, talks or teaching; to coerce by implied or actual threat of similar judicial action; or to encourage by private counsel or suggestion any present Jehovah’s Witnesses to shun or avoid us, cease or otherwise modify their doing business with us, or terminate or otherwise abrogate any lease, rental, mortgage, or any other legal agreement that we may presently have with them. We may consider such to be an infringement of free trade and may initiate appropriate legal action.

25. We consider any communication between the members of the judicial committee and ourselves and the appeal committee and ourselves to be ecclesiastically privileged. Any attempt to reveal the substance or tone of those communications to any other person or group will be considered by us to be a breach of that privilege and may result in legal action. This includes any announcements beyond the fact of our disfellowshipping, speeches, talks, or any other communication, written or oral, public or private.

Additionally, we have decided that we will not formally disassociate ourselves from the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or from Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. We came to this decision for several reasons. First, there is nothing in the Bible that calls for a formal letter of disassociation in our situation, or any other. It seems to us that the provision of formal disassociation is a matter of convenience for the legal department of the Watchtower Society rather than serving any real religious purpose. Also, we have no problem with the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation or its members. Our disagreements are with certain actions, policies, teachings and writings contained in publications that are produced, and in oral teachings promulgated either individually or collectively by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the International Bible Students Association.

We respectfully await your written response,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Three Stooges

2010-03-09T00:59:00.002-05:00

When decent men are duped by a corrupt and apostate Organisation and "just follow orders" in return for an illusion of power and glory, this is what happens..........

Introduction
If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses commits a wrong as interpreted by the Witness leadership [and some of these "wrongs" are not defined in the Bible e.g. smoking tobacco, taking blood transfusions] they are investigated and brought before a “judicial” committee of elders. The charges might be anything from a serious crime such as fraud, a moral misdemeanour such as adultery or more commonly now, apostasy -- daring to disagree with the teachings of the Watchtower Society.

Since many elders are men of low education, the standard of justice leaves something to be desired. The elders are trained by their masters, the Watchtower Society, in regular schools. They have a secret Manual, available only to elders -- always men -- which they follow. Such is their confidence in "Jehovah's organisation" that they actually believe that adherence to the Manual will produce good results. As will be seen, the Bible -- the "principal text-book" -- is put aside in preference to the Manual. If the wrongdoer does not repent, then whatever the crime or misdemeanour, they will be disfellowshipped by the committee and all Jehovah's Witnesses will shun the person thereafter. There is a Right of Appeal to another Jehovah's Witness' court made up from another group of elders from another congregation.

However, the Witnesses do not suppose that their power ends in the congregation. They are not shy about taking proceedings against members of the public who are former Witnesses if they are perceived as a threat and, in their paranoid world, former members may be a threat for many reasons. Former members who vote in elections or join the Forces or attend another religious denomination, are declared by the congregation to have “disassociated themselves" automatically [i.e. they have disfellowshipped themselves].

Others who leave must remain silent forever-after, for if they speak to active Witnesses and expose the Organisation, they are harassed and witch-hunted even years after leaving. In my own case, as you will see, I was pursued more than three years after leaving. The objective was to declare me a member long enough to disfellowship me, discredit me and defame me, so that all Jehovah's Witnesses and former Witnesses would be forbidden to speak to me or be afraid to associate with me because they would fear the same attentions that were given me. I decided to fight back..............

Background
You should read the transcript of Tom 'n' Jerry first to understand how this "judicial" committee came about as a result of elders coming to my home as agents provocateurs on February 28th., under false pretences, and their repeated attempts to entrap me. Evidence obtained by entrapment is invalid in any respected court throughout the world although it is common practice among Jehovah's Witness elders.

Then.........
A few weeks later, on March 24th, late in the evening, another elder, Chris Taylor telephoned me. After chatting for ten minutes, he invited me to “a meeting”. I asked who would be present. As soon as he informed me that three elders would be present, I realised it would be a judicial committee -- a secret church court -- of Jehovah's Witnesses and since I had no need or intention of repenting of anything, I would be disfellowshipped and all Jehovah's Witnesses including my parent and sister, would be forbidden thereafter to speak to me or even so much as greet me in the street. He admitted this would be a “judicial “ committee only after I asked him outright.

On April 1st, I telephoned Chris Taylor, then the Secretary in Waverley congregation, and asked him how long the farce would continue. He did not know. I asked again who the witnesses would be and how many they intended calling. He said “John and Roddie ....... if we need to get more, then we will” to which I replied “so you'll just keep bringing witnesses until you hang me?". He also named Amerigo Lanny, a former friend, as a possible witness against me. During several telephone conversations with Chris, he assured me that I would be given "a fair trial". Indeed, he was very offended that I suggested otherwise since he would be Chairman of the Committee.

The original intention was for me to appear before a "judicial" committee without a defined charge and answer unspecified questions on the day. This is the preferred method where there is no definite misdemeanour or witnesses since the accused Witness helps incriminate himself by answering unrelated questions such as “Do you believe that the Watchtower Society is Jehovah's organisation?” or "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the "faithful and discreet slave" to-day?", not unlike the witch-hunts of McCarthyism 50 years ago. I rejected that proposal and insisted that Chris should tell the Committee to find a charge against me. Even so, the amended accusation -- apostasy -- is wide open to interpretation by Jehovah's Witnesses and is a favourite “catch-all” for which little preparation can be made. In other words, it was their intention that no defence would be available to me.

Judicial committees are intended to humiliate Witnesses. They intimidate the Witnesses because they fear the elders’ authority which, they have been taught, comes from God. But the elders had over-looked one thing - I do not fear them now. Instead, I despise them, as the deputies of a corrupt and apostate organisation.

I spent several weeks wondering whether to attend or not. I knew that disfellowshipping was inevitable, but I did not wish to be disgraced -- I was thinking of my old JW mother and my sister -- or to give them the satisfaction of disfellowshipping me. As I recommend elsewhere, it is better to resign and be in some control than to feel that such a thing has been done to you.

I considered writing a firm letter to resign and listened to the advice of many people. Two friends influenced me: one would say, “Don’t go. You’ll just play into their hands, be humiliated and give them sport at your expense" while the other would say, “You have nothing to lose. Go along, record it and expose them”.

Finally, on the day before the judicial committee, I borrowed my friend’s recorder [thank you Moray!] and finished taking notes. As before in the Tom 'n' Jerry interview, I decided that, if these men were interviewing me without malice, then recording the Committee meeting could only leave them in a good light, but if they intended harm to me, it would return to them as a result of the recording.

I decided not concern myself with trying to prove them wrong [they are!] on their own doctrinal ground. It is impossible to reason on Scripture with Witnesses. Instead, I attacked them on technicalities which show clearly that they had no intention of giving me a fair trial -- apparently they do not understand what a fair trial is -- although the Watchtower Society expects - and is given - fair treatment when it goes to court.

Additionally, I showed that despite the claims of the Watchtower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses are never free to leave their religion except with dishonour.

The three "judges" are manual workers: a window-cleaner, a chiropractic masseur and an office-cleaner. The two witnesses are a jack-of-all-trades and a cleaner. Of all five men, only the latter man has had a good education -- and has come a long way from Eton!

I have included the prayer to show how Witnesses pray and for what they pray before such a "judicial" committee which will commonly lead to the expulsion of a fellow Witness from their congregation or at very best, the humiliation of that individual, without any psychological or professional support. Those who are disfellowshipped are cast out into the world, leaving all Witness relatives and friends behind. Not surprisingly, this leads some former members to psychiatric problems, severe depression, marriage difficulties, alcoholism and even suicide.

Although I have never succumbed to extremes, I have suffered many heart-aches and traumas during the 10 years since elders in Corstorphine congregation (renamed Clermiston, Edinburgh after its demise and eventual dissolution by London Bethel HQ) contributed to the destruction of my 18 years marriage. Later, I returned to Jehovah's Witnesses after several years outside, unable to cope with life in the real world after being indocrtinated from an early age. This is a common problem for leaving Witnesses if they have been members for many years. However, finally after 2 or 3 more years, I realised something was wrong and really had to drag myself away reluctantly. Only after leaving did I finally obtain the proof that the religion is false and corrupt and I became a Christian.

I won’t pretend that my “court” technique is brilliant -- I talk too much and do not insist on questions being answered -- but unlike a proper court, where counsel might have a right to demand an answer, I could expect no such right, so when I asked questions of the “judges”, I was content to have their silence or refusal to answer on tape. I was happy just to make points -- even lengthy ones -- if at the end I could elicit some confirmation or even a lack of response. I also hoped that some of the comments might sink in later and bother the consciences of the Committee members at some future time.

My explanatory comments are in square brackets [...italics....]

Pauses in speech are denoted by [...................]

Extracts from the secret Elders’ Manual are in parentheses and a different colour. {EM....}
[“secret” because it is available only to male Witnesses while serving as elders]

I have added asterisks [****] to comments which should be noted for later reference especially in the transcript of the next "meeting".

[These men persisted in calling me by my familiar name "Tony" although I have made it plain that this is not my preferred choice]

The "Judicial" Committee
The "judicial" committee was held at the Kingdom Hall at 95 Broughton Street, Edinburgh, Scotland at 2000 hours on Friday, 30th April, 1999. The Hall is a converted flat (apartment) in a tenement (common stairway) and has been used by Waverley congregation for about 50 years.

The "Judges": Chris Taylor [Chairman] (46), Robin Maxwell (35), Dennis Graham (48)

Witnesses: John Maxwell (60), Roddie Darroch. (60) All elders of Jehovah's Witnesses
(All ages are approximate)

The Accused: Anthony Roberts (47) a former life-member of Jehovah's Witnesses

The Crime: Apostasy -- according to the definition of Jehovah's Witnesses. Or more precisely: leaving the religion -- holding an opinion that I am happy that I did -- telling people so when they ask me.

My aim: To expose the corrupt and unchristian practice of secret "judicial" committees and to show the public how incompetent and unqualified men are used by the Watchtower Society to judge their fellow Jehovah's Witnessses -- and former Witnesses who obviously want no further part in the religion -- in secret church courts which violate Human Rights. Although I attempt to argue a case, I do so only to demonstrate that it is a waste of time, since the Watchtower leadership and their yes-men have no intention of honouring the Bible's standards of justice which they claim to follow.

As usual, the Witness elders all wore suits and ties -- almost like a uniform.
I showered and dressed specially for the occasion -- [clean] jeans, T-shirt, trainers [sneakers], casual jerkin/jacket -- and I didn't shave for about 2/3 days (JWs don't approve of beards!)

DECLARATION by Anthony Roberts:
This transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings. The tape-recording will be made available to anyone who has authority to examine it. The Watchtower Society is invited to purchase a copy for an administration fee to cover my time and expenses.

The Committee meets:
Chris: Thank you for coming We’re just going to ask Jehovah’s blessing...... and Robin’s going to ask that
Robin: Jehovah our great God in the heavens we are very thankful that we can ask for your holy spirit at this time as we discuss important matters with Tony and we realise you are the God of truth and we are very privileged to have your word of truth which we use to help us make important decisions and also to guide our lives by the principles found within its pages. We ask that your spirit can be upon us to firmly establish these matters at the mouth of two or three witnesses and we also realise the importance of honesty and truthfulness between us. We ask that your spirit help us in these matters and we ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen ["Jehovah's "holy spirit" is a force", say the Witnesses, and not a person]
Chris: Right then. Thanks for coming. Now, the reason for the meeting O.K.? It has been alleged, O.K., by one or two in the congregation, over the last few months, a year or so, that you have been making comments that, if were true, could be viewed as apostate, O.K.? These are just allegations at this point so the body of elders felt that, in view of that, although you have left the congregation some years ago, but because you are still having contact with some Witnesses, if these allegations were true, it could endanger the spiritual welfare of the congregation - if these allegations are true - so we felt that at least a visit should be made - that’s why John and Roddie came round to see you -- to investigate what these allegations were and so on O.K. and on the basis of their visit, we have now arranged this meeting, O.K.? So do you have any comments? ****

{EM: After opening with prayer, the chairman states the reason for the meeting.......... The chairman invites the accused to make a personal statement.}

Anton: Yes. I’ve got quite a lot of comments to make. How long have you got?
Chris: As long as...... it takes ****
Anton: Right Well first of all you promised me a fair trial if you remember?
Chris: Right.
Anton: .....and this is a trial isn’t it?
Chris: O.K. Yes if you want to put it that way
Anton: It's a trial isn’t it? You are judges aren’t you?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And I am accused of a certain thing and at the end of it you will make a: pronouncement so, I’ve got to ask you what you’re going to do to make sure that I get a fair trial and I don’t really think that the way things are just now that that is very likely, as I’ve said to you before when I spoke to you on the phone. Ummm..... for example, do I have the right to remain silent?
Chris: You have the right to do whatever you wish Tony. If we ask you a question, it’s up to you whether you answer it or not.**
Anton: Well if I remain silent, who is going to defend me?
Chris: Who’s going to defend you?
Anton: Yes.
Chris: Well, first why would you want to stay silent?
Anton: Well doesn’t..... well any decent court in the civilised world allows people to remain silent and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors -- which is what you are -- to prove the case. So are we going to work under these rules or some new and different made-up rules?
Chris: OK. As we explained to you on the phone, let's get one thing clear Tony. The procedure that we follow, right, is the procedure outlined in the scriptures OK? ****
Anton: I would have to disagree with that
Chris: At the mouth of two or three witnesses........
Anton: I would have to disagree with that because if that was the case, we would be sitting at the “public gate” and this room would be filled with people. So that’s another point I was going to raise actually, the fact that this is a secret meeting. Its being held in private with no witnesses present. There are no observers present as you’ve told me. You told me that I would not be allowed witnesses or observers present There is no-one taking a written transcript of the proceedings There is no-one here to witness what has been said is there?

{EM: However, observers are not permitted. No tape-recording devices are allowed.}

Chris: Well......
Anton: So if this was according to the [Hebrew/ OT] scriptures then we would be sitting outside on the street and anybody would be able to hear what we were saying, so this is a secret meeting which is not scriptural........
Chris: OK
Anton: ......and is in fact in harmony with the elders manual. [Advantage Anton.......]
Chris: Right Tony. We are going to hold this meeting right, under our understanding of scripture. We could debate all night scriptural definitions of this and that, but we are members of Jehovah's organisation, O.K.? Now our understanding of the scriptures is what we will base this meeting on, O.K.?
Anton: Well its not my understanding of the scriptures as I’ve pointed out to you already as the scriptures clearly say that such a trial would take place at the city gate with the older men - and Jehovah's Witnesses commonly equate the elders of the congregation with the older men of Israel.
Chris: We hear what you say, but we will still continue to hold this meeting......... [!!!!]
Anton: Oh yes! Well I have to raise an objection and let you know that that is an objection
Chris: Fine, O.K.
Anton: I would also.......
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- you also mentioned about that we are not taking copious notes There’s three of us here witnessing to what you say.
Anton: Oh yes
Chris: We are not...... we are advised not to take copious notes and put a load of things down in writing. [I wonder why........?] We are here to witness what you say, we’ve all heard what you’ve said.
Anton: I don't have any witnesses to witness what you are saying or what I am saying do I ?
Chris: Well we said that you could bring along witnesses for the occasion [Chris consistently confuses “observers” with “witnesses”]
Anton: Well observers then if you want to put a different point on it
Chris: That..... we don't.........
Anton: Oh yes -- that’s right! That’s right! I know! I know! [Next I use “Watchtower-speak”] That’s right, but the whole point I’m making here is that in a “worldly” court where you would expect “worldly” people who don’t have Christian [JW] principles, you have very, very high standards of justice and here in “Jehovah’s Theocratic Organisation” you have very, very low standards of justice and in fact, my human rights are being violated right now by the very fact that this meeting is being held at all because you are constituting a court which violates human rights.
Chris: No, it doesn’t. You don’t have to be here Tony.
Anton: Oh yes -- I agree. I agree. I don’t have to be here, but as you said to me last Friday night on the telephone, the meeting had -- on Sunday night rather -- the meeting had been planned to go ahead for to-night in my absence, isn’t that correct?
Chris: Well we would have had the meeting, but we don't know what the decision would be made because we may have invited you to come..... we don’t know the reason you would not have come for.......
Anton: Yes, yes
Chris: We didn't say that a decision would be made, come what may. No-one has said that
Anton: But eventually if I.... if I refused to come, then you would go ahead with the trial in my absence and you would try me in my absence without any defence?
Chris: If you continued to refuse to come, yeah.

{EM: If the accused repeatedly fails to come to the hearing, the committee will proceed with the hearing but will not make a decision until evidence and any testimony by witnesses are considered............. Failure to appear before the committee is not in itself proof of guilt}

Anton: So do you know of any “worldly” court which would allow such a thing to happen?
Chris: Tony -- Tony -- you..... you..... stop trying to compare this procedure with a “worldly" court.
Anton: Oh yes. Oh yes! I can see that! I would rather be in a “worldly” [non-JW] court!.......
Chris: [interrupts] Well, that’s.....
Anton: .......because then I know that I would get justice and then I’d know that there would be people there to make sure that justice was seen to be done and that I had qualified men to judge me, that all the proceedings were done in a proper way which had been established over many centuries and that is not being done here.
Chris: We're...... we’re following the procedure directed by the [Watchtower] Society ***
[so we're not following the scriptures?]
Anton: Oh, I know that! I realise that!
Chris: And that is the procedure we will follow, Tony.
Anton: Yes
Robin: And that’s the only thing we can do isn’t it, Tony? All we can do is follow the procedure that’s laid down by Jehovah's organisation [Watchtower Society]........
Anton: [interjects] Yes - "just following orders"
Robin: ........within this framework......
Anton: [interjects] Yes. You’re “just following orders”
Robin: ......there’s no alternative.
Anton: Yes. That’s what you do. You’re just following orders, but I would have to ask you why you’re wanting to do that?........ Ummm....... so you agree that you are representing the Watchtower Society?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And are you representing God?
Chris: As the elders of God’s congregation, yes.
Anton: I’ve got a list of objections and I won’t them read them all -- but one or two of them I’ve mentioned already. The first objection I’ve got is the witnesses are presumably sitting outside the room?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And overhearing whatever goes through he door?
Chris: No
Anton: How do you know?
Chris: Because we trust them
Anton: Well I don’t. And I would really appreciate if you would move them to an outer room so that they can..... cannot hear what is going on in this room because the whole point of justice is that you are able to examine witnesses and talk to them.......... [witnesses should not be able to overhear the cross-examination of others who go before them]
Chris: Do you feel that they are here..... standing at the door eavesdropping?
Anton: I don't know They could well be, but in a.... in a.......
Chris: Would you be happier if you knew that they weren’t there?
Anton: Yes
Chris: Where?
Anton: I think they should sit outside or they should be sitting somewhere else, but certainly not outside the door of the court where they can overhear anything that happens to go through the door. Or if they wish they could even stand at the door and listen
Chris: Stand at the door and listen?
Anton: Yes - you’ve heard of “eavesdropping” haven’t you? It could be done. I just think it’s not a good procedure to have them sitting outside in the room where they could overhear things that are being said here
Chris: O.K. So you’d you be happier of they sat in the foyer?
Anton: Or the Gents or the Ladies [rooms]. I don't mind
Chris: Well they’re not going to sit in the toilets Tony.
Anton: Well whatever, but I would really be happier if they were not within hearing distance
Chris: [to Dennis & Robin] What do you think? [Will they agree to my request to show how reasonable they are?]
Dennis: That would be alright
Robin: Yes, I don’t see any problem
Chris: Could you ask them...
Robin: Certainly, yes.
[Anton - 1 Elders - 0 -- I cannot believe it has worked!! Somehow I manage to avoid grinning from ear to ear. Now I know that I am winning and I relax a little. The two glorious elders outside spend the next hour sitting in the vestibule -- a 3 metre square cloakroom outside the toilets by the front door ]

[Robin Maxwell returns]
Chris: O.K. Tony ?
Anton: Yes I’ve got another objection regarding two of the judges who are sitting here because two of you have already acted in multiple roles. You Chris and you Robin have both acted as investigators and you are also acting as judges and witnesses and that is prejudicial to a fair hearing. The fact that you have investigated me and you made telephone calls to me to try to make me incriminate me on the telephone and that tells me I cannot have a fair trial under those circumstances and I would have to
ask for an adjournment on that basis alone
Chris: Well you can ask for it, but you won't get it - and your objection’s noted
Anton: O.K. Umm.......... I’m concerned about the qualifications of the judges. You have no formal training in ethics or jurisprudence or any understanding -- or any real understanding -- so far as I can see, of the principles of justice and you are supposed to be “elders ruling for justice itself” and I don’t see how you...... for justice or righteousness itself.... .and I don't see how you can do that, given the fact that you have had no formal training or any education in jurisprudence.
Chris: O.K. that’s noted
Anton: Well what are you going to do about it?
Chris: We’re not going to do anything Tony because we feel that we’re adequately qualified on the scriptures and the Society's provisions.

{EM: He [Jehovah] has raised up elders to serve as counsellors and judges}

Anton: O.K. right. Um.....one of the most important things that a judge has to be is impartial and I don't think you can be impartial when you’ve already heard the evidence Because you have all heard the evidence already haven’t you?

{EM: They must treat every person with impartiality at all times.....}

Chris: Not all of it
Anton: But you have heard a substantial amount of evidence?
Dennis: Not from you though Tony.
Anton: Sorry? [Dennis speaks quietly]
Dennis: We haven’t heard it from you Tony.
Anton: Yes but you have heard evidence regarding this and that s why I’m here Or that’s why you have asked me to come here.
Chris: That's why the committee's meeting
Anton: When John and Roddie left my house, they came here at some point later on and gave you a full report of what had been said by me?
Chris: No, they didn’t. They did not give a full report.
Anton: Well, did they give you a report at all?
Chris: Sufficient enough for us to have this meeting yes
Anton: Right so you’ve heard the evidence before.
Robin: You see, its necessary to have a degree of information in any matter before this committee can even be formed Tony, you know? In the first place, in any case of alleged wrongdoing before a judicial committee can even be formed, you know we have to have accurate information -- either a confession from the person or testimony from two witnesses otherwise that committee cannot be formed so that’s why we are here now. So we had a measure of information sufficient to form this committee but that is all
Anton: A judge doesn’t have that.
Robin: No, but you see you keep....... This is nothing to do with “worldly” courts........
Anton: So I’ve noticed......
Robin: .....its nothing to do with worldly courts it's the way that Jehovah conducts things [Really? Fascinating!] through his organisation, you see. You can't call worldly judges or lawyers or barristers in to deal with serious matters in the Christian congregation -- you can’t do that.
Anton: Are they above that, are they? Or below that?
Robin: But you can’t do that because they’re not.....they don’t have the scriptural qualifications - so this is what Jehovah’s justice is based on - in his word the Bible
Dennis: There again when you have a court case certain evidence has to be presented before you can have a court case
Anton: That is presented to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland [Crown Prosecutor in England and District Attorney in USA] and he decides whether charges are brought and he takes no part in the actual trial and then a judge is appointed and that judge will hear the case for the first time on the day. And in cases, as you know, where theres a lot of publicity, then it often makes the trial null and void, doesn’t it? So the fact that the judges have heard the case before is another objection
Dennis: But we haven’t heard the case.
Anton: Well you just said a wee minute ago that you had heard the case
Robin: We said that we had a measure of information sufficient to set up this committee. That was the point
Anton: Yes but you are once again acting in a dual role. The Procurator Fiscal does not act in a dual role.
Chris: But we’re not......
Robin: We accept what you’re saying Tony, I...... but there's no point discussing this at length you know, the difference between how things are done in “worldly” courts and here because the two bear no relation at all.........
Anton: [interrupts] Oh I can see that!
Robin: So there’s no point sitting for three hours saying this is how things are done here and there ....... it makes no difference. We know....... we know the standards that are laid down in the procedures and we’ll follow them and that’s it. That’s how things are done.
Anton: The procedures where?
Robin: The Society’s procedure for handling judicial matters [i.e. not in the Bible -- and notice that the Accused is not given access to the procedures manual]
Anton: Right. O.K. I’ve mentioned already that no observers are present to see that justice is done because I don’t really count you three as witnesses for me because obviously you must be slightly prejudicial to your own case. I’ve said that no written record's being made. I’m not permitted anyone to defend me if I choose to remain silent. And I really don't see why I...... why anyone should cooperate in incriminating themselves. So I think if you bring charges against a person you should be prepared to supply the proof and the evidence and prove the case to..... to a conclusion. Regarding the evidence: I’ve not been allowed to review the evidence. I haven’t got a clue what this is going to be about. Had I not spoken to you on the telephone Chris, we would have come here with an open-ended discussion because, if you remember on, I think it was Wednesday 24th March, or Thursday 25th March, you went away to the body of elders to bring back a case to me that night, to bring back an accusation to me that night. Do you remember that?
Chris: To bring back an accusation?
Anton: Yes because I said you couldn’t charge me with....... well, whatever it was. I don’t think it was actually a charge. It was just a “come along and have a chat”
Chris: That's not true, Tony. On the two conversations that we had on the phone, O.K. it was very clearly stated by the end of those two conversations -- there's no point getting involved in dates or anything -- at the end of those two conversations it was clearly stated to you that a meeting was to be arranged based on alleged apostasy
Anton: Yes, but that was only at the end of the second conversation on the Thursday evening. [and at my insistence]
Chris: That is sufficient, Anton.
Anton: Oh yes, I agree..........
Chris: And you know the reason that you've come here for. There’s no ambiguity in the reason why you're here. It’s not an open-ended discussion It was clearly stated to you the purpose of this meeting.
Anton: The point I made is that it would have been an open-ended discussion if I had not asked you to go away and ........
Chris: No it wouldn't
Anton: Well it was at the time on the Wednesday night.... on the Thursday morning.
Chris: We're not going along ....... over that point. The fact is, Tony at the end of those conversations you were in no doubt as to the purpose of this meeting
Anton: Yes but that was by my doing in the sense that I asked you to go away and come back with a proper charge because there was no proper charge at that time.
Chris: Whether...... we’re not going to argue the case because its your word against mine and that’s ....... the point is at the end of that conversation, that’s why we’re here now. Now as Robin mentioned just a moment ago, we could spend comparisons the whole night, OK about the courts, of the law of the land, and the courts and the way we hold it in the Society the congregation, OK. We’re not here to discuss that Tony You can mention your objections fine, and we’ll note them and discuss them, but please, don’t spend all our time raising objections about the court of the land and the way we’re doing it now.
Anton: The point is I’ve got to do that because you said that I would have a fair trial and ......
Chris: Yes, but don’t ask us...... you can bring up your objections fine, but we’re not going to argue the case backwards and forwards, as to the courts of the law of the land and the court within the congregation.
Anton: Yes, but what I’m saying is by a “fair trial” I would not expect a procedure like this and that brings me to my next point which is I have not been informed of your procedures so I could not make adequate preparation so all of this, or most of this, is a surprise to me, what you have said to me just now. I knew in advance that I wouldn’t be able to bring anybody along, I knew in advance that I wouldn't be able to have someone to defend me, but.......ummmm..... this is why I really wanted to go through this first -- to find out where the goalposts are, because basically your idea of a fair trial -- and most people’s idea of a fair trial -- would be slightly different, I think.
Chris: Well, the goalposts are Tony just so that, you know, there’s no problem here, is that we’re having this meeting because there’s been alleged apostasy. Apostasy....... we’re going to discuss this evening - apostasy based on our - as Jehovah's Witnesses - our understanding of apostasy based on the scriptures O.K. because......because apostasy O.K., we’ve got the definition, the Greek and Hebrew -- [do these men understand Greek or Hebrew?] could be defined scripturally from loads of different organisation as something slightly different, but we’re not here to discuss Catholics Protestants, Born-again Christians’ definition of apostasy, were here to discuss, Jehovah's Witnesses’ definition based on the scriptures O.K. -- based on the scriptures
Anton: Well based on your interpretation of the scriptures.
Chris: Well O.K. -- we’re part of Jehovah’s organisation O.K? We’re not here to discuss the Catholics' definition of it, alright so that’s the goalposts and they won’t be moved at any stage. ****
Anton: That’s a very open-ended..... once again I come to another point which coincides with that. I was not informed of the complete charges against me as was mentioned and the word “apostate” is open to wide interpretation. And even the...... your own version of “apostasy” or definition of apostasy is very wide and open to interpretation.
Chris: When you say “your interpretation” who do you mean?
Anton: The interpretation..... the definition given to “apostasy” by Jehovah's Witnesses is..... is very wide and is open.......
Chris: Do you not agree with that interpretation then?
Anton: [pause] I’ll remain silent on that one
Chris: Sorry?
Anton: I’ll remain silent on that one, but the point I’m making is that “apostasy” is whatever each church decides. Apostasy in the other churches might be different as you’ve said........
Chris: We’ve said that
Anton: ......and “apostasy” as you would view it, but I believe that the definition that you hold is very open to interpretation.
Chris: So what about your definition of “apostasy”? Is that open to........?
Anton: I would just go by the dictionary -- which I don’t have with me. But I would probably just go by the dictionary.
Chris: Tony [meaning Robin] at that point there, could you just read what the dictionary definition of “apostasy” is?
Robin: Yes I’ve got that here then. A couple........ a couple of wee points, the first one is........
Anton: Which dictionary is this?
Robin: .........now I’ve not got a note of which dictionary it is to be honest, well........ but can I read you the definition? [He reads from paper notes] The first one is : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc. or the abandonment of a previous loyalty”
Anton: Right. That's it?
Robin: Yes. That’s it, aye.
Anton: So could you just read that again please?
Chris: Read that again.
Robin: Yes. The first wee point was : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc.” and the second was “the abandonment of a previous loyalty”

{EM: Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities. ......... Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people...... Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates..... disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement}

[as I said, "catch-all". Compare with above dictionary definition]
Anton: Well........ I’ll leave it you anyway just now. Ummm..... the next objection I have is that the judges have all heard the evidence which is what I’ve mentioned already and therefore cannot be impartial which is a key point for all judges. As I objected before, a full list of Witnesses has not been provided. You did not tell me who would appear to accuse me....... well....... well..... apart from John. And Roddie That’s it. [the people who were so "concerned" have been replaced by the two investigators]

{EM: Present the witnesses one at a time unless the wrongdoer confesses. If the accused does not admit guilt, he should be informed as to the source of the charge(s) made against him. Accusers should be willing to assume their responsibility, as was required in Israel}

Chris: That’s all. That’s all at this point, Tony. If we feel that the evidence presented this evening is insufficient then we will call more witnesses, but scripturally at the mouth of two or three witnesses so we have brought along two witnesses
Anton: I would have to ask you why you would feel the need to call more witnesses?
Chris: Well, we shall see
Anton: No. I’m asking you why you would need to call more witnesses later?
Chris: If we feel that the evidence of two witnesses right, or what they say -- what they witnessed to, may be inconclusive,
Anton: Well in that case I [will] have won my case.
Chris: Why?
Anton: Because I [will] have not been proved to be guilty.
Chris: We haven’t said you are [he doesn’t understand the point -- or plain English]
Anton: No, but the point of this meeting surely is to establish whether I am guilty?
Chris: Well that’s for us to decide, not you [he still doesn't understand!]
Anton: That's right, but what I’m saying is, the point of this meeting is to establish whether I’m guilty. That is the normal point of a trial isn’t it? If the......or if you cannot prove that I am guilty to-night, then the case should be closed.
Chris: Well that's for us to decide, Tony. We shall come to that bridge if and when we have to.
Anton: But if this a fair trial I would expect the case to be closed.
Chris:[interrupts] Well, it won’t.......
Anton: ........because as I said to you on the phone last time I spoke to you, “how many witnesses are you going to bring?” and I think you said “we’ll bring as many as we like “ and I said to you “Until you hang me?”
Chris: That’s as many as necessary
Anton: So what’s that then? I said to you, do you mean that you would bring as many as it needs to hang me?, to just keep bringing them and digging them out of the woodwork until you hang me?
Chris: No
Robin: Its just a matter of having sufficient information so that all matters can be firmly established properly, you see. That s the idea of having witnesses
Anton: Oh I’m fully aware of that. What I’m saying is “how many witnesses do you intend to bring?” and how many more witnesses.......
Chris: How long is a piece of string Tony? We don't know until we’ve heard the evidence.............
Anton: Well there must be a finite number of witnesses surely?
Chris: We will leave it at these two for this evening Tony
Anton: And if it doesn’t work this time then.....
Chris: We shall leave it at two witnesses this evening Tony O.K.?
Anton: Well, this is not a fair trial then!
Chris: Tony -- you've already made it very clear that you don't agree....
Anton: Well I object - I object - because it’s an infringement of my human rights........
Robin: All of these objections are being noted Tony........
Anton: This is a violation of my human rights
Chris: It's not, Tony
Anton: No! It is! It’s a violation of my human rights because in every country of the world, in every civilised country, even in third world countries, you have at least some show of....... of a fair trial where all the elements that I’ve discussed and mentioned with you tonight are present and at least people go through the procedure of having Witnesses and records and so on....... So...... and once a person is [declared] innocent, they are innocent and there is no bringing of further charges.....
Chris: But Tony -- you’re crossing bridges....... you’re accusing us of making....... doing one thing and bringing further charges when we.....you know?
Anton: Well I’m not suggesting that you are going to bring further charges, what I’m saying is that you are not limiting the number of witnesses
Chris: Tony -- the scriptures say at the mouth of two or three witnesses
Anton: That’s right.
Chris: And that is what we’ll leave it at
Anton: Alright
Chris: We wont say any more about that. That is what we will leave it at that Tony
Anton: Well I object to that
Chris: O.K.
Anton: O.K. but I object to that I don't object to the scriptures but I object to your interpretation that you can bring as many Witnesses as you wish [without naming them first which was the original point or bringing them forward to face me]
Chris: O.K., well OK.
Anton: Since the Watchtower Society is sponsoring this judicial trial tonight , it is imposing standards of justice on me which it could not accept itself and that is also contrary to human rights
Chris: What...... what do you mean by that?
Anton: Well when the Watchtower Society goes to court, they expect to have a fair trial and they are given a fair trial because they are in a “worldly” court with qualified and educated people who are running the show and I am not being given that benefit and the Watchtower Society is using you to try me on the basis of its outlines and guidelines and these are conditions which are not acceptable to the Watchtower Society itself . It does not sit in a court like this and expect...... or receive the treatment I am receiving tonight
Chris: So are you saying the Society have double standards?
Anton: Well you could say that because ......
Chris: [interjects] I’m asking you if that’s what you say........
Robin: Is that what you feel...... is that what you feel regarding this little illustration that you said?
Anton: Well I’m asking you what do you think?
Chris: No, tell us.........[and incriminate yourself]
Anton: What I’m saying to you......... I’m asking.....no.... I’m not answering any questions [laughs]. What I’m saying to you is the Watchtower Society goes to the European Court of Human Rights in Bulgaria...... regarding the Bulgarian case in 1998, in March. They took out a full-page advert in the Washington Post regarding the French tax case, and an open letter to President Chirac in the Washington Post a few months ago, stating that the French government was violating their human rights and ehhhh....that...... and so on.... The Watchtower Society is presenting itself as a champion of human rights and minority groups but it is not giving me the same standards of justice that it expects for itself. And when it goes to court, they have lawyers, they have defence, they have preparation, they have evidence, they go to court and if it doesn’t work the first time around they can go to an Appeal court then they can go to a higher court and then they can even go to the European Court of Human Rights. So...... not being given the right to counsel or any of the other things that I have mentioned. The Watchtower Society is asking me to do what it would not have done to itself. And you too are obviously also participating in that
Chris: Anything else?
Anton: Well how do you feel about that? Does it not bother you? It would bother me.
Chris: We're asking you how you feel because we haven't even the started the...... ehhhh........
Anton: But the point is I've got all these objections
Chris: O.K.
Anton: And this trial is violating my rights and is just a farce from the beginning
Robin: Have you got many more objection Tony can I just ask?
Anton: Well I think I'll go on a wee while longer but I've only got two or three more
Chris: Lets have two more then [they are impatient and frustrated, sitting with arms tightly crossed]
Anton: There have also been breaches of confidentiality because I have the impression that half of Edinburgh knows about this case, including at least three Jehovah's Witness wives.

{EM: Do not discuss private or judicial matters with members of your family, including your wife, or with others who are not involved. Think before you speak. Be extremely careful that you do not inadvertently disclose private information when speaking on the telephone while others are listening in or when people are nearby where they could possibly hear the conversation.......... Be careful to maintain confidentiality}

Chris: ??????? [unclear]
Anton: No I wont mention names but I can assure you that there have been breaches of confident- iality People know about this and the rumour is that I have been “dealt with” to quote John.
Chris: To quote John? How does he.....?
Anton:.....although that's hearsay
Chris: So we're not here to listen to hearsay [he pounces on this technicality!]
Anton: No, but.........
Chris: As you would say..... as you would say you want justice, we're not here to discuss hearsay
Anton: Yes that's right, that's right Well I'll give you justice even though you don't give me justice. The point I'm making is that there definitely is rumours which I've heard which definitely suggest that people..... well which show that people definitely know about this case and that women and Jehovah's Witness wives know about this case which is in direct contravention of your own elders manual which says that elders should not discuss such things with their wives
Chris: Which they shouldn’t. I agree with you
Anton: That's right
Chris: But that's just rumours Tony?
Anton: No it's not rumours I have a witness who could verify that.....that several people know about this case
Chris: Based on what?
Anton:.....two or three wives know about it
Chris: Elders’ wives?
Anton: Yes at least one elder’s wife that I know of and that know that this meeting's taking place
Dennis: That know that this meeting's taking place to-night?
Anton: No, not so much .......
Robin: That know of the case in general you mean?
Anton: Yes -- and that I am “being done” so to speak
Chris: But you’re not prepared to tell us who?
Anton: Not yet [it would incriminate others to reveal my source]
Chris: Not yet?
Anton: But I give you my word that I heard it on good authority
Chris: Have you any other objection ?
Anton: That, if in the case I'm disfellowshipped, no proper explanation will be given to the public and this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me which perfectly suits the Watchtower Society description of apostates and those who leave the organisation
Chris: Say that again Tony
Anton: That no proper explanation will be given to the public -- the members of the congregation -- if I am disfellowshipped and that this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me and this perfectly suits the Watchtower Society's description of apostates and those who leave the organisation In other words, what it means is that when people leave the organisation and are several years later are disfellowshipped, no-body actually know what they have done -- they dont know if they've been abusing children or murdering somebody or adultery or winning "Spot the Ball" as somebody did a few years ago - and was not disfellowshipped - or whatever, or simply just disagreeing with something. It could be anything from mass-murder to a disagreement but the whole nature of the disfellowshipping act is such that the accused is defamed and has no opportunity to let the public know what was done and again that's....
Chris: What you do is up to you Tony. Say a disfellowshipping is announced, that's all we do We
don't tell the public why and all that.... [he misses the point - again]
Anton: I know that
Robin: .: .....but the congregations would know Anton you see. What I mean by that is when any person is disfellowshipped - you'll know this - when any person is disfellowshipped then the reason is they had an unrepentant attitude toward whatever it was that was the matter at hand ["whatever it was" could be murder, immorality - or disagreement with the Watchtower]
Anton: It doesn't really matter what it is, does it?
Robin: That's why they’re disfellowshipped, you see. The organisation has the right to do that to put people........ to remove individuals from it if they will no longer submit to certain standards that that organisation sets I mean...... a golf club for example [back to familiar ground]
Anton: Yes........
Robin: .......has certain rules doesn’t it? If its individual members or an individual member flagrantly or disagrees or will no longer submit to certain standards of that golf club, the golf club would have the right to ask that person to no longer renew their membership. Its a similar sort of thing
Anton: Let me give you another example: I was a member of Edinburgh University Chess Club for about......... ehhh.....I can't remember....say seven or eight years. A regular, active member.......... played for the team, attended every week at the Monday night club and playing for the team in the local league. Then I left. And I haven't been a member of the club for..... oh....... another ......... probably five or six years. And now because I've lost interest in chess, when people say - when chess friends see me in the street -- I say “Oh chess! I can't be bothered with it now. I don't play it and it's too much like hard work". But they don't persecute me or shun me or spread rumours about me or avoid me or fear me because I don't any longer wish to play chess.
Robin: But you left the chess club on a completely voluntary basis and not because you flagrantly disregarded any rules they........you weren't put out. You left. [precisely -- as I left JWs]
Anton: So does a person have the right to leave a religion? And does a person have the right to leave a religion and not be harassed afterwards?
Robin: But they won't be harassed Anton because no-one will be able to even speak to them [incredible!!] How are they going to harass them?
Anton: How do you mean? [I did not realise he had missed the point]
Robin: So how are they going to harass them? Do you know what I mean? Harassment?......
If the person leaves the religion.......
Anton: No, no....I'm talking about ........how do you mean “nobody will even speak to them”?
Robin: .......because as you know...
Anton: Are you referring to Jehovah's Witnesses ?
Robin: Yes -- if a person is disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation [JWs] right, then other persons on knowing that will not say a greeting to that person..
Anton: That's the point I'm making.......
Robin:.:.....based on the scriptures.. ....based on scriptural guidelines [based on the Watchtower actually]
Anton: That's the point I'm making that you can leave.....
Robin: But that's a lot different from harassing though Tony
Anton: I'm not referring to harassing...... no .... what I'm saying is, you can leave the Chess Club and -- fine. You meet chess-players in the street, they say “Hello, do you want to go for a drink? Do you want to come round to my house? And you can even say "Well I'll come round to your house but I don't want to play chess.....but I've given it up. I'm just not interested anymore -- fine. What I'm saying here is, I leave a religion - or this religion - or if a person wants to leave the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses they cannot quietly do so. They cannot leave the religion with honour. Sooner or later they will be dishonoured and then as you say the congregation will be instructed to.......

{EM: Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah. [or more accurately, the Watchtower Society]............ John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11 ) [twisting scripture to fit Watchtower -- and some more blasphemy to finish]..... The principle set forth in Jesus' words at Matthew 10:34-38 has a bearing on situations involving disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives}

Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- Tony -- on that point as you mentioned at the outset.....
Anton: But do you see the point I'm making here?
Chris: We see the point you're making O.K.?
Anton: Its down to human rights again.....
Chris: We're not violating any of your human rights O.K.?
Anton: Well I disagree. I must disagree I cannot accept otherwise
Chris: That's fine - that's another point I've noted down here and we've also heard you say that several times. The point is Anton as we said at the outset, there have been allegations made and everyone's innocent until proven guilty O.K.? Allegations have been made which we feel as a body of elders which if true, based on our understanding of the scriptures right, could be a danger to the spiritual welfare of the congregation. If someone chooses to leave the congregation, just drift away quietly into oblivion [!!!!] that's up to them, but if some leave the congregation and choose to continue to associate to whatever the degree is, with Witnesses in the congregation and if...... if they have apostate leanings, and teachings which they then convey to these brothers and sisters within the congregation, then action has to be taken That's the difference between someone who just drifts away and someone who still has contact and who we feel is a danger and that's what we're concerned with or not.
Anton: Why are you worried about what people say? Why are you afraid of what people say?
Chris: Why are we afraid? We are following the guidelines from the scriptures. If people leave "the truth" and say things, right, twisting the truth, twisting our understanding of scriptures which. as you say is what they say and that can endanger the lives of our brothers in the congregation....... that s why we're concerned about what people say
Anton: I believe many truths about many things but if someone comes along and challenges them I do not fear them or run away from them or am afraid to speak to them. So I have to ask, Why do you fear hearing something when you have the truth?
Chris: O.K. if......
Anton: You should not be afraid to hear anything
Chris: ......are you.......So your interpretation of the truth is different from ours then is that what you're saying? [attempting to take the offensive and reach familiar ground]
Anton: No, what I'm saying is ehhh...... for example I believe -- I hope I get this right -- I believe that the planets all go round the sun. To me that is a truth, but if someone came along and tried to argue otherwise, I would not fear them or worry about what they were saying to me. I would listen to them and I would come to a conclusion. [compare Galileo and the Roman Church]
Chris: The apostle Peter likened these people that you should fear as wolves in sheep's clothing on one occasion O.K. so that's a definite fear [No he didn't - see Acts 20:28,29]
Anton: Those were people in the congregation [not a member of the public!] Elders who were in the congregation.
Chris: But the principle applies. You don’t have to be an elder to cause a problem to the congregation
Anton: No, but they were particularly elders in that case
Chris: Yeah, but the principle applies to all
Anton: Yes, right O.K. [I realise I'm wasting my time]
Chris: Or are you saying that....... that....... what Peter was saying only applies to elders? Is that what you're saying?
Anton: I would have to look at it. I am only remembering, but what I’m saying also, is that it was applying to people in the congregation
Chris: O.K. so what you’re saying, “in the congregation” -- “just elders”? Which of those two are you saying?
Anton: Well I know it would apply to people in the congregation.....
Chris: OK, so.........
Anton: ......and I think it was also particularly applying to elders -- but I can’t remember right now.

[I am right in fact as I discovered later on checking: "After his “going away” (apparently in death), “oppressive wolves” would “not treat the flock with tenderness.” Such men would arise from among the elders themselves, and less discerning disciples would accept their twisted teachings".— w90 6/15 22 -- Why do I know Watchtower teaching better than these elders??]

Chris: It applies to those in the congregation..... those that associate with those in the congregation [adding to scriptures !] If you are a danger ...... you don’t have to .....you....... a wolf doesn’t have to be right in the heart of the flock
Anton: Yes, I know, I know. [They have missed the point again]
Chris: .........it can pick off those that are drifting away back into the hills and so on.
Anton: But why shouldn't they drift away if they wish?
Robin: There’s nothing to stop them drifting away if they wish Tony **** [oh No??]
Anton: So why are you interfering with them then?
Chris: But not....... but not if they come back as sheep in wolves clothing......wolves in sheeps clothing
Anton: Well, what I’m saying is..... ummm.... if there is a wolf and the sheep wish to leave the flock and go off and be eaten by the wolf, then how is it your concern...........
Chris: [interrupts] Of course it is! Of course it is! [whatever happened to free will?]
Anton: ........to worry about it?
Chris: If you’re a loving shepherd you’re not just going to let the sh........if..... you will take whatever necessary protection you can to protect that sheep.
Robin: Yes - because sometimes shepherds would endanger their lives wouldn’t they?eep just drift off aimlessly
Anton: [interjects]Yes, but supposing........
Chris:
Anton: Yes, OK OK. Fine then. [they have missed the point and I decide to let this go] I see your point, what you were trying to say.
Chris: O.K. Now Tony, any more?
Anton: Another question: do you view me as a Jehovah's Witness, Robin? [ouch! - a bombshell]
Robin: ......ehhhmmmmmm.........good question.............. ehhhmmmm....... I would say........
Anton: Yes or No?
Robin: I would say, Yes. [This is a little surprising, but I am prepared]
Anton: Dennis?
Dennis: I would say Yes too because you were baptised and....... you've just drifted away
Anton: And Chris?
Chris: Yes [they cannot disagree]
Anton: So I’ve got to ask myself in that case, why have you not been looking after me for three and a half years if I am a Jehovah's Witness? [Loving Shepherds??] Because for the last three and a half years, I have not had a Kingdom Ministry, [monthly bulletin] I have not had a Blood card, signed and dated and witnessed and I’ve not had any shepherding calls and I have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have not been invited to any social events or special events of any kind. So I would have to ask you, how you can view me as a Jehovah's Witness?
Chris: O.K. The point is Tony, you have had shepherding calls and I’ve ........
Anton: [interrupts] Well the last time I had a shepherding call was three years ago. Three years ago! [from my local group elder]
Chris: You’ve had calls. I’ve been to you up until, what? - 18 months ago?
Anton: I don't think it was as recent as that.
Chris: It was, Tony.
Anton: Well let’s agree that.......
Chris: Because you were working on my house 18 months ago.
Anton: Well I wouldn’t call that a shepherding call. [It was hard work!!]
Chris: No. I’m saying at that particular time I was still coming to visit you with the magazines [precisely - this was a magazine drop. He never once discussed the Bible even when I attempted to raise points I had read in it]
Anton: Alright, I will concede that it was 18 months ago in your own case -- in your own case -- but I would have to ask then “What about the rest of them?”
Chris: What? The point is, Tony, we’ve........we.ve...........
Anton: Because you were not -- sorry -- you were not my local group elder were you?
Chris: No
Anton: At no time were you ever my local group elder?
Chris: No [in fact, it was Roddie Darroch]
Robin: I don't think I was either, I don’t think I was.
Anton: No, but as it happened Chris was indeed the only person who visited me within say, the last........ yes, say 18 months, right? But no-one else has. And yes -- you did visit me in hospital a year ago [I give him this -- I had invited him to do so because I had believed he was a friend. When other non-JW visitors came they brought fruit and flowers and gifts. He and his wife called after a Sunday meeting with -- you guessed -- two magazines, despite the fact that I had one eye padded and heavily bandaged after a major operation] But no-one else has had any formal contact with me.......
Chris: [interrupts] OK -- Tony.....
Anton: .......and I would have to suggest that a person who cannot -- or does not -- hold a blood card is not a Jehovah's Witness. So you [Jehovah's Witnesses] have not treated me as a Jehovah's Witness. And if you [Chris] have treated me as a Jehovah's Witness, then you are the exception to all the people in this congregation.......
Chris: O.K.
Anton: .......80, 90 people?
Chris: But, O.K., I know the point you’re coming to - that if you have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then what right do we have........
Anton: Precisely -- because I am a member of the public.
Chris: We have noted what you’ve said O.K. Have you got any more points there?
[they are all sitting with arms tightly folded -- the body language is shouting volumes]
Anton: Ummmm..........
Chris: Provided.......they’re not a repetition of what you’ve already said......
Anton: No I wouldn’t even think of that. But that is the primary......
Chris: OK
Anton: That is most of the.......
Chris: You’ll have........you’ll have another opportunity to bring up the other points there

{EM: Does he still profess to be a Witness? [No!!] Is he generally recognized as such in the congregation and/or the community? [No] Does the person have a measure of contact or association with the congregation so that a leavening, or corrupting, influence exists? [No] How did the matter become known to the elders? [Good question- - how indeed??] Is the person willing to meet with a committee, thus admitting accountability to the Christian congregation? [only to expose and embarrass them -- everything is on tape]...... If the individual still professes to be a Witness and is willing to meet with the judicial committee, the matter should be handled in the normal way. However, when factors such as possible legal action exist, it is best to consult the Society before proceeding}

Anton: Emmm....... just one other thing was......emmmm...... that I don’t recognise this court.
[just for good measure and in case there's any misunderstanding]
Chris: Eh....eh..... Now the gist of what you’ve said there at this stage O.K. Have you got any questions? [To the others] If not we’ll ask the first.............
Robin: I dont think there’s any questions at the moment no, no..... [tempus fugit]
Chris: Right O.K. We’ll call Roddie in. Will you ask him in?
Robin: Right yes
Anton: I take it I’m allowed to question him?
Chris: Of course
Anton: And he has to answer? Is that fair enough?
Chris: Sorry I’m just getting........ [my breath back?]
Anton: And he has to answer me?
Chris: Yeah. We’re not.....we’re not..... we’re here as three brothers here to ensure it doesn’t become an argument ****
Anton: A rammy? [Scottish]
[Roddie enters]
Chris: I mean the two of you......its not......eemmmm....... an opportunity to air personal differences, do you know what I mean Tony ?
Anton: Yes
Chris: I mean we're here to establish the truth, but not to have a dig at any individual
Anton: Yes
Chris: O.K. Now as we mentioned at the outset, Roddie has been invited along on the basis of what was alleged to have said to him on that....... on that particular occasion so perhaps Roddie you’d like to just briefly explain to us what..... what occurred [so the "concerned Witnesses" are never called, but are replaced with the two agents provocateurs]
Roddie: Well there was a conversation which lasted, I expect, three-quarters to an hour and during that conversation Tony’s first remarks were that he was very happy. He was doing whatever he wanted to do. Virtually a free agent I would say, from the way he spoke. I don’t think he used that particular term, but he was happy and that ehh...... it came out during the conversation that he had ehh....... he no longer....... he didn't accept the authority of the "faithful and discreet slave" nor of course the local body of elders and with regard to the "faithful and discreet slave" he said that he doubted or questioned ..... shall I say, questioned - that they would have been appointed, or accepted - as what we consider they are -- as the "faithful and discreet slave" during the 1920s particularly after the "cleansing process" in 1918, 1919. During the 20s the "faithful and discreet slave" was still doing so many things wrong, particularly I think he mentioned birthdays and Xmas and also mentioned when applying understandings of scripture that they had reversed their...... changed their mind as many as five times he mentioned, on one particular issue...... I can’t remember what it was, either whether he had mentioned what it was, but that seemingly to me to be an effort to show that the "faithful and discreet slave" were not to be trusted or weren't to be followed and ehh....... he also mentioned some situation to do with distance that’s mentioned in the Bible and that this -- I don’t know whether it was Brother Rutherford or Brother Russell or whoever, ...had come up with the idea that this was a particular distance in New York or Brooklyn and that this was, you know, a distance in the Bible. [see The Finished Mystery] That also with regard to the ehh........ the ehh...... "faithful and discreet slave" it seemed that Tony was blaming them for the fact that some people had died due to lack of blood transfusion and also that they were ... .they were .... maybe........ he was blaming them again for such things as some getting divorced. Also he didn’t accept that they had the right to make decisions regarding our dress or for that matter, dealing with the subject of ...... emmmm....... sexual practices within marriage. They shouldn't have the right to make decisions or tell us what was appropriate and emmm......or not. Other than that, it seemed to me particularly toward the end of the conversation Tony was doubting whether we really had “Christ in our hearts” and was willing to help us scripturally to get an accurate knowledge or to have that better understanding that he would be happy to help us with that which happened to be......really trying to get us to change our situation within "the truth" or out of "the truth"...... and that’s......
Chris: What .......what was that bit again Anton .....eehhh Roddie?
Roddie: That he would be happy to help us to....eehhh...... scripturally to help us to get what he felt we lacked which was “Christ in our hearts”. These were.........eehhh....... probably the main points......
Chris: O.K. so you’ve heard the allegations from Roddie, Anton . Any comments?
Anton: No comments just now. Do you have a library I can use?
Chris: A library? [yes -- a room with lots of books]
Anton: Yes
Chris: For......?
Anton: Yes - a Watchtower library
Chris: What? Is it......? Do you want to look up something right at this moment?
Anton: Yes, uh-huh
Chris: Emmmmmm........for what particular point did you want to look up?
Anton: Eeehhhh........evidence.
Chris: What? I mean what sort of point? Emmmmm.......well what sort of evidence?
Anton: Aaahh.... well, I’ll show you when I find it. If you have the [Watchtower] volume.
Chris: The volumes are there.
Anton: Can I have a look at them?
Chris: Which one is it you want to look at?
Anton: Probably 1968, and...... maybe.......well....... whatever else you’ve got?......I don.'t know.
Chris: Probably 1968
Anton: It will take me 5 minutes
Chris: Five minutes? [to Robin] Can you get the 1968 volume?
Robin: 1968
Anton: I’ll nip along to the Gents while you’re doing that if you don’t mind.
[Anton exits]
Roddie: [speaks quietly] Is there anything more you want me for? [unclear] do you think?
Chris: Yeah. You’ll have to stay here until he has not refused to question you on it which he...... by the looks of it, he’s going to get a Watchtower to look at.......
Roddie: Uh-huh.
Chris: Are you ready for a long evening of it Dennis?
Dennis: Yeah
Chris: Are you O.K.?
Dennis: Yes I’m fine
Robin: [returns] Jolly hockey-sticks guys, ehh? Right, there we are now.......... [there is a very loud "Thud" as he drops the Watchtower volumes]
Roddie: I don’t see that this is very good to.........
Chris: Just one little point, look. Don’t mention anything now ......let’s just......
Robin: [quietly] Sound........ schtttuummmm........
[whispering and a rustle of keys]
Chris: I’ll ask him. I’ll ask him. He shouldn’t have one.
[All remain quiet for two minutes. Someone touches my bag]
Chris: [quietly] Did you give him the Watchtowers? They’re the three he wanted?
[Anton returns -- the rest of this meeting is a shambles, but I still gain another 10 minutes of material]

Anton: Can I speak now?
Chris: There eehhh......... there is just one thing. You haven’t..... you haven't got a tape-recorder?
[now he asks??]
Anton: Sorry? [I am surprised at this stage -- I had expected this question earlier and I am a little confused and tired -- I hae been concentrating for fully two hours]
Chris: Are you recording this?
Anton I’m not answering any questions I’ve told you that before I came in that I would not answer any questions
Chris: Are you recording this Tony ?
Anton: I’m not answering any questions. About anything [see line 32 above]
Chris: So are you refusing to say whether this is recorded?
Anton: Yes, I would refuse to say that and I would refuse to answer any questions regarding any.........
Chris: On the grounds of what?
Anton: Because I have the right to remain silent [of course I am contradicting myself -- it is difficult to “remain silent” while making a defence, but I am selectively refusing to answer questions]
Chris: You certainly do, but are you refusing to tell us whether you have a tape-recorder?
Anton: Yes I would
Chris: Why?
Anton: Well, because........ because if I did I would [“might” would be better] incriminate myself and if I answered any questions that you put to me, I might also incriminate myself. So I have decided that I will not answer any questions to-night at all.
Chris: Not prepared to answer any questions........?

{EM: Is the person co-operative? When questioned, are his answers forthright?}

Anton: Yes because I expect you to prove your own case [otherwise the committee asks “did you do it?” and the case is over - summary justice!]
Chris: So you’re not prepared to tell us whether you’re recording this or not?
Anton: No, I wouldn’t.
Chris: Why? [Why am I arguing about this? All will b revealed in the next transcript]
Anton: Well I’ll let you guess.
Chris: Because you are recording it?
Anton: No, I’m not going to say whether I am or not. I have nothing to say at all. I’m not going to say anything else.
Chris: [sighs] Well, we're not going to carry on then.
Anton: O.K.
Chris: That's....
Anton: That's O.K., but this is the whole point of what I’ve been saying to you earlier on. The very fact that this meeting is being held in these circumstances means that I cannot possibly have any means of proving what has been said and even the fact that you have accused me of doing that....... I cannot prove that you have accused me of doing that.
Chris: Sorry ...... you cannot prove......?
Anton: I can’t even prove that you have accused me of doing something that you told me I could not do.
Chris: Say that again......... sorry.
Anton: Well you told me before I came along that I would not be able to have a recorder and I would not be able to bring witnesses, bring observers and anyone to defend me.
Chris: Yes so those.......so those......
Anton: And you also told me I had the right to remain silent.
Chris: If you want to ...
Anton: So...... that’s right.......so the point I’m making is that......that I’m not going to answer any questions. I’ve made that point already. I went to the toilet. I mean .......you should have come to the toilet with me if you thought I would do something like that.
Chris: What? Do what?
Anton: Well if you were concerned that I was recording this conversation, then..........
Chris: No, no I’m just asking you.....because we said at the outset that we’re not having tape-recordings. [and I am expected to obey them?] All I’m asking is a simple question, Yes or No.
Anton: No, I’m not prepared to answer any questions at all. I’m not prepared to answer any [incriminating] questions that are directed at me at all because I think that you have to prove your case and if .... if.... if you were concerned about such a thing I would have to ask you why you would be concerned about it?
Chris: Are.... have you got........ are you recording this, yes or no?
Anton: I’m not going to answer any questions [this is beginning to sound like a recording!!]
Chris: Well the meeting’s finished then
Anton: That’s fine, that’s fine, but let it be noted that I came along and let it be noted that I was
willing to......
Chris: Well let's put it this way: the meeting is finished at this point in time O.K. Thanks for your time Roddie. [the rules have changed and suddenly they don't want to play any more.......]
Robin: Thanks Roddie
Anton: I don’t ask you...... I don’t ask you what you may or may not have in your pockets or on your person......
Chris: I have..... I can tell you there's no recording of this
Anton: Well that's fine but I wouldn’t even dream of asking you. I wouldn’t even think of asking you and I would have to ask you why you would even suggest that.......
Chris: Suggest it? I’m not..... I’m just asking you because the guideline is “No tape-recordings". I’m just asking you have you got........
Anton: Whose guideline is that?
Chris: The Society’s [thank you, Chris]
Anton: Right. So where does it say in the Bible that a person would not be able to make a recording....... or a record of what has been done?

{EM: Always give them direction from God's Word; avoid giving your own opinions.......God's Word is the basis for needed correction}

Chris: Look, Tony -- we’re not getting into an argument over ......We’ve asked you You’ve refused to answer. O.K.
Anton: O.K. Yes, but let it be known that I refused to answer all [incriminating] questions and I have not answered any questions up till now.
Chris: That will be noted
Anton: Yes and I would have to ask you also why you are even interested in the fact that I might have or could have had a recorder. What has prompted you to ask?
Chris: No. Because we just want to confirm that.
Anton: Why didn’t you ask me at the beginning?
Chris: Because I forgot. That’s just a simple explanation Tony
Anton: Well I think that's one of the problems that you’ve got when you’re following someone else’s guidelines.
Chris: What? We forgot.
Anton: Yes, I think.......
Robin: [interrupts] Surely you could forget something like that if you were following anyone's guidelines or your own even. People can forget certain little points.......
Anton: Well I’ve got to ask you again - Who are you working for? Who are you doing this for?
Chris: Tony -- Tony....
Anton: Are you doing this for my benefit or your own benefit or are you doing it for someone else?
Chris: Tony -- this meeting has now concluded [but I am still obtaining useful material] O.K. because you are refusing to answer any questions, but more importantly, you’re not telling us whether you’re recording this....... we're not going to search you.
Anton: I would lie..... I could lie to you if you want, you know..... I would always have the option of lying wouldn't I ? But I wouldn’t do that. I’m simply saying I won’t answer questions because I don’t think your question is a pertinent one...... [I do not lie because it would perfectly match the profile of an "apostate" and would invalidate the transcript]
Chris: That’s fine Tony. You’ve made.......
Anton: I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question
Chris: You’ve made your point.......emmmmm.......and that's it
Robin: Yep
Chris: .......because ....... end of story OK.......at this point in time O.K.? The meeting is concluded alright? Thank you for coming. [he is completely lost]
Anton: So what happens next?
Chris: What happens next? We’ll let you know.
Anton: So am I just supposed to........ hang about and wait for you to call me or something?
Chris: No. We’ll.........emmmmm....
Anton: You see I went to a lot to a lot of trouble to-night and I’m not very happy about this I’ve gone to a lot of trouble. I’ve had sleepless nights and a lot of problems and concerns and you promised me a fair trial. You promised me that I would have the right to remain silent. You promised me that I would not have to answer any questions if I didn’t wish to.........
Chris: But Tony .....yeah....we are respecting your views then we expect respect on your part.....
Anton: But you don’t respect my person........
Chris: Tony.....
Anton: .......because you’re actually saying to me, “What have you got in your pockets?”
Chris: Tony -- we ......
Anton: Supposing I said, “Well I haven’t got a tape-recorder, but here’s a gun -- "Bang - Bang - Bang"?
[at about this point, I take an orange from my pocket and begin peeling it]
Chris: Tony - we told you on the phone....... I told you on the phone that there would be no witnesses unless they were witnesses to the allegations we were bringing, no observers, no tape-recordings. All we’re asking you is to confirm that you have no tape-recorder. That’s all. All we’re asking you.
Anton: Well I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question [not to me anyway!]
Chris: Well we feel that we have.
Anton: I respect your right to ask .........
Chris: You’ve come to a lot of problems to get here so have we, but Anton, if you refuse to answer that question, its the end of the meeting.
Anton: Then can you tell me then, why is it that if I’m not allowed to use a recorder, why is it that Robin is allowed to listen in to our telephone conversation? Can you explain that? Because you did?
Chris: No he didn’t
Anton: On the night when you phoned me?
Chris: I asked you.......
Anton: On the night when you phoned me?
Robin: I didn’t listen in to the conversation. That was just......
Anton: You were not present in the room?
Robin: Nope
Anton: That’s fair enough
Chris: It was a one-to-one, Tony. I invited........can we have Tony [Robin] and you said, No [he wanted to ask me “Do you wish to be a Jehovah's Witness or not? With a witness present. “No” means that I would be considered to have disassociated myself -- even on the phone. This has the same consequences as disfellowshipping]
Robin: We respected your........
Anton: I’ve got to take your word for that as well.....
Robin: Yes, of course.
Anton: You see I could just as easily say, Oh well, we’ll not ..........
Chris: O.K. Tony. We appreciate you coming here, but we’ve had a lot of effort to come here We will now........
Anton: .........but the same thing will happen again...... because if I come along again I will refuse to answer that question and I will refuse to answer any other questions because I have the right to remain silent.
Chris: Excuse me.....Roddie hasn’t gone has he?
Robin: Do you want me to check?
Chris: Don’t let him go.
Anton: I mean are you just going to go ahead with this trial anyway now?
Chris: Well we’re going to listen to what they have to say.
Anton: What about...... Do I not get a chance to hear them?
Chris: Tony
Anton: I’ve come here to hear them
Chris: You will hear them if you can tell us whether you have a recorder or not. I don’t see what is the big deal is if you can’t tell us honestly Yes or No, whether you have a recorder or not.
Anton: But why ....... supposing I did. Why shouldn’t I have one?
Chris: Because we have requested you not to bring one along.
Anton: Why have you asked a person to do that? That’s what I’m concerned about.
Chris: That is the Society's directive [thank you again Chris -- but why is the Watchtower Society afraid of a recording?]
Anton: Is it the Bible’s directive? Is it God’s directive? That’s what I’m asking you.
Chris: It is the Society’s directive that we do not have recordings during these meetings.....
Anton: Why? Why is it secret, is what I want to know? Why are you asking me to come along to a secret meeting where I have no means of verifying what was said? This is all that I mentioned at the beginning.
Chris: For the very fact Anton and we won’t discuss this any further, under the Data Protection Act O.K., we don’t keep lengthy copious notes of these meetings going on and we don’t keep recordings of the meeting and for that reason we don’t expect witnesses to come in and keep recordings of it just as we don’t. [under the Act, recordings and notes would be open to scrutiny by interested parties!] So now you’ve spent a lot of time preparing things, having sleepless nights and I can assure you we have as well O.K. so we all appreciate the effort that it’s come to and we would like the matter to come to a conclusion. The ultimate goal is that we all stay “in the truth” [JW religion] and that we resolve our problems, but were not going to proceed with this if you cannot tell us. Its as simple as that Tony
Anton: I can't answer...... I told you I’m not going to answer any questions.
Chris: Including whether you have a tape-recorder?
Anton: Yes
Chris: Well we .... then despite how many sleepless nights you’ve had Anton, the meeting is concluded
Anton: That's fine, but I have to lodge a protest......that I’m not able to be present to hear the evidence when I came along to do that
Chris: O.K., but you know the reason why.
Anton: Aye. I know the reason why - because you think that there is the possibility that I have a tape-recorder.
Chris: Well, because you won’t tell us one way or the other.
Anton: I won’t tell you one way or the other because I will not answer any questions. I mean I could do a strip-search if you want. How ridiculous do you want to be?
Chris: We’re not asking you to do that. The meeting is finished Tony
Anton: I have to ask you why you want to conduct this meeting in secret? And I think you need to
ask yourselves that.
Chris: O.K. Tony we hear what you say
Anton: Why are you doing that?
Chris: You’ve had a good hour to explain all your objections....... [as long as it takes? see above]
Robin: Yep
Anton: I haven't heard the evidence....
Chris: I haven’t finished yet Tony ......and all we’ve asked you is a simple clarification as to whether you have a tape-recorder or not and you refuse to answer. That will be noted I can assure you
Anton: Fine
Chris: And we will take it from there and we will be in contact with you in due course. O.K.?
[but I’m not finished yet........]
Anton: I have a statement to make before I go.
Chris: Yes? [Now they are interested -- elders like statements -- especially when they incriminate the person]
Anton: I would like to say that John has used deception and lies to obtain evidence and if you had allowed me to stay I would have been able to show you that..... so I would ask you to very carefully consider the evidence that he has because he has not been truthful with me
Chris: Is that your statement? Are you quite clear what you’ve just heard?
Robin & Dennis: Oh yeah, yeah, Uh-huh. Yeah.
Chris: Do you want to repeat that statement?
Anton: I’m saying that John has used deception to enter my home and he has not told the whole truth when he came to see me..... he came under false pretences that he was coming to “have a chat about how I feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now” which was his exact words because he repeated it, twice when I asked him, and when he came to my house, it was not until at least........ maybe 20..... 25 minutes into the conversation that he finally admitted that he was there to investigate me and that was only after I had asked him, “Are you here to investigate me?”, so I would ask you to consider that when you hear his evidence because I think he is a liar and a dishonest and deceitful man.
Chris: OK. Right. Well we’ve heard what you’ve said Tony.
Anton: I'll just finish that. [I eat the last piece of orange] I’m sorry you’ve wasted my time. [I start to gather my things together]
Chris: Well, we’re disappointed Tony as well.
Anton: I’m not very happy at all. I’ll be hearing from you?
Chris: OK. Yep. You’ll hear from us.
[Chris takes me to the door. The two elders/witnesses are still sitting out in the cloakroom]
Anton: [a cheery] Bye!
Roddie: Bye. Cheerio.
[Anton exits, smiling broadly -- and the door slams behind him, echoing loudly in the stair-well]

Postscript
I had just humiliated the "glorious ones" -- well and truly -- and they cannot let me walk away after that.

Six days later, on Thurs. 6 May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham called at my home, asking me if I would have another meeting with the same Committee -- continuing from where we left off -- next day [i.e. with 28 hours' notice!!] but would I "give my word that I would not bring my tape-recorder?" I said I would think about it and call them within seven days.

Chris was far too friendly and cheeky. I was suspicious -- and rightly so. I had expected the elders to huddle together to collectively destroy me, but unknown to me then, they had also contacted London Bethel [British HQ of the Watchtower Society] for further instructions. That explains why Chris was so buoyant -- he had the backing of "Big Brother" -- his masters in the beloved Organisation.

Although I suspected foul play, I discovered just how low the elders would stoop to gain their revenge and uphold the "righteous standards" of "Jehovah's Theocratic Organisation" when I attended their next meeting on 25th. May. For the complete transcript, see The Rude, the Bad and the Ugly.

Jim Rizoli's Jehovah's Witness Committee Meeting

2010-03-09T00:58:00.002-05:00

Jim Rizoli's Jehovah's Witness Committee Meeting

5\19\96 Northbridge, MA USA

When a Jehovah's Witness is accused of "sin" he\she goes before a Judicial Committee which consist of three elders of the congregation to discuss the "problem". If the member has sinned without showing repentance the erring one gets disfellowshipped. If the person feels that mistakes were made in the actions of the elders for this disfellowshipping then a right to appeal is made available.

The following is a written transcript of appeal Judicial meeting of Jim Rizoli, a Jehovah's Witness for 23 years, 17 of those years as a full time minister devoting time and energy to spreading their unique doctrine. Jim appeared before 6 elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses May 19, 1996. Permission was granted by Jim Rizoli to have his words tape recorded.

These meetings are supposed to have all available evidence presented by both parties to establish truth. The principle of this scripture below is usually of prime importance in these appeal hearings and all judicial matters:

[nwt Deuteronomy]

19:15 "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two WITNESSES or at the mouth of three WITNESSES the matter should stand good.

YOU be the judge if those Biblical "principles" were abided by at this trial.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Introduction of the Elders the for the appeal.

Robert Booth, a Springfield, MA USA elder, introduces the elders to Jim.

RB.

First of all I thank you for taking the time to meet with us this afternoon. I'm brother Robert Booth of Springfield. Glen Lipham of Springfield, David Geditti of Springfield.

We have been asked to come and hear your appeal, the appeal of the Northbridge elders made to disfellowship you.

We would like to hear from you why your are appealing the decision. What is the reason for you appealing your case?

Jim R.

I've prepared some briefs short version, long version. I'm going to give you each the short version. .........

I presented here some information that I feel that the whole meeting was not carried out Biblically based on the scriptures.

First of all I used a ( Watchtower article, Nov 1,1995 P. 28) and the information here is pertinent to my case. Here's what it said.

The article say's " Two elders can advise him along with the principles of Mat 18:15 he should personally approach the accused about the matter"

.....There were 4 accusers against me and not one of them approached me in harmony with Mat 18.

Quoting article again:

"If the accuser is not emotionally able to do so face to face it can be done by telephone or by writing a letter. In this way the accuser is given the opportunity to go on record before Jehovah with his answers to the accusations and he may be able to present evidence that he could not of committed the abuse"

We're not talking about abuse but about my situation. What I said. There were letters written against me and I never saw those letters. The elders never presented the letters to me. How can I even make a case when the evidence is not there? They said they had the letters, in fact it was the first time that I ever heard of the letters. But I never saw the letters.

Quoting again:

"If the accusation is denied than nothing can be done more in a judicial way, the congregation will continue to view that person as an innocent person. The Bible say's that their must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken."

... So in this case here you have 4 people accusing me, only one person showed up at the meeting face to face with me, and his information was a year old, and I don't remember what I said to this brother, and that was a year or so ago. So his case there is hearsay, because we can't get together on what was said, I don't know even what was said and to use the against me is not right.

Moving down here quote:

" Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially",and here are my points layed out simply.

The accusers never approached me in harmony with Mat 18. They never came to me with a witness about the situation either. So thats the next step that has to be taken. So obviously if step number one wasn't taken then step number two wasn't.

There was no reason that I'm aware of for preventing these accusers to not meet with me face to face. There wasn't an emotional issue that they were afraid that I was going to hurt them. they should of came to me. They wrote letters but I didn't see the letters either. I was told (third point) a year or so after the fact that two accusers wrote letters against me. I was never shown the letters. How can I answer the charges against me at the time? The elders have the letters they've never brought them out at the judicial meeting. Today I haven't even seen them.

Four. How can I be disfellowshipped as an un-repentant sinner, I never knew what the charges against me were until the meeting with the elders.

They charged me with Loose Conduct, I never heard that charge until the meeting with the elders when they disfellowshipped me. How can you be un-repentant when this is the first time when I heard the charge. My view of the charge of Loose Conduct is open to interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible or in the Watchtower writings is the application applying to me based on what they said. It's all dealing with sexual matters or matters dealing with a sexual nature.

In my long brief, it's 8 pages .........Let me finish this last point, they define loose conduct an outright wanting disregard for authority, that's their definition of it. Who's the authority that I'm showing disrespect for? Now, Bro Perkins mentioned briefly that he didn't like the way I spoke against Bro Crispin, Is that the authority that I spoke against? That's my question. What's the answer? I don't know the answer.

Who is the authority that I spoke against that your using this Scripture of "Loose Conduct" against me for showing disrespect and disregard, who is the person that I showed this disrespect to?

Now about my other situation with Bro Crispin. Although that was said, it had no bearing on my case, yet I believe it does. here's 8 pages,( Jim passes the pages out to the elders present ) you guys can keep these for your records. This is a little longer and I'll try to go through this as quick as I can. Now I'm getting into more specifics.

I'm appealing this case for 3 main reasons.

1. Vital information was not presented to me about my situation to Bro Crispin.

Now there's a situation that they say has no bearing on this case. I think that one of the reasons they said that I spoke against authority was that they said that I was speaking against Bro Crispin. So thats fine. But no one ever told me that they spoke to Bro Crispin. And what information do they have from Bro Crispin about me?

2. Again I never met the accusers. Most of the information against me is hearsay. It's their word against mine.

3. Where am I an un-repentant sinner?

Then I get into this whole thing about my being disfellowshipped for Loose Conduct, being an outright wanting disregard for authority. Where does it say it, Who's the authority that I'm speaking against?

I feel Bro Crispin slandered me here when I moved into this congregation 7 years ago. I was an elder in another congregation and I moved here with a good recommendation that came back from Framingham. We'll I wasn't re-appointed. They never told me a reason. They never told me a reason why. I tried the best I could to get the information from the Brothers. They wouldn't tell me. They always gave excuses why I wasn't appointed. You were this and you were that etc....I feel Bro Crispin influenced them against me and no one ever told me what he said. To this day I don't know. Bro Perkins denies ever talking to Bro Crispin. But then at the meeting that I was disfellowshipped it came out that he said that he spoke to Bro Crispin. I don't get it. How can you deny something for years and then you said ( Perkins ) "I talked to Bro Crispin in passing" or however he worded it. So I feel that some vital information was withheld. I think that's very important.

On the third page of my brief.

I called up Bro Perkins on May 11, 1996. I felt that I had a Mat 18 with Bro Perkins because I feel that he did not tell me the truth. So I asked him, on the next page, basically did you speak to Bro Crispin?

Bro Perkins said "We mentioned it in passing"Now remember, he just denied for years speaking to Bro Crispin and then he said he talked to him "in passing"

Then he said we'll whether he did or not it doesn't change the situation. Well I think it does change the situation. Because thats information that I really should have had.

" I didn't know anything about it" Perkins said"Your trying to make a case and you don't have one"

Well I think I do have a case. Somebody is not being honest with me dealing with that case and Brother Crispin, which I think has a bearing on my being disfellowshipped because I think the elders are using that against me saying I spoke against him ( Crispin ) or part of it. I have a problem with that.

See I'm familiar with the Scripture

[nwt Bible verses]

1 TIMOTHY -- nwt

5:19 Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

I understand that. Well I believe that Bro Crispin wronged me. I asked these elders, I begged them, lets do something about it not them specifically but elders over the last 7 years about what could be done about it. No one ever took up the cause. I can see why. To go against the Circuit Overseer? I wasn't afraid of him. He wronged me. When I met Bro Crispin at a Circuit Assembly one day, Bro Crispin said it was the elders here ( in Northbridge ) that sto I asked some of the elders here and they said it was Bro Crispin. Nobody admitted who was responsible. Nobody.

That situation there has hurt myself and my wife tremendously. They don't realize how much it has hurt my wife. My wife puts on a good show, she knows what happened. She sees what happened. I had one Brother, Bro Hagenback, he was working with me one day out in service and he admitted to me, ( now remember after all these years now them putting me off being an elder with their petty excuses, Bro Hagenback said to me Bro Crispin had it out for you, he had problem with you.. He's the only one that has admitted that. He wasn't there to hear it, he heard it only through hearsay, through somebody, you'd have to ask him.. So that was my situation. with Bro Crispin, and again the hurt and the pain it has cost to me and my wife, it's a stumbling block to my wife like nobodys business to me today. My wife is this close to having a nervous breakdown I hope you brothers understand that.....( tape pause )....Because nobody talks to us, nobody tells us whats going on., you live in a congregation where nobody tells you whats going on, this or this I just have a horrible problem with that, my wife sees it she just goes to meetings the best she can, if she ends up in a psyche ward who's responsible me? Here I am I'm just trying to defend myself, I have accusations against myself leveled against me, no witnesses nothing, who I feel are lying, I'm very hurt by it all, but thats that situation there. Getting back to this case about the ten reasons why they disfellowshipped me. I wrote these down, they said I was disfellowshipped for

1. Not one of the prophecies that the Society has made has ever come true.

2. I questioned the channel that Jehovah used from the first century to the time of Bro.Russell

3. The Society hides things from people.

4. I don't think the elders are appointed by holy spirit.

5. Elders blindly follow direction from each other and the organization.

6. The Society lied, they tried to make it look like Ray Franz was an apostate when in fact he was not.

7. The elders are like David who put Uriah in the front line to be killed.

8. Brothers and elders are Bozo's

9. The brothers are cowards

10. The brothers are a bunch of hypocrites, liars.

(For question one) I asked them, WHO said this? They didn't tell me

Question 2.

I have never questioned that in my life, WHO said it, thats not true. They never told me who said these things. Every single one of these I was never told WHO said these things to me...

Elder interrupts....

All of these things here, not all of them, you never said not of the Societys prophecies has come true?

Jim R.

Thats not the issue, my issue is this. If somebody makes an accusation against you, he has to say it face to face to me, so my question is who said it? They never faced me on it. I don't have to answer it.

Elder...

( He ask again if the accusation was true. )

Jim R.

I am not going to say anything unless the people are there in front of me, if they are going to make an accusation to me I'm going to comment to that, but they have not come before me so I really....Bro Perkins didn't tell me what was going on with Bro Crispin, he had a right to tell me what was going on with Bro Crispin,

Elder interrupts...

So you feel justified in your point of view ?

Jim R.

I just feel that I'm not going to implicate myself on anything. I think thats why they had such a hard time with my case. I'm not going to implicate myself in anything. Those are my own personal feelings

Elder comments inaudible.....

Jim R.

I don't remember who said them, who I said them to.. .....

Elder..

Well thats what we're asking you...

Jim R.

I don't know, and I deny the charge because I don't know who I said it too.

Elder...

YOU DENY you ever said that...categorically?

Jim R.

ABSOLUTELY!!

Elder..

Categorically

Jim R.

ABSOLUTELY

2. I questioned the channel that Jehovah used. How can you question thatchannel? Nobody knows who was there. I never said that.

Elder....

OK, let me ask you this question, He repeats the question about the "channe"l of communication that God has used from the first century up to Bro Russell. You said you never said that.

Jim R.

I never said that.

Elder...

Are you questioning (that now)

Jim R.

Pause in transmission, Well let me put the question back to you...........I feel as lomg as the channel is presenting information in harmony with scripture I have no problem with it. Thats the question.

Elder

So what channel is God using in harmony with scripture?

Jim R. Thats the channel

Elder..

What channel is that?

Jim R.

Thats the channel that Jehovah is using.

Elder..

What is that?

Jim R.

Well it's based on Scripture.

Elder..

So what channel is Jehovah using?

Jim R.

The organization... I have no problem with Him using the organization. But I have a question for you. What happens when the organization presents something that goes against Scripture? Then what happens? Then what do we do? If I showed you something that the Watchtower said one thing and the Bible said completely the opposite.

Elder..

Let me ask you this question Do you except the Bible as Gods Word?

Jim R.

Absolutely

Elder..

Do you recall the account of the Israelites walking in the wilderness? And among those who walked 40 years in the wilderness with the Israelites were Joshua and Caleb. Recall that? They were two of the 12 spies who spied out the land of Canaan. They came back saying we should do what Jehovah is telling us to do. The rest of them said no, we don't want to do that. That was Jehovah's organization as a nation, the Israelites... Did Joshua and Caleb say.....for you people because that's what Jehovah has told us what to do, forget about the rest of these people they spent 40 years in the wilderness, yet those who didn't go in .....(some parts inaudible) do you get my point?

Jim R.

No.... I don't understand....

Elder...

You say no I ask you that if the Organization is presenting to us something that not in harmony with the Scriptures what are we to do? didn't the nation of Israel work in harmony with the direction that Jehovah' gave them at that time? Did Joshua and Caleb leave?

Jim R

Now I see, ya

But anyway this point here........

Elder

I'm asking you the question here Jim, do you believe ( God is using this organization ? )

Jim R.

As long the Watchtower is doing things based on the Bible I have no problem with it, that's all I can tell you. Because I've seen Elders do things that went against what the Bible says.

Elder

For instance..

Jim R.

Appoint people as servants and elders when they knew they were sexually immoral. I got evidence I got facts, I got everything that I can show you. I told you brothers that ( Northbridge elders ) I have more information that you can't imagine.

Elder..

Why didn't you bring that to light of the elders ?

Jim R.

I did

Elder ( Perry ) Acknowledging that

I promised Jim that I would bring that information to the responsible people, and I did do that.

Jim R.

Let me tell you something here. How serious this becomes. I know of a situation right now that could end up with elders in jail....because of the information. Because I gave the information to Perry and Perry just mentioned it to the Brothers in passing. Do you know it's a federal offense to sexually abuse your children? You can end up in jail.

Elder..

responds "of course you can"

Jim R.

The elders in the Framingham Congregation covered this up. I have evidence I have information. They covered it up. There is a brother who was appointed a Ministerial Servant now,.. that, this brother sexually made a pass at my brothers wife, two weeks later or shortly there after, he was made a Ministerial Servant, the elders knew about the pass.

Elder

Those matters a obviously serious matters maybe we should just get......

Jim R.

I'm just making a point, you asked me a question, and this brother here I learned from his son that something was going on with the girls. And this brother was in the congregation, everything was hunky dory and when it all came up with the last year or two, something that this brother could go to jail on, nobody knows about.

Elder.

Well let me understand that you have a reason for you to have doubts.....

Jim R.

I have a problem with people that come off that they are doing whats right but behind the backs are doing things so wicked that Christendom would be ashamed.

Elder.

What do you suppose you should do?

Jim R.

What I did, I felt had to be done, because I felt that their was a lot of corruption and a lot of things going against scripture, I just kind of backed off from it all. I resigned as a Servant, I resigned as a Pioneer,

I stepped back because I did not wato be kind of

Elder..

You didn’t

Jim R

Sure I did, what do you think happens, the people don't want to hear. Like I told you about Bro Crispin. Ever elder that moved into this congregation new about Bro Crispin. Not one of them said Jim I think we should get together with Bro Crispin, not one of them. Now this is serious.

Elder.. ( completely changing the subject )

How does this relate to your view of the Organization?

Jim R.

I feel that this organization is great as long as long as their...again the organization doesn't in courage those things.. I'm not saying they but it bothers me to see an abuse of power. I have a problem with abuse of power. I've seen it all my life , I've been in the organization for 23 years

Elder interrupts..

Brother you've read the Bible, haven't you? Haven't you noticed through there examples of individuals who did things that were improper, yet they were in Gods organization?

Jim R.

That's true. But see I chose because I didn't want to cause a stink about it, I didn't want to cause a furor about it. I chose to back off. I just kind of said I can't take this anymore or I'll end up in a nut house. I mean I'll be there with my wife pretty soon. But anyway I backed off and think about this, Perry got a good heart and he's a good guy, he goes to the elders in Framingham and say's hey there's been reports of a situation, now remember these reports are known in the world now, It's not that it's just me. I have people coming to me about them. It's known what's happened, It's known, that's what bothers me, this isn't just a matter that you can just sweep under the rug with the elders any more. Now, Perry calls up the elder and he relays the message and said, this is some information that I thought you'd know. That's like going to somebody who's murdered somebody and saying, you know there's someone who's been murdered and we just wanted you to know, when that person did the murder.

Elder Perry..

Can I correct....I want you to understand, I also went to the CO ( Circuit Overseer ) It was not said in passing, I specifically called and talked to people. I called the brothers in the congregation involved. I also talked to the CO about it.

Jim R.

Did you talk to Ed Leonard?

Elder interrupts..

What is the connection does this have to do with our being here?

Jim R.

I think the connection is this. Why am I where I am? Because I stepped back and here and didn't want to be bothered anymore with all this baloney. I can't take it any more. That's why I'm where I'm at. Isn't that most important to you brothers? You want to correct me, my thinking? It's good to know my thinking. I'm where I am know which is more important to what I said is where I am now. I'm where I am now because that's the only way I could deal with it and handle it. I had to just step back from the whole picture.

Elder..

Where are you at?

Jim R.

Here I am. It might be nowhere but here I am. I'm just trying to get on with my life. I have people bringing accusations against me, people accusing me of things, saying this and saying that, slandering me, defaming my good name.

Elder ( totally ignoring anything just said )

Your just categorically denying you said any of these things..

Jim R.

Absolutely!

First of all when were these things said? Who said them? When were they said? I don't know when they were said. Could some of these questions havebeen a misunderstanding ?

Elder

Let me ask you this. Did you say what is mentioned in accusation 8?

Jim R.

Yes I said that. But let me clarify that. I said... I think that numbers 7,8,9, and 10 I said to these elders. The reason I said them, now I wasn't saying ALL of them were. Have you ever met an elder who you have thought was a Bozo? Hey I've met plenty of them. I said, SOME elders are Bozos, let me clarify that should be in there. The brothers are cowards, SOME brothers are cowards, not all of them, I've met some pretty good elders that would stand up for a case. The brothers are a bunch of hypocrites and liars. Well if they don't answer my questions and say to me Jim this is the truth what is my conclusion of them?

If Brother Perkins doesn't give me the information that I deserve about Bro Crispin I can only say, gee some ones, I don't want to use the term lying but, Is someone lying to me? I didn't make this statement ALL of them were. I'm just saying it appears to me that there is some problems in these areas. I don't feel all brothers are Bozos like I said I know plenty of good brothers, I know some brothers who will stand up for things, I got no problem with that. What did I mean by the elders being like David who put Uriah in the front lines to be killed, I guess I said that uh, or did I say that....

Elder

How about question 6

The Society lied they tried to make Franz like an apostate, I don't know where did I say that? Who did I say that too?

Elder

Thats what I'm asking you.

Jim R.

Thats interesting because with the information that I have that has been presented to me from various people, people in this organization to, they said no. Ray Franz was not disfellowshipped for apostasy. You can check your records for that. Ray Franz was not. Ray Franz, and again I'm not saying I agree with him or disagree with him, I'm just saying Ray Franz left Bethel and he was given $ 10,000 to leave. He wanted to leave so they gave him $ 10,000 to leave and he went to Georgia. For two years he was in the congregation in Georgia, he wasn't disfellowshipped. He was a regular person in the congregation. Thats my only point there. Then again I'm not saying the Society is saying anything against him, I don't think they are commenting on him. But if someone makes a comment and says Ray Franz was an apostate at Bethel, that's not true. He resigned more or less, he was asked to leave kinda, he went to Georgia. Two years later they disfellowshipped him for eating a meal with his boss, who was disassociated, two years later. So that statement is slanderous. I just want to let you brothers know. When someone makes a statement about Ray Franz...he left Bethel, I'm not saying he left with honors, but he left because he wanted to leave, they asked him to leave, they gave him $ 10,0000 to leave Bethel, he went to Georgia, you can call the Watchtower and ask them about that, they'll tell you, you can find out when he left Bethel, and when he was disfellowshipped. He didn't get disfellowshipped at Bethel. thats my point.

Elder

Have you got in contact with him? Writing? Correspondence?

Jim R

How would I get in contact with Ray. No, No why would I get in touch with him. I..I don't hate the guy, I don't know much about him. Thats the situation with Ray Franz. If the Watchtower wants to say that he was kicked out for apostasy, thats up to them.....

My big point is this loose conduct thing, I'm blown away by that I mean loose conduct, give me a break. To imply that it has a sexual nature to it, and then again I'm being disfellowshipped for it, and I never even heard the term. I quoted a couple of articles from the Watchtower, just to show you in passing that all the articles had to do with a sexual nature. show me otherwise. I'm here to see what you got to say.

Elder

This comes from a 1973 Watchtower....

Elder

So your saying you couldn't find any articles other that sexual in nature. Did you realize that then the word itself can indicate brazen disregard for laws other than sexual immorality?

Jim R.

Then that was my question then, who was the law that I was speaking against? I didn't spend all night looking this information up.... I did spend about an hour or two looking. what do you got for me...

Elder

Sept 15, 1973 p. 574-5 Questions from readers

Of course this is a two and a half page explanation, much of it gets into sexual matters, but note the first paragraph. As it shows it doesn't just define that.

*** w73 9/15 574-6 Questions from Readers ***

Questions from Readers

• What does the expression "loose conduct" as found at Galatians 5:19mean?-U.S.A.

One might assume that this term (from the Greek word a·sel'gei·a) refers to conduct that is immoral but in a minor or not so serious way. This, however, is not the case according to the available evidence in Scripture and also in the ancient secular Greek writings in which this word appears. It is not limited to acts of sexual immorality. And, rather than relating to bad conduct of a somewhat petty or minor nature, it apparently describes acts that reflect a brazen attitude, one that betrays disrespect, disregard or even contempt for standards, laws and authority. The 'looseness' of the conduct, therefore, is not due principally to weakness but results from an attitude of disrespect, insolence or shamelessness.

Jim R

Allright...Thats a good article but my question is where did I show the disrespect and shamefulness, where? I was never told where. No one said.... The only thing I got from Bro Perkins, when he said, and I believe you said this Larry, that I didn't like the way you spoke ( Jim ) about Bro Crispin. Thats what he said. Didn't you say that? I thought thats what he said. I'm saying to myself, How would you know about how I spoke about Bro Crispin when you never talked to him? See, I made an allegation against Bro Crispin, I called him a liar. Because for all intense purpose thats what it seemed happened. He didn't tell the truth about me. I asked for information and to this day the brothers all claim they don't know anything about it. so is it Bro Crispin...I never ever said that about the Watchtower. I never ever said that about you elders, I don't think I did, did I show brazen disrespect,..hey I'm an emotional guy, don't mix that up with my emotions..

Elder

Let me ask you this question. Did the Brothers in their efforts to communicate with you and help you ever say to you at any time Jim I can see dealing with you....emotionally. We all sin many times the Bible says that there's no man that doesn't and if he doesn't he's a perfect man.. But in their discussions with you at any time say well Jim, you might feel this way, you know it would be good if you try to get control of your feelings and not let them run away with you and speak things in the hearing of others that could have their faith undermined by what they hear you saying because that is what the tongue can do. the Bible say's it's a little member and it makes brags, it can set a whole woodland on fire, it can be destructive to a group of people, especially who maybe having difficulties in their lives. Every one today struggles in their efforts retain their faith and integrity to Jehovah God and to follow the direction of his Organization...everyone is fighting to do that. And so for people who are already in trouble spiritually and then for them to hear you say things that could just..be devastating to them, and make it harder for them...did anyone ever talk to you like that?

Jim R.

Sorta....

Elder

They did...

Jim R.

These brothers have been very good to me. I'll be honest with you, these guys have been really good.

Elder

Fine I'm glad to hear you really say that. What did you do?

Jim R.

First of all, I don't go looking for trouble, trouble goes looking for me. Thats what happens. I don't go seeking people out you know what I mean to talk to them. I'm not saying their weren't times that I was really down and out on things and I said things that I shouldn't said because I have. I admit that, I'm sorry for that. Infact I don't know if they mentioned to you but this last escapade I had with this Ruth Jones thing I called her up twice and apologized, and I said I'm really sorry that this went this far ba babbabbbah. I mean I don't know what to say. Then again lets reverse it. What about the elders that have done things against me, are they looking at it from that way? Here is a brother here who is really trying real hard and look what were doing to this guy. Have they looked at my wife and said gee, she's looking on this to and we're stepping on her too, I mean it goes both ways. I admit I have my problems.

Elder

What things do you feel...now you said you have no problems with the elders here..

Jim R.

I feel the elders here have been trying to help me, I feel there kinda like in a pickle with this situation. We've got so may things that have happened. But I don't want to use the word corruption but I use corruption only because people in authority abusing their power, and I've seen it. I've seen it so bad, it saddens me to see it. These guys have been good, I must admit there not like the brothers in Framingham, the brothers in Framingham, oh boy. That's because my brother was there.

Elder

When you first came here, in 1989, and when you came here you were an elder in Framingham, and you had no problems with the brothers there at the time?

Jim R.

No, No, Infact I got a great recommendation coming here.

Elder

Did you work with the body of elders here ( there )?

Jim R.

Ya, it was great

I don't want to pull up all the past here but there's some serious problems with some people there not telling the truth. You know my brother was disfellowshipped there.

Elder

For what?

Jim R.

Good question. Because to this day he don't even know. Not only that as far as he understands he wa interesting situation, what happened there. See my brother Joe, were twins, he's a little emotional than me if you can believe that. He took them to task, He took these brothers to task on what was going on, the corruption, the lying, and they just buried it. they just turned it all around on him. You know whats interesting with his last meeting with the elders. He accused the body of elders, (one Bob Solar of slander) they accused him of lying, picture this, Bro Solar apologized in front of all the elders because he knew he was a wrong. He said I'm sorry Joe, blablablabla, I shouldn't have said that. The next week ( Joe ) was disfellowshipped for lying. Now picture that. Bro Solar just apologized to my brother Joe, and said we know you didn't lie.( actually Joe charged Bob solar with slander and that's what he apologized for, but the slander centered around calling Joe a liar )

Elder

How do you know that were you in that meeting?

Jim R.

My brother told me.

Elder

Don't you think thats kind of biased?

Jim R.

No it's not biased. Let me tell you something about my brother Joe, he might be a lot of things, he's not a liar.

Elder

Let me tell you something. Unless you sit in those meetings you don't know what going on.

Jim R.

Well I was in quite a few of those meetings. Want to hear what happened at one of those meetings?

All Elders.

No Noo Nooo

Jim R.

Well you just asked me. I was in a major meeting that we accused, my brother and I, two eye witnesses, against Bro Conley for lying, two of us one of him, you know what the elders did? We don't buy it. And I was an elder at the time.

Elder ( obviously nothing i ting home for these dense elders )

Lets get back to this thing about the "pickle" that the elders are in....

Jim R.

The pickle I think is because this isn't a simple case. It's not a simple case.

Elder

Why not?

Jim R.

What it appears is I'm being disfellowshipped for exposing something. Even though it's not. Thats what it is going to appear to be.

Elder

What have you exposed?

Jim R.

The wrong doing over there ( in Framingham ) The sexual immorality, the cover up of sexual abuse of children. I mean this is heavy stuff. Here I am presenting this to them and the next week I'm disfellowshipped. Now they will say it has no bearing on it and I can understand it. But thats not how it looks.

Elder

How would that look for the people that way unless you tell them that?

Jim R.

Well that the point. I'm being slandered and defamed right now. People are saying I'm this and this and this. I have no accusers against me. I have no people eyewitnesses against me and I'm being slandered. I don't know what to do. If I'm disfellowshipped, what about my good name, what about my reputation. what happens with it?

Elder

You have every opportunity to rebuild that and come toward reinstatement.

( Authors note ) Notice what is said here. Jim even though he has presented an excellent case in his defense has already been judged by this appeal hearing. Just an observation.

Jim R.

You think so? I doesn't work so easy.

Elder

I don't understand, what "pickle" do you think their in here?

Jim R.

Well I think there's been pressure put on them. I think there's been a lot of correspondence with Brooklyn on em.

Elder

Pressure to do what?

Jim R.

Pressure to disfellowship me.

Elder..

For what?

Jim R.

Good question. Good question, I don't know for what...Loose conduct?

Elder

Let me get your thinking. You feel that this charge of loose conduct is absolutely false.

Jim R.

Yes!

Elder

You don't feel you have displayed disrespect, disregard for authority and have done so in blatant manner?

Jim R.

No! Because I've asked you the question, who's the authority? I still haven't got the answer. I'm still waiting. Who's the authority I showed disrespect and wanting disregard for? You still haven't told me.

Elder

That the basis of your claim?

Jim R.

Absolutely, I don't know who it is against. You can't just accuse me of doing that when you don't tell me who I did it against.

At this time the elder of the appeal committee ask for a private moment with the first judicial committee. Of course this is behind closed doors and out of hearing of Jim Rizoli. This is not your typical hearing at the "city gates" for all to hear. This would be like a court case where the prosecutors ask for a private moment with the judge out of the hearing of the defense. It would be intolerable in a court of law for that to happen yet, for the Jehovah's Witnesses judicial committees this is typical of their Watchtower justice. When I was disfellowshipped in 1991 the appeal committee did the same thing to me.

Jim Rizoli's comment:

"You can't just accuse me of doing that when you don't tell me who I did it against".

Is a master Biblical blow to this committee. Their case is Biblically lost here for insufficient evidence. Without knowing who he has sinned against makes this committee Biblically illegal, not only in the eyes of God, but legally.

The Sentence

Elder

beginning words cut off....They probably were words to this effect As to your accusation to this committee that this is all

(Tape starts )

.......Hearsay...You did have the opportunity to have Bro Macaboni here to talk to you. The fact that you called Ruth Jones and apologized for having upset her because of the things that you said. The people that had written statements and letters, you had opportunities to talk with them.

Jim R.

I didn't know what was in the letters

Elder

You could have found out from them ( or words to the fact )

Authors comments:

Just to show you the absurdity of this situation. Jim's being accused of blatant disregard for authority.

Yet, here is in this Elders OWN words Jim attempts to work with the brothers and set matters straight. Talking with Bro Mencoboni, apologizing to Ruth Jones, Meeting with the Northbridge elders at every opportunity that they asked. Yet, they have the nerve to say he had a blatant disregard for authority. I thought my brother was nuts for being so cooperative with these jerks, yet he worked with them to solve these problems.

Elder

Then you said where am I shown to be an un-repentant sinner? Well if your not even acknowledging your sin, and you have even stated that the brothers... were trying to be helpful to you here how could there be any evidence of repentance if you weren't working with them. You see Jim even though you might not agree all the time with what is done in the congregation you do read the Bible. As you yourself have said and Bro Godetti had mentioned the Scriptures in Hebrews chapt 13 vs 17 which tell us to be obedient to those taking the lead, and be submissive for they are keeping watch over your souls, because they will render account.

Authors comment

What about this situation:

The king ask you to kill someone. The Kings Gods anointed. What do you do?

[nwt 1 Samuel]

22:17 With that the king said to the runners stationed about him: "Turn and put to death the priests of Jehovah, because their hand also is with David and because they knew that he was a runaway and they did not disclose it to my ear!" And the servants of the king did not want to thrust out their hand to assault the priests of Jehovah.

My comment:

You don't have to be obedient to mental people or organizations who have gone off the deep end.

Elders comments continued:

Much like children in a family they may not always agree with what the parents are doing nevertheless they have a responsibility to respect the headship of their parents just as we respect the headship and authority of Jehovah and his Christ and also of the faithful slave that He has appointed here by the principal of headship. And you asked when the brothers had read to you the reason not of a sexual nature, but rather a disregard for, disrespect for authority, dully constituted authority, and Jehovah has indeed given authority to brothers in the congregation, to the faithful slave. For our part we want to acknowledge it but work in co-operate with it and not work to undermined the confidence of others and if we disagree we have a time and a way that we can be straightened out here. But those are things the brothers are not seeing in you at the present time. Hopefully in time you will change and acknowledge the things that you have done that really had been the reason for you being here and for making the decision that they have made. We of the appeal committee see no reason to disagree with what they said. That's all that we have to say to you at this time Jim. They told you I'm sure what you could do to be reinstated.

Jim R.

All right....I don't agree with you.. I think this decision is going to cause some big problems.

Elder

That's all that we have to say. So we thank you for coming in and you are dismissed.

Jim R.

Ok

As Jim walks out the door to everlasting destruction with the likes of Judas, Adolph Hitler, Ray Franz, James Penton, Randy Waters, Joe Rizoli and thousands of others he makes this comment:

ok that's it... gonzo!!!

The elders accomplished what they wanted to do and that was to get rid of me as quick as they could, with no explanations.

So after 23 years of association with the WT Organization I got the Boot. From a legal point of view the brothers did say they came to this conclusion from careful consideration of the Bible and information from several WT ARTICLES. They admitted that they didn't come to conclusion from their own thoughts, the articles helped them. I asked them to sign a paper admitting this, but they wouldn't, I only have their word on it.

Another thing that the elders didn't like was the fact that I called a few of the big wheels liars, which I can prove, but they could care less. They felt I should of put my personal feelings aside and not questioned Jehovah's Anointed ones or should I say those appointed by the GB. In essence they were saying how dare you bring accusation against the elders we are special in God's eyes. Their self righteous attitude is DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION THE ELDERS OR PUT THEM IN BAD LIGHT EVEN IF WHATYOU SAY IS TRUE! This charge of "LOOSE CONDUCT" is most interesting, in 99.9% of disfellowshipping cases for loose conduct have to do with sexual issues, now the WT has found a loophole and this can apply to having a " WANTON DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY" or in another words speaking against the elders or any WT representative. So all you out there that have a complaint against the elders you better watch out who you complain to because you can be DF'D for thinking and expressing those views.

So with all this behind me it will be my mission to help others to see what this organization is doing in regard to false prophesying, intimidation and outright lying. I will use the press, TV, or whatever means to bring attention to the abuses that this organization brings upon its members.

It is my hope that this information will be helpful to those out there that have the same feelings as myself. Hopefully you can use this information in your own research as a reference. I can honestly say with confidence that I truly understand Jesus words at John 8:32 now, more than ever, " You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free." It is my wish that you will feel the same.

Remember this if you think you might want to try to reform the WT Jehovah's Witnesses have all the answers just don't ask them any questions.

Jim Rizoli

Judicial committee meeting of Dale & Bette Baker

2010-03-08T23:56:00.003-05:00

Judicial Committee Meeting of Dale & Bette Baker

Charges: Apostasy

BACKGROUND: In September of 1990, after a year of intensive research into the historical and doctrinal foundations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the religion in which I was raised, I mailed a 110 page Open Letter to Family and Friends. In it, I documented my search for truth, and outlined the Scriptural reasons that I could no longer accept the spiritual authority of the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society. The reason for sending such a letter was to discharge my responsibility before God to inform those many persons who I had influenced over many years as a Jehovah's Witness elder of the facts that I had recently learned about my religion. I felt they had a right to know, and that I had an obligation to tell them. *

Note: As a matter of record, Dale passed away a few years ago.

A group of elders in the Kansas City area sent copies of my letter to the Headquarters of the Watchtower Society, who then sent a copy and a request to the local congregation elders to investigate a charge of apostasy against my wife and me. Their goal was to get evidence of apostasy against us so that we could be disfellowshipped. This would mean that none of our friends or family members would be allowed to have any personal contact whatever with us, on pain of similar treatment.

I agreed to meet with them on the one condition that they would examine my letter and show me scripturally wherein it constituted apostasy according the Scriptures. I invite you to examine the proceedings of our "trial" on the charge of "apostasy."

They began by describing how they became involved in the matter.

Elder D: You have a long background as a Jehovah's Witness, isn't that correct?

Dale: Since about 1940.

Elder D: Were your parents Witnesses?

Dale: My mother, my grandfather was active in the 1 920s.

Elder D: From the sound of it, you were used quite a bit.

Dale: Yes, I served at Bethel in the 50's, pioneered for years, and served as an elder for most of my years. It wasn't until the early 80's that we began experiencing problems in the organization.

Elder D: I understand those things, and I don't think these brothers haven't been around so long that they haven't seen similar things. The Bible book of James is full of those problems and what to do when those things happen. It's a shame that it does...

Dale: I hear stories like that from most every congregation I know of.

Elder V: But there's a sifting going on.

Bette: Well, in our experience, the wrong people are being sifted out..

Dale: It's the wrong people that left..

Elder D: What's unfortunate is that, so many times, when we're touched by people like that, what people will often do is question, Why would Jehovah allow something like that to happen? The Bible mentions that would happen. All of the apostles warned about it. It's a human failing.

Dale: Well, I don't think you can expect a perfect congregation.

Elder D: But nonetheless, we still have our faith. That can be tested and tried Our faith should survive.

Dale: Well, it has. It has been strengthened by it. It certainly hasn't been weakened.

Elder D: The point that really troubles us, Dale, is that the net, after all these years after the problem, that the net result is that you've actually veered away from Jehovah's organization.

Dale: I still consider myself a part of Jehovah's organization.

Elder D: Really?

Dale: I just disagree with you as to what it is. I believe Jehovah's organization is Christ's body. His kingdom made up of all his followers who are joined to the head. I believe I'm very much a part of that. I think all true Christians are. We don't know who they all are, and I'm not into judging them. I feel very much a part of that.

Elder D: The problem with that is that comment goes opposite of what the Bible says, because the Bible talks about our brothers. The scriptures indicate that we should be able to determine who our brothers are. It should be a simple matter to determine who they are.

Dale: How would you know?

Elder D: What I'm thinking about is the scriptures that talk about doing good to your brother. How can you love your God if you don't love your brother? The Bible isn't being ambiguous; it's being specific. It's not talking about our Christian Brother who's out there somewhere, but people that we should specifically be doing good to.….

Dale: I can tell who is a Christian Brother. If somebody is a believer in Christ, I'd have to accept him. If he behaves in a manner that doesn't show that he has a walk with God, I'd have to say, well, maybe he's not a Christian. I consider Jehovah's Witnesses, most of them that I know, my Christian brothers. I also consider other people my Christian brothers, too. I don't think that you can say that if they belong to this organization or that organization, or go to this church... I no longer am convinced that that's how you tell, just by a religious affiliation.

Elder D: The Bible talks about what we're really doing, we're getting to the point where - I'm aware, and so is J-- and V--, where your disagreement with the points on chronology are, and we could talk from now until the end of time on the subject of chronology. It's a long and advanced discussion. But apart from that and without actually getting into the chronology aspect, do you believe that we're living in the last days?

Dale: It depends on how you define the last days. I don't think you can define it by a generation. We're certainly in the Christian Age. I don't know if he's going to come in my lifetime or not. I hope it does -I'd like to see it. But I don't think scripturally you can say that.

Elder D: You know, there's an awful lot of Bible prophecy that discusses events in relationship to the last days. And virtually all of them.. show we're living in close proximity of the end.

Dale: You can believe in urgency without setting a date.

Elder D: Well, we're not setting a date.

Dale: Jehovah's Witnesses certainly have set dates. They have set so many of them, that that's one of the things that led me to start making an investigation of the Bible and of my religion, and of the history of my religion. I was appalled to find out how many dates they actually did set. And none of them have come true. I believe Jesus, when he said, "You do not know when your master will return." He said it so many times that I think that's the whole point. In fact, in Luke he says, beware of those saying, "the due time has approached." Now that's just what we've been doing - that's what I've been doing for about forty-five years, telling people, "it's just around the corner", "a couple of years away. The early Christians had a sense of urgency, and we should too. You could die tomorrow and that would be the end for you. So we have to be right with God and with Christ all of the time.

Elder D: We've always taken that view.

Dale: I know, but you can't deny, the organization set dates that were wrong. I mean you can't deny that. They haven't been right about a date yet. Tell me one they're right about. I'd like to know.

Elder V: With your background and years in the truth, what caused you to doubt? You were in the truth many years. Did you believe in 1914 then?

Dale: Being raised a Witness, the only information I had to go on was what I was taught. I believed them. I believed, as I read in the Wt recently, that JW's were going around telling people, "watch out for 1914, a time of trouble is going to start." That's not what they said. That's absolute falsehood. They did not say that at all. Russell said that 1914 would be the end of the time of trouble. He said that the Jews would be returned to Palestine, God's kingdom would be ruling on the earth. If there was a war he said h would be well before 1914. He didn't say that a time of trouble would start after 1914, he believed Christ was already present, in 1874. He believed the time of the end began in 1799. Have you ever read any of that stuff? That's what they were preaching. I've gone back and read pre-1914 issues of the WT. I know what they said. And to come around and say after the fact, "oh, no, we didn't say that, we were preaching about a time of trouble to start in 1914," that's very misleading. And I've gone out and knocked on doors and told people that this is proof that this is God's organization. And now I find out they told me a- something that wasn't really quite true. 1975 - I went through that. And I can remember, after 1975. I said, well, the society didn't really say that. But then a brother said, yes, they did. He showed me some of the Awakes and we started looking at them, and they really did say that. They really did encourage a belief that 1975 would be the end; and when I look back and see all the damage that did to people, I started examining articles to find out just what they did say. What is a false prophet? A false prophet is somebody who gives a prophecy that doesn't come true, period. That's right out of Deuteronomy 16.

Elder V: Does Jehovah have an organization, or doesn't he?

Dale: Yes, he has an organization, but I don't agree that...

Elder V: Who do I have to go to now?

Dale: Christ Jesus. Directly. Without the aid of any human agency.

Elder V: Are you saying you're a born again Christian?

Dale: Well, that's a part of becoming a Christian - the early Christians did. Those of the 144,000 - they're born again, aren't they? They're part of the body of Christ...

Bette: Doesn't the Bible say, everyone that believes that Jesus is the Christ is born from God?

Elder V: That's different- that's a different connotation. It's not the same as born again. Born of God comes as a result of [our complying with] John 17:3. But you know that better than I, you've been in the truth for over 40 years.

Elder J: Apparently you're of the opinion now that there is only the hope of heaven.

Dale: I don't know what the status of the earth will be

- I know there are scriptures that talk about the earth - I think that when I read anything in the New Testament, that it speaks to me, and any Christian who reads it. I don't believe that I can say, "well, that only applies to one millionth of the human race." I don't agree with that. That's been the hope down through the centuries. If you look at the 144,000, taking that literally, if you just count the numbers that Jehovah's Witnesses are happy with as far as increase, and apply that to the first century, they would have had 144,000 before the end of the first century.

Bette: There were more than 144,000 Christian martyrs

Dale: I find it very hard to believe that they weren't real Christians. If you look in Revelation, (I know you take that literally), but it says, 12,000 out of each tribe. Are those 12.000 literal persons?

Elder D: Yes.

Dale: They are? Do people of spiritual Israel have a concept of what tribe they belong to?

Elder D: It just shows a correspondency to Israel.

Bette: Doesn't it say 12,000 out of each tribe, meaning that there are more in each tribe, but only 12,000 out of that tribe are taken?

Elder D: In that chapter it talks about the sealed ones, and in the very next breath, in the 9th verse...

Dale: Who are the 24 elders?

Elder D: [Body of Christ]

Dale: Since they're represented by the 144,000, and they're also represented by 24 elders, why can't they also be represented in another aspect by a great crowd -- an innumerable crowd?

Elder V: But why even entertain the idea, Dale, about the majority having a concept of heaven? Do you think this is just a big incubator that God made here on earth, to hatch out imperfect people so they could go to heaven? Is that what God wants, take all these Holier-than-thou people off the earth, and resurrect them to the heavens?

Dale: I don't think he's going to take all the holier-than-thou people, I think he's going to take true Christians and Jesus knows who they are, and I don't think we have a right to start picking and choosing and being the judges.

Elder V: Right, and . . They can't sing that song unless they're of that group...

Dale: How come, then, "there is one faith, one hope, one baptism", one hope. How is it that all of a sudden now, there's two hopes?

Elder V: Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold."

Dale: Have you ever looked at that scripture in the Greek? It says, I have other sheep that are not of this fold- the word there is aule; it means a sheep-fold. It says he takes his sheep out of it. He doesn't take them to another sheepfold, he takes them out. When he says I have other sheep which are not of this fold, the Greek there is taute - it refers back to this fold, that is, the Jewish people. There's no other way you can understand that in the Greek. I've gone through this with several Greek scholars, and they all say the same thing. There's no way contextually that you can say anything but that Jesus was saying 'I have other sheep which are not of this Jewish fold', the Hebrew system. These "other sheep" are simply Gentiles; they're not from the Hebrew ethnic background. And Jewish Christians, after Jesus died, after Cornelius was preached to, would understand what he's talking about. They'd say, "oh, yes, that's who he was talking about - the Gentile Christians." Jesus said they would be one flock, one shepherd. If you look at it from the WT's viewpoint, for 1900 years all you have is the original flock he took out of the sheepfold, right? Then in 1935, Rutherford had an inspiration, and all of a sudden we have this "other sheep group." So they're together for - from 1936 to whenever Armageddon is, and then they go up to heaven and the "other sheep" stay on earth. So out of all eternity, they're only going to be together about 65 years, as one flock. To understand it in a contextual sense, as Jesus said it, that these other sheep were merely non-Jewish Christians, makes a lot more sense.

Elder J: The 144,000 are spoken of as standing on the Mount Zion with the Lamb. reigning with Christ on mount Zion, whereas the great crowd are standing before the Lamb. On the throne or before the throne.

Dale: But another chapter of Revelations talks of the 144,000 standing before the throne. You can't prove the point by a preposition, because of the way the word is used in other places.

Elder J: casting their crowns before him...

Dale: On. or before, or around, the words are used so interchangeably...

Elder J: Revelation refers to them as ruling over the earth.

Bette: Only in your translation. The word is epi meaning upon....

Elder J: Surely you'll agree that they'll reign over a paradise earth.

Dale: Well that depends on when you want to say Revelation starts to apply. Obviously it applied in the first century to the churches to whom it was written, wouldn't you agree? I believe Revelation has had application all down through the centuries. A Christian in any era can look at those symbolisms and be encouraged...

Elder J: The Society teaches that it has fulfillment in the Lord's day.

Dale: Well, the year 1914, I disagree with that. There's absolutely no way of proving it. And the Society's chronology that they use to prove it - the 2520 years- there's absolutely no way you can say Jerusalem fell in 607 BC. I've been through that over and over again, and their chronology on 1914 is faulty...

Elder D: What is the sign?

Dale: The sign? That could be applied if you're going to take wars, famines and pestilence and say that's the sign? What century could you not have applied that in?

Elder J: Then the horseman of Revelation 6 rides throughout all the generations?

Dale: Sure.

Elder J: But you're forgetting, they're preceded by the one with the crown on the white horse.

Dale: That explanation about the one on the white horse being Christ Jesus is another thing I have to disagree with; I've read all sorts of things about that and I'm not sure that that's the application.

Elder J: Then it must not be the same white horse mentioned in Revelation...

Dale: I forget now, but I've read quite a bit about that. Interpreting Revelation, the society has done it how many times now? Four. They've reinterpreted Revelation four different times. Revelation's one of those books that it's hard to pin numbers and symbols to specific things...

Elder J: As things transpire we understand things more clearly...

Dale: How do you apply that to 1914?

Elder J: Well we tie that to 1914 because that's when wars famines and pestilence's began to become intolerable as the white horse began to ride forth in his conquest...

Dale: How do you know when the king rode forth to complete his conquest?

Elder J: Because that's when the wars, famines, and earthquakes became worse as a result of his conquest...

Dale: But how do you put that in 1914? It seems to me that when it comes to evidence, that you are Justmaking an assertion. But show me some evidence, how can you tie the year 1914 to that event?

Elder J: The generation that began in 1914 started with world war.

Dale: So did the generation that lived in Napoleon's time; that was as much a world war as 1914 was.

Bette: Doesn't that sound like you're saying we know that the rider was on the horse because of the war and that I know that's when he rode because...

Dale: Circular reasoning.

Elder J: Actually world war began a period of conflict, crisis and upheaval that people had never seen.

Dale: That's not really true statistically. I know that the Society has said about 1914, and that "World War I was seven times worse than all the previous wars of history," have you read that? That's one of the statements that they trot out from time to time. Wars have been going on ever since before Jesus' time, I mean there have been wars and wars and wars - you can hardly find a century in which there wasn't war. And there have been some centuries, which were a whole lot worse than ours.

Elder J: One thing we have to remember is that [with the population growth and the progress in technological arms since 1914] makes them certainly far worse than the hand to hand combat of earlier generations.

Dale: How do you relate world population to wars, etc?

Elder J: What I'm saying is that world war during in the 1800's were fought when we had a much smaller earth population whereas in our day we have very, very large populated nations rising up against one another.

Dale: Then why did wars kill more people? That's a good point, but why did those wars kill more people than the First World War? The First World War killed 10-12 million people. There've been wars in the past in the 1600's, 1 500,s that killed 25 million people.

Elder J: Then why have they never been called a world war?

Dale: Some have been called world wars. The French Revolution (and Napoleon Wars) is considered a world war by some. Some earlier wars are considered by historians to have been more accurately "world wars" than World War I. World War II was a world war. But the First World War was basically European. It was fought mainly in Europe, and the United States was about the only non-European combatant.

Elder J: Sometimes we hear statesmen call it World War I...

Dale: I know, they call it that, but it is not unique. However you bring up a very good point about population, and that really shoots down the whole composit sign idea, because of the fact that if you look at world population, h was about what, 300 million in the time of Christ? And it had gone up to about 600 some odd million in the 14th century, then it went back down to about 400 million. The 14th century was probably the worst century that the human race has ever survived. They had the black death, every 15 years, terrible famines, the hundred years war, Tamerlane who went all through Asia - I don't know if you've ever read any of that history, but world population actually decreased. And then about the 1700's I think it started up, and by 1830, I think, it reach the first billion, and then he's been going up ever since. It's been escalating ever since. Do you know the reason that can happen? Because wars, famines, and pestilence don't kill nearly as many people. Medical science, we've got food distribution, we've got agriculture that's finally efficient - there are a lot of factors involved, but those are the factors. Before we were Justlike rabbits - coyotes got us every time we went out. Nowadays, population is getting to be a problem, that's true, but...

Bette: It's because of lack of war and famine, I didn't know that until I started reading the history books. Everybody thinks that this is really a terrible time until you start reading history, then you really see it.

Elder J: There were more people killed in World War I than any other war in history.

Dale: That's not true. That's just not true. Let me read you some statistics. The Thirty Years War 1618-1648 killed 3 million soldiers and 4 or 5 times that many civilians, 30%-40% of the entire German population died, and that was a world war. The Manchu-Chinese War in 1644 killed 25 million. The Napoleonic Wars, 1792-1815, 5-6 million, Taiping Rebellion, 20-30 million, Genghis Khan, you've got people like that.. Tamerlane; did you ever hear about Tamerlane in the 14th century? He went through whole countries, slaughtered whole cities, and whole districts if anybody so much as raised a sword against him he killed the whole city. There were some bloody, bloody wars in history and those statistics...

ElderJ: Those statistics are not accurate, you're talking about a 40 year war, a 10 year war, 12 year war, neither of the two world wars which were undoubtedly world wars lasted that long, 40 years, most any of them...

Bette: The percentage of the population killed in this century is very small compared to the past 20 centuries and in actual numbers h turns out that those other centuries had a lot more killed; I don't know what statistics they're giving....

Dale: But what you've got to look at is that someone sitting in this century with a particular population and while the rise in population and the growth in weaponry and that sort of thing, to that person sitting there, they have no idea what's going to happen in the future, and they can make a case for wars, famines, and pestilence in any century, that's the point I'm making. You could take any century and look at it from his standpoint and make a case that this is the worst period of time the human race has ever lived through. We don't know what's going to happen 10 years from now; we don't know what's going to happen 20 years from now. You can't make that case just on that point, you have to have something else. I recognized that a long time ago because I looked into this stuff 15 years ago and I found out that you couldn't prove the earthquake thing. As for famines and pestilence, that's no contest because this century has had far fewer famines and pestilence compared to previous times when there were famines many years and pestilence killed almost half the babies born. I came to realize that you couldn't prove the time of the end by statistics alone - but I always thought that you could prove it by the chronology of 1914. Now I find out that that doesn't hold up either.

Elder J: Then you disagree with all the Society's teachings?

Dale: Not everything.

Elder D: There are several things that I want to run by you quickly. Immortality of the soul, hell fire? From what I remember there was no question on that.

*NOTE: I am answering these questions from the viewpoint of what Jehovah's Witnesses mean by "Trinity", etc. They are misinformed about what other Christians believe.

Dale: No, I don't believe in immortality of the soul. I agree that that was a Greek idea and many Bible scholars will agree with me too, if you get them aside where nobody will hear them...

Elder J: How about Trinity?

Dale: I believe that Christ Jesus is God's son.

Elder J: Not the same person?

Dale: No, I have learned from talking to people that Jehovah's Witnesses have no idea what other people believe as far as what they call the Trinity, and they have no idea what Jehovah's Witnesses believe when they talk about not believing in the Trinity. And actually, you think they're way out here, but they're actually in here somewhere. They're a lot closer together because hardly anyone believes Jesus is Jehovah, or God is the Son. Maybe five percent of Christians believe the Modalist view, most view them as separate persons...

Elder J: What about the creeds?

Dale: Well, that's true, some of the creeds state it in that way, but that's not really what they mean, and as far as Trinity, you can get into a lot of tail-chasing arguments and arguments about words and I think ifs fruitless because we're talking about the nature of God and none of us have ever been there, all we have are the examples in the Scriptures and that couched in human terminology. It's not an issue. What's an issue with me is the controlling, dominating attitudes that I've seen build up in the organization over the years. Because I remember reading what Russell said, and Russell made some classic comments about people who bring the "silly charge of traitor" to someone who dares to look at information that might raise questions about one's own religion. (Of course he said that before his own movement became an organization). I think that our personal freedom should be such that we shouldn't fear to read information from any source.

Elder D: How do you feel about the faithful and discreet slave?

Dale: Why don't you read that from Luke. Have you ever compared the accounts of Luke and Matthew? I've got a comparison I made here. I've printed up all the gospel accounts here in a three-column format on my word processor, and it's really interesting when you compare the different gospel accounts. I know Matthew is always quoted, but in Luke he talks about the whole concept of being found ready when the master of the house returns. If you read that illustration in Matthew about the owner of the house you'll note that he says you must always be ready because the son of man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Elder J: [Reads Luke 12:41-48 NW]

Dale: I don't see that as a prophecy. I see that as an illustration that Jesus gave that had to do with what the illustration shows - our responsibility to be ready when the master returns, and each individual Christian can be a faithful slave, or he can be an unfaithful slave. He can be one who doesn't do his master's will and be beaten with a few strokes, or I don't know what the eventually of the other course will be, it doesn't sound too good to me and I wouldn't want to be there.

Bette: But Peter says "Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or to all", so he would know what Jesus meant then, and when Peter talks about stewards in 1 Peter 4:10 "In proportion as each one has received a gift, use in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God's undeserved kindness in various ways." So if anyone could understand that illustration Peter would and he seemed to apply to all Christians; in fact this version says "Lord are you talking to just us or to everyone? And the Lord said, "l 'm talking to any faithful, sensible man whose master gives him the responsibility of feeding the other servants."

Elder D: The question is when does it apply?

Dale: When Christ returns.

Bette: No, not in Luke's account. It is not part of the sign at all.

Elder J: And particularly where it says, "Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings."

Dale: Are you reading from Matthew or from Luke?

Elder J: From Matthew.

Bette: And then it says, in Luke's account, "But if ever that slave...

Dale: An interesting thing I came across in Luke's account, and that the problem with the phrase, "if ever that slave", so it doesn't seem that he is talking about a faithful slave and then over here is an unfaithful slave.

Elder J: "If the unfaithful slave..."

Dale& Bette: No, it says "if ever that slave" in Luke...

Dale: In other words, if that slave should prove to be unfaithful" so that slave has two eventualities - he can be a faithful slave, or he can be an unfaithful slave.

Elder J: [Says that Matthew's account of the slave is part of the sign]

Dale: But ifs same conversation. And that's something I wanted to ask you about. When do you apply Matthew 24:42-44? [long silence] When does that apply?

Elder V: Applies now.

Elder J: Jesus says that the days of Noah would be like the coming of the Son of Man.

Dale: He says "You must be ready because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him", when is that "coming in verse 44?

[Consensus of committee: at Armageddon, at his revelation]

Dale: That is how the Society has applied it. Now in verse 46, they apply that to 1914. Contextually you can't do that. It says "Who, then,…" The Greek word ara, refers back to the previous information. I talked to a professor of Biblical Greek while back and he checked it out for me. You see the point I'm making? If you subscribe to the "two-stage coming" idea. The parousia idea as the Society does, you'll have a problem here because if you say that this part here in verses 42-44 applies at Armageddon, they you have to say that the "faithful and discreet slave" hasn't been appointed yet.

Elder J: In Matthew 24:37 Jesus talks about a period of time, "For just the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be." And then he talks about the days before the flood. And the days of Noah were a century. And the presence of the Son of Man is a time period culminating [in Armageddon].

Dale: Unfortunately that idea of the two-stage coming -are you familiar with the history of that? The idea was apparently started over in England by a banker named Henry Drummond who became a Bible expositor. Benjamin Wilson who had just published his Emphatic Diaglot was of this persuasion. These ideas were a part a religious awakening early 1800's, the Millerite movement - are you familiar with any of that? There were an incredible number of dates set using time periods based on the 2520 years. The 1260 years, and when these dates failed, a lot of people began to use this idea of parousia as meaning a period of time, as a method of salvaging their failed dates. Unfortunately that was before the real explosion of information on the koine Greek. You can check in any Greek-English lexicon, the T.D.N.T. by Kinel, has got 14 pages of discussion on the technical meaning of parousia, and that's not just Biblical, but includes the usage in the common Greek of the day. Parousia refers to the coming of a ruler in judgment. And this idea of a two-stage coming cannot really be supported in the Greek at all. It has been used to salvage tailed predictions. In fact, that's what Barbour did. In 1874, when nothing happened visibly in 1874, he said Christ came invisibly. He was basing his 1874 date on the end of 6,000 years. And then he added 40 years to that to come up with 1914. I never did figure out exactly where Barbour got the 2520 years. Russell got it from Barbour. Also he may have gotten the parousia idea from Joseph Seitz, who was a prominent Second Adventist and a propagator of Second Adventist ideas. But that's real interesting how that came about. Russell didn't figure it out by himself by any means. But there is no way to support that idea of parousia.

Bette: Didn't you show me a side by side comparison of those words...?

Dale: Yes that's the interesting thing about h, if you put those texts side by side you find that they are essentially used as synonyms. For example parousia and epiphaneia are used almost interchangeably. When you look at all the usage of them, you can't really say that parousia has a different meaning than coming, since they're used as synonyms.

Bette: If you only read Matthew's account you would get that idea perhaps, but if you read the corresponding accounts you would probably notice that the opposite word is used in the same place so it must mean the same thing.

Elder J: In Thessalonians, when it talks about Jesus coming in flaming fire, that is his coming as far as the end of this system is concerned.

Dale: Which reference to parousia, in 1st Thess. or 2nd? There's two places where he uses parousia in 2nd Thessalonians.

Elder J: In 2 Thessalonians.... and Revelation, of course.... that was comparable to one actually arriving back in those days where arriving was actually a period of time.

Dale: Yes, but the coming that he talks about, where he relates his coming with the days of Noah, Luke here uses apokalypsis, and the parallel account Matthew 24:39 it says "They knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away, that is how it will be at the coming, parousia, of the Son of Man." And Luke says, "It will be Justlike this on the day that the Son of Man is revealed, and he compares it with Sodom and Gomorrah, and also Noah entering the ark Justprior to the flood.

Elder J: [Goes back to early part of Matthew 24 and tries to apply wars, famines and pestilence to the apostles asking for a "sign of his presence".]

Dale: Yes, but he did tell us what the sign was, he says at the end there, "Then they will see the sign of the Son of Man coming in the heavens.

Elder J: He says in verse 7, " For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" and so forth, certainly Jesus was discussing things that would happen in answer to their question...

Dale: I would say that he was discussing things that would happen all down through the centuries. Verse 4, all the way down to verse 28. Those were all things that would happen all down through the years, and you can say that those things happened all down through the centuries.

Elder J: Verse 15 is where he says that the "disgusting thing that causes desolation spoken of by Daniel would be standing in the Holy place"[...]

Dale: Ok, now that has direct application to the end of the Jewish system, that's one of the questions they asked, when was the temple going to be torn down, right? So these things did happen, and the temple was torn down, and these things have continued to happen, right on down through the ages. It can be interpreted that way just as rationally as the way you are interpreting it.

Elder J: There's a fallacy there, however, because Jesus goes on to say there would be a time of "tribulation that has not occurred since the world's beginning until now, no, nor will occur again." Then in Daniel 12 he says that Michael will stand up, and there will be a uniting of his people and he also says there that there would be a great tribulation or time of trouble."

Dale: But how can you apply that word tribulation to a particular time period? Are you saying that that tribulation was the one that the Jewish system came under...?

Elder J: We're saying that it was the same one that the great crowd comes out of in Revelation 7.

Dale: Now it's very possible in looking at that, that Jesus could have meant several things. If you look at the words and the way they are used - thflpsis, the Greek word translated "tribulation", can refer to a number of things - such as the tribulation that Christians endure, the tribulation that came upon Jerusalem, the tribulation his followers would endure down through the centuries. If you look at it from this standpoint, that this tribulation that started back there, has continued down through the centuries and will be cut short when Jesus arrives then there's no problem.

Bette: I just came across something I didn't know before. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 he says that "the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. Well, in that case, if his presence began in 1914, then the man of lawlessness should already have been done away with.

------------ OBSERVATION -------------------

This threw some confusion into their ranks. They had obviously never confronted this problem. One seemed to think that the manifestation of his presence was Armageddon. However that is not what the Watchtower teaches. The Aid Book says that the epiphanela (manifestation) was when he manifested himself to his followers in 1919. So here they are inconsistent even with their own doctrine.

Elder J: [Something about discrepancies..]

Dale: here are a lot of things that are not stated.

Elder V: It says Adam lived to be 930 years do you believe that?

Dale: True.

Elder V: Do you believe those were regular years, within 5 days or so?

Dale: I won't argue with that.

Bette: I just don't know what to do with scriptures that say that God planned for Jesus to die before he ever created the world. I just don't know what to do with those Scriptures.

Elder J: Well the founding of the world has to do with....

Bette: I know what the Watchtower says, but I'm sorry, now I know too much to believe that.

Bette: I haven't thought about this lately, but I'm still researching and I don't have answers to everything yet.

Elder J: You're saying, then, that you don't know whether Adam was created [to go to heaven]

Dale: I don't know what the possibilities are, I don't know - I believe that maybe the possibility existed -it depended on the original purpose of God...

Elder V: Do you believe that God had a purpose in putting him on earth? Was there any reason why he couldn't have lived forever had he not done something contrary to God's wishes?

Dale: No, there's no reason, if God wanted to do it that way. I'm just not sure that he did it that way. Of course there are Scriptures in the Greek Scriptures that talk about God's purpose in bringing many sons to glory and so forth.

Elder V: Well, He told them to multiply and fill the earth and to have all things in subjection, now do you agree with this?

Dale: Sure

Elder V: Now, Adam's children were born in the same perfection in which God made Adam, or in imperfection?

Dale: They were born imperfect.

Elder V: OK. Now, what was the penalty for imperfection?

Dale: Death.

Elder V: So for whatever eons of time, or corridor of time you want to come down to in our system, 6000, 100,000 years, whatever connotation you want to put on that, during that corridor of time man has progressively degenerated, right?

Dale: That's true.

Elder V: Now do you believe that God loved Adam?

Dale: Certainly

Elder V: Does he love you?

Dale: Of course.

Elder V: Then why did Jesus die?

Dale: He died for our sins.

Elder V: All right, now, if He loves you and I the same as Adam, does it not make sense that he would restore the paradise and give you and I the same chance, the same opportunities that he gave Adam?

Dale: That doesn't necessarily follow.

Elder V: Well I'm asking a question, do you think that he might do that?

Dale: I don't know. I'm still researching a lot of things and I haven't answered every question. But I see too many conflicts in that reasoning. I see a hope in the New Testament that encompasses the entire Bible, and I see that as something that applies to Christians

Elder V: OK, now, if God is not a liar, if God is a God of love, if, if, if, if, if God didn't give all these things to men forever, and he provides his son Jesus Christ as you've admitted to and he died for us so that we would not have to die, then what's the alternative if God doesn't restore the paradisaic conditions to earth...

Dale: What's the alternative?

Elder V: What's the option? If God cannot carry out his word towards a perfect earth, and race of perfect persons upon it who can live forever, as the Bible says, "the meek shall inherit the earth," and "the righteous shall live forever upon it."

Bette: But when Jesus said, "the meek shall inherit the earth," the Watchtower's interpretation of that was that the 144,000 would inherit it by ruling over it when they get to heaven.

Elder V: No, no, no, no, the Watchtower does not interpret the Bible, the meek are teachable people, the Greek word there means teachable.

Bette: Yes, but the rest of the verse talks about the pure in heart who will see God, and I know the Watchtower in times past, at least as recently as 5 years ago...

Elder V: Did you ever see Jesus?

Bette: Pardon?

Elder V: Did you ever see Jesus?

Bette: It says they will see Jesus.

Elder V: Well, have you ever seen Jesus? Do you believe he's there?

Bette: I know he's there but I haven't seen him.

Elder V: But you've seen him with the eye of the mind.

Bette: But I know that the Watchtower's interpretation is that the 144,000 inherit the earth.

Elder V: Well, let's get back to finish this point and then I'll get back to you in a second. Now this corridor of time that man lived down to the point of Jesus who died for our sins so that we did not have to die was 2000 years ago, and mankind is still dying - So when did historians record the day that Armageddon came and the resurrection came and people in Revelation the 7 chapter verses 9 came through that great tribulation? So none of that has happened? Is it going to happen? So all this other stuff about chronology when it started, when it ended, it doesn't mean a thing.

Bette: No, except that in Deuteronomy the 18th chapter it tells you not to pay affliction to false prophets, and I don't mind people making mistakes, but I do mind when they cover it up and misrepresent what they actually said; mistakes are human, but cover-up is definitely evil. "However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: 'How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?' When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.'" So that tells me that when people who make significant predictions claim to speak in God's name and none of those predictions come true, then I must not be frightened at him and that he is a false prophet.

Elder V: So then in continuation of our conversation earlier, and of the feelings you express, do you want to remain as one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Dale: In the sense of Isaiah 43:14 I've always considered myself as one who bears witness for Jehovah.

Elder V: But not in the sense of the organization?

Dale: I'm not going to give you an answer on that because I know what you will do with it.

Elder V: But you should because Dale, what you've done so far is you've contradicted the Society on everything in question.

Dale: Can you show me, and this is getting back to the question, can you show me evidence that the Society is God's channel of communication? How can you prove that?

Elder V: Well, there is an organization that is doing the preaching work around the world, but very, few do...

Elder D: What other people are preaching the good news of the kingdom?

Befle: Well, my Dad told me about how many were being converted in South America. I don't remember what the numbers were, but it was many times more than Jehovah's Witnesses convert.

Elder D: Who is preaching the good news of the Kingdom and spending so much money doing it....

Dale: There are a lot of Christians preaching the gospel about Christ. Now you have another idea. You're preaching a gospel that says Christ has returned invisibly and is now ruling invisibly in the midst of his enemies. That's your message, right?

Elder V: Well, it's a part of it.

Dale: Well it's a major part of it because the Society says that the message being preached by Jehovah's Witnesses is not the same as the message that has been preached throughout the centuries. Now, that is an assertion that has been made by the Watchtower Society. Now there is a lot of question about that, now if they are God's channel, and they have the right to say that, and they have God's spirit putting all this stuff out, then you're right, I should be there. That's absolutely correct. But how can you show me that they are? Now you brought up this thing about the faithful and discreet slave, and we've talked about that on the phone. Now the Society says that the faithful and discreet slave has existed all the way down through the centuries. Isn't that correct?

Elder V: There have always been faithful Christians...

Dale: But aren't they part of that faithful and discreet slave?

Elder J: We really don't know their identity...

Dale: That's true, nobody can say who they were...

Elder V: God's always had his witnesses, like Jacob, Daniel...

Elder D: We're talking about the Christian era, V--...

Dale: But anyway, you can't even show that during the first century that they acted as a faithful and discreet slave or a governing body, but down through the centuries, where we get into a problem is down around the 1800's. Who was the faithful and discreet slave in 1800?

Elder J: There wasn't always someone fulfilling that role...

Dale: No, they've always been in existence, is what the Watchtower has said, that they've always been represented on earth. Russell never found an organization that was the faithful and discreet slave. Russell was a maverick; he left all organized religion...

Bette: There should have been one there before Russell...

Dale: Yes, and 10 and behold we have Russell. At first Russell taught that the faithful and discreet slave" was a class. But from 1896 until his death he taught that he personally was the "faithful and discreet slave" who was feeding spiritual food to the domestics. But the point it is, if, as is claimed, in 1919 Jesus came to his temple and looked at all the organizations claiming to represent him and he chose this one, there would have to be a reason why he did, wouldn't there? And if I look at the things they were teaching and the things they were doing, they weren't any better than anybody else. I'm not putting Russell down; from what I know about Russell, he seems to have been a sincere man and a serious student of the Bible. It's my feeling, though, that his idea of being led and being used in the way he claimed was rather presumptuous. If you read all the things that he said, it's hard to see any evidence of the spirit really leading.

Bette: Wasn't he pretty heavily into numerology and using the great pyramid?

Dale: Did you know that there's a pyramid on his grave today?

Elder J: There's a pyramid shaped stone there and someone stuck his picture on it, but I don't know whether

Elder V: There's some today who still read and study his literature...

Dale: Oh I know, but they're out in left field some where, they even have less excuse than you or I would have…

Elder V: All right let's say that you convince us that this is not God's organization...

Dale: I'm not trying to convince you, that's your own decision to make...

Elder V: What spiritual organization does Jehovah have on the earth?

Dale: The spiritual organization is by Christ Jesus. True Christianity is in the Bible, and we go to Christ Jesus.

Elder V: Now, how are we going to win people over to the truth? Are the Catholics, they're going to burn you in hell, the Baptists are going to burn you in hell, the Episcopalians are going…

Dale: And the Witnesses say the same thing, minus the hell.

Elder V: That's not true...

Dale: I know, but what you do say is that unless you are a Jehovah's Witness you are going to die at Armageddon and be dead forever.

Elder V: No, but what I'm saying is now which of these organizations should I turn to?

Dale: Maybe none of them...

Elder V: Why not? Who's going to get the preaching work done? Me and him?

Dale: Something that I have learned, in the first place, you don't go out and convince people logically and argue them into being a Christian. They have to be drawn by Jesus. He said that himself, that "my sheep hear my voice," and whether he's accomplished by knocking on doors, or by just interacting with people... Well, I'll give you an example. I know a man, at the place where I worked, at TWA, he was an instructor down there in the training department. Very, very fine individual. And his goal in working there, he would concentrate on one person for awhile and get to know him. And he would finally get to know someone well enough that at some point he could share his Christian hope with him. And then he would get to know someone else. And this man was somebody that, if you got to know him there was no way you could say he was not a real Christian. He's not a Jehovah's Witness. But there's no way you could say he's not a real Christian. He lived it. He was preaching - maybe not knocking on doors the way you do. And I have to say that out of my experience, there I've spent a whole lot of hours knocking on doors that didn't accomplish a whole lot. I don't know, maybe it has its place - I'm not putting h down - The early Christians did it to some extent, and they also used other methods. But, there are a lot of people out there who are living a Christian life and who give every evidence of being real Christians. That was one of

the hardest things for me to confront, because I mentions here, were things that, if the Gentiles knew some of these people, and my religion told me that they were going to die at Armageddon. And they were not the kind of people who say, "you need to come to my church." They were the kind of people who say, "you need to be a Christian." Now I think that's more in keeping with what Christianity is. And I'm not saying that you have to go to this or that church. You can find a lot of churches and you'll find the whole gamut; you'll find some like the Catholics where they're very authoritarian, very dogmatic, they think that they are God's organization, they've got the franchise on religion like McDonald's got on hamburgers. But I don't agree with that. I don't believe Christians should be that way. We can fellowship in a variety of places. God can use the variety... he uses people; he doesn't use organizations, that's my belief. He can use Jehovah's Witnesses too.

Elder J: I imagine you've read the book of Acts. Clearly in the Book of Acts it lays down the facts where the Christians met together, fellowshipped together. And when this question about the circumcision raised a bit of a problem they took the matter to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem, 15th chapter of Acts, and they sent out a letter about a decision about what should be done and it was sent to the various congregations. As far as the way the decision was made by meeting together, the apostles and older men in Jerusalem...

Dale: And everybody who had a question in the matter was there...

Elder J: And the congregation of Christians were told what the decision was.

Dale: The reason that they went, if you take the background of the way the early church functioned -Paul did not work through the governing body. For fourteen years he never even went up to Jerusalem and this was when he was engaged in all kinds of active preaching, because the holy spirit was directing the organization directly through the apostles individually. This incident in Jerusalem is interesting, because it was brought about by the fact that there were gentiles coming into the congregation, and, particularly with the Jewish Christians, the matter of circumcision came up. And they went up from Antioch to settle the problem because it says right here that people came down from Judea to Antioch and began teaching the brothers, and apparently they didn't listen to Paul and Barnabas, and so they decided to go up to Jerusalem and see what your elders say about this problem." There seems to have been a number of congregations involved in this same sort of problem because of the fact that there were Jewish Christians in many of these cities. And it seems very likely that some of these things James would abide by, they would satisfy the Jewish Christians, because you know the Jews did keep the law, even after Christ. Even James was a strict keeper of the Law. Early Christian documents tell us that, because if you lived in Judea and didn't keep the law, you got in a lot of trouble with the locals. When Paul went up to Jerusalem, he kept provisions of the law, paid for the sacrifice for the young men -not that he felt it was necessary, but it was necessary if he was going to be in Jerusalem. So the reason they went to Jerusalem was because that was the source of the problem. They went to seek a solution to a problem that came about because of the different cultures. But to use that account to try to prove the existence of a governing body that would continue to the present is unreasonable in the light of history. Nineteen hundred years have passed, the apostasy has come, and the apostles are no longer present. And Jesus knew that there was going to be an apostasy, Paul knew it. All the apostles knew it, John knew it. It was very evident it was happening right then and there. So why would Jesus lock everybody into a hierarchical organization run by men, knowing that it would apostatize? What would be the position of a Christian back there in the early part of the second century or the third century, when you had people like Igatius running around saying "obey your elders" no matter how they behave? How would a Christian react, where would he draw the line, when would he say, "Well I don't know, I've got to check this out in the Scriptures." You don't allow that today, do you?

Elder D: You can't have disagreement.

Dale: Now I know there are things as a Christian you have to believe. You have to believe in Christ's sacrifice, you have to believe that Christ came and died - that he came in the flesh. John said that if you don't believe that he came in the flesh you're a heretic, an apostate. And there was a lot of that going on back then - the Gnostics were going around teaching all sorts of things. That is the central doctrine of Christianity that you have to believe. But there's a lot of these other things that the Scriptures are not all that dogmatic on, and I don't think we should be either. I think we should allow each other our freedom of conscience and we shouldn't make issues. We shouldn't say, "If you don't believe everything the way I do, you're not a Christian," on some of these other matters. On the ransom, on Christ, the central doctrine of Christianity, I believe we should agree.

Elder V: Here then is the crux of the matter. What you believe as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is contained within your heart and your mind. But when there is the influencing of others - right or wrong, right or world wars which we can live without quite nicely, wrong, [you influence that individual, now you are in trouble] then you are apostatizing.

Dale: What if I've lied to somebody? What am I supposed to do about it?

Elder V: You don't have to lie to people.

Dale: What if I have lied to them in the past? What if I've told them things that I know now are not true, what am I supposed to do? Give me a good answer? What am I supposed to do?

Elder V: Well that is something that will have to be decided.

Dale: What am I supposed to do? My obligation before God is to right the wrong if I can, to whatever extent I can.

Elder V: Are you going to set up an organization to get all this done, are you going to set up a printing shop to get all this writing?

Dale: No! The only reason I wrote this letter was because I learned some things that I felt were very important to me, and the people that I sent it to, for the most part, were people that I felt I had influenced. Over the years. I watched some of their lives fall apart as a result of their association, not just because they associated, but because they didn't get the help that they should have gotten, but didn't, because of different things about the teachings of the organization. But I won't go into that unless you want to hear about it.

Elder V: How about you, are you going to continue writing these letters?

Dale: No. I have not written any of these people, I explained that very plainly, I said that I feel I should explain these things, this is how I feel, what you do with it is up to you, and that's the end of it. I'm not going to any of these people trying to convert them. If they call me, I'll talk to them. But I'm not going chasing them, because, I don't know, maybe this is working for them. I'm not going to take it upon myself to try to get anybody in or out of an organization. If I can....

Elder V: If you can appreciate the reverberations of such a letter, while you're a scholar to an extensive degree, you've said some Greek words that I've never even heard before. Well, I'm satisfied with the point if I never knew any more about the truth other than that God is going to restore paradise on earth, and I want to be a part of it. I want life. And whether that is on earth or in heaven is immaterial to me.

Bette: I feel the same way.

Elder V: And so I want life. Now I was in the Methodist church and my first wife was in the Catholic Church; I never heard about the paradisiacal conditions either in the beginning or in the end. Now if it's God's purpose to restore the paradisiacal conditions in the earth rather than this 30- year war thing and these so if I can live in a time when there's no famine, no death, no sickness, no crime, that's the only hope I've got. And through the death of Jesus Christ, the man who died on Calvary and was resurrected to heaven, that's the only way that I've got to get there. And in the meantime all he wants us to do is to tell others about the kingdom. And the kingdom is the essence of the whole thing. The kingdom that will being blessings to the earth, or whether he's to the blacks, to the Indians, to the Jews, to the Hungarians, whoever wants it. Now we're back to the point, whoever wants it. If they will do the will of God, which is to tell others about the Kingdom, and when it comes ... And when it comes, and when it starts, you're confused in your mind. It doesn't matter that much. We know we're living pretty close to the time of the end, and I'll tell you why. Because for two thousand years people have repeated the Lord's prayer that he taught in Matthew the 6th chapter. Now historians, apparently some of the history books you've gone to, historians have documented every major event that they wanted you and I to know about 5000 years ago. What wasn't recorded in the Bible was recorded in the history books. Every major event that they wanted to preserve for posterity, for you and me to read about, if we wanted to read about it. Well where did we read [the event of God's Kingdom being done on earth Justas Jesus said. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. How is it in heaven? How is it in heaven?

Dale: What do you mean?

Elder V: Well he said, "thy will be done on earth as in heaven." What's his will? What's going to be done on earth the same as in heaven? And so you can go ahead and keep reading all that stuff, if you're a scholar. I'm not that much of a scholar. But I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I won't have to die, and if I do die, I will be resurrected.

Bette: All of that is perfectly true, but what does it have to do with a human organization?

Elder V: That's where I learned it. I didn't learn it in the churches.

Bette: Well, you went to a couple of lousy churches. Elder V: Well, yes.

Bette: Well, I went to the Methodist church too, and that's what attracted me....

Dale: That brings up a question: you keep saying that you learned it from Jehovah's Witnesses. Well it's true some of the things I know I did learn from them, but I have since learned that the Witnesses were not the source of the information. Russell did not get the teaching about immortality of the soul, Trinity, hell-fire, he did not discover them himself, he got them from other people.

Elder V: Well, like you said, there was an organization

Elder V: Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, and several in England before...

Dale: That wasn't an organization. These were people writing newsletters, and people getting together, and people...

Elder V: It's immaterial, it doesn't matter.

Dale: The idea comes from here [Bible]. It comes from people reading this and talking about it. You don't need to do it through an organization. You can do it lots of different ways. Fellowships, study groups, it's not important...

Elder D: People in general do not. They do not read the Bible. It's the most printed piece of literature in the world.

Bette: I have met people who not only know the Bible better than Jehovah's Witnesses, but know things about prayer and worship that I never had any inkling of. Real, spiritual people that I haven't seen the like of for years. And all these myths that I was taught about everybody else in the world simply aren't true. And it makes me think of the Scripture that says, "You say that you have all these things and you don't need anything, but you don't know that you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked." And here they're talking about such a spiritual paradise. If that's a paradise, I'd hate to see the opposite.

Elder V: well, what's your objection to not being one of Jehovah's Witnesses? You made the statement "them".

Elder D: By your words you don't consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses, obviously...

Dale: You're talking about being one of Jehovah's Witnesses; in the first place, I have no objection to fellowshipping with people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I consider them my friends, but I don't know, they may not consider me their friends. Knowing the organization, they probably won't. But, that is not an issue with me, I consider them very fine people. I know a great many of them are in a mindset that is a little strange, but I know I was in it a long time myself. But being a Jehovah's Witness in the sense of being an active Jehovah's Witness, (you can call me an inactive Jehovah's Witness if you want to), but to be an active Jehovah' Witness requires some things that I would find very difficult to do. I would find it very difficult to go out and knock on people's doors and tell them things that I know are not true, and yet you have to do that. I would have to study books with them, and I would have to tell them "Jehovah's Witnesses knew all about World War I and 1914", and I know that that is not true. I know that a lot of things are not true, and I would have a hard time doing that; that amounts to deceptive recruiting practices if you want to put it in legal terms. Others lie to their congregations too...

Dale: Well, you ought to be thankful to Jimmy Swaggert: now you don't have to pay for your literature any more, right?

Elder V: .. .how would you like to be sending your money to him?

Dale: You knew about Jimmy Swaggert, didn't you? The Society filed a friend of the court brief for Jimmy Swaggert. Did you know that? The Society, the National Council of Churches, and Hare Krishna all filed "friend of the court" briefs on behalf of Jimmy Swaggert in his tax case...

Bette: And within five days of when Jimmy Swaggert lost his tax case, is when the Society decided to give the literature free.

Dale: No, I have no use for Jimmy Swaggert and people like that and what's that other guy's name in the World Wide Church of God, Armstrong...

Elder V: What about Dr. Schuller?

Dale: The apostle of wealth? No, that's not Christianity

Elder V: What about Humbard down in Louisiana?

Dale: Humbard? I don't know him, no, I don't listen to those guys on the tube, and I have no interest in them.

Elder J: You know in 2 Timothy, Paul says, "Keep holding the pattern of healthful words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus. This fine trust guard through the holy spirit which is dwelling in us." [2 Tim 1:13,14] So we view the overall understanding of the truth that we have as a pattern of healthful words that we have received and we are happy to have received, and Paul goes on to say that some in his day for example, who were teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. In fact, he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 that some were saying that there was no resurrection. So there was some confusing teaching going on and it disturbed matters, and so Paul had to write about the mater.

Dale: What did he do about it?

Elder J: Well, for example here he says "But shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and the are subverting the faith of some." [2 Timothy 2:16-18]

Dale: What did he say next?

Elder J: "For all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: 'Jehovah knows those who belong to him,' and: 'Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.'" vs. 19

Dale: So what did he do about those people?

Elder J: In those days some of them were actually disfellowshipped or disassociated from the congregation as a result of their being…

Dale: There is no record of that, though, is there, except for 1 Corinthians 5 where he was very definite about taking action in moral matters...

Bette: Well, mostly, Paul just wrote long letters to explain what was true and let people decide for themselves, that's why Galatians was written, that's why Colossians was written, that's why Romans, any of those...

Dale: In fact, where it says it was necessary to "silence the mouths of these men" - are you familiar with the scripture I'm talking about? - If you look at that, the silencing was done by giving such strong exposition in the way of doctrine to the rest of the church, to the congregations involved, and they were spread around, everybody read them, that people had both sides. These guys were saying one thing, but here's what Paul said. And Paul gave a good, clear, solid argument for the resurrection that was irrefutable. To a Christian who wanted to believe Jesus, who wanted to believe the Scriptures, and like he says, that "even with all of this, the church is secure, in other words. "These men may mislead some, but they're not going to get any real Christians." And what did Paul tell Timothy about the house with the honorable vessels and the dishonorable vessels? Did he say "Go through the house and throw out any vessels you don't like?" He said, "just stay clear of them," didn't he? He's talking about chatterers who are teaching things that are wrong, and that's good advice and I agree with it 100%. You're going to find - and Jesus knew this, he knew that the wicked one was going to come and oversow the field with weeds, and that was going to last until his coming, and that the angels were going to do the gathering and the weeding out and so forth. So he knew that this was going to happen, and yet true Christians are not going to be misled. The only case there is in 2 John. In 1 John he talks about testing the spirits and then he also talks about the spirit which would teach them the things that they need to know, they didn't need to listen to the traveling Gnostics propagandizers that were going around...

Bette: Well, he says you don't need any man to teach you..

Dale: Yes, you don't need any man to teach you because the spirit teaches you, and I believe that. And those who said that Jesus did not come in the flesh were the Gnostics. Their teachings clearly undermined the very basis of Christianity. I just read Albert Barnes' comments on that, the Society quotes him a lot. If you don't believe that Jesus came in the flesh, you aren't a Christian, period. And so John says, "don't take these people into your home, don't subsidize their spreading of false doctrine." And I agree with that. But I certainly don't believe I'm in the position of saying that Jesus didn't come in the flesh. I believe, more strongly than I ever did before, that Jesus came in the flesh and died for me and all mankind. I agree with you on all of that.

Bette: Didn't Rutherford say that the spirit acted as a paraclete until 1919?

Elder V: What's a paraclete?

Elder D: A helper.

Dale: Oh yes, Rutherford in the 20's in Preparation and 3 or 4 books I traced it down to, where he said that the spirit no longer teaches individual Christians. But it did up until 1919.

Elder J: But they changed that. The spirit does teach us. We're taught by the holy spirit.

Dale: Individually? Does the spirit teach you?

Elder J: It teaches, well, through the Bible.

Dale: Well, there's a statement here [in my letter] from a Watchtower where they discuss 1 John 1:27, about "you do not need any man" and they insert "apostate" in there, but before that they say that the spirit only teaches the 144,000, the remnant.

Elder J: In the days of the early Christians it was similar, that one had to be in contact with the body or organization of Christians that Christ was using, such as Philip was directed to the Ethiopian...

Dale: God's spirit directed him, not the organization...

Elder J: . ..in contact with one of the visible Christian congregations.

Dale: I don't disagree, I'm not saying that the congregation is unnecessary. Don't misunderstand me. I think congregations are necessary, fellowship is necessary, but I don't think it has to be under one big umbrella organization.

Elder J: Think of Paul when Jesus appeared to him and he was chosen and so forth, he was told to into the city and wait for Annanias to come, Annanias who was from the local Christian congregation, came and furthered his understanding and directed him further.

Dale: Let me pose a question to you. Suppose someone comes into the Kingdom Hall and he's had a vision and now he's a Christian, and he comes and meets with Annanias, and you; you talk with him, spend a week with - I think that's what Paul spent - and then he never came back for fourteen years, but you hear that he's appointed himself a missionary over in Africa. What would you say about that?

Elder J: Well, there's no question that the Apostle Paul had a wealth of knowledge and a splendid foundation in the law...

Dale: But he went out and started new congregations undirected by anyone...

Elder J: But he certainly had holy spirit and Christ Jesus who was directing his congregation.

Dale! That's true. But the point I'm making is that there are so many things in the first century that were different, from the way you do things now. That's why I believe that our relationship is directly with Christ.. The apostles were a special group, never repeated again in history. They were the ones that Jesus used directly. He didn't go through a governing body to talk to Paul; the spirit talked right to Paul, and others. That was the way teaching was done.

Elder D: He also told him to appoint elders.

Dale: Yes he did. But we don't know anything about how the men in Jerusalem were appointed, do we? We only know about the ones that Paul personally appointed, as he did in Antioch, he gave some instructions to Timothy and Thus, and those are good instructions that any body of Christians could use to examine any man who is going to be a teacher, or an overseer. I agree with that. And a lot of churches use that too, you'd be surprised. Of course there's a lot of them that fail, but there's just as many failures among Jehovah's Witnesses as there are in some of these other churches too. The point that I'm making is, the organization, - and I really don't like to use that word - I should say, the church is being directed by Christ. People can get together and form organizations and God can use these men if they are truly, truly spirit led, and if they're truly seeking to serve him.

Bette: And they don't misuse their power.

Dale: And they don't use their power in a wrong way. Christianity has become so big and spread all over the world, that there is a problem of trying to control it as humans - I see the fallacy of that. I've lived through it, I was at Bethel and I know what goes on up there. I could tell you some things that happened at Bethel that would curl your hair. I just put them in the back of my mind and said, well..., see it as a pattern. They're good people, they're trying hard, but they're imperfect. I Justdon't think that God is really using a particular group. He can move people in a lot of different ways. Far be it from me to try to tell him how to do it, or try to organize it for him.

Elder J: You know Paul used the illustration of the human body..

Dale: Yes, and you know what the trouble with that is, that people like Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons - they want to be the neck. They want to be the source through which all teaching comes, all thinking comes - everything. And yet Paul was not using that illustration to show a hierarchical organization because he says there is "neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor master, male or female in the body of Christ. Our relationship is directly with Christ and we're all on level ground. Now, we have other relationships, husband - wife, slave - master, relationships between people in the congregations and those that serve as elders, pastors, deacons, ministerial servants; those are human relationships that have a bearing on our worship. But our connection where the head is direct. Paul was using the illustration of the human body, which is a great illustration to show how we all work together. If one is hurt, the other one hurts too. We all cooperate. Some have prominent positions, some have not-so-prominent positions. Wherever we find ourselves, we do the best we can and all cooperate together. But you can't use that illustration to show a hierarchical organization, like there's the head and directives go through the neck and then through the arm and if you're a finger you get your orders through the arm...

Elder J: No, simply that the body itself is an organization.

Dale: Yes, but it's a spiritual organization...

Elder J: The body in its functions are individuals - even that little toe is important.

Dale: But does it have to be a human organization?

Elder J: Well the thing is that there is direction, there is a need for direction...

Dale: But why can't it be through the spirit?

Elder J: We feel that an elder, for example, which we are, is no better or higher than anybody else...

Dale: But you do have a hierarchical organization. I came to appreciate that in the early seventies, when the arrangement started. When they started the elder arrangement, although I had served in such position for many years, there were some elders in my congregation who didn't want to appoint me because they didn't like my job. They didn't think you ought to be an airline pilot if you're going to be an elder. For that two years, I was really amazed. The brothers would come to me because they knew that I wouldn't tell everything to the elders. You'd be surprised. The brothers know that there is a power structure within the organization. We like to say there isn't, but it's there.

Elder J: Well certainly there are those with responsibility. You might say he's like you are in an airplane, you certainly have a measure of responsibility, and stewardesses don't have the same responsibility that you have

Dale: That's true, but now we're talking about a business organization and I hate to make an analogy between the body of Christ and any human organization

Elder J: Let just take a look at one other scripture and that is Hebrews 10:25,26, about associating together and encouraging one another all the more so as you behold the day drawing near." Now you haven't associated a whole lot in the last several years, now I'm wondering if you feel that that's unnecessary or if you fulfill that in some other way, or…

Dale: I know a number of good Christians, I talk to them a lot associate with them. I feel that I am doing that in a way that is meaningful.

Elder J: As far as there being any organized...

Dale: I seriously doubt that I'll ever join another organization...

Elder J: The entire association of our brothers is organized for work and certainly the entire religious family of Jehovah's people, certainly there are some bonds there...

Bette: If you're all a family, how is h that only a few of you are sons of God?

Elder D: We will all eventually be sons of God.

Bette: Yes, in a thousand and some years. Why is it that Romans says that "all who are led by God's spirit are sons of God,' and in 1st John it says "by this we recognize the children of God and children of the devil?"

Elder D: We can get into all sorts of semantically arguments too. Every time the word son is mentioned it doesn't necessarily mean it's the same type of son.

Bette: But there's only two groups in 1st John, the children of God, and the children of the devil. If you aren't a child of God, what are you?

Elder D: Rom. 3:3[??] can be used to prove we are all sons of God.

Bette: But you're taking away the entire New Testament from people, so that they can't believe that God is speaking to them.

Elder J: This is the mistake of false religious organizations, which claim Christianity. That everything in the Scriptures that talks about those that have the heavenly hope applies to everyone, and that all good people go to heaven and all of this. And here is where they have gone off the beam to start with.

Bette: But to take away something that God gives me, by a human organization, just to consolidate their own power, is not God's way of doing things. Besides that in Jeremiah he says "'Look there are days coming', is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although, I myself had husbandry ownership of them,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people... For I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more.'" So if you're not in the new covenant, where is the forgiveness of sin?

Elder J: Those that are in the new covenant are the first to receive the benefits of that forgiveness of sin.

Bene: So meanwhile our sins are not forgiven, because according to this, we have to be in the new covenant.

Elder J: The new covenant is based on the ransom of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins is made possible through his blood like the Apostle John writes, "Not our sins only but also those of the whole world."

Dale: So that still doesn't answer the question, if you're not in the new covenant, how are your sins forgiven?

Elder J: The new covenant was made with spiritual Israel to make possible a class that would [bring this benefit] as a part of the seed. That was the purpose of the new covenant.

Dale: There is a problem with that argument, and that is that the seed of Abraham, according to Galatians chapter 3, is only one person, Christ Jesus, it's not 144,000.

Elder J: Paul says in verse 29 "if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed.

Dale: If you read the context it's really not hard to sort out, because Abraham's seed is used in several different senses. It's used in the sense of his natural progeny, right? Those who are his physical progeny are called Abraham's seed in Scripture. And then he says Christ Jesus is Abraham's seed, it's in the sense of a seed of promise. And that Christians are his seed in a spiritual sense, they are his spiritual progeny, you might say. The scripture is very clear when it says, "And not to seeds, as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one; and to your seed who is Christ."

Bette: Because he says earlier in that chapter "Now the Scripture, seeing in advance that God would declare people of the nations righteous due to faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: By means of you all the nations will be blessed. Consequently those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with faithful Abraham." So Paul gives the interpretation of that scripture about "by means of you the nations will be blessed" and says, "it is happening, we are being blessed." Those with a heavenly hope are receiving a blessing.

Dale: The Society's saying that the 144.000 are serving as a blessing, and that doesn't square with what I am reading here. I'm sorry, it just doesn't square.

Elder J: Now you're saying that the seed of Abraham in one verse isn't the same seed of Abraham in another verse.

Dale: Obviously it's not, time later in the middle 50's. Now being Abraham's

Elder J: Why would you say that? If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

Bette: And you get the blessing, you don't give the blessing, according to Paul.

Elder J: We all know that in Revelation 21 the bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, the Lamb's wife represents the Kingdom class now united with him in heaven... It says that "there came forth a river of life from the throne and it came down the broad way of the city New Jerusalem to mankind on earth." Now the New Jerusalem, the city, is not a city, it is that body of Christ that is with him in the heavens, and through that family with Christ as its number one head, or husband as depicted in the illustration, with reference to what? Well through Christ, and those with him the blessings come to mankind.

Bette: How did those blessings come before they went to heaven in 1919?

Elder J: Certainly not all of them are in heaven yet.

Bette: Well, what I mean is, according to your theology, nobody went to heaven until 1919. How did all those nations get the blessings meanwhile for the last 2000 years?

Elder J: The blessings are not spoken of as blessings, but air and water and food that we eat...

Bette: But it says "Let anyone who wishes come and take life's waters freely.. So they're all Christians.

Elder J: The reference there is the blessings to flow and benefits of Christ's ransom that begin flowing in connection the kingdom paradise.

Bette: According to your theology, yes, but that's taking a piece of a scripture here and a piece of a scripture there. You're using a particular interpretation of a scripture as though it were proof. I find it much better to take the scriptures verse by verse.

Elder J: Well let's go a step further. Genesis 3:16 speaks of a seed, the same seed that later Abraham was told would come through his name. Now in Revelation Jesus speaks to those in that heavenly class [3:26,271 he says, "I will give him an iron rod and let him shepherd the nations." So they would share in the dispensing action which Christ Jesus brings upon the earth. So they are a means for the earth, together with Christ, for bringing that destruction that is referred to, and as far as Satan's complete destruction we know that the angel that comes down to bind Satan is Christ Jesus. Certainly those of his kingdom class are sharers in his experiences and sharers in his kingdom with him, so the idea of their being part of that kingly secondary part, nonetheless part of the body of Christ united with him, I can't see where there is any...

Dale: It still conflicts with the seed being only "one person who is the Christ." He wrote this quite some time later in the middle 50's. Now being Abraham's seed in a spiritual sense would mean being part of spiritual Israel, which relates to Abraham due to the promise. You can look at it in that way. For you to arbitrarily say that being Abraham's seed makes them part of the seed which refers to Christ - that's not what that Scripture says...

Bette: But, mostly, in the 3rd chapter of Galatians in the 9th verse where Paul gives the interpretation of "by means of you all the nations will be blessed", they [Watchtower] interpret that to mean that the Christians of his day were giving the blessing, but he says, "consequently those who adhere to faith are being blessed." It doesn't say, "you will bless the nations." It says you "are being blessed." That's Paul's interpretation of "by means of you all the nations will be blessed." He says they are receiving the blessing, and then in verse 16 he says, "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: 'And to seeds,' as in the case of many such. But as in the case of one: 'And to you seed', who is Christ."

Elder J: And then in the 29th verse there "Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise." So they become heirs to the same promise that Jesus is heir of.

Dale: Well, I can't agree with that. (Making them part of the "seed" that does the blessing)

Elder J: They're joint heirs with Christ. The Scripture says that.

Dale: Abraham was the father of the literal nation of Israel. He was also the father in a sense of spiritual Israel. But to say that Spiritual Israel is the same as the seed of promise who is Christ Jesus -- Paul has to be using a different connotation of "seed" there, because he limits it to one person; in black and white.

Bette: Notice what other translations say there: "And now that we are Christ's we are the true descendants of Abraham and all of God's promises continue on to us." "If you belong to Christ you are a true descendant of Abraham and true heirs of his promise." "Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs to his promise." "If you belong to Christ then you are descendants of Abraham and will receive his promise."

Elder D: The Bible was written to common people. They weren't scholars of their day. They were fishermen, common people. And with the complicity of theology, how does anyone find the truth? How many thousands of people pray, "help me understand this", and they come up with nothing. They come up with nothing because they need to be directed in their thinking and their understanding. [Discussion continues about lack of spiritual understanding of people locally]. I may not have called on as many doors as you have, since 1948, but I have talked to thousands, with the real intent of helping them understand the Bible. That's been my purpose in calling. Now, I don't know where you've found all these Christians, and a true knowledge of [.?.] but when it comes right down to understanding the Bible, or reading it, or receiving [?1 from it,... it's hard to find people who do.

Dale: Well, I'll grant you that.

Elder D: Now I probably haven't called on every home in our community, but I've come close; but quite frankly1 people just don't have a concern for, I won't say that none do, but quite frankly, if they do, one thing I've always found is that if someone has a genuine interest in spiritual things, regardless of who you are, if you get this out [Bible], they'll talk. They're afraid of it. Most people are afraid of it because they have no understanding of it, and they may have some fear in the back of their heart that it is God's word..

Bette: Well, I used to run into people who knew the Bible, but sometimes they would quote that Scripture in 2nd John about bringing another gospel, and they would feel that they could not invite me in. And I have tried to explain to several people that, in that day, the traveling evangelists would go and be put up in people's homes. And so it was talking about the Gnostics - "don't put them up in your home and feed them." It doesn't mean you can't invite them in and talk to them if they have a different belief.

Dale: Some churches teach that. I agree, though, that only a small majority of the population are really interested in the Bible on a deep level. But since when should we ever expect true Christians to be in the majority in the world? The Bible tells us that. It's always been that way.

Elder V: That's why Jesus said that narrow is the road to life and few are the ones finding it." So if you're going to look for any organization, the "few" is the place to look. Not the majority, look for the few.

Bette: Every religion - like the Mormons, and the Moonies - every religion claims that same type of thing, and that's not the identity.

Elder V: Well no, that's not the identity, but that's the place to start looking, where there's few.

Dale: I don't think that's a criteria, but you're right, there are not that many people who are interested and are going to become Christians. That's just a sad fact of life. Jesus died for all, but not all are going to avail themselves of it.

Bene: I know that every once in awhile I would run into someone at the door, and it would be unsettling to me because I recognized that they knew Jesus better than I did. And I had to discount that - it wasn't "real". Your belief system says it can't be, therefore you deny it. But it was true.

Elder V: There's a lot of things going on, they talk Christ and they say they know him, but they get caught up in emotion.

Dale: How do you know that they aren't Christians? I mean, you can't judge the house servant of another. Now there are some matters you can judge in a congregation; immorality and things like that. If someone wants to be a part of the congregation and wants to live with someone else's wife, then you have to take care of that. There's no question about that. But the central doctrine of Christianity is not all that complicated, and you asked that question and I want to make one comment on that. You don't have to be a scholar to understand the Bible and to understand the message of Christ. But if you're going to be a teacher, and claim to be a teacher and teach others, you should be qualified. Now there are a great many things that would have been common knowledge to anyone living in the first century that I daresay most of us have no knowledge of whatever. First of all is the Greek language; second, the culture; third, the history. [The early Christians knew all of that without specialized education.] The Bible has to be understood in the context of the times in which it was written. There is a place for scholars.

Bette: Otherwise you are reading present culture back into it...

Dale: Yes, and that's what I see so many religions doing. They say, "Well this is the way we do it today, so that must have been the way they did it back then."

Elder D: We don't do that.

Dale: Well, I'm not so sure.

Elder V: How long did it take them to figure out how congregations ought to be organized?

Elder D: There are very few that ever did.

Bette: And then that doesn't account for a lot of Paul's activities and lot of Peter's. There's a lot of things that the apostles and some who were not apostles did, that if a Witness overseer or elder did today, they'd have his hide for that, and yet the early Christians didn't operate that way at all. I noticed a lot of those things just reading the Bible But on the one hand, you say you don't need to be a scholar, but on the other hand you're saying that people cannot just read the Bible anywhere and get the truth out of it, they need your organization.

Elder D: But Romans says that there is a need for teachers, you do agree with that, don't you?

Bette: Well people need to know about Jesus Christ and what he did, that's what Philip did, all he filled him in on was some history.

Elder D: No, that man had a lot of knowledge. He was a Jewish proselyte.

Bette: Well, he knew the law, and all Philip needed to do was to tell him what Jesus did to fulfill it. He gave him some information he lacked. Big deal.

Elder D: Well, quite frankly, that in itself was a big deal. They were looking for the Messiah.

Dale: But how do you account for the Gentiles who were converted in a very short time? Cornelius - he wasn't a Jew?

Elder D: To a large degree they had miracles to help in the establishment of a personal relationship...

Dale: But one's personal conversion didn't necessarily have to do with a miracle, at least not in the case of Cornelius.

Elder D: No, not necessarily....

Elder V: It's heart condition, he was ready for a change.

Bette: Now here's the thing. The Watchtower says that when Moses was given the law he had the miracles to prove that he was from God. And then when God began using the Christian congregation they had the miracles to show that God had changed his dealings. So now if you've got a new gospel, which you say is different from what has been preached for the last two thousand years, then by all means if God's going to make that radical a change then there ought to be miracles to prove that, because it's a new gospel. They themselves [The Watchtower] have admitted that it's not the same gospel In fact Galatians says that if you teach a different gospel you're under a curse.

Elder J: The only new thing about it...

Bette: The two-class system...

Elder J: No, the only thing that's different is we feel that the kingdom began when Christ began his reign from 1914 onward.

Dale: The proof of that assertion is what I have challenged. Why doesn't anybody want to refute that challenge? I know of a number of different research programs done by Witnesses into that question of why does history give 587 BC and why does the Watchtower give 607. There's been any number of independent studies into this question. I read one the other day that I wish I could let you guys read, but I wouldn't dare cause I don't want to blow the guy's cover. He's a prominent elder somewhere in these United States. The research that he did was incredible. He attacked it from a slightly different approach than Carl Jonsson, but it's just as valid. And the Society didn't do anything about it. I guess it's because it didn't show up in anybody's mailbox. He ended his letter by characterizing the Society's approach to the evidence for 1914 by likening it to an old man who goes to a pick-and-choose banquet, but has forgotten his teeth. He will only pick what he is sure he won't choke on. And that's they way they pick their facts and figures when it comes to history. I mean, he actually said that stuff.

Bette: And he said that "we have this time bomb ticking away and it won't go away just by climbing into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."

Dale: He said, "I don't want another surprise", he was talking about 1975, he said, "I've already had one bad surprise, and I don't want another one. And this is going to happen."

Elder V: And why doesn't he get out?

Dale: Because he's probably got kids, he's probably got a wife, probably got a mother, and a grandmother and he doesn't want to be treated like an outcast.

Elder V: Then if the Society's right then he's a dead man anyway.

Dale: I don't think he's a dead man. And he'll probably get out one of these days. Anyway the point is, there has been a lot of research on this, and the Society will not attack this problem in the open. They will not give an honest up-front, above board consideration of the evidence against their theory. They won't do it. Why?

Elder V: Well if my memory doesn't fail me the Society has registered the chronology of other people, other organizations.

Dale: Show me where they have given a dissertation or done anything like Paul did on questions like resurrection. Show me where they have honestly considered the information.

Bette: And refuted it.

Dale: I mean, most Witnesses are not even aware of how strong the evidence for 587 is for the fall of Jerusalem, and there's a real easy way, you don't have to say "we follow the Bible", that's garbage; because the 70 years can be shown to be "for Babylon", not for Jerusalem. And most scholars recognize it. And it works out to the year. In fact you can have an exact 70 year period for Babylon if you start with 609 which is the year that the Assyrian empire was effectively overrun by Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar, and there are no discrepancies of more that a year, and these can be answered by correlating the methods of counting reigns in the various empires. And there are astronomical diaries that fix exactly Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It fits with Egyptian history, it fits with Persian history, and it fits with Grecian history. It all hangs together so well.

Bette: It fits with all the dates in the Bible where Egyptian and Babylonian events are mentioned.

Dale: And why the Society won't look into this thing, well, I know why they won't. It blows their 1914 date, that's the casualty. But everything else works. It fits with history, it fits with the Bible, and it fits with everything else. Now, you can say, I'm going to stick with the Bible, I'm not going to pay any attention to secular historians." Now, you have that information I gave you about George Storrs, how he did the same thing with the seventy weeks, which cuts about a hundred years of history out. Many fundamentalists today say, "the earth was made in six literal days," Well, you don't agree with that, because the evidence obviously proves that false. So to say "I'm going to take the Bible" [over secular history is an admirable thing, but if the Bible itself gives you an answer, why not accept that answer? And I think it does very well. And these are questions that really strike at the heart of the authority of the organization, any organization. And why don't they come out in the open and answer these things? They haven't. Why don't they? "If you have the truth, what is there to be afraid of?" That's right out of the Truth book. That's what we used to say to people. When people would tell us, "My minister says I'd better not talk to you because you might mislead me." "Oh no, all we want to do is read the Bible to you, and if you have the truth, what is there to be afraid of? Have you said that to people? I'll bet you have. So if we have the truth, put it on the table and show me. They won't do it. And it has to do with the whole underpinnings of the authority structure. But that's important. If you misrepresent yourself.. You see, the Bible is where we get our authority. That's where anybody gets it. That's where the truth comes from. It's all we have. We don't have any succession of Popes, or Apostles, or anything like that. We can't trace our history back. The Catholics have tried it - it doesn't work. We can't trace ours back to any authority. We've got to get it from the Scriptures. And if you can't support that maybe there's something wrong. And that's where I'm at.

Elder D: I knew you had some problems from the first time I learned about your letter... in fact all three of us....

Dale: But if you had an interest… [in giving evidence]...

Elder D: Well quite frankly, we could get into a long drawn out question about history...

Bette: That's why I brought this notepad, because I figured if anybody had an answer to what Dale had written, I want to know about it. That's what I want to know, does anybody have any refutation? [Bette shows them her blank notepad]....

Elder D: There are other points besides chronology that would indicate who true Christians are. The Bible says they would have love amongst themselves. And quite frankly, I have experienced, and I would be shocked and surprised if you hadn't experienced, a lovable Jehovah's Witness, having love for one another. How would you explain that?

Bette: I have met people who are more loving.

Dale: That is not to say that some of Jehovah's Wit nesses are not loving. However, their love is hooked up to a switch in New York.

Bette: It can be highly conditional. And that smacks of mind-control. However I will have to say that in the last 10 years it has gotten worse. Once they got scared and had no answer, it has really gotten bad. Thirty-five years ago, that would be 1952, if they had taken the position that they do now, I would have recognized it as unchristian and run the other way. At that time they said, "if we have the truth we have nothing to fear" in looking into, or reading anything else. At that time we weren't worried if someone had written anything about us.

Dale: You know, something that bothered me too, and I have to say this to you because of the fact that we had many, many people coming into the organization, they were coming in droves-. If they got between you and a swimming pool, they got baptized. But after 1975, things really, really fell apart. And one of the things I observed, and I felt very strongly about - we were getting many of the basket cases of society, people who wanted something better, the failure of the churches, people with marriages on the rocks, kids running wild, that sort of thing. We had all kinds of problems. I felt that we made a big effort to get people to quit drinking, quit smoking, quit running around on their wives, things you could see, they're visible. We did a fairly good lob in that. New ones were going on momentum, because here was a new hope, something that would solve their problems. But then as far as really making Christians, we got them so busy going to meetings, studying for this, studying for that, going out in service, just on and on. I saw so many of those people spin, crash, and burn, after about three years, and they finally gave up and said, "this does not work either." Well, what some of those people needed was psychological counseling, family counseling - but boy, I'll tell you, that if you even breathed the word, you were on the carpet with the rest of the elders. We just weren't trained to do that sort of thing.

Bette: There were dozens of them who were suicidal, including an elder's wife and some of the pioneers, and do you think they'd even let them go to a psychologist who was a witness?

Dale: I saw so many needs within the congregation for services that we would not provide because we didn't believe in it. And you can't let a kid go to college, my God no, don't let him go to college! I got into all kinds of trouble for letting my son go to college. Thank God he did! And he's a very committed Christian today It didn't hurt him. He didn't get into immorality, he didn't get into drugs. Our family has always been an excellent family. I saw a lot of these things happen. And I finally had to say, "there are a lot of things we don't know that we need to learn them from someone else." The attitude you going to associate with", there are people right seemed to be, "Armageddon's always going to come in couple years and they didn't need to be concerned about these problems because if they can Justcoast through they can make it." And that's not true. It doesn't happen. The end has been "just around the corner" for all of my life.

Bette: It's a band-aide approach.

Dale: And the band-aide approach at some point wears out. Now you can say "God's spirit is supposed to do that." I'm not saying that God's spirit can't do things, but there are various helps that we can give them as humans and there is expertise that we can apply that is available that we don't do, Witnesses do not do. Now if you say they do it, I don't know where it is that they do it, but they sure didn't do it in any congregation I've ever been in.

Bette: What made me start thinking was mostly when this character who moved in [into our congregation] who was a real wheeler and dealer, and he got 30 people to pioneer, and what was the big shock to me was that those people began to lose their Christianity. They got harsh and judgmental, and the things they would say about the non-pioneers-- and the whole support system just tell apart - the love, the closeness...

Dale: That's the trouble with works-oriented systems...

Bette: And when I saw people actually forced to live it, and saw the rotten fruits, I thought, "What is the matter?" Because you recognize the tree by its fruits. Before that, I could say that if people would really do it, it would work. But then when they did it and the opposite happened, that was really something that was amazing.

Elder V: Well now you've just come up with a problem, and to some degree the problem still exists. Now how are you going to solve it? How are these people needing all this psychiatric help and love, and all this stuff that you say they needed, how are they going to get it? If you don't have an organization to get it done how are they going to get it?

Bette: There is a wonderful woman who lives across the street who is trained as a counselor and she has streams of people come into her house day and night. Her husband is a doctor, and they wear themselves out helping people and charging nothing. She was a minister's wife, and she knows Greek, she does all those things, but she is a really loving person. All that she asks people is that they find a special person, not a family member, and do something special for that person. Do something for someone else. They also help the poor and witness to the street people.

Dale: There are people like that out there.

Elder V: You're right, I won't argue that point.

Dale: You say. "Where are you going to go, who are on our street here; there are some very tine people.

Elder J: Within the last eight or ten years we have had four or five different articles in the Awake! and Watchtower on depression. Many of them bringing out that there are time when counseling is...

Dale: Yes, and it took Richard Wheelock jumping off the roof of Bethel to get that done. Did you know Richard?

Elder J: Yes. I knew Richard Wheelock.

Dale: So did I. I worked under him for three and a half years.

Elder J: When he was sick in the infirmary my son wheeled him about...

Dale: First time they finally changed their mind on something like that was when something happened to someone that was close enough to them. Isn't it a shame that it took that long?

Bette: And another thing, they cautioned in those articles that if it was a drug that they gave you, then it was ok, but if it was talk therapy. Then you have to be very, very careful.

Dale: I'll tell you another story that happened at Bethel. You know Russ Kurzen? Do you know Art Barnen? They both worked on the Bethel reception desk. They had a sister from over in Thailand who developed a psychiatric problem while she was going to Gilead. Several times she tried to jump oft the roof of Bethel. Did you know her?

Elder J: Yes, I knew her.

Dale: In the first place, they wouldn't send someone back to Thailand with her to take care of her, even though she begged for a plane ticket, or at least a companion. They sent her back by boat, by herself. She had another one of her seizures, she jumped overboard. What happened? When the word got back to Bethel and Russ Kerosene told somebody, he got called on the carpet and taken off his job for letting that out and letting the Bethel family know about it. When I was at Bethel there was a young man who developed diabetes. We didn't have a doctor there, and they wouldn't send him to a doctor or to a hospital. He Justgot so sick he couldn't get out of bed and go to work so they decided to send him home. Some of his friends thought. "He isn't going to make it home, he has to go all the way to Seattle on a bus." The least we could do for him was to help buy him an airline ticket. So about thirty of us got together and chipped in about five bucks apiece. My roommate took it down to the Bethel office and said We've got a little money to put with the Society's money so Jack can have an airline ticket home. That way we know he'll get there." And they told my roommate that he'd better get right back up there and give every penny of the money back. The Society had decided how he was going home, and we had taken up a collection; and evening that nobody's perfect. No person is perfect, that was unscriptural. Well, they took the poor kid down to the bus. He was practically in a diabetic coma; they had to put him in the bus because he couldn't figure out which one to get on. We didn't hear from him for almost a year. They picked him up in a drunk tank somewhere down in Iowa, and some police officer recognized that he was sick and put him in a hospital. He had been living on skid row for six months. His one living relative was worried sick about him, nobody knew where he was. Finally he recovered enough to write his friends that he was ok. Is that caring? And that was before the sister lumped off the ship. But it's the same story. Do they ever learn?

Elder J: There were several who came from Thailand, because I was in Thailand. There were several other sisters from Thailand in her Gilead class. Because of her condition they kept her for a number of months longer so she could rest and recuperate. I know Brother Franz was personally involved trying to help her.

Bette: But since she requested an airline ticket home, why didn't they do that? Or if they had to send her by boat, why didn't they send someone with her since she asked them to?

Elder J: I don't want to comment since I don't know all the circumstances, but I do know that it did happen because I was on the receiving end in Thailand at the time.

Bette: And then there was another case at a district assembly where babies were getting heat stroke and dying, and there were two doctors who were Witnesses working in first aid, and they went to chairman's office and asked them to please make a public announcement to the effect, "Mothers, don't leave your babies in the sun, don't let them sleep, don't leave them there. They could get seriously overheated and die." And they were told that the assembly program was too precious to be used for personal announcements.

Dale: I don't necessarily see these people as uncaring or unloving. I see a system that says that the message, the work, is more important than people.

Bette: And refuses to take responsibility, because everything is under God's direction.

Dale: Real Christianity is people-oriented, it's just loving people. And when an organization's dictates, or requirements, or agendas get in the way of people loving people and taking care of people, then something is off track. Now I realize this doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen everywhere, it doesn't happen to every person. But there is enough of it to cause me to wonder if this is really the exclusive organization of God, the only one God uses...

Elder D: But we've already acknowledged earlier in the evening that nobody's perfect, no person is perfect, no individual, not any organization. And then you've picked a few situations out of a hat…

Dale: Of course, the same thing can happen in any organization.

Bette: But, if any organization claims to be God's exclusive channel in the world, then they're taking on a lot of responsibility.

Elder D: But when is somebody responsible for any thing? My comment is that you are responsible for something or it becomes a sin to you if you are aware of it. Some people are hurt by this. Some people are not. Some people experience one thing in life, and say, "well, I believe this is a necessary thing." Most people don't need to see the track record of anything to believe. And quite frankly, watching the Society move for several decades. I've noticed that they've made changes conservatively, although not always quickly. But they've made changes conservatively as they see in God's Word because a lot weight on them. It's a faith they can stand on. Or if they get too liberal, people will take it and run with it, I've found that to be...

Dale: Then you haven't really made Christians out of them. If you have to say, "you can't give them an inch because they'll take a mile," you're saying these people are really not well intentioned and you can't trust them to be good.

Bette: It also means it's a legalistic system based on human rules, and it's not going to work right, because it's the Holy Spirit that produces the fruit-ages within the Christian, not the organization.

Elder D: People are still by nature followers. Because, by and large, of the majority, very few would have the inclination or the desire or expertise to be a leader, quite frankly. That's partly just due to human nature.

Dale: Well, the problem, of course, is that the wrong people often have the desire to lead. It's true, I've seen that happen. I used to tell people "I don't know why in the world anybody would want to be an elder." It's a lot of work. A lot of work in helping people. I remember spending hours and hours, and getting called out in the middle of the night back in 1976 to pull somebody's wife out of a bar or somebody's husband out of somebody else's bedroom. That was back during what we came to call the "class of '75". I was so busy during that time that I didn't have time to think. But it made me start thinking afterward. But when you see so much piling up, you have to start asking questions. Here's another thing I began to see. Elders are supposed to be "appointed by holy spirit." How many times have you sat in an elder's meeting and they were going through the list, and somebody's name comes up and they want to make an elder out of him. I re member numerous cases. And I would say, "now wait a minute, look at his family. He does not have a loving relationship with his wife." Now between two dedicated Christians that's the first place love shows up, isn't it, within the family, the closest relationship we have? If he hasn't got it in his family life, you'd better look very carefully. Yet how many times I'd hear, "Hey, look, he's putting in 20 hours per month." I don't care about his hours.

Elder J: That's where the holy spirit comes in...

Dale: But he got appointed.

Elder J: Well, if you ignore those requirements set forth by the holy spirit...

Dale: But then when it goes up to New York, to the governing body, and the five men on the service committee pray about h, does holy spirit tip them off? They're the ones who make the appointment and that's who the holy spirit comes through, it doesn't come through the elders, they just make a recommendation.

Bette: What about that communist spy who became a District Overseer in East Germany?

Elder J: Paul counseled Timothy not to "lay his hands hastily on another man

Dale: Absolutely right, and yet they do it all the time. How about the case we heard about from the Circuit Overseer here in California. A Circuit Overseer visiting a congregation got a sister pregnant. She went and confessed to the elders, naming the Circuit Overseer. They went to him and he said, "No, that wasn't me." He lied about it, but they disfellowshipped her mostly for "lying" about him.

Elder D: With how many witnesses?

Dale: None, except her. But they did it anyway. But here's the hooker...

Elder D: Well, we can't help that...

Dale: Right, of course. I know you can't help that. But that's not my point. Here's what happened. They disfellowshipped her and not having the required witnesses, he went on his merry way. She did her time in the back of the hall with the bag over her head, the standard procedure, and eventually got reinstated. The Circuit Overseer continued to serve and was eventually appointed as a District Overseer. Fifteen years later he came back to the same area, and here was this sister, reinstated, and on the stage at the Circuit Assembly with her 15 year old son who is the spitting' image of the District Overseer. And it got to him and he admitted his sin, and he resigned or was removed, or whatever. So my brother-in-law said, "Well, you see, God's spirit took care of the problem." Fifteen years later! Well, ok, but how can you explain to me how Holy spirit can appoint a man like that to a higher position, living in sin? My brother-in-law said, "Well maybe he was doing more good than harm." Well, come on, you can't fool the Holy spirit, but Jehovah's Witnesses do a pretty good job of it. I know of a case where an elder left his wife ran off with a sister and was disfellowshipped. They both moved clear across the country. Someone knocked on his door, and he said, "Oh sure, I want to study the Bible." He studied, got baptized. He became a ministerial servant, then he became an elder. Finally the Circuit Overseer from his old area happened to get transferred up there and walked in and recognized him, years later. Now, where was the holy spirit? You've got to ask these questions.

Elder D: Back in the time of the Apostles, Annanias and Saphira played false to the Holy spirit...

Dale: How long did it take them? How long did it take them?

Elder D: Well, it would be nice if we had the opportunity to take the life force out of them for doing that sort of thing, but, quite frankly, we don't have that power, and nobody does today.

Bette: Then why assume the same authority that the Apostles had? No human organization today can safely do that.

Elder D: Timothy made appointments and he was not an apostle.

Bette: But they had apostles with those groups then, but for an organization to make the sort of claims that they do...

Elder D: . . . they worked as a support group for those in the community in the first century.

Dale: But it's the authoritarian control, though it doesn't appear in the New Testament, it doesn't appear in the early church of the first couple of centuries, and it isn't until the later part of the second and early third that you start running into this sort of thing, it's the iron-clad control over peoples minds that causes them to stop thinking.

Elder V: Well, it may very well be as you said, but if that's the way it seemed to me, I'd want out. I would not want to be associated- I don't care how many kids of mine. How many relatives- with an attitude like you two have. Go on, get out

Bette: I have in fact had to say good-bye to my mother and brother, and I'm willing to do that because my integrity to Jehovah is more important. But at the same time, reading the Bible, I feel that the way Jehovah's Witnesses handle shunning is unscriptural, and I'm not about to cooperate in an unscriptural application which keeps me from carrying out my scriptural obligations.

Elder D: I'm aware of your views - some religious organizations do exercise mind control. Nonetheless it was our earnest intention to see if there wasn't some point we could find some positive thing. I've done some work or researching your letter. It's not completed, but some day I would like to share it with you.

Bette: That's what I would like to see.

Elder D: But, quite frankly, that doesn't stop our... quite frankly, one of the things that I used to say to people is that when people are positive about the way they feel, and you can call it control of information, thought control...

Bette: Mind control.

Elder D: Yes, I've studied mind control too, I went to some higher education, but I had some opportunity to see how it works, the deprogramming and so forth1 so I'm familiar with how it works, and your correlation to the Watchtower Society and the way it deals with people, even though some of the essential ingredients are similar, in no way are they the same. What draws us together, there's a bond of love based upon our mutual affection for our father in heaven. Quite frankly, I would have a hard time believing that the first century Christians were not operating similarly [to JW's] despite what you've been saying. Quite frankly, they were well defined, there was usually one in every community.

Dale: They were autonomous.

Elder D: No, they were not.

Dale: You need to read some history.

Elder D: When one was disfellowshipped by one congregation, they were also viewed in the same position somewhere else, and that's not autonomous.

Dale: There's only one place in the Scriptures that talk about it...

Elder J: One congregation sends a letter and it is distributed.. ..[He is talking about the Corinthian Letters being circulated]

Dale: Well, after the fact, it was only 2 months later.

Elder D: How many examples do you need?

Dale: Well, it was the congregation's responsibility to do it.

Elder D: Jehovah's Witnesses congregations are somewhat autonomous...

Dale: Oh, no no no no no

Elder D: Well, that's your view -- that's your view. You must realize that the time must come....

Dale: Well, upon what scriptural basis would you base that on?

Elder D: You know exactly.

Dale: No, you tell me, what scripture, I want to hear it from you!

Elder D: You understand.

Dale: Have I slandered? Have I committed adultery? Have I bowed down to an idol? That's 1st Corinthians. Do you have a basis there?

Elder D: The charges brought against you are for apostasy

Dale: And that's being an anti-Christ, right? Have I denied that Jesus came in the flesh?

Bette: Or that he is the Son of God?

Dale: Or that he died for our sins?

Elder D: No.

Dale: That's right, I haven't. You haven't proven me Scripturally wrong on the questions I've raised. You've just disagreed with what I've said. I may be wrong on some doctrinal point, but I know where I stand with Jesus Christ.

Elder D: The long and the short of it will be, quite frankly, not whatever action this group takes, but what happens in the long run as far as all of our everlasting future is concerned.

Dale: I'm very sure of that.

Elder D: And you need to be, quite frankly, you need to be... .there will be quite a number of Jehovah's Witnesses, quite frankly, who will not survive...

Dale: What are you going to do when those people who were living in 1914 are dead and gone? There's not many left.

Elder J: Well, I guess we'll know pretty soon who is right.

_________________________________________________________________________

The meeting ended shortly thereafter, with the usual promise, "We will get back to you with our decision. It is not hard to imagine what that will be. For the record, I will say that these men conducted themselves amicably throughout the discussion, and at the end, thanked us for being pleasant. That is not normally the case where "apostasy" is concerned. In fact, lam surprised that they even allowed themselves to hear some of the points we presented. However, they seemed deathly afraid to tackle the challenge that chronology presents to their entire belief system. I think that on some deeper level, they must know, or at least suspect the truth. It is a difficult matter for one to face, and they have been well trained in denial.

For those of you reading this who have never been Witnesses, you might wonder why not just resign and avoid all of this? It has to do with the Witness practice of shunning. What started out as a way to express congregational disapproval of immorality, has degenerated into a "political weapon" to quell dissent, or questions of Biblical interpretation. They are deathly afraid of any information that might upset the "lock-step" unity of thought and action" mind-set of the Witness ranks. When one is disfellowshipped, or officially "disassociates" himself, he is treated as an anti-Christ in accordance with 2 John 10,11. While we can endure the loss of our many Witness friends, these can be replaced, being cut off by one's immediate family members can be tragic -- not only for us, but also for children, parents, grandparents, and grandchildren. For these are forced to deny their natural feelings and bend to the will of the organization, believing that "God wants them to." When one considers that many families around the world who have been touched by this practice, the broken marriages, the dismembered families, the psychological trauma which in many cases had lead to suicide, one can begin to appreciate the truly evil nature of this phenomena. And all because one has chosen to follow the dictates of his conscience.

Although the early Christians did, on occasion, discipline members of the congregation who were grossly immoral, there is no evidence that they used the practice to control and hold onto their members. Jesus said that his followers would be the ones cast out, not the ones doing the casting out. It is our hope that one day soon a way will be found to stop this unchristian practice.