We arrived at the Kingdom Hall shortly before a meeting of the Tucson Mountain congregation. Confused, I shortly noticed Joseph Friedenberg and we quickly made our way to the backroom where John(?) Russell and some elder (possibly the new Circuit Overseer) I have never met before were waiting. The following transcript starts with us first arriving inside the building.
Jonathan: Hi!
John: Hi!
Some Anonymous JW Inside: Hello?
John: I’m John. I think I probably met you before up here… Uh I came wednesânoâthursday.
Jonathan: Which congregation is this again?
Some Anonymous JW Inside: Tucson Mountain.
Jonathan: Tucson Mountain… Oh! Hey…
[At this point I spotted Joseph Friedenberg. John and I made our way to the lobby and subsequently to the backroom.]
John: [Indecipherable]
Jonathan: Yeah, sorry…
Jonathan: Hello. [In greeting to some anonymous JW in the lobby]
Jonathan: Confused with all the cars… Hah…[To the elders waiting in the backroom]
Russell: That’s all right. Come right in…
John: Hi, my name’s John.
Russell: I’m John.
John: All right, I kinda like that name. Heh…
Russell: [Indecipherable]
John: I’m John Hadwin. Good to meet you.
Russell: What’s your name?
John: John Hadwin.
[Indecipherable Chatter]
John: [Indecipherable]… Tucson like that, this place is so confusing…
Russell: So you’re old(?) friends?
Jonathan: Yeah. This is a brother from Louisiana.
John: We’re uh… we go back about 5 years now… but, uh… I’m only 25 so that’s like a fifth of our lives.
Jonathan: [Short burst of laughter]
Russell: So are you a witness? Are you one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or…?
John: Yeah.
Russell: Are ya?
Russell: In good standing, or…?
Jonathan: Absolutely.
John: Yeah, of course.
Russell: Louisiana, huh?
Jonathan: Yep.
John: Yeah, yeah… [Indecipherable] …My wife and I haven’t been back for… since, well really since Hurricane Rita. And my brother’s house was, like, 12 feet underwater at the time. And it was just… [loud crack] amazing so…
Russell: Bad.
John: Yes sir.
Russell: Uh, John… I guess John is a witness from Louisiana.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: Well, thank you very much for coming. What we were concerned about is uh… majorly… is that uh… we do the right thing.
Jonathan: Mmhm, absolutely.
New Guy: And uh… you know you can’t record this. And so I have to ask you do you have a recorder?
Jonathan: Uh… yeah, I have a tape recorder, yeah. Umm… Now, why exactly is thatâthat I can’t record this?
New Guy: Well it’s the policy of the Watchtower Society.
Jonathan: Okay what’sâis there a biblical basis for that?
New Guy: I don’t believe they had recorders back then. *chuckles*
Jonathan: WellâfineâI know… Uh…
New Guy: No, that’s just the establishment of the meeting. And if you’re going to record it then we can’t have… [Indecipherable]
Jonathan: Okay. *mumbles* well, here you go… [hands over tape recorder] Okay.
New Guy: Do you have a second one?
Jonathan: No I don’t. That’s the only tape recorder I have.
Russell: We’d like to start with a prayer.
Jonathan: Go ahead.
Russell: Would you like to do that, Joseph?
Joseph: *cough* Jehovah God, we come before you now to give thanks for allowing us to… be part of your organization. To… use the bible and uh… adjust our thinking. And to help our… our members… in doing the same thing. So that… uh… we can all reach the same goal. We ask that you would be with us now to have a… mild spirit. And to be able to… uh… speak freely. I’d like to give this prayer to you now in Jesus Christ’s name.
Elders (in unison): Amen.
New Guy: And what I’d like to do is just read a scripture to you to start with…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: It has to do with what our purpose here is. It’s in Galatians 6…
[Flipping to scripture]
Jonathan: Galatians 6?
New Guy: Galatians 6. First uh… first verse.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: It says… âBrothers, even though a man takes some false step before he’s aware of it. You who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. As you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted.â So… the reason we wanted to meet with you is to see if there’s some way we can assist you… to be able to see things… uh clearly as to Jehovah’s organization, the Watchtower Society [Indecipherable].
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: That’s our purpose…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: …is to help you.
Jonathan: Absolutely.
New Guy: Alright. So… based on that… your thinking today is what in regards to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?
Jonathan: Well what should it be?
New Guy: Well… do you… do you want this to be confrontational?
Jonathan: No, no, I’m asking whatâwhat should… you know as an elder it would be of great assistance if you could define what should be my position to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
New Guy: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a legal corporation.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: And in… within that legal corporation those who have put it together…
Jonathan: Mhm.
New Guy: …are those of the governing body who are part of the one hundred and forty four thousand.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: The governing body are the ones that uh… give all directions throughout the Earth. And I guess the question would be do you believe that that governing body is appointed by Jehovah to do that.
Jonathan: What basis would I have to believe that?
New Guy: The Bible.
Jonathan: Okay and whereâcould you… if you could help me… please point that in the Bible.
New Guy: Matthew 24. I’m sure you know–
Jonathan: Matthew 24:14?
New Guy: No, 24. [Looking back, maybe he subconsciously was directing me to Matthew 24:24 ;-)]
Jonathan: Oh, the whole thing. Okay.
New Guy: No, 45.
Jonathan: Oh, okay, the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: There you go.
Jonathan: Okay. Yeah, Matthew 24:45 in regards to the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: That is correct.
Jonathan: What is the faithful and discrete slave?
New Guy: See, you’re asking the question. And what you want to do is try to convince us of what–
Jonathan: No, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m asking a question… because, as an elder… I have these questions and it would assist me greatly if you could answer them for me.
New Guy: The answer that I gave already is [Indecipherable]–the governing body.
Jonathan: Okay, so the faithful and discrete slave is the governing body.
New Guy: One hundred and forty four thousand, those that are left here on the Earth, the governing body is part of that. That is correct.
Jonathan: So you’d say the governing body then represents… the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: That’s true.
Jonathan: Okay, so where’s the governing body then in–in the scriptures?
New Guy: Same place as uh… were here… John and all of them were in Jerusalem. That’s where Paul went to visit them…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: That’s where all the various ones went…
Jonathan: You’re talking about the Jerusalem council.
Russell: Y’know, uh…
New Guy: Y’know it’s… *chuckles*
Russell: Excuse me a second. *cough*
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Ourâour purpose in being here isâis not to debate these things, but to find out… if… whether you agree or disagree with what you’ve been taught from infancy…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: …based on the bible. And, to answer our questions with questions is… only to stimulate debate. And we’re not here to debate.
Jonathan: Well it’sâit’s not stimulating debate. It’sâit’s… I find questions with questions, um… it actually allows us to… argue. And argument is where two peopleâtwo parties… come to a common conclusion. Umm… and so therefore… I-I can’t be sure… You say I’ve been taught from infancy. But a person isn’t sentient until they’re three years old. Um…
New Guy: No, well what we need to do is stop it here.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: Ifâif you do not believe… that the anointed… on the Earth today… are directed by the governing body today…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: …then we have no more discussion.
Jonathan: Simply because if, theoretically, I didn’t have that belief there would be the end of discussion?
New Guy: Absolutely, because, that means that you do not…
Jonathan: Would it… Okay, the scripture you cited said that you were to readjust my thinking. So if my thinking is off… then you are to readjust me. Is that correct?
New Guy: The point is that you don’t desire, evidently, to be readjusted. Because you–
Jonathan: How is…? Okay…
New Guy: –incidentally ask questions. We give you a simple answer, and you want to know why that answer is given.
Jonathan: I’m trying to make sure of all things… make the truth my own. Weâwe do that by asking questions. We come to a knowledge of the truth… by… asking pertinent questions.
New Guy: Well… do you remember the other part of that scripture?
Jonathan: Well, what is the other part of the–that scripture?
New Guy: That we just read… where we protect ourselves…
Jonathan: IâI’ve been looking at the Watchtower. And I… I would think you might find this interesting. It says âSince we do not want our worship to be in vain, it is important for each one of us to examine his religion. We need to examine not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word? Or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination…â
New Guy: Absolutely.
Jonathan: âIt should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us and then to do it.â That’s from The Truth that Leads to Everlasting Life, 1986 p. 16
New Guy: I-I understand that…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: …but that’s not what we’re talking about. Let me ask you a direct question…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: Do you believe in the Trinity? Is that a belief of yours, today?
Jonathan: Could you define what the Trinity is?
New Guy: No, I’m not going to define what the Trinity is. Because you know–
Jonathan: Well, if we can’t define–
New Guy: –what the Trinity is.
Jonathan: Obviously I don’t. What isâwhat is the Trinity, please?
New Guy: I’m not going to argue the Trinity.
Jonathan: [Indecipherable]
Russell: In all of its variations…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: In all of its variations… And there are a variety of ways to apply… the doctrine…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: In any of it… do you believe in the trinity? In any form…
Jonathan: In any form?
Russell: Any form.
Jonathan: Well… that’sâthat’s uh… I in any form… The Trinity, the word, is not found in the Bible.
New Guy: That’s true.
Jonathan: So, in that, I would say… no.
New Guy: Then do you believe that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one?
Jonathan: How do you define âoneâ? Because Jesus Himself said âI and the Father are oneâ. So obviously that’s a biblical sentiment.
New Guy: Well, he also said all of His apostles were one with that.
Jonathan: Okay, so, there you go… I mean do you haveâwe have to define terms in order to understand what we’re talking about first.
New Guy: But we’re never going to get to a definition of terms. Because… you already have a mindset. And that mindset that you have is not acceptable to us. You don’t want that readjusted.
Jonathan: It-it’s not… No, I do want it readjusted. If I am wrong in any way, it’s your duty to readjust my thinking.
Russell: To readjust the one who wants to be readjusted.
Jonathan: And I do want to be readjusted. Toâto judge my desires… No man can judge the heart, right?
Russell: That’s true.
Jonathan: Okay, so how can you prejudge my desires?
Russell: We’re not…
Jonathan: Okay, well thenâthen I do. All I can say is that I do want to be readjusted. If I am wrong, in any way, please point that out.
Russell: Well, maybe it would be easierâif I may..
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: You tell us… Select just one doctrine… that Jehovah’s Witnesses… adhere to… based on the bible, that you disagree with. Just one. Let’s not go around.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Well…
Jonathan: Wellâwell what makes you… believe that I disagree with any doctrines?
Russell: That’s why we’re here.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because we had heard this… because of what you have said to your family members.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: And you have posted, we understand, on the internet…
Jonathan: Do you have proof of that?
Russell: No! I wouldn’t look at postings…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: I have proof in the form of witnesses who’ve said they saw it. We do. We’ve heard that. So all we’re saying is…
Jonathan: Well who areâCan IâCan I ask who are these witnesses?
Russell: Absolutely. Jared and Emily…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Uh… and uh… Chris, and uh… uh… Jill.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Your own grandfather…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: …heard your words and your… and uh… what you were saying.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: And they’re happy to come and testify to that, but I don’t think that’s necessary. If we take this down to its very base… uh… point of the discussion…
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: We can see whether or not you want to remain as part of… this organization.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: If I may…
Jonathan: Go ahead.
Russell: If we find one teaching… that you disagree with, rather than us trying to… banter on terms and words… give us one you’re having difficulty accepting.
Jonathan: It’s not a matter of difficulty accepting. I-I actually affirm a teaching… that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or that God’s organization should not be involved in political affairs. I believe that. Now why did the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society join the United Nations in 1992?
Russell: You’ve been given an explanation for that. So…
[Indecipherable]
New Guy: You know the explanation for that.
Jonathan: What is the explanation then? How have I been given an explanation? Wha-what do you mean?
Russell: Because it was…
New Guy: Go ahead.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: The Society wrote and explained all of that. Andâand… we don’t need to get into any of these definitions of… what it appeared, why it appeared that way…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Let’s stick to just a basic bible doctrine so we won’t spend a lot of time…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because if you don’t–
Jonathan: Let meâlet me ask you a question then. Onâon doctrines…
Russell: Before you do…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: So you understand clearly why we’re here…
Jonathan: Sure.
Russell: If a person… biblically… poses a threat to the unity and the cleanliness of God’s organization here on Earth, we then are charged with the responsibility to investigate that, and for the sake of purity and cleanliness and to uphold holy standardsâ1 Peter 1:16â
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: âYou must be holy, because I’m holyââthen we will discharge that responsibility whether the person who we’re speaking to or not agrees or disagrees.
Jonathan: Yeah.
Russell: That’s not for you to decide.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: So what we’re saying is to get rid of all the periphery…
Jonathan: Yeah.
Russell: Let’s bear down to one basic thought. Not debate terms.
Jonathan: Mhm.
Russell: Take one thought. And if we can or can not agree on it, we’ll use that for the basis of our decision. How would that be?
Jonathan: Well, uhm you-you pointed out a number of procedures on how that’sâhow that’s to go, uh, it’s interesting Matthew 28 says that we’re also to bring this before the whole congregation. It says, y’know, that if you have a problem with your brother… uh, go to him… and then that ifâif thatâif he doesn’t seem to be responsiveâhe doesn’t want your helpâthen toâthen to, uh, go to the older men then to go to the congregation [I was thinking Matthew 18, and it doesn’t actually mention the âolder menâ in that passage]. The wholeâthe whole congregation. Uhm… I mean, well… I’ll give you an exampleââSince the local court was situated at the city gates, there was no question about the trial being public (Deut. 16:18-20). No doubt the public trials helped influence the judges toward carefulness and justice, qualities that sometimes vanish in secret star-chamber hearings. What about witnesses? Witnesses in Bible times were required to testify publicly.â Okay, so that’s the Awake! January, uh, 22nd 1981. Andâand as I was citing Matthew 18:15-17 [says] âspeak to the congregationâ.
Russell: Are you debating with procedure here? Is thatâ?
Jonathan: I’m not debating. I’mâI’m asking a question. Why, exactly… do we have this backroom procedure, at all? Why isn’t it brought before the congregaâYouâyou were explaining, uh, why we’re here, and that’s what I’m asking. Why is it that we’re here in this locality?
New Guy: We are chargedâwe are charged to protect the congregation. And therefore you must go through us to get to the congregation.
Jonathan: Okay. So it’sâit’sâ
New Guy: That’s all there is to it.
Jonathan: So are youâyou don’t believe that it was literal when he said âspeak to the congregationâ in Matthew 18.
New Guy: No.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: Not for us today. In those days we don’t know what the congregation was. I meanâ
Jonathan: Ah, okay.
New Guy: âwe weren’t there.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: How do we know what it was?
Jonathan: So, the basis of changing that would go back to the organizational legitimacy.
New Guy: Alright, alright.
Jonathan: That this is God’s organization so we can change that interpretation.
New Guy: Is this God’s organization or not in your mind? And that’sâthat’s all I can ask.
Jonathan: Okay, well that’sâthat’s my question. Myâmy question is if this is God’s organization what is the biblical basis to show that? Youâyou mentioned the âfaithful and discrete slave,â okay, how do we identify it? Because Matthew HenryâMatthew Henry’s Commentary, which is cited extensively by the Watchtowerâummâbasically states that the âfaithful and discrete slaveâ is an example for ministersâfor âgospel ministersââthatâthat anyone who takes it upon themâthat is called to be a minister in that role should be âfaithful and discreteâ in execution.
New Guy: You know what? This meeting is over.
Russell: Yeah. There’s no point.
New Guy: There’s no point in discussion.
Jonathan: There’s absolutely a point! It is your duty to readjust me.
New Guy: No.
Jonathan: How?
New Guy: Your meeting is over.
Russell: Yeah.
New Guy: That’s it.
Jonathan: Okay, well before it’s over let meâlet me give you something. Umm…
John: I have a question. Can I speak?
Russell: Sure.
John: Um… Why can’t you answer his questions?
New Guy: Because we know his thoughts. We knowâ
Jonathan: You know my thoughts! You’re psychic!
New Guy: Pardon?
John: How do you know his thoughts?
Jonathan: Yeah, how do you know my thoughts?
John: I was just talking to…
New Guy: I read your thoughts.
Jonathan: Oh… okay.
New Guy: Your grandfather had them.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: All the things that you wrote…
Jonathan: You have alleged writings.
New Guy: Pardon?
Jonathan: You have alleged writings from myâmy grandfather. Well do…
New Guy: Your grandfather…
Jonathan: Well, let me give you something. Would you be willing to accept my… my thesis? Joseph?
Russell: No. You know what we’ll accept from you?
Jonathan: Okay. Is a letter?
Russell: Yeah.
Jonathan: Okay. Sure.
Russell: If you–
Jonathan: Hereâhere’s my letter.
Russell: And what is it?
Jonathan: Would you like to read it? Here, I’llâI’ll read it outloud. âDear ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, the Watchtower organization self-styled ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ is an apostate cult.â
[Big Commotion]
Jonathan: âIt is a high control group that fosters a unique puritanical culture of its own…â
New Guy: You’reâyou’re dismissed. Bye bye.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Thank you.
New Guy: Thank you for being here.
Jonathan: Well, God bless.
Russell: Thank you for helping us to resolve the matter.
New Guy: Thank you for [indecipherable].
Jonathan: Absolutely.
New Guy: Now the only other reqâquestion we have is… Shall we talk to your mother and your brother?
Jonathan: Whichâwhich?
John: I can’t believe you won’t even answer his questions, and I don’t understand why.
Russell: Yeah you do.
John: No, I don’t.
Russell: But we’re doneâwe’re done now.
New Guy: Then you must not be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Russell: You’re not. *chuckles*
New Guy: And my question to you is…
John: Why won’t you even…?
New Guy: Should we talk to your mother and your brother?
Jonathan: And what would be the point?
New Guy: The point would be… If they don’t want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses we need to let…
Jonathan: That’sâthat’s notâI have no idea what their thoughtsâI don’t read anybody’s thoughts.
New Guy: As far as…
John: Why won’t you answer his questions?
New Guy: We don’t have time.
Jonathan: Frankly, this is satanic.
John: You don’t have time?
Russell: We don’t have time for it. We’re notâwe’re not… This is a matter of debate. So… we’re not here to debate.
John: He was asking you guys for help.
Jonathan: Y’know… 1 Peter 3:15 says every man must make a defense for his faith.
Russell: And you know what? Your faith is apart from ours. There’s the door.
John: But mine’s not, so… let me ask you…
Russell: Well it is. We can look at you and tell it is. You’re sharing with him. You must be by association. And if you want to change that, go back to the congregation you came from and address it with your elders who know you. We don’t know you. Anymore…
John: But you’re brothers, right?
Russell: We are indeed. The three of us are… not to you.
John: Why not?
Russell: Because, it’s obvious. He refers to us as an “apostate cult.”
Jonathan: [Indecipherable]
Russell: Why don’t you come back at another time… without him? And we’ll visit. Why don’t you make an appointment to come see us? We’ll see you individually if you so choose.
John: Are you gonna answer my questions when I come back?
Russell: If they’re not in the form of debate… and if they’re sincere. But if…
Jonathan: Howâhow can you judgeâjudge my sincerity?
Russell: Well we’re not talking to you.
New Guy: Not sincerity as to what you believe.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: But sincerity as to…
Jonathan: But I have serious questions.
Russell: No you don’t.
Jonathan: Yes I do.
Russell: Our conversation is over.
Jonathan: How serious can you be when you say this is not God’s organization; prove it to me?
Russell: Our conversation is over. So now, my point to you is this… if you are sincere, you may certainly get our attentionâlet us knowâand we’re happy. If it goes in the same direction, we’re happy to meet with you, but if it goes in the same direction we’ll dismiss you as we’re dismissing him.
Jonathan: I would just like to say, could you keep this on file? Because this is my letter of disassociation.
Russell: Oh, we will.
Jonathan: Okay, thank you very much.
Russell: Oh, we will.
Jonathan: Well, why don’t weâwhy don’t we go, John? Because, they’re unreasonable so…
John: No!
Jonathan: No, weâwe should go… Have a nice day!
New Guy: Thank you.
[At this point, John insisted on remaining inside and plead with the elders to be sane and reasonable (which they predictably refused, of course). The door was open, but the recording is much quieter at this point. After a few moments I walked back toward the doorway.]
[Indecipherable…]
Russell: …not be called to mind including the names of those who set themselves apart from God’s organization. He won’t even remember their name. Isaiah said it. [Isaiah nowhere mentions âorganizationâ] We didn’t. It’s a serious matter. It’s a very serious matter. So with humility in your heart, when you come to a doctor, as he used the scripture, to adjust that bone. And you’re in great deal of pain. And the tears are streaming down you. And you’re in anguish. And you come to talk to us to help you adjust that bone, as Galatians 6:1 says, and you debate with us? Whether or not we have the credentials to adjust it? And how we’re going to adjust it? I would think you’d want the bone set.
John: I didn’t know I was having a bone set.
Russell: But you weren’t invited here.
John: Yes I was! He invited me.
Russell: Not by us. So I’m saying the invitation to come to this holy place, to have our attention, to have an audience with us, to help you, is open to you. Not to him. And… you’ll get the same hearing ear, but if you take the same position, at the outset, we’ll dismiss you, because we don’t have a sharing in that.
Jonathan: Because they can’t tolerate dissent. That’s what it comes down to.
John: But, he invitedâlook, he invited me here as his witness…
Russell: We didn’tâHe makes a statement that’s true. We do not tolerate dissent against Jehovah’s organization. [He makes it sound as if âdissentâ is somehow synonymous with rebellion…]
Jonathan: Because it’s not Jehovah’s organization! It’s dissent as… Is it Jehovah’s organization? That’s my question.
New Guy: You know, gentlemen, this meeting is already over.
Russell: It is. But I just want you to know the door’s open, if you humbly come back and ask for help.
John: But I came here humbly today…
Russell: Well, but we weren’t expecting you to be here. [I told them weeks in advance that I wanted a witness to observe the proceedings.] You come another time, if you’re sincere… you make an appointmentâYou know how to reach us. You know our meeting nights.
John: If I screw up are you guys gonna treat me like [indecipherable]
Jonathan: No, let’s… John… John, let’s go, c’mon.
Russell: Could be. We’ll dismiss you if we don’t feel comfortable being in your presence.
John: Y’know… Y’know what? I have never seen such a lack of love in all of my life. What happened to the rest of Galatians? The part that talked about love?
Russell: Y’know what? You’re just caught up in the emotion of it. We respect that. We hope that you’ll see the light.
John: What’s gonna happen to him and everyone he knows?
Russell: You know the best thing you can do for yourself, John? Separate yourself from him. Get yourself from him. Never speak to him again from this moment forward. And that’ll be the best thing you can do for yourself. If you love GodâIf you love Godânot us, not him, not even yourself. If you love God…
Jonathan: If you love God, you will want the Truth.
Russell: Never speakânever speak to this man again. Come back to this holy place, strip yourself of your pride and let him affect your heart. And you will see things differently. Don’t have to come to this hally(?) place.
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: Go to another Kingdom Hall, but do not speak to him… ever again, and you will be on the road to life. That will start you down that road.
[Indecipherable commotion]
John: I don’t have any hatred in my heart. (?)
Russell: We don’t have any hatred for you.
John: How am I supposed to start down that road?
[Commotion]
Jonathan: No, actually according to the Watchtower you’re supposed to hate apostates. So…
Russell: We don’t have any hatred
New Guy: [Indecipherable]
Russell: None whatsoever. We are sorry for you.
Jonathan: Might as well be, because you can prejudge him. So…
[More indecipherable commotion]
Russell: You know what? In a god-like form, I absolutely do hate him, just as Jehovah does. He’s insulted our god… in God’s house! How else should we act?
Jonathan: If you’re talking about the god of the Pleiades star system, then absolutely I would insult that.
Russell: You can step outside and close the door. If you’d like to say something, it has to be here.
John: But he didn’t even say anything about God or anything, he’s just talking about a bunch of stuff and he had questions. And you guys…
New Guy: No, he didn’t.
Russell: Listen. I’ll reiterate this so you make sure when you walk out the door you know our doors are open to you. We will hear you again. We will hear you again… not in a judicial form, because we don’t know you! You sayâYou’re one of Jehovah’s Witnesses…
John: He said I’m a witness… from Louisiana. I’m his witness.
Russell: Are you or are you not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Jonathan: He’s absolutely one of Jehovah’s witnesses, because Jesus is Yahweh and heâhe is a Christian.
Russell: Well IâI’m out of words. I only have so many words per day, and I’ve used ’em up. So have a great evening.
Jonathan: Absolutely.
Russell: And if you want any help you come back without him… in a different time and a different setting or another Kingdom Hall with other elders… they’ll share the Bible with you, but they’ll dismiss you if you’re the sameâassume the same posture. That’s just how it is…
Jonathan: That’s how it is.
John: Logical debate is bad?
Jonathan: Yes it is. Let’s go John…
New Guy: Go on, John.
Russell: Have a good evening.
Jonathan: C’mon… Oh! Thank you for the record…
New Guy: I knew you were lying.
Jonathan: It’s not a tape recorder. I said I have no tape recorder.
New Guy: Well I knew… I knew exactly what you were doing.
Jonathan: Sure.
New Guy: Have a good night.
Jonathan: You too!
Jonathan: Hi!
John: Hi!
Some Anonymous JW Inside: Hello?
John: I’m John. I think I probably met you before up here… Uh I came wednesânoâthursday.
Jonathan: Which congregation is this again?
Some Anonymous JW Inside: Tucson Mountain.
Jonathan: Tucson Mountain… Oh! Hey…
[At this point I spotted Joseph Friedenberg. John and I made our way to the lobby and subsequently to the backroom.]
John: [Indecipherable]
Jonathan: Yeah, sorry…
Jonathan: Hello. [In greeting to some anonymous JW in the lobby]
Jonathan: Confused with all the cars… Hah…[To the elders waiting in the backroom]
Russell: That’s all right. Come right in…
John: Hi, my name’s John.
Russell: I’m John.
John: All right, I kinda like that name. Heh…
Russell: [Indecipherable]
John: I’m John Hadwin. Good to meet you.
Russell: What’s your name?
John: John Hadwin.
[Indecipherable Chatter]
John: [Indecipherable]… Tucson like that, this place is so confusing…
Russell: So you’re old(?) friends?
Jonathan: Yeah. This is a brother from Louisiana.
John: We’re uh… we go back about 5 years now… but, uh… I’m only 25 so that’s like a fifth of our lives.
Jonathan: [Short burst of laughter]
Russell: So are you a witness? Are you one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or…?
John: Yeah.
Russell: Are ya?
Russell: In good standing, or…?
Jonathan: Absolutely.
John: Yeah, of course.
Russell: Louisiana, huh?
Jonathan: Yep.
John: Yeah, yeah… [Indecipherable] …My wife and I haven’t been back for… since, well really since Hurricane Rita. And my brother’s house was, like, 12 feet underwater at the time. And it was just… [loud crack] amazing so…
Russell: Bad.
John: Yes sir.
Russell: Uh, John… I guess John is a witness from Louisiana.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: Well, thank you very much for coming. What we were concerned about is uh… majorly… is that uh… we do the right thing.
Jonathan: Mmhm, absolutely.
New Guy: And uh… you know you can’t record this. And so I have to ask you do you have a recorder?
Jonathan: Uh… yeah, I have a tape recorder, yeah. Umm… Now, why exactly is thatâthat I can’t record this?
New Guy: Well it’s the policy of the Watchtower Society.
Jonathan: Okay what’sâis there a biblical basis for that?
New Guy: I don’t believe they had recorders back then. *chuckles*
Jonathan: WellâfineâI know… Uh…
New Guy: No, that’s just the establishment of the meeting. And if you’re going to record it then we can’t have… [Indecipherable]
Jonathan: Okay. *mumbles* well, here you go… [hands over tape recorder] Okay.
New Guy: Do you have a second one?
Jonathan: No I don’t. That’s the only tape recorder I have.
Russell: We’d like to start with a prayer.
Jonathan: Go ahead.
Russell: Would you like to do that, Joseph?
Joseph: *cough* Jehovah God, we come before you now to give thanks for allowing us to… be part of your organization. To… use the bible and uh… adjust our thinking. And to help our… our members… in doing the same thing. So that… uh… we can all reach the same goal. We ask that you would be with us now to have a… mild spirit. And to be able to… uh… speak freely. I’d like to give this prayer to you now in Jesus Christ’s name.
Elders (in unison): Amen.
New Guy: And what I’d like to do is just read a scripture to you to start with…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: It has to do with what our purpose here is. It’s in Galatians 6…
[Flipping to scripture]
Jonathan: Galatians 6?
New Guy: Galatians 6. First uh… first verse.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: It says… âBrothers, even though a man takes some false step before he’s aware of it. You who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. As you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted.â So… the reason we wanted to meet with you is to see if there’s some way we can assist you… to be able to see things… uh clearly as to Jehovah’s organization, the Watchtower Society [Indecipherable].
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: That’s our purpose…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: …is to help you.
Jonathan: Absolutely.
New Guy: Alright. So… based on that… your thinking today is what in regards to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?
Jonathan: Well what should it be?
New Guy: Well… do you… do you want this to be confrontational?
Jonathan: No, no, I’m asking whatâwhat should… you know as an elder it would be of great assistance if you could define what should be my position to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
New Guy: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a legal corporation.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: And in… within that legal corporation those who have put it together…
Jonathan: Mhm.
New Guy: …are those of the governing body who are part of the one hundred and forty four thousand.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: The governing body are the ones that uh… give all directions throughout the Earth. And I guess the question would be do you believe that that governing body is appointed by Jehovah to do that.
Jonathan: What basis would I have to believe that?
New Guy: The Bible.
Jonathan: Okay and whereâcould you… if you could help me… please point that in the Bible.
New Guy: Matthew 24. I’m sure you know–
Jonathan: Matthew 24:14?
New Guy: No, 24. [Looking back, maybe he subconsciously was directing me to Matthew 24:24 ;-)]
Jonathan: Oh, the whole thing. Okay.
New Guy: No, 45.
Jonathan: Oh, okay, the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: There you go.
Jonathan: Okay. Yeah, Matthew 24:45 in regards to the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: That is correct.
Jonathan: What is the faithful and discrete slave?
New Guy: See, you’re asking the question. And what you want to do is try to convince us of what–
Jonathan: No, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m asking a question… because, as an elder… I have these questions and it would assist me greatly if you could answer them for me.
New Guy: The answer that I gave already is [Indecipherable]–the governing body.
Jonathan: Okay, so the faithful and discrete slave is the governing body.
New Guy: One hundred and forty four thousand, those that are left here on the Earth, the governing body is part of that. That is correct.
Jonathan: So you’d say the governing body then represents… the faithful and discrete slave.
New Guy: That’s true.
Jonathan: Okay, so where’s the governing body then in–in the scriptures?
New Guy: Same place as uh… were here… John and all of them were in Jerusalem. That’s where Paul went to visit them…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: That’s where all the various ones went…
Jonathan: You’re talking about the Jerusalem council.
Russell: Y’know, uh…
New Guy: Y’know it’s… *chuckles*
Russell: Excuse me a second. *cough*
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Ourâour purpose in being here isâis not to debate these things, but to find out… if… whether you agree or disagree with what you’ve been taught from infancy…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: …based on the bible. And, to answer our questions with questions is… only to stimulate debate. And we’re not here to debate.
Jonathan: Well it’sâit’s not stimulating debate. It’sâit’s… I find questions with questions, um… it actually allows us to… argue. And argument is where two peopleâtwo parties… come to a common conclusion. Umm… and so therefore… I-I can’t be sure… You say I’ve been taught from infancy. But a person isn’t sentient until they’re three years old. Um…
New Guy: No, well what we need to do is stop it here.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: Ifâif you do not believe… that the anointed… on the Earth today… are directed by the governing body today…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: …then we have no more discussion.
Jonathan: Simply because if, theoretically, I didn’t have that belief there would be the end of discussion?
New Guy: Absolutely, because, that means that you do not…
Jonathan: Would it… Okay, the scripture you cited said that you were to readjust my thinking. So if my thinking is off… then you are to readjust me. Is that correct?
New Guy: The point is that you don’t desire, evidently, to be readjusted. Because you–
Jonathan: How is…? Okay…
New Guy: –incidentally ask questions. We give you a simple answer, and you want to know why that answer is given.
Jonathan: I’m trying to make sure of all things… make the truth my own. Weâwe do that by asking questions. We come to a knowledge of the truth… by… asking pertinent questions.
New Guy: Well… do you remember the other part of that scripture?
Jonathan: Well, what is the other part of the–that scripture?
New Guy: That we just read… where we protect ourselves…
Jonathan: IâI’ve been looking at the Watchtower. And I… I would think you might find this interesting. It says âSince we do not want our worship to be in vain, it is important for each one of us to examine his religion. We need to examine not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word? Or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination…â
New Guy: Absolutely.
Jonathan: âIt should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us and then to do it.â That’s from The Truth that Leads to Everlasting Life, 1986 p. 16
New Guy: I-I understand that…
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: …but that’s not what we’re talking about. Let me ask you a direct question…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: Do you believe in the Trinity? Is that a belief of yours, today?
Jonathan: Could you define what the Trinity is?
New Guy: No, I’m not going to define what the Trinity is. Because you know–
Jonathan: Well, if we can’t define–
New Guy: –what the Trinity is.
Jonathan: Obviously I don’t. What isâwhat is the Trinity, please?
New Guy: I’m not going to argue the Trinity.
Jonathan: [Indecipherable]
Russell: In all of its variations…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: In all of its variations… And there are a variety of ways to apply… the doctrine…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: In any of it… do you believe in the trinity? In any form…
Jonathan: In any form?
Russell: Any form.
Jonathan: Well… that’sâthat’s uh… I in any form… The Trinity, the word, is not found in the Bible.
New Guy: That’s true.
Jonathan: So, in that, I would say… no.
New Guy: Then do you believe that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one?
Jonathan: How do you define âoneâ? Because Jesus Himself said âI and the Father are oneâ. So obviously that’s a biblical sentiment.
New Guy: Well, he also said all of His apostles were one with that.
Jonathan: Okay, so, there you go… I mean do you haveâwe have to define terms in order to understand what we’re talking about first.
New Guy: But we’re never going to get to a definition of terms. Because… you already have a mindset. And that mindset that you have is not acceptable to us. You don’t want that readjusted.
Jonathan: It-it’s not… No, I do want it readjusted. If I am wrong in any way, it’s your duty to readjust my thinking.
Russell: To readjust the one who wants to be readjusted.
Jonathan: And I do want to be readjusted. Toâto judge my desires… No man can judge the heart, right?
Russell: That’s true.
Jonathan: Okay, so how can you prejudge my desires?
Russell: We’re not…
Jonathan: Okay, well thenâthen I do. All I can say is that I do want to be readjusted. If I am wrong, in any way, please point that out.
Russell: Well, maybe it would be easierâif I may..
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: You tell us… Select just one doctrine… that Jehovah’s Witnesses… adhere to… based on the bible, that you disagree with. Just one. Let’s not go around.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Well…
Jonathan: Wellâwell what makes you… believe that I disagree with any doctrines?
Russell: That’s why we’re here.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because we had heard this… because of what you have said to your family members.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: And you have posted, we understand, on the internet…
Jonathan: Do you have proof of that?
Russell: No! I wouldn’t look at postings…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: I have proof in the form of witnesses who’ve said they saw it. We do. We’ve heard that. So all we’re saying is…
Jonathan: Well who areâCan IâCan I ask who are these witnesses?
Russell: Absolutely. Jared and Emily…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Uh… and uh… Chris, and uh… uh… Jill.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Your own grandfather…
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: …heard your words and your… and uh… what you were saying.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: And they’re happy to come and testify to that, but I don’t think that’s necessary. If we take this down to its very base… uh… point of the discussion…
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: We can see whether or not you want to remain as part of… this organization.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: If I may…
Jonathan: Go ahead.
Russell: If we find one teaching… that you disagree with, rather than us trying to… banter on terms and words… give us one you’re having difficulty accepting.
Jonathan: It’s not a matter of difficulty accepting. I-I actually affirm a teaching… that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or that God’s organization should not be involved in political affairs. I believe that. Now why did the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society join the United Nations in 1992?
Russell: You’ve been given an explanation for that. So…
[Indecipherable]
New Guy: You know the explanation for that.
Jonathan: What is the explanation then? How have I been given an explanation? Wha-what do you mean?
Russell: Because it was…
New Guy: Go ahead.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: The Society wrote and explained all of that. Andâand… we don’t need to get into any of these definitions of… what it appeared, why it appeared that way…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Let’s stick to just a basic bible doctrine so we won’t spend a lot of time…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because if you don’t–
Jonathan: Let meâlet me ask you a question then. Onâon doctrines…
Russell: Before you do…
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: So you understand clearly why we’re here…
Jonathan: Sure.
Russell: If a person… biblically… poses a threat to the unity and the cleanliness of God’s organization here on Earth, we then are charged with the responsibility to investigate that, and for the sake of purity and cleanliness and to uphold holy standardsâ1 Peter 1:16â
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: âYou must be holy, because I’m holyââthen we will discharge that responsibility whether the person who we’re speaking to or not agrees or disagrees.
Jonathan: Yeah.
Russell: That’s not for you to decide.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: So what we’re saying is to get rid of all the periphery…
Jonathan: Yeah.
Russell: Let’s bear down to one basic thought. Not debate terms.
Jonathan: Mhm.
Russell: Take one thought. And if we can or can not agree on it, we’ll use that for the basis of our decision. How would that be?
Jonathan: Well, uhm you-you pointed out a number of procedures on how that’sâhow that’s to go, uh, it’s interesting Matthew 28 says that we’re also to bring this before the whole congregation. It says, y’know, that if you have a problem with your brother… uh, go to him… and then that ifâif thatâif he doesn’t seem to be responsiveâhe doesn’t want your helpâthen toâthen to, uh, go to the older men then to go to the congregation [I was thinking Matthew 18, and it doesn’t actually mention the âolder menâ in that passage]. The wholeâthe whole congregation. Uhm… I mean, well… I’ll give you an exampleââSince the local court was situated at the city gates, there was no question about the trial being public (Deut. 16:18-20). No doubt the public trials helped influence the judges toward carefulness and justice, qualities that sometimes vanish in secret star-chamber hearings. What about witnesses? Witnesses in Bible times were required to testify publicly.â Okay, so that’s the Awake! January, uh, 22nd 1981. Andâand as I was citing Matthew 18:15-17 [says] âspeak to the congregationâ.
Russell: Are you debating with procedure here? Is thatâ?
Jonathan: I’m not debating. I’mâI’m asking a question. Why, exactly… do we have this backroom procedure, at all? Why isn’t it brought before the congregaâYouâyou were explaining, uh, why we’re here, and that’s what I’m asking. Why is it that we’re here in this locality?
New Guy: We are chargedâwe are charged to protect the congregation. And therefore you must go through us to get to the congregation.
Jonathan: Okay. So it’sâit’sâ
New Guy: That’s all there is to it.
Jonathan: So are youâyou don’t believe that it was literal when he said âspeak to the congregationâ in Matthew 18.
New Guy: No.
Jonathan: Okay.
New Guy: Not for us today. In those days we don’t know what the congregation was. I meanâ
Jonathan: Ah, okay.
New Guy: âwe weren’t there.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: How do we know what it was?
Jonathan: So, the basis of changing that would go back to the organizational legitimacy.
New Guy: Alright, alright.
Jonathan: That this is God’s organization so we can change that interpretation.
New Guy: Is this God’s organization or not in your mind? And that’sâthat’s all I can ask.
Jonathan: Okay, well that’sâthat’s my question. Myâmy question is if this is God’s organization what is the biblical basis to show that? Youâyou mentioned the âfaithful and discrete slave,â okay, how do we identify it? Because Matthew HenryâMatthew Henry’s Commentary, which is cited extensively by the Watchtowerâummâbasically states that the âfaithful and discrete slaveâ is an example for ministersâfor âgospel ministersââthatâthat anyone who takes it upon themâthat is called to be a minister in that role should be âfaithful and discreteâ in execution.
New Guy: You know what? This meeting is over.
Russell: Yeah. There’s no point.
New Guy: There’s no point in discussion.
Jonathan: There’s absolutely a point! It is your duty to readjust me.
New Guy: No.
Jonathan: How?
New Guy: Your meeting is over.
Russell: Yeah.
New Guy: That’s it.
Jonathan: Okay, well before it’s over let meâlet me give you something. Umm…
John: I have a question. Can I speak?
Russell: Sure.
John: Um… Why can’t you answer his questions?
New Guy: Because we know his thoughts. We knowâ
Jonathan: You know my thoughts! You’re psychic!
New Guy: Pardon?
John: How do you know his thoughts?
Jonathan: Yeah, how do you know my thoughts?
John: I was just talking to…
New Guy: I read your thoughts.
Jonathan: Oh… okay.
New Guy: Your grandfather had them.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: All the things that you wrote…
Jonathan: You have alleged writings.
New Guy: Pardon?
Jonathan: You have alleged writings from myâmy grandfather. Well do…
New Guy: Your grandfather…
Jonathan: Well, let me give you something. Would you be willing to accept my… my thesis? Joseph?
Russell: No. You know what we’ll accept from you?
Jonathan: Okay. Is a letter?
Russell: Yeah.
Jonathan: Okay. Sure.
Russell: If you–
Jonathan: Hereâhere’s my letter.
Russell: And what is it?
Jonathan: Would you like to read it? Here, I’llâI’ll read it outloud. âDear ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, the Watchtower organization self-styled ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ is an apostate cult.â
[Big Commotion]
Jonathan: âIt is a high control group that fosters a unique puritanical culture of its own…â
New Guy: You’reâyou’re dismissed. Bye bye.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Thank you.
New Guy: Thank you for being here.
Jonathan: Well, God bless.
Russell: Thank you for helping us to resolve the matter.
New Guy: Thank you for [indecipherable].
Jonathan: Absolutely.
New Guy: Now the only other reqâquestion we have is… Shall we talk to your mother and your brother?
Jonathan: Whichâwhich?
John: I can’t believe you won’t even answer his questions, and I don’t understand why.
Russell: Yeah you do.
John: No, I don’t.
Russell: But we’re doneâwe’re done now.
New Guy: Then you must not be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Russell: You’re not. *chuckles*
New Guy: And my question to you is…
John: Why won’t you even…?
New Guy: Should we talk to your mother and your brother?
Jonathan: And what would be the point?
New Guy: The point would be… If they don’t want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses we need to let…
Jonathan: That’sâthat’s notâI have no idea what their thoughtsâI don’t read anybody’s thoughts.
New Guy: As far as…
John: Why won’t you answer his questions?
New Guy: We don’t have time.
Jonathan: Frankly, this is satanic.
John: You don’t have time?
Russell: We don’t have time for it. We’re notâwe’re not… This is a matter of debate. So… we’re not here to debate.
John: He was asking you guys for help.
Jonathan: Y’know… 1 Peter 3:15 says every man must make a defense for his faith.
Russell: And you know what? Your faith is apart from ours. There’s the door.
John: But mine’s not, so… let me ask you…
Russell: Well it is. We can look at you and tell it is. You’re sharing with him. You must be by association. And if you want to change that, go back to the congregation you came from and address it with your elders who know you. We don’t know you. Anymore…
John: But you’re brothers, right?
Russell: We are indeed. The three of us are… not to you.
John: Why not?
Russell: Because, it’s obvious.
Jonathan: [Indecipherable]
Russell: Why don’t you come back at another time… without him? And we’ll visit. Why don’t you make an appointment to come see us? We’ll see you individually if you so choose.
John: Are you gonna answer my questions when I come back?
Russell: If they’re not in the form of debate… and if they’re sincere. But if…
Jonathan: Howâhow can you judgeâjudge my sincerity?
Russell: Well we’re not talking to you.
New Guy: Not sincerity as to what you believe.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: But sincerity as to…
Jonathan: But I have serious questions.
Russell: No you don’t.
Jonathan: Yes I do.
Russell: Our conversation is over.
Jonathan: How serious can you be when you say this is not God’s organization; prove it to me?
Russell: Our conversation is over. So now, my point to you is this… if you are sincere, you may certainly get our attentionâlet us knowâand we’re happy. If it goes in the same direction, we’re happy to meet with you, but if it goes in the same direction we’ll dismiss you as we’re dismissing him.
Jonathan: I would just like to say, could you keep this on file? Because this is my letter of disassociation.
Russell: Oh, we will.
Jonathan: Okay, thank you very much.
Russell: Oh, we will.
Jonathan: Well, why don’t weâwhy don’t we go, John? Because, they’re unreasonable so…
John: No!
Jonathan: No, weâwe should go… Have a nice day!
New Guy: Thank you.
[At this point, John insisted on remaining inside and plead with the elders to be sane and reasonable (which they predictably refused, of course). The door was open, but the recording is much quieter at this point. After a few moments I walked back toward the doorway.]
[Indecipherable…]
Russell: …not be called to mind including the names of those who set themselves apart from God’s organization. He won’t even remember their name. Isaiah said it. [Isaiah nowhere mentions âorganizationâ] We didn’t. It’s a serious matter. It’s a very serious matter. So with humility in your heart, when you come to a doctor, as he used the scripture, to adjust that bone. And you’re in great deal of pain. And the tears are streaming down you. And you’re in anguish. And you come to talk to us to help you adjust that bone, as Galatians 6:1 says, and you debate with us? Whether or not we have the credentials to adjust it? And how we’re going to adjust it? I would think you’d want the bone set.
John: I didn’t know I was having a bone set.
Russell: But you weren’t invited here.
John: Yes I was! He invited me.
Russell: Not by us. So I’m saying the invitation to come to this holy place, to have our attention, to have an audience with us, to help you, is open to you. Not to him. And… you’ll get the same hearing ear, but if you take the same position, at the outset, we’ll dismiss you, because we don’t have a sharing in that.
Jonathan: Because they can’t tolerate dissent. That’s what it comes down to.
John: But, he invitedâlook, he invited me here as his witness…
Russell: We didn’tâHe makes a statement that’s true. We do not tolerate dissent against Jehovah’s organization. [He makes it sound as if âdissentâ is somehow synonymous with rebellion…]
Jonathan: Because it’s not Jehovah’s organization! It’s dissent as… Is it Jehovah’s organization? That’s my question.
New Guy: You know, gentlemen, this meeting is already over.
Russell: It is. But I just want you to know the door’s open, if you humbly come back and ask for help.
John: But I came here humbly today…
Russell: Well, but we weren’t expecting you to be here. [I told them weeks in advance that I wanted a witness to observe the proceedings.] You come another time, if you’re sincere… you make an appointmentâYou know how to reach us. You know our meeting nights.
John: If I screw up are you guys gonna treat me like [indecipherable]
Jonathan: No, let’s… John… John, let’s go, c’mon.
Russell: Could be. We’ll dismiss you if we don’t feel comfortable being in your presence.
John: Y’know… Y’know what? I have never seen such a lack of love in all of my life. What happened to the rest of Galatians? The part that talked about love?
Russell: Y’know what? You’re just caught up in the emotion of it. We respect that. We hope that you’ll see the light.
John: What’s gonna happen to him and everyone he knows?
Russell: You know the best thing you can do for yourself, John? Separate yourself from him. Get yourself from him. Never speak to him again from this moment forward. And that’ll be the best thing you can do for yourself. If you love GodâIf you love Godânot us, not him, not even yourself. If you love God…
Jonathan: If you love God, you will want the Truth.
Russell: Never speakânever speak to this man again. Come back to this holy place, strip yourself of your pride and let him affect your heart. And you will see things differently. Don’t have to come to this hally(?) place.
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: Go to another Kingdom Hall, but do not speak to him… ever again, and you will be on the road to life. That will start you down that road.
[Indecipherable commotion]
John: I don’t have any hatred in my heart. (?)
Russell: We don’t have any hatred for you.
John: How am I supposed to start down that road?
[Commotion]
Jonathan: No, actually according to the Watchtower you’re supposed to hate apostates. So…
Russell: We don’t have any hatred
New Guy: [Indecipherable]
Russell: None whatsoever. We are sorry for you.
Jonathan: Might as well be, because you can prejudge him. So…
[More indecipherable commotion]
Russell: You know what? In a god-like form, I absolutely do hate him, just as Jehovah does. He’s insulted our god… in God’s house! How else should we act?
Jonathan: If you’re talking about the god of the Pleiades star system, then absolutely I would insult that.
Russell: You can step outside and close the door. If you’d like to say something, it has to be here.
John: But he didn’t even say anything about God or anything, he’s just talking about a bunch of stuff and he had questions. And you guys…
New Guy: No, he didn’t.
Russell: Listen. I’ll reiterate this so you make sure when you walk out the door you know our doors are open to you. We will hear you again. We will hear you again… not in a judicial form, because we don’t know you! You sayâYou’re one of Jehovah’s Witnesses…
John: He said I’m a witness… from Louisiana. I’m his witness.
Russell: Are you or are you not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Jonathan: He’s absolutely one of Jehovah’s witnesses, because Jesus is Yahweh and heâhe is a Christian.
Russell: Well IâI’m out of words. I only have so many words per day, and I’ve used ’em up. So have a great evening.
Jonathan: Absolutely.
Russell: And if you want any help you come back without him… in a different time and a different setting or another Kingdom Hall with other elders… they’ll share the Bible with you, but they’ll dismiss you if you’re the sameâassume the same posture. That’s just how it is…
Jonathan: That’s how it is.
John: Logical debate is bad?
Jonathan: Yes it is. Let’s go John…
New Guy: Go on, John.
Russell: Have a good evening.
Jonathan: C’mon… Oh! Thank you for the record…
New Guy: I knew you were lying.
Jonathan: It’s not a tape recorder. I said I have no tape recorder.
New Guy: Well I knew… I knew exactly what you were doing.
Jonathan: Sure.
New Guy: Have a good night.
Jonathan: You too!
This absolutely the best ever. Thank you so much for spreading this information. The Watchtower is going down, it is being stripped naked for everyone to see it’s lies and evil exploitation of people. Good work!
Hi there. I am currently writing a second essay on the ethics employed by this organisation to rid themselves of what they consider to be undesirables. I would like to use excerpts from your material. If you would like to read my first essay, it can be located at http://thegoverningbody.org/files/ethics.pdf. I would appreciate your comments on it. Also you might like to explore http://deathorobedience.blogspot.com/ – http://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/ and http://thegoverningbody.org/disfellowshipping_thoughtcrime/#comment-326. I have scripted 3 full sessions of a case ( the first to do with origins and motive, the second – the hearing, the third – the appeal. from beginning to end. Enjoy.
You are more than welcome to it, FV :-)
Hi Jon, thanks for your reply. What can you tell me about the person ‘John’ in your case. In the intro to your transcript you put a question mark in parentheses next to his name, and you seem to name him with your prosecuting elder committee. Later this man becomes your champion. Is he an elder, was he a fellow publisher, a ministerial servant, or someone else? If he was part of your prosecuting counsel, why did he apparently have a change in heart? Is he still a member?
Were you given any notice or a chance to prepare your defence? You seem to indicate that it was ‘off the cuff.’ In fact, the way you portray it, it sounds more like an ambush!
Is ‘Russell,’ the committee member’s surname or first name?
You raise some very interesting ethical issues in your transcript and, whether by design or by accident, you expose the appalling weakness in their arguments. No wonder you compare it to 1984 in your graphics.
PS. There are some good quote lines. I’ll have some more questions later, if that’s all right.
FV
John Hadwin was a friend of a friend who expressed a desire to come to the committee meeting with me as an observer. He was never a JW but rather a professed Christian. The confusion here probably stems from the fact that “Brother Russell” (thus his surname, btw) seems to be named “John” as well (and myself of course Jon, lol). It is kind of curious that they allowed Mr. Hadwin to accompany me considering according to the secret elder book “Observers are not permitted,” but they did indeed.
The graphic in question is actually from one of my favorite episodes from the Twilight Zone, but yes it’s all very similar to 1984 :)
You are more than welcome to use whatever material you’d like yourself.
I agree it was highly strange that an observer was allowed. In such a high-security system that there will be intelligent grievances and objections (this is why lawyers are, no doubt, banned from the proceedings).
Were you given any notice or a chance to prepare your defence? You seem to indicate that it was âoff the cuff.â In fact, the way you portray it, it sounds more like an ambush!
And can you confirm that there were, in fact, three members of the prosecuting counsel? There seems to be a lot of toing-and-froing between ‘Russell’ and ‘New Guy’ and, obviously later, ‘John.’
The ambush side is important, particularly as it pertains to basic human rights to allow a man to defend himself in Western Civilisation and if Christianity persists that we get our ethics from it, then it must demonstrate its willingness to provide an unimpeachable system which looks after the accused.
As you will know if you’ve read my 67-page essay, that the Bible only provides one ground in both the Old and New Testaments – that of establishing guilt at the mouth (personal and trustworthy testimony) of two or three witnesses (small w). The fact that you were convicted on hearsay (it was claimed that the committee knew your mind because they had allegedly heard ‘you’ it from your relatives) was simply not enough to convict you of apostasy. This alone makes the proceedings you were subjected to Scriptually illegal.
The insistence on pigeon-holing you on doctrine is only admissible in the absence of a voluntary confession and after 2 or 3 witnesses have appeared for the prosecution. Forcing a confession by asking leading question is highly unethical without knowing your crime.
I would like to encourage people placed in this position to ask continually when asked pointed doctrinal questions, “What is my crime?” and “Do you have witnesses who are willing to testify in front of me to support you claims and of whom I or my representative can cross-examine? If not, then this case is non-Biblical and should be closed down.”
FV
Version 2
I agree it was highly strange that an observer was allowed. In such a high-security system an intelligent obeserver can introduce intelligent grievances and objections (this is why lawyers are, no doubt, banned from the proceedings).
Were you given any notice or a chance to prepare your defence? You seem to indicate that it was âoff the cuff.â In fact, the way you portray it, it sounds more like an ambush!
And can you confirm that there were, in fact, three members of the prosecuting counsel? There seems to be a lot of toing-and-froing between âRussellâ and âNew Guyâ and, obviously later, âJohn.â
The ambush side is important, particularly as it pertains to basic human rights that allow a man to defend himself. In Western Civilisation it is claimed that Christianity gives us our ethics. If this is so, then it must demonstrate its willingness to provide an unimpeachable system which looks after the accused.
As you will know if youâve read my 67-page essay, that the Bible only provides one ground in both the Old and New Testaments for a conviction on any crime, especially serious ones â that of establishing guilt at the mouth (personal and trustworthy testimony) of two or three witnesses (small w). The fact that you were convicted on hearsay (it was claimed that the committee knew your mind because they had allegedly heard âyouâ from your relatives) was simply not enough to convict you of apostasy. This alone makes the proceedings you were subjected to Scriptually illegal.
The insistence on pigeon-holing you on doctrine is only admissible in the absence of a voluntary confession and after 2 or 3 witnesses have appeared for the prosecution. Forcing a confession by asking leading question is highly unethical without knowing your crime.
I would like to encourage people placed in this position to ask continually when asked pointed doctrinal questions, âWhat is my crime?â and âDo you have witnesses who are willing to testify in front of me to support your claims and of whom I or my representative can cross-examine? If not, then this case is non-Biblical and should be closed down.â
FV
Elder Russell: âŚSo with humility in your heart, when you come to a doctor, as he used the scripture, to adjust that bone. And youâre in great deal of pain. And the tears are streaming down you. And youâre in anguish. And you come to talk to us to help you adjust that bone, as Galatians 6:1 says, and you debate with us? Whether or not we have the credentials to adjust it? And how weâre going to adjust it? I would think youâd want the bone set. (3:56 â Part Three, Inside a Judicial Committee)
This is a specious argument. Doctors do not generally mind if their patient questions their credentials They will heal an murderer or a saint. This is because they abide by something called the Hippocratic Oath, not the Hypocritic Oath. This makes their actions more Christian than these men.
I’ve heard this phobia about loss of authority somewhere else. Perhaps another group who likewise reacted when their authority was challenged.
Anonymous
Russell: We donât have any hatred
New Guy: [Indecipherable]
Russell: None whatsoever. We are sorry for you. (6:16)
Jonathan: Might as well be, because you can prejudge him. SoâŚ
[More indecipherable commotion]
Russell: You know what? In a god-like form, I absolutely do hate him, just as Jehovah does. Heâs insulted our god⌠in Godâs house! How else should we act? (6:33 – Part Three, Inside a Judicial Committee)
I’m confused. Does elder Russell hate Jonathan or not? Does he declare he is in a ‘god-like’ form or is he saying that God hates Jonathan? What happened to the mildness that was prayed for at the beginning? Where does the Bible say that people should be hated (John 3:16)? Surely it is the sin that is hated. ‘Out of the abundance of the heart (in this case, words) the heart speaks.
Anonymous
Jonathan: Yes it is. Letâs go JohnâŚ
New Guy: Go on, John.
Russell: Have a good evening.
Jonathan: Câmon⌠Oh! Thank you for the record⌠(7:54)
New Guy: I knew you were lying.
Jonathan: Itâs not a tape recorder. I said I have no tape recorder. (8:00)
New Guy: Well I knew⌠I knew exactly what you were doing.
Jonathan: Sure.
New Guy: Have a good night.
Jonathan: You too.
This is an interesting example of theocratic war strategy and unlike Rahab, Jon did it without lying (New Guy is just a bit miffed – I can understand that).
Anonymous
Russell: We donât have any hatred
New Guy: [Indecipherable]
Russell: None whatsoever. We are sorry for you. (6:16)
Jonathan: Might as well be, because you can prejudge him. SoâŚ
[More indecipherable commotion]
Russell: You know what? In a god-like form, I absolutely do hate him, just as Jehovah does. Heâs insulted our god⌠in Godâs house! How else should we act? (6:33 â Part Three, Inside a Judicial Committee)
Few people here would miss the fact the this loving elder contradicts himelf within a few seconds and shows his real feelings and, apparently, ego! Of course, his fellow elders would dismiss this ranting as ‘he’s just a human with all his imperfections.’ I say, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’ (Matth. 12:34)
Anonymous
Jonathan: Wellâwell what makes you⌠believe that I disagree with any doctrines?
Russell: Thatâs why weâre here.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because we had heard this⌠because of what you have said to your family members.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: And you have posted, we understand, on the internetâŚ
Jonathan: Do you have proof of that? (1:46)
Russell: No! I wouldnât look at postingsâŚ
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: I have proof in the form of witnesses whoâve said they saw it. We do. Weâve heard that. So all weâre saying isâŚ
Jonathan: Well who areâCan IâCan I ask who are these witnesses?
Russell: Absolutely. Jared and EmilyâŚ
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Uh⌠and uh⌠Chris, and uh⌠uh⌠Jill. (2:06)
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Your own grandfatherâŚ
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: âŚheard your words and your⌠and uh⌠what you were saying.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: And theyâre happy to come and testify to that, but I donât think thatâs necessary. If we take this down to its very base⌠uh⌠point of the discussion⌠(2:26)
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: We can see whether or not you want to remain as part of⌠this organization. (Inside a Judicial Committee, The Trial of Jonathan Lee â Part Two of Three)
2 âIn case there should be found in your midst in one of your cities that Jehovah your God is giving you a man or a woman who should practice what is bad in the eyes of Jehovah your God so as to overstep his covenant, 3 and he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, a thing that I have not commanded, 4 and it has been told you and you have heard it and have searched thoroughly, and, look! the thing is established as the truth, this detestable thing has been done in Israel! 5 you must also bring that man or that woman who has done this bad thing out to your gates, yes, the man or the woman, and you must stone such one with stones, and such one must die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness. 7 The hand of the witnesses first of all should come upon him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward; and you must clear out what is bad from your midst. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7, New World Translation)
This organisation seems fond of quoting the Old Testament when it comes to patterning their authority (as in Moses as mediator). Yet, for some reason the feelings of family members are spared by a sort of odd mixture of the old and new. Verse 6 states specifically that these witnesses are to be called as witnesses in order for the one whoring after other gods should pay with his life (many view being disfellowshipped as spiritual death with almost no access to believing family members).
It is not optional for witnesses to appear and especially is this so as Jonathanâs judges are acting purely on hearsay! They use words like, âwe had heard thisâŚ,â âwe understandâŚ,â âI have proof of witnesses who said they saw itâŚâ My favourite is: Jonathan: “Do you have proof of that?” Russell: No! (that’s all he needs to say).
Then Jonathan correctly asks for these witnesses to step forward and it is CLAIMED they are âhappyâ (an unfortunate word indeed) to step forward. Then let them!
Do these judges not realise that to accuse a person, whether loved one or not, carries the Old Testament command to âcast the first stoneâ at having established their guilt! These men ignore the book they claim to be upholding.
And again:
Russell: If a person⌠biblically⌠poses a threat to the unity and the cleanliness of Godâs organization here on Earth, we then are charged with the responsibility to investigate that, and for the sake of purity and cleanliness and to uphold holy standardsâ1 Peter 1:16â (3:56)âŚ
Jonathan: Well, uhm you-you pointed out a number of procedures on how thatâsâhow thatâs to go, uh, itâs interesting Matthew 28 says that weâre also to bring this before the whole congregation. It says, yâknow, that if you have a problem with your brother⌠uh, go to him⌠and then that ifâif thatâif he doesnât seem to be responsiveâhe doesnât want your helpâthen toâthen to, uh, go to the older men then to go to the congregation [I was thinking Matthew 18, and it doesn’t actually mention the âolder menâ in that passage]. The wholeâthe whole congregation. Uhm⌠I mean, well⌠Iâll give you an exampleââSince the local court was situated at the city gates, there was no question about the trial being public (Deut. 16:18-20). No doubt the public trials helped influence the judges toward carefulness and justice, qualities that sometimes vanish in secret star-chamber hearings. What about witnesses? Witnesses in Bible times were required to testify publicly.â Okay, so thatâs the Awake! January, uh, 22nd 1981. Andâand as I was citing Matthew 18:15-17 [says] âspeak to the congregationâ. (5:22)
Russell: Are you debating with procedure here? Is thatâ? (Inside a Judicial Committee, The Trial of Jonathan Lee, Part Two of Three)
This organisation here clearly itself acknowledges the Biblical truth of the personal appearances of witnesses for the prosecution to give their damning testimony, apparently condemning âstar-chamber hearingsâ (though Iâm sure the word âsometimesâ has its own agenda)! Of course, the banning of an external record being made of these proceedings and the questioning of this claimed Biblical procedure is beautifully expressed in the bullying exclamation of the gracious elder Russell, âAre you debating with procedure here?â Any challenge is taken as a slight against their perceived authority, leaving truth out in the cold.
FV
Part Two of Inside a Judicial Meeting: The Trial of Jonathan Lee
Jonathan: Wellâwell what makes you⌠believe that I disagree with any doctrines?
Russell: Thatâs why weâre here.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: Because we had heard this⌠because of what you have said to your family members.
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: And you have posted, we understand, on the internetâŚ
Jonathan: Do you have proof of that? (1:46)
Russell: No! I wouldnât look at postingsâŚ
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: I have proof in the form of witnesses whoâve said they saw it. We do. Weâve heard that. So all weâre saying isâŚ
Jonathan: Well who areâCan IâCan I ask who are these witnesses?
Russell: Absolutely. Jared and EmilyâŚ
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Uh⌠and uh⌠Chris, and uh⌠uh⌠Jill. (2:06)
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: Your own grandfatherâŚ
Jonathan: Mmhm.
Russell: âŚheard your words and your⌠and uh⌠what you were saying.
Jonathan: Okay.
Russell: And theyâre happy to come and testify to that, but I donât think thatâs necessary. If we take this down to its very base⌠uh⌠point of the discussion⌠(2:26)
Jonathan: Uh huh.
Russell: We can see whether or not you want to remain as part of⌠this organization.
Part Two: Inside a Judicial Meeting: The Trial of Jonathan Lee
New Guy: Your meeting is over. (6:52)
Russell: Yeah.
New Guy: Thatâs it.
Jonathan: Okay, well before itâs over let meâlet me give you something. UmmâŚ
John: I have a question. Can I speak?
Russell: Sure.
John: Um⌠Why canât you answer his questions?
New Guy: Because we know his thoughts. We knowâ
Jonathan: You know my thoughts! Youâre psychic! (7:09)
New Guy: Pardon?
John: How do you know his thoughts?
Jonathan: Yeah, how do you know my thoughts?
John: I was just talking toâŚ
New Guy: I read your thoughts. (7:15)
Jonathan: Oh⌠okay.
New Guy: Your grandfather had them. (7:18)
Jonathan: Mmhm.
New Guy: All the things that you wroteâŚ
Jonathan: You have alleged writings.
New Guy: Pardon?
Jonathan: You have alleged writings from myâmy grandfather. Well doâŚ
New Guy: Your grandfatherâŚ
Hi Jon. I wonder if you could clarify a few things. In the first extract of Part two of you ordeal your prosecutors seem to imply that your grandfather had HEARD alleged ‘apostate’ things you said (as well as alleged postings on the Internet). Then, in the second extract after New Guy claims he knows your thoughts, says your grandfather ‘had them.’ Is this a typo and the word ‘had’ should read ‘HEARD them’? Who wrote the ‘alleged writings’? Or is there something I’m missing here.
Your imput would be gratefully appreciated.
FV
Exploring the Relationship between Judicial Cases and Personal Grudges â Jeremiah 17:9
At the Mouth of Three Witnesses
I have an issue I would like raise. So far I have transcribed at least one full Judicial Committee Hearing and appeal. This one in Scotland (The trial of Matthew Barrie). I have studied at least two others, and one thing Iâve noticed is common to each of them is: the ever-present personal grudge. Strongly attested in the testimony of the accused is that their cases were motivated by these grudges. As I tend to write evidence-based essays on this I would like to share the evidence presented below. This evidence strongly suggests why accused strongly JWs need to have representatives (See my essay: The Martyring of Matthew Barrie where I raise 21 judicial objections/ethical violations in the manner of these proceedings [http://thegoverningbody.org/files/ethics.pdf]). First an historical case:
Case One: Rick and Laverne Townsend Judicial Hearing: (Public Domain) http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=1224798&song=Rick+%26+Laverne+Townsend+Committee+Meeting or type in âRick and Laverne Townsend Judicial Committee Meeting in search engineâ
The recording starts: âThis is Rick Townsend from Santa Maria, California. My wife, Laverne, and I were Jehovahâs Witnesses for over 27 years. On June 24th, 1984, we appeared before a judicial committee of Jehovahâs Witnesses answering to the charge of apostasy against the Watchtower Bible and Tract SocietyâŚ.â
The transcript at 4.00 minutes
Rick: Whoâs laid the charges?
Judicial Chairman: Well, it came from a few different sources, not many. Er, (Elder) TâŚ. SâŚâŚ. called me the other nightâŚ(indistinct)âŚ
The Transcript at 15:15 Minutes
Rick: (15:15) You brought up the situation there with (Elder) TâŚ. S⌅ They were in our home and they had been complaining for about 15 minutes or longer, I donât know, (how) longâŚfor quite a while, about all the things they didnât like. You know, like they couldnât believe that everybody outside the Organisationâs going to die and this sort of thing, you know. And I was just listening to them.
And so here Iâve got two elders at my table and their wives. Both men had been in the Organisation for years. Iâve known them personally since I was a youngster. As I say, they were doing all this complaining â I says, âWell, I got problems with a few things too.â Of course, my problems went a little bit deeper than theirs âcause I had done someâŚquite a bit more investigation. And I says, âWell, maybe you could help me to kinda sort this thing out.â
Well, it didnât work out that way. Instead of getting the two elders; the older men, to give me some Scriptural encouragement, all I got was TâŚ. SâŚâŚ. sticking a finger at me and shaking it and denouncing me and, you know, running me down. You know, attacking me personally rather than trying to give me some clarification.
So, you know â I had an open mind. I would have been happy to have taken out the Bible and listened to their instructions. I mean, I had two elders there, but I got nothing but denunciation from TâŚ.. And her husband said almost nothing, and the other elder from Chatsworthy didnât say much either. So, I mean, you know, IâŚwhere do you turn to?â
This first example clearly indicates not just a grudge on the part of Rick and Laverneâs dinner guests, but the old psychological transference of the guilt of these guests for having âmurmuredâ against some of the Organisationâs official teachings on to their hosts! Rick and Laverneâs trial for âapostasyâ soon followed.
Case Two: The Matthew Barrie Judicial Case, January 2009: (Public Domain) http://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/
Podcast 8: Showdown at the Kingdom Hall begins: âThis podcast was recorded on Christmas Day, 2008. After our last visit from two local elders, my wife felt that she could not longer be known as a Jehovahâs Witness and chose to disassociate herself in November, 2008. We had been on a family holiday and had returned to find that one of the local elders (Prosecution Witness One) who had visited us had warned off my mother-in-law from having anything to do with my wife â her daughter. He also made false statements about one of my children. So I decided to confront this elder (Matthew 18:15) at the kingdom hall. (0:38)
This podcast is the recording of our conversation. Notice how he denies making such statements to my mother-in-law and again falsely accuses me of teaching her beliefs contrary to that of Jehovahâs Witnesses. âŚ(1:02)
Podcast 8: Showdown at the Kingdom Hall (7:34)
Matthew: For instance, you said to (my mother-in-law) that I had (my son) in tears because I told his teacher he wasnât a Jehovahâs Witness anymore. Now, Iâm wondering where youâd get that kind of information from.
Prosecution Witness One: So wâŚwhere did the teacher get the information from?
Matthew: Well, Iâm asking you where you got the information from to tell (my mother-in-law)! Because surely it doesnât matter where the teacher got the information from because itâs a private matter and youâre repeating it to another person. So I want to know first of all, where you got the information from. And secondly, why youâre repeating information like that.
Prosecution Witness One: Well, Iâll tell you what, I wonât answer that just now, Matthew, âcause youâve sort of caught me on the hop here.
Matthew: Why wonât you answer, R..? Itâs a simple question.
Prosecution Witness One: No, I donât want to answer it, Matthew.
Matthew: But itâs a simple question, though, R…
Prosecution Witness One: It may be a simple question to you, but, umâŚumâŚ. No, I canâtâŚI wonât answer that just now, Matthew. (8:13)
Podcast 8: Showdown at the Kingdom Hall (13:10)
Matthew: So, let me get this straight, then. Youâre not prepared to answer where you got your information from; you canât remember what you said when you were up; and it seemsâŚit seems that the purpose of the visit seems to ambiguous as well, because youâre saying you were going up there to help her, but youâve actually put more divisions in the family by what youâre saying. How can that possibly be beneficial, R…..?
Prosecution Witness One: (Your mother-in-law) is a baptised Jehovahâs Witness, right?
Matthew: Yeah, yeah.
Prosecution Witness One: So, Iâm trying to keep her in the TruthâŚ
Matthew: But you said, âKeep away from Matthew and (Matthewâs wife).â Iâm not disassociated. So why, um, why are you including me in what youâre saying?
Prosecution Witness One: IâŚI donât remember saying, âKeep away from Matthew and (Matthewâs wife).â (Your mother-in-law)âŚ
Matthew: Whatever particular words you used, R.., everything Iâve said to you, you either âcanât rememberâ or youâre not prepared to comment on it. But to me, the purpose of the elders within the Jehovahâs Witness organisationâs meant to help people spiritually, to encourage them, and it seems to beâŚit seems to be that the purpose of her visit, is that she seems to be even more upset than she was before.
Podcast 8: Showdown at the Kingdom Hall (8:42)
Matthew: âŚSo what youâre passing on is actually slander because itâs not true. Not only is it gossip, but itâs actually slanderous gossip. (8:51)â
Matthew Barrie here testifies that he carried out Jesusâ words at Matthew 18:15-17 and properly confronted the person â Prosecution Witness One (at his trial), an elder, about the charge Barrie had against him. Sadly, without a desired result, with the benefit of hindsight, Barrie should have pursued the matter further with the congregationâs elders, but did not. Matthewâs trial was convened shortly after.
Belatedly, Matthew eloquently goes to the appellate committee with this information. This is how he expresses it in Podcast 11 in the series. His judicial committee consists of what he believes are three circuit overseers.
Podcast 11: The Judicial Appeal of Matthew Barrie
Matthew: Well, some of the reasoning that I used at the original judicial committee was based upon why the action had been taken against me in the first place and, having listened to the testimony of the two brothers, particularly (Prosecution Witness One), itâs my feeling that (Prosecution Witness One) reacted in a way that I felt was the catalyst for this judicial committee to start, because I had a conversation with (Prosecution Witness One) down at the Hall. (4:12)
We had to come down, speak to him about a matter, I felt heâd done some wrong towards me, and I felt like that was the catalyst for all of these judicial proceedings to be implemented. So, some of the things that (Prosecution Witness One) took from that discussion from listening to his testimony he was upset about, and I believe that as a result of that, (Prosecution Witness One) wanted some action taken.
And thatâs what I believe was partly the miscarriage of justice; that the initial charge that was made, that a person whoâs an apostate is spreading things or teaching things to people, I felt that (Prosecution Witness One) held that personal view because he made another statement to me at the Hall in the same conversation, a false statement. He accused me of something that wasnât true: that I had been teaching someone else, without any foundation. So I feel that that then stressed what (Prosecution Witness One)âs will was towards me and as a result of what the testimony he gave at the Kingdom Hall that that what has put this in motion.â
Having studied the transcripts, like me, you may decide that, indeed, none of these appeal grounds were discussed or investigated. This is largely what an appealâs function is â if necessary, to question the validity, especially matters of due process and other Biblically-appropriate issues (in a religious trial, for instance, whether scriptures such as Matthew 18:15-17 have been carried out) judicial impartiality etc. and not to see if the person has ârepentedâ (noteworthy in the Appeal of Matthew Barrie â see above URL). Instead the sole focus remains on doctrinal matters and the inevitable questions leading to affirming/confessing the religious governing body as being the channel through which revealed truth comes.
It was my conclusion from contextual reading of this case that one man with sufficient power was able to protect his own reputation by being willing to destroy anotherâs.
Barrie was disfellowshipped for promoting âfalse doctrineâ. Not one reliable witness was called to confirm he was engaged in âspreadingâ his personal beliefs.
To this day he is denied access to believing members of his family.
The Judicial Appeal Jim Rizoli: 19/5/1996: (Public Domain) http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=1114657&song=Jim+Rizoli+Committee+Meeting or type in âJim Rizoli Judicial Committee Meetingâ in search engine
Rizoli: I presented here some information that I feel that the whole meeting was not carried out Biblically â based on the Scriptures. And Iâm just presenting this information. (1:33)
First of all I used a â96 Watchtower. Thereâs an article I refer to. Even though it dealt with abuse, sexual abuse, I felt that the information here is privy to what happened with me and my kids. And hereâs the information here. I tried to abbreviate it as much as I could. (Note: This is actually the Watchtower article, Nov 1, 1995, p. 28) (1:56)
Now, the article says about a sufferer who makes an accusation against somebody, it says: âTwo elders can advise him along with the principles of Mat 18:15. He should personally approach the accused about the matter.â
All right, I heard there was, as far as I understand, four accusers against me. Not one of them approached me in harmony with Mathew 18 about the situation. (2:23)
Okay, âIf the accuser is not emotionally able to do so face to face it can be done by telephone or perhaps 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 have committed the abuse.â (2:44)
Again, we’re not talking about abuse; weâre talking about my situation â what I said. There were letters written against me. I never saw those letters. The elders never presented those 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. (3:11)
The second paragraphâŚit says, âIf the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing can be done more in a judicial way. The congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken.â (3:33)
All right, so this case here you have four people accusing me. Only one person showed up at the meeting face to face with me, and his information was a year old. I mean, I don’t even remember what I said to this brother, and that was a year or so ago. So his case there, to me, is hearsay, because we canât get together on what was said, âcause I don’t know even what was said, and to use that against me, I feel thatâs not right. (4:07)
Moving down here, where itâs highlighted: âBible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.â And here are my points here laid out simply. (4:19)
First of all, the accusers never approached the âspeakerâ with me in harmony with Mathew 18:15. I was⌠(Indistinct). They never came to me with a witness about the situation either. See, thatâs the next step that has to be taken. That wasnât done. Obviously if step number one wasn’t taken, number two wasn’t taken. (4:39)
Thereâs no reason that I’m aware of that prevented these accusers of me for meeting me face to face. There wasn’t an emotional issue that they were afraid that I was going to hurt âem, or something. They should have came to me. They wrote letters, but I didn’t see the letters either. I didnât know that. I was told, number three, a year or so after the fact that two accusers wrote letters against me. I never was shown these letters. How can I answer for charges against me at the time? The elders have the letters. They never brought them for me to see at the judicial meeting. Today I haven’t even seen them. (5:13)
Okay, four: How can I be disfellowshipped as an unrepentant sinner when I never knew what the charges against me were until the meeting with the elders? (5:21)
Rizoli once again testifies as to the due process issue of appropriate communication between accuser and accused. Vital evidence, it is alleged, was withheld, and the story testified to in this recording tells of a grudge on the part of others in the congregation, and the bid to have the accused âbrought to justice,â a justice that may be considered highly questionable circumstantially.
Conclusion:
Perhaps we should leave the last word to Laverne Townsend whose intuition characterises what seems to lie at the heart of why it is so hard to be Christ-like⌠(Jeremiah 17:9)
Rick: Okay, well, let me respond to that. The easy way; the easy course; the most pleasant course for me and my wife would be to stay with the Organisation. I mean, everything Iâve ever had for 27 years, all my family, are in this organisation. Thatâs where I wanted to be when I started to study and thatâs where Iâd like to stay now, but I donât get⌠you know, every time you say something like what I just said about 1914 I get a comment like what you made, you know. No one wants to touch this, nobody wants to come out and prove that theyâre right, they just wanna say, âWell, youâre against the mother-organisation â hands off and leave me alone.â
Judicial Elder One: You see, weâre not in a position to have to defend the Organisation. We believe the Organisation is true.
Rick: But you are in a position theoretically to teach me, or to straighten out my line of reasoning if itâs wrong.
Judicial Elder One: In 27 years that should have been doneâŚ
Rick: You would think so.
Laverne: But you know whatâs really sad, Bob â in the past two years that Iâve known you and Brother VâŚâŚ, the only time Iâve seen anyâŚyou two, for any more than five minutes is when it was something serious like this. Never â and Iâm talking about the brothers and the elders in the north â not one call to see how weâre doing. I didnât make the meetings for aboutâŚwhat was itâŚabout two months, and I never had a call to see how I was, and I feel thatâs really sad for those that are shepherding.
Judicial Chairman: Yeah.
Laverne: I mean, here you are investigatingâŚ
Judicial Elder Two: We face that situation all the time, that there are so many things that we could be doing to help peopleâŚ
Laverne: Exactly, and thatâs the one thing that should mark Godâs people is loveâŚ
FV
Hi Jon, I haven’t heard from you in a while. I’m wondering why I haven’t had my challenge to your use of the word ‘cult’ published. Your site says it is ‘awaiting moderation.’ Also, did you receive my questions of clarification regarding some of the less-clear circumstances of the your judicial case?
Like you, Jon, I’m on the side of truth. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
FV
Hey FV, sorry for the delayed response. Other engagements and responsibilities have taken me away from keeping up with this site as much as I’d like. The reason your other post wasn’t immediately approved was because it contained a hyperlink. Sadly, I get a lot of automated spam on this site and so I’ve configured the moderation system so that any post containing hyperlinks is held in queue for approval so that I can determine manually if it’s a post by a human. You would think the captcha mechanism would be enough, but alas, spam bot technology is pretty sophisticated these days.
Anyhow, your comment has been approved and when I have half a chance I intended to write you a reply.
Thanks for all the posts!
Thanks Jon. I appreciate you’re busy. I’ll look forward to your reply. You may enjoy the ever expanding site at http://thegoverningbody.org/the-matthew-barrie-judicial-case-a-striking-parallel/. There are a lot of thought-provoking articles there.
Wow Jon you had courage to standup for yourself.I wish i had thought to do the same.
Thanks for putting it out there .
If you like contact me at this address and i will give you a full account of my exodus from JW and the horrific official view of mental heath.
Regards
Hi Jon. I wonder if you could extract an MP3 version of your judicial case and send it to me.
What a joy to find such clear thinking. Thanks for ponstig!
Yup, that’ll do it. You have my apprceiation.
Thanks guys, I just about lost it lokonig for this.
Hi Jon, I’m writing up your case for publication and was wondering whether you could answer a few questions.
Were you given any warning of the judicial hearing?
If so, what did they tell you? Did they, for instance, inform you of your right (according to their manual) that you could bring witnesses for your defence? (They must have thought that JH was a witness)
Is the chairman “New Guy” (circuit overseer)?
Was the hearing itself a formal arrangement or were you accosted on this occasion?
Thanks
Hi Jon. Is the date stated as July 15, 2010 the date of your actual judicial case, or is it the date you posted it?
“Were you given any warning of the judicial hearing?”
I was notified two or three days in advance as I recall, over the phone.
“If so, what did they tell you? Did they, for instance, inform you of your right (according to their manual) that you could bring witnesses for your defence? (They must have thought that JH was a witness)”
I was already familiar with the “Pay Attention To Yourselves and All the Flock” so I consulted it myself, but over the phone the only thing I was told was that they would like to meet with me. They may have mentioned the words judicial committee, but that was about it. The conversation was very brief.
“Is the chairman âNew Guyâ (circuit overseer)?”
Good question. I wondered about that myself as I seem to recall someone saying at some point that the congregation had a new CO, but it had been quite a few months (10-11) since I had been to any meeting by that point.
“Was the hearing itself a formal arrangement or were you accosted on this occasion?”
It was fairly formal. They were all dressed up waiting for me in the back room.
“Is the date stated as July 15, 2010 the date of your actual judicial case, or is it the date you posted it?”
That’s the date I posted it. The JC meeting itself occurred some time in December of 2006.
Hi Jon. Using your recordings I’ve re-edited your great transcript and it has been published at:
http://thegoverningbody.org/full-transcript-the-jonathan-lee-religious-judicial-case-2/#more-954
Let me know what you think. More to follow.
FV
Hi again, Jon. There’s an analysis of your case on:http://thegoverningbody.org/judging-justice-on-a-hunch-25-minutes-to-condemnation/. Let me know what you think.
[…] https://yacawa.org/2010/07/15/jc-meeting/comment-page-1/#comment-1873 […]