I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemont United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same. Instead of an ordinary funeral discourse, I request that they arrange to have a number of the brethren, accustomed to public speaking, make a few remarks each, that the service be very simple and inexpensive and that it be conducted in the Bible House Chapel or any other place that may be considered equally appropriate or more so. (from Watchtower Reprints, 12/1/16)

 

 

 

Suggested next reading:

"By adopting a method of literature distribution based completely on donation, Jehovah's people are able to greatly simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion." (Letter from the Watch Tower Society to all U.S. congregations dated February 21, 1990.)

Share With Others According to Their Needs


Jehovah makes provision to fill our spiritual needs through the faithful "slave". (Matt 24:45-47) Many of these provisions are in the form of books, Bibles, bound volumes, videos, audiocassette recordings, and computer disks for Bible research. What Jehovah supplies is always sufficient without being wasteful. He expects us to share with one another, making sure that all benefit equally. All such provisions are produced at tremendous financial cost. These expenses are cared for by the worldwide brotherhood. This is especially true since the organization instituted the arrangement to distribute literature without charge, depending entirely on voluntary donations to cover the expense. Additionally, many branches obtain these provisions from the Society at a cost that enables the brothers to have what they need for meetings and field activity even though they have very limited material resources.


How we can help. We can respond to Paul's admonition to share with others "according to their needs." (Rom 12:13) When we make financial contributions toward the worldwide work, we are directly sharing what we have with our brothers around the world. With this in mind, some have decided to set aside an amount to contribute to the worldwide work each month, just as they do for Kingdom Hall expenses. They recognize that these funds are used not only for literature production but for all facets of the work as well. Imagine the great benefit our worldwide brotherhood would experience if more would share in this way on a regular basis.


Further, we can share with them by always being conservative when requesting items that are readily available to us. Ordering only what we actually need allows our brothers elsewhere to receive the spiritual provisions that they also need to keep strong and to advance the preaching of the good news in their part of the world.-Heb.13:16.


We should especially bear this in mind when we request items that are produced at considerable expense to the Society. These include videos, CD-ROMs, large reference books, bound volumes and audiocassette subscriptions. Rather than requesting one item for each member of the household, could the entire family get along with just one? If we limit what we take for ourselves, it will allow others to obtain the same good things that we enjoy. -Phil. 2:4. The cost of literature that we place in the field may be offset in part by donations to the Society's worldwide work offered by us at the Kingdom Hall and by interested ones who accept it. However, when it comes to literature items we request for our personal use, including songbooks, Yearbooks, deluxe Bibles, and so forth, we cannot expect outsiders to care for our needs. Jehovah's dedicated servants are the primary source of this financial support. With that in mind, many publishers estimate what these items might cost if commercially produced and then they contribute accordingly. For example, a deluxe gold-edged Bible can easily cost $20 or more, a reference book may be $40 and up, a full-color wall calendar may sell for at least $5, an encyclopedia on CD-ROM costs from $50 to $100 or higher, music compact discs commonly cost close to $20 and some videos are often sold for much more. A failure to contribute enough to cover costs will ultimately restrict what the organization may otherwise be able to accomplish in furthering the worldwide work.


Jesus declared that his true disciple would be clearly identified by their love for one another. (John 13:34, 35) Our generosity in giving materially and our unselfishness in sharing with other according to their needs are surely fine ways to prove ourselves to be genuine Christians.

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

7 minute audio tour of Beth-Sarim with Barbara Anderson (mp3 format)

Real Media format

A Witness family who accompanied me to Beth Sarim

Rear view of Beth Sarim

Front of Beth Sarim

Side of house where swimming pool was located.

Not sure, but pool didn't look like it dated back to Rutherford's days in the house

Barbara in the spacious living room

Back stairs to second level

Picture on the left is an original scan from the July 25, 1931 Messenger of J.F. Rutherford ("Judge Rutherford") standing next to one of his 16 cylinder Cadillac cars. One was kept for his use in Brooklyn, New York and the other one was kept at Beth Sarim in San Diego, California. At the time, Rutherford was president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses)

Al Capone smuggled illegal whisky and sold it.

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. " - Matthew 24:4

Our pictures are in the following magazines:

• Awake! Oct. 8, 1986-Cover
• Awake! July 22, 1992-Cover
• Watchtower, May 15, 1989, p. 10 Smallest picture w/ blue frame.
• I'm also 5 times in Jesus Life and Ministry book and once in the Revelation book.

"Jehovah's Witnesses are known worldwide for their persistence in talking to people everywhere about Jehovah God and his Kingdom. They also have the reputation of being a people who hold to their beliefs despite all manner of opposition, even death." This quotation is taken from the book, Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. It is Jehovah's Witnesses' latest history book published in 1994.

To substantiate the last part of what I read about the opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses the next paragraph quotes Archibald Cox's book , The Court and the Constitution, (1987) where he states, "The principal victims of religious persecution in the United States in the twentieth century were Jehovah's Witnesses."

I'm very familiar with the contents of this book and especially with Mr. Cox's statement because I was the leading researcher for this publication from 1989-1991 and I located this quote and provided it and many other quotes and facts for the author of the book to use.

I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses from 1954 until 1998. My husband and I became very familiar with opposition to our religion because we were very persistent in making our beliefs known to people whether they wanted to hear us or not. Although we were disliked because of our religion by some, my husband and I helped convert about 80 people to our religion.

In 1982, during a time of expansion of Jehovah's Witnesses' world headquarters in Brooklyn, NY, as longtime faithful Jehovah's Witnesses, we were invited to become staff members at the world headquarters. I was assigned to work in the Shipping Dept. for a year and then transferred to the Engineering Dept. for six years. In 1989, I was assigned to work in the Writing Dept. where I did research for senior staff writers. My first research project was for the Proclaimer's book. One assignment was to research the exact number and details of all the petitions and appeals involving Jehovah's Witnesses that were made to the U. S. Supreme Court. The results of my research on this subject can be found in Proclaimer's, Chapter 30, entitled, "DEFENDING AND LEGALLY ESTABLISHING THE GOOD NEWS"

It took me three months, much of that time spent in the Legal Dept at Headquarters, to thoroughly research thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses appeals of adverse court decisions, hundreds of pages of documents, many books, and magazines written on the subject, which resulted in stacks of material that I didn't know what to do with after I finished that part of the project. I also ended up with a good understanding of the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Coincidentally, 1991 was the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights and I decided to offer the accumulated material to the editor of Jehovah's Witnesses Awake! Magazine, Harry Peloyan, because I thought perhaps he might be interested in assigning a staff writer to prepare an article tying Jehovah's Witnesses and their struggle in the courts for freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

However, I was told that all the writers were occupied and the suggestion was made that I write the article. But I wasn't a writer and told the editor so. However, he thought I had the ability to do the article as he had reviewed some of the memos I had written during my job with the Writing Dept. So on my own free time, after a long day doing other research, I prepared an article about the Bill of Rights. It appeared in the December 8, 1991 Awake! Magazine and tens of millions of copies were distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses. The article discussed what exactly the Bill of Rights was; why it was needed, and what liberties it helped to preserve in the United States. My efforts writing the article turned out to be a labor of love as I saw that Jehovah's Witnesses were definers of freedom by testing the principles of religious freedom in the Supreme Court.

I was proud of Jehovah's Witnesses struggle in the highest courts of the land for the freedom to exercise the courage of their conviction. The result was as Anson Phelps Stokes stated in 1950 about the results of their litigation in his book, Church and State in the United States. (Page 546): He said, "Federal courts have rendered a series of decisions which have secured and broadened the religious-freedom guarantees of American citizens, and have protected and extended their civil liberties." Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Page 699.

And Jehovah's Witnesses agreed with Mr. Stokes for in that same year, 1950, listen to what they said about themselves in their booklet, Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News on page 5: "Court decisions in our cases have been piled high, as it were, stone upon stone, to establish a strong buttress against the rushing torrent of oppression by religious bigots and fanatics. In fact, our way of worship has, in America, been written into the law of the land by the Supreme Court and other courts. We have become proficient at using the treasures of liberty set in the fundamental law of the land of many nations."

One particular treasure of liberty Jehovah's Witnesses became proficient at using is mentioned in Proclaimers on page 683: It is by being persistent "...in appealing from adverse decisions." And how persistent were they? My research showed that "From 1919 through 1988, petitions and appeals in a total of 138 cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses were made to the U. S. Supreme Court. The decisions were favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses in 47 of the cases that the Court considered." This statement can be found in Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p. 688, footnote. That's an extraordinary record in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike any other.

In their short history, Jehovah's Witnesses challenged any law or ordinance that interfered with their religious activities, and through their litigation, helped set in place insulation for religious organizations from lawsuits. They had the lawful right to preach in unorthodox places using unorthodox methods. They could call uninvited at the homes of people to discuss the Bible, to preach in the street, and to distribute religious literature, even ask for a contribution of money. They won for themselves and all other religious groups constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and worship. This amounted to almost complete protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution free exercise clause.

Of course Jehovah's Witnesses are proud of this record of accomplishment for civil liberties and they should be. By steadfastly holding to the courage of their convictions, although sometimes terribly persecuted, out of oppression came freedom, not only for them, but for all who love liberty. And for that we all owe Jehovah's Witnesses a debt of gratitude. However having successfully defended and legally established their right to practice their religion however they see fit, Jehovah's Witnesses are still appearing in courts throughout the world, but for a different reason. This once oppressed group has gone from being the oppressed to being the oppressor.

They demanded and received religious tolerance; they demanded and were guaranteed freedom of speech; they demanded and won the right to practice their religion any way they saw fit; they demanded the recognition of freedom of conscience. Yet, they forbid their members to practice any of these civil and God-given rights. They silence freedom of speech. They silence dissent. How? By using fear as the weapon. The fear of excommunication or disfellowshipping with its severe life-altering sanction, that of shunning by the whole community of Jehovah's Witnesses including relatives such as parents and adult children.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe their organization is directed by God, so in effect it is a theocracy or God-ruled government. So it appears that in good conscience they believe that they have the right to govern themselves. This means that the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are mini-governments or theocracies existing within the boundaries of all governments throughout the world. Although Jehovah's Witnesses give lip service to Jesus' words recorded at Mark 12:17, "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God," and believe that they are obedient to Caesar's laws and statutes in all things that do not violate their religious beliefs, little do the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses know that their organization has been involved in violating one of Caesar's laws in a way that they could not imagine and has been doing so for many years.

While working in the Writing Dept., I learned in the early 1990s that there were members of Jehovah's Witnesses, including some of their elders, who had engaged in child sexual abuse; that Jehovah's Witnesses officials knew of many of these incidents of child sexual abuse but had instituted policies that effectively prevented the report of most of these incidents to appropriate authorities and to the congregation. These discoveries were directly contrary to the public position taken by Jehovah's Witnesses that child sexual abuse is neither tolerated nor concealed. In August of 2000, I began to quietly assist a Kentucky Jehovah's Witness elder in a joint effort to change the child abuse policies of the Watch Tower organization. After resigning his position, this elder went public in early 2001 with allegations of Jehovah's Witnesses' officials' improper conduct and policies.

In February of 2001, A Dateline producer learned of my effort's to change church policy and invited me and the Kentucky elder, Bill Bowen, to come to NBC in NYC for an interview. In April 2001, I learned the details of criminal child abuse when one of Jehovah's Witnesses had been convicted of molestation near where I live in Tennessee. I asked the mother of one of the victims to appear on the Dateline program explaining how and why her daughter's abuse had been covered up in the congregation for many years by the elders.

In May of 2001, Jehovah's Witnesses' officials in New York learned of this invitation and my involvement with the Dateline program. In July 2001, these same officials contacted my local congregation authorizing them to start an investigation to determine if I was proselytizing my views about child abuse within the organization. The elders came up with a negative response. In the meantime, the producers at Dateline were hoping to air their investigative program about the accusations of a cover-up of child abuse and protection of pedophiles within Jehovah's Witnesses organization sometime in November 2001, but due to the disastrous events in New York on 9/11 the program was put on hold.

In April 2002, the Dateline broadcast date was tentatively set for May 28th and Jehovah's Witnesses' officials in New York were informed by a Dateline producer of the date. When the May 28th date for broadcast was finalized, Jehovah's Witnesses' New York officials hastily instructed the local congregation to convene a judicial committee hearing. It appeared that the reason for the haste was to have me disfellowshipped prior to the broadcast on a charge of apostasy for causing divisions in the church. The treatment of three other Jehovah's Witnesses' participants or whistleblowers who appeared on the Dateline program was the same. Apparently, this was done to keep the Witnesses from believing any unfavorable statements we made on the program because disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses are not to be believed.

Soon, a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses' officials spoke to the NY Post and Washington Post newspapers in answer to their reporter's query about the four of us being asked to attend judicial committee hearings because of our appearing on a soon-to-be aired Dateline program. That spokesman denied knowing who were participating in the Dateline program; denied his headquarters' involvement in ordering the judicial hearing. He said that the local elders in three congregations in three different states ordered the judicial hearing and summoned us on charges of having committed various spiritual violations and sins unrelated to any public comments made by us on Dateline concerning sexual abuse.

On May 19, 2002, I was disfellowshipped by my former elders in the Manchester, TN congregation. On May 20th, another national spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, when asked what scriptures are used as the basis for disfellowshipping, replied to a reporter that 1 Corinthians, Chapter 5 is the scriptural basis. Of interest is these scriptures are used for expulsion of members who commit and are unrepentant about such serious sins as fornication, extortion, and drunkardness.

On May 23, 2002, my husband resigned his position as elder in disgust and sent a letter to headquarters respectfully requesting answers to his questions and outlining his grievances. He was disfellowshipped for causing divisions in August of 2002.

On Nov. 7, 2002, I filed a lawsuit or Complaint against the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses' organization in NY as represented by their five Watchtower corporations, their two national spokespersons, and local Tennessee elders. A few months later the complaint was amended when my husband joined the lawsuit.

Our Complaint contained eight counts: Count 1-Defamation through statements published to the media; Count 2-Defamation through statements published to the congregation; Count 3-Invasion of privacy by making defamatory representations and placed me before the public in a false light; Count 4-Interference with Prospective Business Relationships when we lost many business clients due to our disfellowshipping; Count 5-Breach of Fiduciary Duty by elders who should have provided me with spiritual guidance but instead acted intentionally, fraudulently and maliciously by disfellowshipping me as part of a conspiracy to prevent me from exposing their practice of concealing child sexual abuse by church members from the authorities and the congregation.; Count 6-Fraud. The defendants in New York acted fraudulently and misrepresented me to the local elders and the congregation. They knew I had not committed any spiritual violation that would justify disfellowshipping and misled the local members of the tribunals. Count 7-Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count 8-Wrongful Disfellowshipping;

As to Count 8 -- I would like to talk a bit about Wrongful Disfellowshipping. As I have pointed out, Jehovah's Witnesses litigated and litigated to win their constitutional right to exercise freedom of speech without sanctions. One would think they of all groups would not sanction anybody's right to free speech. Especially not Jehovah's Witnesses, which is exactly what I was, although not an active member when I went on Dateline. In fact, my husband was a Jehovah's Witness elder at that time. However, when we exercised our constitutional right to freedom of speech by revealing their law-breaking policies publicly, we were undeservedly sanctioned by them when they used one of their religious tenets, disfellowshipping, to punish us. All Jehovah's Witnesses understand that the very act of disfellowshipping a member is the equivalent of stating that he or she is an unrepentant sinner and this defames us. Consequently, we are oppressed by Jehovah's Witnesses, who require we be shunned by the entire religious community which includes our son, daughter-in-law, and grandson, who we've not seen in over two years. We were not even permitted to attend the funeral of our daughter-in-law's mother, who was a close friend. I've been called a liar, a Judas, a thief who stole records from Jehovah's Witnesses, plus, ridiculous stories have been spread about our morals and integrity.

On August 8, 2003, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss our Complaint. In this motion they contended that it should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. And as expected, they asserted that the "constitutional doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention bars consideration of the Complaint because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and they assert that the First Amendment bars court review of the lawsuit.

By the way, it was through Jehovah's Witnesses' litigation that helped establish this doctrine of "ecclesiastical abstention," which means that civil courts are forbidden inquiry into church practice and religious law.

As well meaning as the courts were to protect religion from interference by government, the stage was set through the "ecclesiastical abstention" rule for some religious groups to break Caesar's general laws, and get away with it. However, federal and state courts have addressed this question and recognize that the church autonomy doctrine and the First Amendment do not bar court review of actions motivated by fraud, malice or collusion and purely secular goals. Notice what the court said in the Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) case about what the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment guarantees. (By the way, Cantwell's were Jehovah's Witnesses) "The right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires." The Free Exercise Clause protects religious freedom by "embracing two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." However, I might add that regulation must be justified by a compelling state interest such as in our case, to protect children from harm.

In line with this thought, notice an April 17, 1990 Supreme Court ruling as reported in the Los Angeles Times. The title of the article was, Won't Shield Religions From Law, Court Says. It stated in part: 'In contrast, the high court for most of this century has gone out of its way to shield minority religions-such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish-from laws that infringed on their religious beliefs. Those decisions were based on the First Amendment's protection of "the free exercise of religion."

In what was called a "radical departure" from previous rulings protecting religion, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that there is no constitutional right to take peyote as a religious sacrament and declared forcefully that it will no longer shield believers whose practices violate general laws.

In a sweeping opinion, Justice Scalia went far beyond the case at hand and declared that, when religious rights clash with the government's need for uniform rules, the court will side with government."

In our Complaint, we allege that the Defendants were motivated by purely secular reasons when they engaged in the actions complained of and that the actions were part of a fraudulent conspiracy to silence me when I tried to assist victims of child sexual abuse and as I tried to prevent the church from sheltering child abusers, which state law requires be reported. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the church autonomy doctrine and the First Amendment do not bar court review of purely secular actions taken by church organizations or of actions motivated by fraud or collusion. But despite this, the Defendants have tried to mislead the court by willful mischaracterization of the case, that it will trespass on the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine and ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. This was and continues to be their major argument as they ignore almost every Count in our Complaint.

On October 6, 2003, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint was heard by the court. The court ruled to allow us, the Plaintiffs, to go forward on all eight counts and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was respectfully denied.

Then in December of 2003 Jehovah's Witnesses attorneys appealed, something that they are experts at. They filed a motion for Interlocutory Appeal asking the court to allow Defendants to take the judge's denial of dismissal of our Complaint to the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville for review. Among other things, Defendants maintained [incorrectly] that every appellate court in the country have uniformly refused to recognize a fraud or collusion exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. They further contend that this court's subjecting an ecclesiastical tribunal's decision to excommunicate congregation members to secular court review conflicts with precedents of both the US Supreme Court and the TN Supreme Court.

Our attorneys responded by filing an Opposition to Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. The brief stated that Defendant's will not suffer any "irreparable injury" as they claim if the motion is denied; That discovery will not involve church doctrine and violate constitutional privileges; That there will not be needless, expensive and protracted litigation. Discovery will be short if the defendants will just show whether they did or did not fraudulently concoct the charges and did so hastily for purely secular reasons. If the defendants do not file frivolous objections to discovery requests, this discovery can be conducted promptly and inexpensively.

Further, our brief said that the Defendants have consistently and willfully mischaracterized the Plaintiffs allegations as a complaint about "internal church discipline." The Defendants have simply refused to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants fraudulently made up the allegations of spiritual misconduct which led to the disfellowshipping of the Plaintiffs. The brief ends with these words: "It can not be a policy of this state to permit the disfellowshipping of those who seek to protect the precious lives of young children. The Defendants can not hide behind purported constitutional privilege to continue their tortious conduct and maintain their conspiracy of silence to the detriment of young children of the church."

Finally, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Basically, again they claimed that inquiring into a religious membership decision is a constitutionally prohibited inquiry. Further, they stated, "as Anderson's well know, the outcome of this lawsuit will not affect their disfellowshipped status. That the legal process will not result in any secular mandate that the Plaintiffs be reinstated as Jehovah's Witnesses," although nowhere in the Complaint did we ask to be reinstated as Jehovah's Witnesses. Neither child abuse, nor any of the other paramount issues of importance in the Complaint are addressed by the Defendants in their brief.

During his opening remarks in the October 6, 2003 Defendant's Motion To Dismiss hearing, the kindly Tennessee judge, who was on the bench, stated that he didn't know anything about ecclesiastical law and never dealt with a case like ours before. He also discussed his very serious health problems making everyone aware that he was recovering from heart surgery and would probably need more hospitalization shortly. Yet, after considering closely both sides of the arguments presented, he saw good reason to allow our lawsuit to progress and overruled the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

However, when the Defendant's filed a motion for Interlocutory Appeal in December of 2003, this same judge succumbed to their wish after he held a very brief hearing on February 5, 2004, and allowed the case to go to the Tennessee Appellate Court in Nashville for review of his decision. Perhaps he thought this action prudent in light of Jehovah's Witnesses successful litigating record in the Supreme Court and subsequently in our case their constant use of the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines as proof that he was treading on sacred ground and had made the wrong decision. Now we wait as our lawsuit's future rests in the hands of the Appellate Court to make a decision on whether the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss our lawsuit was correctly declined or not. It will take at least a year before briefs are filed and pleadings heard.

No matter what the future holds for our lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses who fought so valiantly to legally defend and establish their right to preach should be very concerned now about how they will be legally defending and establishing themselves in court by speaking the truth, inasmuch as whatever good they have done in the past will be tarnished and perhaps destroyed by government regulations if they lie about their involvement in harmful activities. If a religion has caused harm, they should not hide behind the First Amendment but be truthful or risk exposure and a loss of credibility.

And, speaking of exposure: Presently, the law firm of Love & Norris in Ft. Worth, TX has filed 15 sexual child abuse lawsuits in civil courts across the country against Jehovah's Witnesses' organization along with many of their elders. And more lawsuits are coming. Many of these lawsuits contain multiple victims of Jehovah's Witnesses molesters who molested Jehovah's Witnesses children, yet these perpetrators stayed safe and hidden because of the religion's inadequate sexual child abuse policies about which I blew the whistle on.

In conclusion, for now, it appears that Jehovah's Witnesses' leaders are not ready to admit to the truth that they have allowed harm to come to thousands of children from sexual predators. They do not believe that I or any member of the congregation has the right to publicly speak out about this issue. Nor do they believe that we have the legal right to take them to civil court over any harm that they have inflicted upon us.

Inasmuch as it was through the use of Caesar's civil authorities, primarily the courts that whistle blowing Catholic victims of pedophile priests made the Catholic Church own up to its failure to protect them as children, whistle blowing Jehovah's Witnesses like me are now doing the same thing. Although many Jehovah's Witnesses, who have used their freedom of speech to speak out about all kinds of abuse within their group have been sanctioned by their leaders through disfellowshipping and shunning, something the Catholic Church has not done to whistleblowers, these now punished members have taken up the battle cry the same way their once oppressed organization did for almost eighty years-To see justice done, they are using the courts. Now they are formidable adversaries by legally defending and establishing the truth in the civil courts across the land.

UPDATE  5/4/05

Greetings from Tennessee.

Thank you for your inquiries regarding the Barbara Anderson vs. Watchtower Tennessee Appellate Court hearing, which took place on Thursday, April 14, 2005. Accompanied by Steve and Joy Imhof, from Panama City Beach, Florida, and our attorney, Jerre Hood, from Winchester, Tennessee, we drove to Nashville to attend the 1:00 P.M. scheduled appellate hearing. This hearing was requested last year by Defendants in the case, and they are: the numerous corporations of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; Watchtower spokespersons, J. R. Brown, and David Semonian, and certain elders of the Manchester, TN Congregation of JWs.

In Nashville, we met our lead attorney, J. Edward Bell III, from Georgetown, South Carolina, and went to lunch. Bill Bowen of silentlambs.com drove in from Paducah, Kentucky to join us. This was the first time Bill met our extraordinary attorneys, who have long wanted to meet the man who has and still is sacrificing so much to help victims of sexual child abuse at the hands of Jehovah Witness molesters.

We were a happy group. And how could we not be since we knew that due to the efforts of our little luncheon group, along with the efforts of many others, the Watchtower organization is a much safer place for the children of Jehovah's Witnesses. Now Watchtower representatives (elders, circuit and district overseers, and men in authority located in Bethels throughout the world), treat the accusation of molestation made by one of JWs or their children as the crime it is, and are not permitted to dissuade anyone from reporting the accusation to the police. We are pleased that the Watchtower has made it a priority to look out for the welfare of its members children by immediately removing men from positions of authority when an accusation of molestation has been made.

For those who are not familiar with the events that led up to this appellate court hearing on April 14th, I filed a civil lawsuit against the above Defendants on November 7, 2002, and which my husband, Joe, joined June 2, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On October 6, 2003, a hearing was held in Manchester, TN. To sum up the major argument of the Defendants: It is not permitted in this country for a court to inquire into church discipline for whatever reason.

On November 3, 2003, the judge ruled that the Plaintiffs could go forward with the lawsuit. This meant we could progress with discovery, depositions, etc. However, our attorneys were notified on November 26, 2003 that Watchtower attorneys filed a Motion for Interlocutory Appeal, which meant they were appealing the decision of the judge. The reason for appeal was on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction with regards to the 8th cause in our action -- Wrongful Disfellowshipping. The lawyers for both sides went back to the local court in Manchester, Tennessee on February 5, 2004 to argue for and against. On March 23, 2004, our lawyers were notified that the judge, who denied the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, stayed all proceedings pending the resolution of the appellate process, which finally was addressed April 14, 2005 in the Tennessee Appellate Court in Nashville.

When we first sat down inside the small courtroom, we saw about ten or more on the Defendants side, along with their attorneys. One of the attorneys was Paul Polidoro, the lead attorney of the Watchtower from headquarters in Patterson, NY, and the other attorney was Robert Harvey, who is their Nashville, Tennessee attorney, from the firm of WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS. From where we were sitting we did not recognize the third attorney. However, imagine our surprise when we heard the name of Phil Brumley, also from New York headquarters, being introduced to the three justices. We knew Phil when we were in Brooklyn Bethel, and because his appearance had changed so dramatically since 1993, we did not recognize him. He has lost most of his hair and gained considerable weight, plus, add to that the aging process, along with his facial features seemingly frozen into a mask of perpetual solemnity, to me he looked like a close relative of Ted Jaracz,. We were immediately flattered that Phil Brumley, the HEAD OF THE WATCHTOWER LEGAL DEPARTMENT, so honored us by coming to the hearing, but soon remembered someone telling us that Phil had relatives in the Nashville area.

Each lead attorney had fifteen minutes to argue in behalf of their clients, and Defendants attorney had an additional two minutes for rebuttal. Attorney for the Defendants, Paul Polidoro, went first because his side filed the motion. He appeared to be reading his entire argument from a manuscript, although he did well extemporaneously speaking when questioned by one of the justices. Paul is a polished and experienced speaker, and it is no wonder he was chosen in the past by Watchtower leaders to argue before the U. S. Supreme Court in behalf of JWs.

And what did Paul Polidoro say in appellate court that day? Much of the same argument he has been using in each court appearance since we filed our Complaint: Constitutional doctrine of Ecclesiastical Abstention prohibits a secular court from exercising jurisdiction into church decisions and requires dismissal of our lawsuit. If I remember correctly, he did not address any issues other than the complaint of slander that I charged Defendants with, which he said lacked merit. This was because my name was not mentioned in a particular newspaper, where Watchtower representative, J. R. Brown, said that the four of us, who were being summoned to judicial hearings and were being charged with SINS, did not mention any names.

Our lead attorney, Mr. Bell, emphasized, I might add, with some passion, that we were not asking the court to inquire into any church decision; that our complaint was in regard to secular issues. He reminded the justices that I was a whistleblower who appeared on Dateline to accuse the Defendants of covering up a large molestation problem and of protecting molesters within the church.

Mr. Bell called attention to the local media statements which had discussed the subject of JW disfellowshipping primarily due to my summons to a JW judicial committee hearing held before the Dateline program aired on May 28, 2002. He pointed out that Tennessee media directly quoted Watchtower representatives saying that the basis for disfellowshipping is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 where it states that fornicators, drunkards, extortioners, etc., had to be put out of the church (disfellowshipped) and shunned. Mr. Bell said that when JWs disfellowshipped me and quoted publicly 1 Cor. 5:11-13 as the reason for disfellowshipping, they were, in effect, saying I was a WHORE or worse. He continued by arguing that the Defendants wanted me to be disfellowshipped and discredited by the time Dateline was shown so JWs would not believe my accusations about the church. He added that in JWs view, only unrepentant sinners are disfellowshipped and that would mean I was an unrepentant sinner, who should not be given credence.

Mr. Bell asked the justices to send this case back to the lower court where we can establish our claim (or establish a matter of record) through the discovery process, depositions, etc.; After that process, then it would be appropriate for the Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment where that court could consider the variety of issues presented, most of which could not be considered in a motion to dismiss.

The justices asked a few questions of both sides and it seemed to us that they did not completely understand the complex issues at stake. One justice asked Mr. Bell why did Plaintiffs list in their Complaint the 8th cause -- wrongful disfellowshipping -- if there is no Tennessee statute or jurisdiction to address this issue. Mr. Bell, in substance, said that if there does not exist a statute to address a wrong, than the court has to examine evidence to see if one is needed.

Immediately after the hearing was over, we filed out to the front lobby. However, Bill Bowen did not follow but went up to Phil Brumley, who was standing with the Watchtower Defendants, and offered him a little stuffed lamb. Phil refused the lamb and told Bill he would rather not talk to him. Bill then told Phil that the lamb represented all the people he hurt by what he did, and although he refused it, he will see a lot more lambs wherever he went. And to remember they represent the children he has hurt. Shame on you! Bill said. Quickly, Rob Harvey, the Defendants Nashville attorney came over to Bill and told him to step away from his client. Bill told Mr. Harvey that Phil was not his client, he was a lawyer! And just like Mr. Brumley, Mr. Harvey hurts children by what he does. And with that said, Bill turned and walked away.

Later, our attorneys advised us that it is very difficult to determine the way the justices will decide from what was said in court. So we are content not to speculate, but to patiently wait the four weeks to two years that it could take to receive a decision.

Update: On May 14, 2007, the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville filed an ORDER that stated:

"Upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal filed on behalf of Barbara and Joseph Anderson and the record before us, the application is denied. Motion for admission pro hac vice filed on behalf of Paul D. Polidoro, counsel for defendants, having also been considered is granted."

Basically the appellate court justices agreed with the defendants that the trial court should have dismissed our claims because they are barred by the First Amendment's protection of purely religious matters from interference by secular courts. Until the judiciary changes that viewpoint, any other litigation like ours will not have their day in court. Although our case was purely a secular complaint, the high court would not consider it based on Watchtower attorneys pleading religion, religion, the court can't get involved in a religious dispute. So the court would not closely look at the issues we complained of.

On August 10, 2007, our attorney filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Watchtower filed their brief in opposition.

The case was placed on the docket August 14, 2007. Sept. 24, 2007 the case was distributed for conference.  This is when the Supreme Court Justices sat down to review the cases and decide which ones they will take.

On Tuesday, October 2, 2007 our Petition for a writ of certiorari was denied which meant that the justices refused to consider our case. And that was the end. Of course, this was a disappointment, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. We sort of expected this outcome because we were not pleased with the attitude shown our case by the appellate judges, but would have been supremely happy if the justices had elected to review the case.

We certainly tried to bring about justice for disfellowshipped members. We don't know what it will take to remove such harmful power to disfellowship and shun those who take issue with the unfair policies of the Watchtower organization, especially the way this group mismanages sexual child abuse accusations.

Barbara Anderson

Charles T. Russell Era (1879-1916)

Date: late 1800's. Okay, July 1879 if you want to be picky.

Current Religious Views: many apocalyptic leanings, prompting the origin of several major eclectic religious groups claiming that God had rejected the mainstream Christian Churches for their apostasy in the fourth century, and that He has now chosen a new prophet, a spokesman, a faithful messenger to re-educate the world as to the truths of the Bible, long-lost and unattainable by any normal human being. To gain eternal life, man must listen to the new gospel of this messenger(s). This century sees the birth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Adventism and its various offshoots (including Jehovah's Witnesses), Christian Science, Christadelphians and other smaller groups, each one claiming a modern-day prophet and new or once-forgotten revelations to the populace, many of whom we find shopping for new ideas, yet disenchanted with the churches.

Scenario: A young man who can't understand theology from a historical development point of view begins to feel that he is the "Seventh Messenger" (Rev. 3:14) given to the Body of Christ, which he believes (as did most every generation of Christians before him since the time of Christ) is living in the "last days" of man's dominion over the earth. Borrowing from many current theological ideas around him, including an "invisible" return of Christ (a la Adventists), the prophetic nature of the Great Pyramid in Egypt and other occult symbolism (i.e., Masonry, astrology, numerology, etc.), and a variation of the "Gentile Times" theory (a la George Storrs and others), he also denies the historical interpretations of Scripture such as the Trinity, hell as a place of punishment, and the existence of the soul apart from the body. Not finding much sympathy for his views in other religions, he starts his own. The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence becomes its mouthpiece, first printed in July, 1879.

Peculiar Opening Beliefs: The time of the end began in 1799, Christ returned invisibly in 1874, 40-year harvest period ending in 1914 with the complete overthrow of man's rule (Armageddon) replaced by God's rule, and numerous minor oddities regarding intelligence, black men, miracle wheat, numerology, and the size of men's brains. Perhaps nothing unique to the day except some of his particular prophetic dates.

Things Russell Would Currently be Disfellowshipped (excommunicated) For: Anti-organizational teachings, celebrating birthdays, Christmas and holiday observance, military involvement tolerated, not draining blood from food, considering self to be the "faithful and discreet slave," selling "Miracle Wheat," dabbling in the occult and signing his own books.

Joseph F. ("Judge") Rutherford Era (1916-1942)

Date: 1916, death of C.T. Russell

Developing Religious Views: Russell is still the "Seventh Messenger," but let's not get too carried away with that! In fact, let's take down his pictures, re-examine his dates, wear loud clothes, drink a lot, and basically be obnoxious iconoclasts that invite retribution. Let's separate ourselves from those Bible Students who remain loyal to Russell, and don't like our new bombastic style. We'll do that by scorning the cross, changing our name to Jehovah's witnesses, eliminating "pagan" influences like the pyramid and numerology, slamming the churches, and broadcasting hate messages against the Catholic Church and League of/United Nations door-to-door and by radio. Let's make Prohibition our enemy, refuse to fight for our country, and court Hitler's favor.

Scenario: Russell dies in 1916, with express wishes as to how his work would be continued. Rutherford attempts a hostile takeover of the Watchtower presidency, using his knowledge of legal procedure to buffalo his way into power, successfully. The "standfasters" remain loyal to Russell and thus several breakaway groups are formed, such as the Dawn Bible Students, etc. who still hold to Russell and his beliefs. (Several of these groups are still in existence today). Rutherford has an identity crisis (people were not prone to worship him), and begins a slow, political process of eradicating all traces of Russell-worship. He even goes so far as to change the basic message of the Bible from the simple gospel (the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) to that of "Jehovah's Sovereignty." (Imagine Rutherford saying: `You see, God has this court case going, and, like, the devil says he's trying to pull one over on mankind, and since there are so many angels in the audience, it's kind of embarrassing to him to be accused like that... I can relate, of course... so God's got to let it all hang out and prove to everyone He's not so bad after all... Kind of like my own situation!) So God's on the hot seat, and so is Rutherford for taking over this organization. That's the REAL universal issue!

Peculiar Opening Beliefs: Millions Now Living Will Never Die (at least, up until the Judge's death), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (oh, yeah, and Moses, too) will appear at our conventions soon and since we certainly don't want them at Bethel, we'll put them all up three thousand miles away in California in my own mansion there. Just so no one gets suspicious about the house, I'll put their names in the deed to the house, but they'll have to prove to us who they really are before they get MY room!

Things Rutherford Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Signing his own books, beer parties at Bethel, aggravating everyone in sight.

Nathan H. Knorr Era (1942-1977)

Date: 1942, death of the "Judge."

Developing Religious Views: No blood transfusions for Witnesses or their parakeets, everything is satanic including crosses, religious jewelry and gifts from worldly relatives. You can practically get disfellowshipped for looking at a church. Smoking banned in 1973, but it's still okay to be an alcoholic elder. Fred Franz becomes the resident seer at Bethel, enticing the brothers in the steam rooms at Bethel with his Bible topics and fascinating all who listen to his absurd sermons. Franz was largely responsible for the 1975 fever, which practically had people being disfellowshipped for NOT believing 1975 was going to be the end!

Scenario: Charming or charismatic leaders are out, android presidents are in. Knorr, about as lovable as pea soup, is voted in and makes up for his lack of charm by expanding the business of organization. Birth of the NEW WORLD SOCIETY: "God's Organization." Gilead Missionary School sends out students all over the world, Knorr gives them a one-way ticket to ride, leading to depression and suicide for a few who wish to return. Bethel (Watchtower headquarters) slowly envelopes Brooklyn Heights, greatly aggravating the residents there, who are quite unappreciative of all the howdy-doody clones swarming the neighborhood (please, at least the muggers are for real!) The Watchtower becomes big business, with billions in property. Profit margins on publications rise as high as 500 percent, which "only covers the cost of printing."

This is the age of "discovery" in the Watchtower, where a spirit of free thinking allowed many within to re-examine the foundation for their beliefs. This age later "ended" with the Franz Incident of 1979-1980, where the Governing Body reached the point where their only recourse to those digging up the skeletons in the closet was to NUKE the closet! No one would ever discover the faulty foundation of Watchtower chronology if they could not TALK about it without fear of being disfellowshipped, or so they thought.

Peculiar Beliefs: Sodomites will/won't/will/won't be resurrected, the early Christians had a rotating Governing Body (sounds kinky), blood is an "organ," thus no organ transplants, either. Rape is only excusable if the victim screams LOUD, you can't/can divorce your husband if he's gay (depending on what he does, exactly), oral sex WILL get you disfellowshipped, at least for awhile, but in the final analysis we really don't want to know (well, we do, but we must pretend we don't).

Things Knorr Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Nothing, I think he's still in charge!

Frederick W. ("Freddy") Franz Era (1977-1992)

Date: 1977, loss of his buddy, Knorr, who dies of cancer. Franz eludes actual leadership out of choice and "posterity."

Developing Religious Views: "Doubt" is practically the antichrist! Lobotomies are in, loyalty and spying will upgrade you from poor publisher/bad reputation to most-favored status. Witnesses must report all infractions of other Witnesses, even if it means stealing hospital records of secret abortions, etc... even if it means losing your job or getting sued! Troubled by our incessant changes in doctrine? Get a hobby to keep your mind off apostasy. 1975 was your fault, not ours. WE NEVER SAID THAT! (about any date).

Scenario: Homosexuals infiltrate the Governing Body and let go but not disfellowshipped.  Ray Franz disgraces himself and the rest of the Governing Body by denying their collective infallibility, is dismissed and set up for disfellowshipping. Spying Watchtower goons follow him down south and can catch him in nothing, so finally disfellowship him for having dinner with his boss, an ex-Jehovah's Witness! Ray Franz writes his self-apologizing Crisis of Conscience in 1983, and the entire Christian world holds their breath waiting for him to accept the Trinity, which he never does.

Governing Body fears getting busted for not paying sales tax when Jimmy Swaggart VS. State of California goes to court, so God wants them to offer their literature free of charge (but with a time-delay sales pitch for contributions). But God only wants them to do this in certain countries, because He doesn't like to pay sales tax there.

Even the Governing Body finally tires of Fred Franz, exiles him, yet in the end was the only GB member who knew exactly what he was doing. Dies in exile.

Peculiar Beliefs: Anything taught by Freddy.

Things Franz Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Listening to secret motivational cassette tapes that he never let out of his sight. Otherwise, he was too smart to be disfellowshipped. Besides, he invented disfellowshipping.

Milton G. Henschel Era (1993 - 2003)

Date: 1992, upgraded from vice to President at the death of Fred Franz.

Developing Religious Views: The Governing Body, no longer driven by a single personality, begins to show more conservative stance on certain matters, primarily public relations issues and legal implications. Increased legal pressure to appear "normal" in their views of college education, school sports and personal hobbies begins to affect how articles and books are written. Holidays not blasted for being pagan as before, psychiatrists allowed, college education not blasted, kids can actually engage in school sports if it "doesn't go to their head." DOUBT is still the antichrist, however.

Scenario: The most money, property and followers they've ever had, but also showing signs of reaching their final peak. Appear to be at the top of the cycle, with a roller-coaster ride ahead, according to the pattern of other similar sects. Growth slowed down to 1-2% in the U.S. in the last couple of years, though booming in countries which are as yet naive as to their history and tactics, such as eastern Europe and Asia. Finally throw out their "1914 generation" teaching with the October 15 and November 1st, 1995 issues of The Watchtower, which was one of their main playing cards. But Simon says, "It's no thang," while older Witnesses know better. Many may leave (on crutches!). Dozens of breakaway groups begin to form in 1996.

Peculiar Beliefs: That they really are "God's organization," after all of this!

Things Milton Would Currently Disfellowship For: Dissension at Bethel, shortly to come. Why? A loss of respect for the leadership.

Typical Pattern of Exclusive Sects:

Stage 1: Charismatic leader develops a following of those disenchanted with mainstream religion. Followers suck up religious fervor and exclusivism like a drug, get heady with pride and a sense of meaning (for once in their lives). Tremendous energy for evangelism and growth.

Stage 2: Change in leadership or internal scandal, leading to a degree of disenchantment among some in the organization. The Watchtower has survived this "cleansing" several times, but due to their place in the wash cycle, the stains may not come out this time.

Stage 3: Physical growth in size, followers and bank account dictates a more conservative stance in order to gain respectability and more acceptable forms of power and control - transforming them from a radical, apocalyptic group into a familiar religion that causes people to say, "I didn't think they were a cult." It is at this point they achieve their greatest unity and power.

Stage 4: The "collective consciousness" of the rank-and-file members reaches the point where they "know too much," and the leadership cannot use the same heavy-handed techniques and motivations they previously used for fear of losing control, and so feign honesty and a spirit of "openness" regarding their past methodologies. (Proclaimers, anyone?) Generally, this happens when they have played all their cards, so-to-speak. No more excitement can be generated.

Stage 5: For lack of unifying causes and the organization's inability to goad the crowd once more, they get bored and restless, looking inward. Without a demonic enemy that must be opposed at every step, they become like normal people outside, and are no longer afraid to speak negatively of their leaders, whom they no longer respect. Dissension, division and fragmentation are not far off.

Related Articles:

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

In the mid 1980s, Michael Jackson was touring the United States doing "Thriller" concerts in major cities in conjunction with the release of his "Thriller" album. I found out about Michael's visit to the metropolitan New York City area from Tim, who also was a Bethel staff member, when he called me at work to ask if my husband, Joe, and I would like to accompany Michael Jackson in field service on Saturday.

Tim's uncles-his dad's two brothers-were prominent Burbank, California elders, and he also knew many Witnesses in the area, including other elders and their families. Consequently, Tim heard firsthand what an impact Michael made on any of the congregations he attended in the late 70s and early 80s. All the elders were diligently trying to keep the congregations balanced because of having such a famous and controversial Jehovah's Witness in their midst. And it can only be imagined how difficult it was for Michael to participate in Witness activities because of reporters shadowing him constantly.

It was never a dull moment when Michael came to the Kingdom Hall, and we heard about some of the comical events that occurred. Michael usually came in after the meetings started and sat in the back row so as to avoid stares and whispering.

One time the young son of a newly interested woman was in the men's room when Michael came in there. The boy was surprised to see someone who looked so much like Michael Jackson. Finally, he asked, "Are you Michael Jackson?" Michael said yes, but the boy wasn't convinced so he asked Michael to do the "moon walk." Michael obliged. Can you imagine the excitement of the little fellow seeing his idol doing the moon walk in a Kingdom Hall bathroom. When he came back to his seat his mother asked him why he was gone so long. He excitedly told her what had happened, but she didn't believe him and promised him a spanking later at home.

Along with the cute things that occurred, we heard the negatives-about how many of the Witnesses hounded Michael for money, or asked for his help to get them into show business, and then there were the Witness women who wanted to date him. Of course, the elders counseled these people. Moreover, they counseled Michael because of the large number of complaints from Witnesses across the country who were unhappy about the bad example Michael was setting by his lewd behavior on stage and in his shocking "worldly" videos.

However, many young Witnesses weren't complaining, but instead they emulated and worshiped the ground Michael walked on. This was the situation in the Flatbush area of Brooklyn where we attended meetings during our Bethel years and where there were 20 congregations in 2.2 square miles. Almost all of those who attended meetings there were black, most from the West Indies, some from Africa, or were African Americans, and too many of their children were fascinated with Michael Jackson. They had posters of him hanging in their rooms; they walked like him and sang his songs

Incidentally, it was the norm for these kids to discontinue their association with the religion as soon as they could, and it was thought that the actions of Michael Jackson were contributing to this exodus. To "mature" Witnesses he was a very bad example for the children in the organization. And this is the frame of mind that both my husband and I were in when Tim called to ask if we would like to go out in field service in Brooklyn with Michael Jackson.

I learned from Tim that Michael went in the field ministry wherever he had a concert, accompanied by two body guards who sat in the van while he called at homes. Tim knew the woman, a Witness, who made all the field service arrangements, and it was she who asked him to go out in service with the singer, plus, requested that a mature married couple also join them.

Of course, I was very excited about the prospect. I knew just what I wanted to talk to Michael about while we were walking door-to-door. First on the agenda was about his white gloved hand grabbing his crotch while performing on stage. I wanted to know why a man serious enough about his religion to do door-to-door evangelizing would do such a thing; or to lie on the floor wriggling sensuously; or to engage in such sexually provocative dancing; or to sing songs such as those on the "Thriller" album, which were so contrary to our belief system (to put it mildly). As a mother, my desire was to kindly share with him the anxiety parents were going through because their children were idolizing his "worldly" behavior.

That evening I told Joe about the invitation. To my surprise, he didn't show the slightest interest. I remember his words just like it was yesterday: "If I'm going out in service, I'll go to our congregation where I'm assigned. I don't go to other people's congregations just to work with a celebrity, no matter what the reason. You go if you want to, but I'm not! There are many couples who might want to do this. What about some of the elders and their wives in Tim's congregation? We had lunch with Brother and Sister So & So when I gave a talk there. They have children whose conduct they are concerned about. And since Tim is taking Michael in field service in his congregation's territory, it's more appropriate to ask them."

No amount of cajoling could change his mind. Again Joe told me to go if I wanted to, that he didn't mind. However, I decided against it because Tim wanted a married couple. I just didn't feel that it was proper to go without my husband, although when I told Tim about Joe's reaction, he still asked me to come, but I said no, that I thought Joe's idea was good-Tim should ask some Witnesses in his congregation.

A few days after Tim took Michael out in service, he told me what happened. And, yes, he did follow Joe's recommendation and the couple Joe had suggested went out with them. They all went in a large van, which no one could see into, and Michael had on a hat with a large brim that he pulled down over his face. At the first door Michael did the talking, and a young lady accepted the book. When she came back with some money she asked Michael if he had ever been told that he sure looked like Michael Jackson. He nodded and said that it happens all the time and they left.

Another cute experience happened when they were walking on the sidewalk outside of the apartments. A little fellow about six passed by them and when he looked at Michael he took a double take, kept walking and then backed up and looked again. Then he walked on shaking his head and muttering, "No, it can't be him."

One day, a few weeks later, I was walking to work with Leon Weaver, who is an African American. Leon worked in the Service Department and was part of the Service Committee. Before he came to Bethel many years before, I was told that Leon was in the circuit work.

Inasmuch as Leon was pleasant to talk to, I thought he might enjoy my tale of how I almost worked in service with Michael Jackson, and about the cute little experiences Michael had had in service. So I told Leon how Joe refused to go even though I thought we might be in a good position, Joe being a Bethel elder, to discuss with Michael how his actions on stage had such negative ramifications in the congregations. However, Leon told me that he was very surprised about Joe's attitude. He said he and Ruby would have liked to have spent time with Michael Jackson and would have certainly done so if Tim had asked him.

I took it for granted that Leon was interested in the opportunity to talk with Michael about the same troublesome things that I wanted to discuss-especially because he worked in the Service Department where it's part of his job to see to it that the elders enforce organizational rules for so-called Christian behavior. I mentioned to Leon that famous "white glove" of Michael's. Wow, was I ever thunderstruck when Leon pointedly told me that he would have liked to shake the hand that wore the white glove if he had had the opportunity. Further, he said something to the effect that he wouldn't have counseled the young man, but would have enjoyed being in the company of such a celebrity. I was surprised, to put it mildly, and said nothing more even though I felt as if I was being counseled for my nit-picking attitude.

That evening, I told Joe about the conversation I had with Leon. He was not in harmony with Leon's viewpoint, but we kept that to ourselves. It was at times like this that it would sometimes cross our minds that maybe we, along with many other JW families, took the organizational instructions too seriously. However, despite Leon's different perspective from ours concerning Michael Jackson, one which we then disagreed with, we continued to try to do what we thought God would expect of faithful Jehovah's Witnesses and advance what we thought was "pure worship without defilement of any kind."

Contributed by Barbara Anderson

 

 

 

 

 

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Reviewing of A History of Jehovah's Witnesses: From A Black American Perspective

Here is one book that is written from a unique perspective. It is entitled, A History of Jehovah's Witnesses: From a Black American Perspective by Firpo Carr, Ph.D. (Scholar Technological Institute of Research, Inc., 1992). The author is a black Jehovah's Witness from South Central Los Angeles who claims to have a Ph.D. and is a full-time pioneer. His parents say he was a child prodigy. Carr says he is completing his doctoral work in theology, but does not say where (the Watchtower forbids a Witness to study at formal theological schools. It also unofficially forbids the writing of a book like this!).

Carr attempts to document similarities between the Black Muslim movement and the Watchtower movement. He argues that Wallace D. Fard, founder of the Black Muslims, was influenced by the teachings of J.F. Rutherford, second president of the Watchtower Society. He quotes the book Elijah Muhammad: Religious Leader by Malu Halasa: "Though Fard may have embellished or exaggerated the details of his life, the origins of his teachings were not quite so mysterious. The Nation [of Islam] drew its principles not only from the Koran but also from the Bible, books about Freemasonry, and the philosophy of Joseph F. ('Judge') Rutherford, leader of Jehovah 's Witnesses." (Emphasis added by Carr)

Yet Carr remains unconvincing in drawing parallels between the Watchtower and the Nation of Islam. Aside from the strict monotheism of both religions as well as their revolt against the churches of Christendom, there appear to be few similarities. So what's the point? Carr begs the question. Interestingly, Carr does quote a few of the passages from The Watch Tower in C.T. Russell's time regarding the ridiculous views of the black man they held, such as how the black man would slowly turn white (sound like the Mormons, anyone?) After quoting a number of these and attempting to excuse Russell's ignorance, he says:

Shamefully, critics have misquoted this passage from the Society's literature in an attempt to misinform people, particularly blacks, who are interested in the teachings of the Bible as understood by the Witnesses. (See "Blacks and the Watchtower," Bethel Ministries Newsletter, July/August 1988, page 1, column 3, pp. 1 & 2.)

The only shame belongs on the organization who would print such racist nonsense in the first place! The claim of "misquoting" by Carr does not stand up, nor does he demonstrate how my article is a misquote. Carr attempts to answer why there have been no blacks on the Watchtower's prestigious Governing Body, yet does not answer the question. His most astounding claim is that there WAS a black man on the Governing Body-William K. Jackson! Picking myself up off the floor, I wondered how he came to this conclusion, having known Bill Jackson from my six years at Bethel (1974-1980) and he was as white as a sheet with no black features whatsoever. Carr's only defense was that Bill Jackson "openly stated that he was black." That is news to all of us who worked at Bethel. Perhaps Carr needs a second book to correct the incredible fantasies in his first one, if the Watchtower doesn't disfellowship him first.

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Ted Jaracz' Influence On The Rest Of The Governing Body

As yet there is no indication of any form of outright dissent within Bethel or the current leadership, but rumors are that GB member Ted Jaracz is the hard-line boss squelching all reform at present. He is in charge of the organization's "storm troopers," the Service Dept. One dissenter writes:

There is a big philosophical split between the Writing Dept. and the Service Dept. - liberals versus conservatives. The Writing Dept. (was) headed by GB member Lloyd Barry, who I've heard mixed reviews about. I've been told by people who know him that he's fairly hard-line or fairly soft-line. I suppose it depends on one's point of view. Ted Jaracz heads up the Service Dept. and those who have commented about him are unanimous that he's a hard-line (omitted). The other GB members call him "The Boss" and they aren't just making fun. Barry and Jaracz, and of course their respective departments, have major disagreements about how JWs should behave and how the JW organization should be run. The nasty, hard-line approach of the last 20 years is due almost entirely to Jaracz' dominance.

A couple of weeks ago when I was in New York I took some time and took the Bethel tours. While there I contacted the author of the Creation book. Naturally, I took him to task for the misrepresentations in his book, but was able to keep him talking for 1 1/2 hours. At the end, he told me that he (presumably this reflects the attitude of the Writing Dept. generally) was quite unhappy with how the elders in general don't follow the advice given in The Watchtower. It was surprising that he would admit this but no surprise that the Writing Dept. feels this way. It also shows the great gulf between the liberal and conservative camps, because the elders don't act just on what's in The Watchtower but on what they get from COs and in private letters from the WTS directly to elders. This all comes from the Service Dept. So whenever there are conflicting directions from the Writing Dept. in The Watchtower and from the Service Dept. via the CO and direct letter channels, naturally the elders will follow the privately-given instructions. This is how the elders have ended up with the extreme nastiness and conservatism of Ted Jaracz. The amazing thing is that the Bethel people like this author don't seem to understand this. They seem to think, in the usual JW fashion, that God will fix everything in due time. So this lunatic attitude on the part of the leading WTS "thinkers" filters down to the JW community and sets the tone... In my opinion we're going to see some big cracks open up within 2-3 years after 2000, with increasing unrest until then.

Jaracz, however, is one of the youngest of the GB members. Perhaps before his light fades away his rule will be toppled, much as happened to Knorr in 1975. All it really takes is a change of assignment, a tactic used at Bethel to move people in and out of key positions. Sometimes your greatest danger is from those you work alongside.

 Ted Jaracz v Jack Barr - Governing Body Showdown

Barbara Anderson describes:

And Jack Barr, whom we considered a personal friend, was a kindly man but walked in Barry’s shadow and did his bidding. Unfortunately, he was weak—not the proverbial “iron fist in a velvet glove,” but a “limp fist ...”. Barr’s dispositional weakness became evident during a time when Lloyd Barry was out of town and it took three senior writers to put enough pressure on Barr, as next in command, to keep the factory press room from capitulating to Ted Jaracz’s orders not to print the April 8, 1992 Awake!, which contained material Jaracz did not support, although he was out of line by making such a demand. The job assignment of each Governing Body member was clearly delineated and Writing Department editorial decisions were not Jaracz’s business, just like decisions of the Service Department, under Jaracz’s command, were not the affair of Barry, Barr or Klein.

Ted Jaracz And Mental Health Counselors 

Barbara Anderson describes 

Another topic discussed in that Awake! was a strange occurrence commonly known as “repressed memories” and that subject did not sit well with many influential Witnesses. From what Lee said, and corroborated by personal letters from survivors of abuse and from their therapists, many Witness victims reported having memories of events of abuse which happened years before when they were children. The dependability of these “memories” became a center of debate and controversy among mental-health professionals, and, also, within the Watchtower organization. At headquarters, the congregations are supervised by the Service Department. It was men from this department, directed by Governing Body member, Ted Jaracz, who generally spoke in negative terms to elders who asked about the repressed memories anomaly. In fact, I was told Jaracz was a proponent for the Against Repressed Memories organization. It was not until Harry proved the Against Memories organization had been discredited by investigators that no more was said on the topic. 

Ted Jaracz And the United Nations Scandal

Barbara Anderson describes:

It used to take about seven months, counting from the time a WT staff writer received a magazine article assignment until the printing of the actual WT or Awake!. Accordingly, we can assume that this UN/NGO matter was in the works from the beginning of 1991 or before. Whose idea it was, I have no way of knowing, but I will say that there had to be many people at the very top of the organization who were deeply involved. Although only the Governing Body Writing Committee (at that time made up of GB members, Barry, Barr and Klein), was required to authorize the writing of the articles on the UN, Ted Jaracz also had to know about this UN/NGO business, because one of the signatures on the UN/NGO agreement was Robert Johnson, who was in the Service Department, which department Ted Jaracz directs. Bob was and still is a very important man in the Service Department, and Bob Johnson takes his marching orders from Ted Jaracz. 

Ted Jaracz And Child Abuse Policy

Barbara Anderson describes the day the helpers to the Governing Body were announced:

Later, I came to call that day ‘Black Wednesday’ because, if you will, just imagine the disappointment of the men who were not chosen! From the moment all the “mature overseers from the great crowd who have gained a wealth of ability and experience” in Bethel read that Watchtower in their rooms, they were anxiously awaiting the announcement to see if they were going to be one of the ‘selected few’ assistants to the Governing Body, and no more so than the senior writers in the Writing Department where I was assigned to work at that time.
On that special day in April, Joseph Eames, Robert Pevy, and Gene Smalley were appointed to be assistants to the Governing Body Writing Committee. Later on when I arrived at work, many of us were saddened by the behavior of some of the men who were not asked to be part of this privileged group. As an example, John Wischuck, senior writer, who held one of the most important assignments in the Writing Department as a Watchtower magazine compiler, was so upset he didn’t do a lick of work. He spent his day going from office to office with coffee cup in hand lamenting over his rejection and receiving soothing words from his peers.
Harry Peloyan was visibly upset because he wasn’t chosen. He went to Lloyd Barry and asked him face-to-face why he wasn’t appointed. Lloyd said that Ted Jaracz blocked Harry’s appointment. And Harry knew why. It was because of his doggedness to get the Society’s sexual child abuse policies changed. 

Ted Jaracz On The Secret Child Abuser Database 

BBC Panorama devoted an entire program to the problem of child abuse in Jehovah's Witnesses. This section of the transcript is Jaracsz being 'doorstepped' by the program producer Betsan Powys:

 
BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): It was a long conversation and we asked if he'd be prepared to answer the same questions on camera. He refused. So it was back to America and back to a Jehovah's Witness convention in Tulsa. We'd been told we'd find a member of the Governing Body here. Ted JARACZ is one of the men responsible for the church's child protection policy. For more than two months we've been asking them for an interview. We want answers to some simple questions. Why do they keep their database of suspected pedophiles secret? Why don't they report all allegations of abuse to the police? Why do they send children back to the arms of their abusers? They refused to talk to us. But here at last we had our chance. Mister JARACZ, tell me about the database. How do you justify keeping a list of people, men in some cases who have confessed to pedophilia, but you have not reported them to the authorities. What justification is there for you to keep that list?

TED JARACZ (MEMBER OF THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): You know, you're from Britain. You have a privacy law. You have a directive from the European Union. You observe that, don't you?

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): So when allegations of abuse are made, is it alright to keep them private?

TED JARACZ (LEADING MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): I think you were answered. That question was answered strictly to your satisfaction.

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): Can you answer it now?

TED JARACZ (LEADING MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): I'm not going to repeat. I'll just tell you exactly and you will see it in writing. It is all in print. You know the Bible says "Do not go beyond the things that are written."? We don't go beyond the things that are written.

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): And that was that. No doubt, no second thoughts. Just a simple belief that Jehovah will sort it out, a belief for which others, younger and more vulnerable, may continue to pay a price.

BILL BOWEN (JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ELDER 1984-2000): They're living in denial, denial of what's happening to their children, and it's not a matter.. you see, if they accept that, then they accept that there is a problem. So rather than admit that there's a problem, they will just let children go on and continue to be molested and not do anything about it.

Gene Smalley And Blood Policy

Although not on the Governing Body, Smalley is the Watchtower expert on blood and dictates what medical treatment is permissible  for over 7 million people.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/medicine/gene-smalley-and-the-watchtower-s-blood-transfusion-doctrine.html

The Jehovah's Witness blood policy dictates that any of the so-called four primary components are banned. Read why one Medical Doctor thinks this is arbitrary nonsense and not in line with current medical science:

http://www.ajwrb.org/6-15-04.shtml

The author Dr Muramoto is a staff neurologist, lead physician, and a member of the Regional Ethics Council, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon.

Kerry Louderback-Wood, an attorney who lost her Jehovah's Witness mother as a consequence of Gene Smalley's policy writes here on the little known fact that Jehovah's Witnesses DO accept blood therapy in certain circumstances.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/medicine/jehovahs-witness-accept-blood-–-a-little-known-fact.html

Join the discussion online about Gene Smalley and the Watchtower blood policy that has killed thousands here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/131789/1/Gene-Smalley-and-the-Watchtowers-Blood-Transfusion-Doctrine

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

The following was posted at my guest list the other day, by a producer of a new documentary that is pro-Witness and may go out on PBS. We need to write these people!

Date: 28 Jun 2005

Time: 20:19:32

Remote User: Comments

Subject: "Knocking" A Documentary Coming soon to PBS "

I emailed the producer of "Knocking" and received this (thought you might be interested): Thanks for your interest in the KNOCKING documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm Joel Engardio, director of the project. Since the http://www.knocking.org/ web site went live a few days ago, I've been hearing from Jehovah's Witnesses like yourselves from Arizona to Arkansas and everywhere in between. Some have commented that the film clip downloads don't work. The site is brand new, and is still a work in progress. Check back from time to time to see new bells and whistles. Also, please note that my email address will change in a few weeks to joel@knocking.org. It's been great to hear from so many Witnesses around the United States. Hopefully word will spread to other countries in Europe and beyond. Please feel forward the link http://www.knocking.org/ to all your friends far and wide.

Beyond a national broadcast on PBS in the United States, my goal is to make the film available to international audiences with language subtitles. Indeed, Jehovah's Witnesses are in more than 200 lands, and their story about blood, the Holocaust and preservation of civil liberties resonates around the globe. The aim of KNOCKING is to give a general, non-Jehovah's Witness audience a fair look at a religious group that has long been misunderstood and relegated to cartoonish stereotypes. KNOCKING uses the real life stories of real families to humanize Jehovah's Witnesses. We show both the ups and downs, including what it is like to have unbelieving or opposing family members, and how divided families can find common ground.

For instance, the young man who does a groundbreaking bloodless liver transplant has opposing family members who come to the hospital to see first-hand that the new bloodless technology works. I think KNOCKING will be educational and illuminating for a non-Jehovah's Witness audience, affirming for those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, and compelling and entertaining for all. I imagine Jehovah's Witnesses will enjoy the film and will want their extended family, neighbors, co-workers and classmates to take a look as well. We will eventually offer DVDs for home and school use. There will be a special introductory rate for Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll be sure to send more details on that later. In the coming months, I'll send periodic newsletter updates on the film. If you don't want these updates, just write back and tell me to take you off the mailing list.

As of June 3, 2005, the film is being edited in San Francisco. We finished production earlier this year. Throughout the course of the project, we filmed in California, Georgia, Ohio, New York, Nevada, and Texas as well as Austria and Poland. We may have filmed in your congregation or at one of your conventions! Throughout the summer we will continue to edit, crafting more than 200 hours of footage into a 60 or 90 minute final film. Thankfully, the DVD will be able to retain all the wonderful additional scenes and interviews that end up on the cutting room floor.

The film will be delivered to PBS in the fall, and it will be entered in film festivals such as Sundance. In early 2006, we hope the film will premiere at a prestigious film festival. The national television broadcast on PBS would follow later in 2006. Between a film festival premiere and the national broadcast, we hope to bring KNOCKING to cities throughout the United States for special screenings in community event theaters. This will be a chance for you to see a sneak preview and perhaps meet some of the film's subjects in a live Q&A session. The KNOCKING web site and messages like this email to you will provide information about where and when the sneak previews will take place.

If you are interested in organizing such a screening in your city, please contact me directly and we can talk more about how to make that happen. I plan to use local volunteers to organize these screenings. Please keep in mind that every Jehovah's Witness who has contributed to this film, either on camera or behind the scenes, has done so by their own personal choice. There is no official connection to Watchtower, though the Bethel organization in Brooklyn, Patterson and Wallkill, New York has been cooperative with the producers of this film. It is important to know that this project is independently produced for public television, using public funds. We feel this lends added credibility to the film when viewed by a non-Jehovah's Witness audience. No one on the production staff is a Jehovah's Witness. The director's mother, however, is a Witness in Michigan.

I look forward to seeing the positive impact this film has in telling the untold stories of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope you do, too. Thanks again for contacting us, and the KNOCKING staff will be sure to keep you up to date on the latest progress.

Sincerely, Joel P. Engardio Producer/Director

AND she sent me this: I replied to the newsletter from the producer of "Knocking" and asked if he was a Witness, and if not, why make the movie. Here is his reply: I'm not a Witness, but my mother is. As a jouralist and filmmaker, I am moved by the incredible untold story of Jehovah's Witnesses. A good story is a good story, period. Joel

Barbara Anderson has two replies below it:

Date: 01 Jul 2005

Time: 12:41:32

Remote User: Comments

Dear Sirs, I'm writing regarding your documentary, KNOCKING. I'm sure you spent a tremendous amount of time and money on this production, and I certainly wish that I could congratulate you on your efforts, but I can't. I'm so sorry that before you embarked on this project you were not privy to another viewpoint about Jehovah's Witnesses, the one that comes from those who know from first hand experience that what you have been told and what you presented about this organization is not 100% correct. Of course, many statements you made on your web site regarding the subject of your documentary are true. However, you have not been told the whole truth, but many half-truths. Also, as a professional researcher, I can prove that some of the things you think are true about Jehovah's Witnesses is revisionist history.

I know what I'm talking about because of my past 43 years as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, many of those years spent living and working at the world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn, NY. I have attached a transcript of a lecture I gave last year in Washington State to a group of people from many parts of this country who were deeply interested in Jehovah's Witnesses for diverse reasons. The attached transcript of my lecture explains who I am and what I did in the Watchtower Writing Department in Brooklyn, NY. It also explains why I'm embroiled in a lawsuit against all of the legal entities of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., the corporations representing Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm not a disgruntled ex-Jehovah's Witness who has an axe to grind. I'm the foremost whistleblower who uncovered the massive cover-up of pedophile activities within the Watchtower organization. I spoke out in 1992 on the TV program Dateline and continue to do so even at great personal cost and risk. I can substantiate my claims 100% and I think it might be wise for you to consider to include in your documentary the story about the other side, the secret side, of Jehovah's Witnesses before you offer your documentary to PBS stations, or you will be very embarrassed in the future as the facts start to unfold in courts across this country.

Please, I beg of you, read my lecture, and let me hear from you. I will be most happy to kindly discuss this and other important issues that are bedeviling the Witness organization at this time.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Anderson

Date: 01 Jul 2005

Time: 12:43:22

Remote User: Comments

Dear Sirs, I'm writing to correct a typographical error that I made in an e-mail which I sent you the other evening. In the third paragraph, I stated that I appeared on the TV program Dateline in 1992. Actually, it was 2002. I should know better than write a lengthy letter late in the evening after a very busy day. (In 1992, I was part of the Watchtower Writing staff in Brooklyn, NY and it was the year when I discovered the pedophile cover-up, so I guess I had that year on my mind as I was writing you.)

My reason for sending an e-mail to you that evening was due to the many e-mails and phone calls I've been receiving from people who are very unhappy about your documentary, KNOCKING. That particular day, KNOCKING was the subject of a lengthy conversation which left me feeling quite sad over the fact that the religion I followed for most of my life has caused so much unhappiness in the lives of too many people. In a letter you wrote to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which was forwarded to me, you propose through your documentary to "humanize" Jehovah's Witnesses by presenting a "fair look" at a "misunderstood" group. That says to me you want to present this organization in a positive light, something I find offensive. Individually, most of Jehovah's Witnesses are good people, but together as a closed religious community, they have proved by their group actions to be harmful to everything our society holds sacred.

I know that you are still editing the documentary. I hope there is still time for you to do more research on your subject, and not from apologist sources, but outside of the Witness camp. The research I had in mind concerns more on Jehovah's Witnesses' "story on blood, the Holocaust and preservation of civil liberties."

Regarding blood, you have been told that Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. The majority of Witnesses, including myself, before I looked carefully into the numerous changes in the teaching, have no idea that as of the year 2000 the Watchtower Society made two significant changes in its blood doctrine.(1)

I quote the following information from a friend of mine, a former leading Jehovah's Witness elder here in the United States, who has quietly slipped away from the organization rather than speak out openly and be disfellowshipped and shunned by his family. I believe he sent you this material on the matter of blood recently, but I'm sending it again to remind you that there is more to the story than what the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses let on.

In 2000, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:

1. Dumped a decades old policy that blood completely removed from a person should be disposed of.⁽²⁾
2. It dumped a decades old policy that donated hemoglobin should be abstained from.⁽³⁾

Ramification

Today it is a lie for the Watchtower Society (WTS) to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from accepting transfusion of whole blood, erythrocytes, leukocytes, platelets or plasma. Why? Because the WTS no longer forbids Jehovah's Witnesses from accepting transfusion of these so long as it is part of a "current therapy" and it is autologous blood. Examples of this include Jehovah's Witnesses accepting nuclear scanning of red and/or white blood cells. This process requires removal of a portion of red and/or white cells so they can be exposed to radioisotopes. The nuclear charged red and/or white cells are then transfused back to the patient for later scanning.

Another ramification is that Jehovah's Witnesses can freely use hemoglobin based oxygenation therapies, which has already saved lives among Jehovah's Witnesses.

The average Jehovah's Witness does not realize these significant changes, and indeed every active Jehovah's Witness asked responds that if blood is completely removed from a patient it is a grave sin to transfuse it. When asked how they would respond were the WTS to jettison the teaching that blood removed must be disposed of, the universal answer is, "The WTS would never do that!" Today there is no part of blood the WTS requires Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first.(4) This leaves important questions unanswered by the WTS:

1. Why does the WTS persist in teaching Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of the world that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood when it knows perfectly well that Jehovah's Witnesses use products from blood all the time?
2. Given that the WTS requires Jehovah's Witnesses to respect Jehovah's Witnesses for literally using everything from blood so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first, why does it impose any prohibitions on using blood under threat of congregational shunning?

References:

^1. See Questions From Readers in the June 15 and October 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower journal

^2. "...if blood is removed from the body, it should be disposed of, comparable to the Israelites' pouring blood out on the ground."-Anonymous, Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., 1982, 6/15: 31

^3. "It would be right, of course, to avoid products that listed things such as blood, blood plasma, plasma, globin (or globulin) protein, or hemoglobin (or globin) iron."-Anonymous, Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., 1992, 10/15: 31

^4. An acceptable line item on the year 2000 Durable Power of Attorney provided Jehovah's Witnesses by the WTS includes this option: "I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood."

Additionally, on the subject of blood and regarding your advertisement for KNOCKING, exactly how does an instance of one of Jehovah's Witnesses utilizing the best medicine has to offer--your show's example surgical technique--address a religious teaching that in many cases forbids Jehovah's Witnesses from utilizing the best medicine has to offer? For your program to accurately illustrate the cause of complaint regarding the Watchtower Society's blood doctrine, it will have to examine one of the many instances where it leads to avoidable disability or premature death because this is the area where objections lay. No one objects to Jehovah's Witnesses or anyone else taking advantage of advanced medical procedures.

Regarding the Holocaust, please read, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE THIRD REICH, SECTARIAN POLITICS UNDER PERSECUTION by M. James Penton. The author, a professor emeritus in the Department of History at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, speaks five languages and translated released German archival documents from the Nazi era. He proves without a shadow of a doubt that the leaders of German Jehovah's Witnesses, some of whom died in the camps, "were from the beginning quite prepared to support the Hitler government." The Witness propaganda has led people to believe that they "were united in their opposition to Nazism and did not collude with the Third Reich," but Mr. Penton proves otherwise. Jehovah's Witnesses' leaders were not politically neutral, and even the number of Jehovah's Witnesses that supposedly died in the camps was fictional.

And, last, but not least, if you read the attachment I sent along with my first e-mail, which contained a lecture I gave, you know that I complimented the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses for their fight for civil liberties for their organization, yet, they prohibit freedom of speech and freedom of religious thought for their members. It is this that causes divided families. There is no "common ground" when people are punished for disagreeing with their religion and when their families remain within the religion.

I'm sure after the release of KNOCKING you will receive many accolades from Jehovah's Witnesses. However, the negative publicity about this group is sure to come and it will be not be pleasant. There are just too many problems as of late connected with Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, there is the pedophile problem within the Witness group, but what about the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses and their hypocritical stance on the United Nations? Have you heard how, for many years, Jehovah's Witnesses have heatedly condemned the UN in their literature, portraying this organization as the notorious "Scarlet-colored wild beast" mentioned in the Bible book of Revelation, yet, in 1992, the Watchtower organization was accredited as an "associated NGO" with the UN's Department of Public Information? In order to gain this accreditation from the DPI committee in 1991/92, they "voluntarily" applied to the UN's DPI and voluntarily agreed to support the UN charter and disseminate UN information. In 2001, when this was made public, the WTS requested to be removed from the UN's DPI. Therefore, based on the WTS request, the UN "disassociated" the WTS from the DPI and thus, is no longer an "associated NGO" with the DPI. Since this information was made public in 2001, literally thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses have left the organization, many being disfellowshipped and shunned for "apostasy." And there is still an ongoing exodus because of the facts regarding Jehovah's Witnesses longtime UN association. Just this morning, I heard from a man who complained to the WTS about their UN association and the elders in the congregation where he attends were informed by headquarters to read the following sentence to the congregation, "John Doe is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Since March of 2005, this is the way people are disfellowshipped. Now my friend will be shunned by all Jehovah's Witnesses, including his large family and hundreds of lifelong friends.

Isn't the above information "educational and illuminating"? Perhaps you will make a sequel to KNOCKING and offer this other side of the story. Perhaps you will "humanize" me and my husband to Jehovah's Witnesses and also share with non-Jehovah's Witnesses how, after nearly a century of faithful adherence to every aspect of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, we were punished for telling the truth about the pedophile problem within our religion. And tell them that we went public because it was the last resort since the leaders would not change their policies, and members' children continued to be sexually assaulted by Jehovah's Witnesses' molesters. Consequently, for speaking out, we have not seen our son (who is a Jehovah's Witness elder) and his family and literally thousands of friends for nearly three years.

If your aim "is to give a general, non-Jehovah's Witness audience a fair look at a religious group that has long been misunderstood and relegated to cartoonish stereotypes," why don't you also give a non-Jehovah's Witness audience a fair look at former Jehovah's Witnesses and interview some of the tens of thousands of us so everyone can hear what we have had to endure at the hands of "misunderstood" Jehovah's Witnesses because we either left their organization or were disfellowshipped for "apostasy" as I was.

Also, why don't you interview some of the thousands of husbands and wives of Jehovah's Witnesses who are in court fighting to see their children because Jehovah's Witnesses (and their Witness attorneys) don't want "worldly mates" to have any influence in the raising of their children. And, while you're at it, interview some of the thousands of relatives of Jehovah's Witnesses who watched their loved ones die because of the Watchtower Society's misrepresented blood policy. In addition, interview some of the 1,800 victims of child sexual abuse (committed by Jehovah's Witnesses pedophiles), who have approached just one Texas law firm. And how about talking to some of the over 4,000 people who have contacted www.silentlambs.org about their molestation within this organization, almost all unreported to the authorities. And what about mentioning the over 20,000 files kept at Watchtower headquarters that describe each mostly unreported accusation of molestation in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and Canada. And, last, but not least, tell the world about the children of Jehovah's Witnesses who are emotionally pushed to baptism, some as young as seven years old, and, who, by the time they are teenagers, are disfellowshipped and shunned by their families and the only friends they ever had just because they committed some rebellious "sin." Let some of them tell you what their lives were like on the streets. And let them tell you about the psychological damage and need for therapy because of the self-loathing and guilt because they couldn't live up to the religion's demands. And, if the dead could speak, you could interview some who have committed suicide because they could no longer endure the isolation of shunning.

Joel P. Engardio, Producer/Director of KNOCKING, I dare you to expose your mother's and my mother's religion by telling the whole truth. If you are interested, I can help you by providing tens of hundreds of names and contact numbers of people more than happy to be interviewed for a sequel to KNOCKING.

Respectfully yours,

Barbara Anderson

RESPONSE July 1, 2005

Barbara -- Thank you for your letters. You raise some important issues, and I believe you do so with great agency since you spent so many years in service of Jehovah's Witnesses. The film KNOCKING will have criticism, organic to the unbelieving and opposing family members of the Jehovah's Witnesses our cameras follow. We interview both sides of the family in conjunction with the issues at hand. The intent of the film is to show a side of Jws that is not a cartoonish image. That means a full human treatment, including the ups and downs of day to day life of ordinary Jws put into extraordinary situations. This is the role of documentary film. Unfortunately, KNOCKING cannot tackle every issue that society in general, and the Jws in particular, grapple with. I understand your voice was heard on NBC Dateline in 2002, and that is a very far-reaching program to millions of viewers. Indeed, more than PBS. We cannot re-do the Dateline program. But we are sensitive to the valid criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. I encourage you to watch KNOCKING with an open mind. The program is not made for Jws or former Jws, that would be too much "inside baseball" for the average viewer. The program is for the public who only sees Jws on their doorstep from time to time, and might be curious about what is good and what is controversial about this group. KNOCKING takes a balanced approach. It does not promote nor does it denegrate.

Sincerely, Joel Engardio

UPDATE July 8, 2005 letter to Joel from Barbara

July 8, 2005

Dear Joel,

Thank you for your reply of July 1st acknowledging the important issues I raised, although you did not address any of the issues I raised. Unfortunately, it appears to me that KNOCKING will not "tackle" even one of the issues that I brought up which Jehovah's Witnesses "grapple with," although you said "...we are sensitive to the valid criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses." These valid criticisms, which you are sensitive about, must be the unreported and covered-up child molestation, the unfair disfellowshipping practices resulting in shunning, and the misrepresentations about the blood doctrine and the Holocaust. Apparently, you believe that these valid criticisms are too much "inside baseball" for the average viewer, so you will not touch them. Are you saying if the program was made for Witnesses or former Witnesses, you would discuss these valid criticisms? What is a documentary for but to inform the uninformed about critical issues. For the most part, Jehovah's Witnesses and former Jehovah's Witnesses know about the criticisms, but the general public does not. Accordingly, I believe you as a producer, who should be free from bias, must inform the public of the valid criticisms as well as "humanizing" those who are criticized.

If you are not a follower of Jehovah's Witnesses you sure seem like a supporter when you encouraged Witnesses to buy, at a special introductory rate, KNOCKING DVDs to show others, and said that you imagined Witnesses "...will enjoy the film and will want their extended family, neighbors, co-workers and classmates to take a look as well." This does not sound to me like the film will take on the critical issues that we have pointed out to you, the ones that Jehovah's Witnesses do not want non-Witnesses to know about. From other things you said as well, I believe that you will present a "feel good piece" about Jehovah's Witnesses because the film will mainly show the "ups and downs" of Witness families, such as "what it is like to have unbelieving or opposing family members," or how divided families can find "find common ground." I think that these are interesting aspects to consider, but they are not the critical issues we believe it is imperative to address in the film which might keep people from converting to such deceit.

It was never my intention to ask you to re-do the Dateline program. And I'm happy that KNOCKING will not "denigrate" Jehovah's Witnesses. All I ask is that KNOCKING does not "promote" Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be unfair journalism especially since you are using "public funds" to independently produce this film for PBS.

I will watch KNOCKING with an open mind and hope that my expressed opinions above are unjustified. It is my sincere wish that along with a compassionate film, you will also make a provocative one showing the non-Witness world the truth about the Witnesses' world as it really is, one based on frequently changed fantasy beliefs, unfair treatment of critics, a child abuse mess, and misrepresentation in the matter of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood doctrine and organizational history, just to name a few.

Thank you for listening.

Barbara Anderson