Questions for the four sets of issues:
Spiritism, True Worship,
United Worship, the Wild Beast
Questions
For The Photocopies On Spiritism
Page . . .
1) April 1, 1994, The
Watchtower, page 31:
"I think I understand this page and agree with it. But it is one
of the points I would like you to clarify because it sounds different from
another page I have and I want to be absolutely certain of what you believe.
This says a Christian should not quote or use statements that originate
with demons or spirit mediums. Or at least that is what I thought it meant.
But I don't have that right, do I?"
2) July 30, 1924 The
Golden Age, page 702:
"This is getting into what puzzled me. Here is a review of a book
called Angels and Women. It seems to have been recommended by a Pastor
by the name of Russell. Then it says the book is beneficial because it throws
light on certain Biblical subjects. It was published by a friend of Russell.
Then it mentions how to get a discount by buying it in lots of ten or more.
The next page tells more about this book."
3) December 3, 1924, The
Golden Age, pages 150, 151:
"This next Golden Age says this book was dictated by a demon.
Then a person asks — since your church was able to get a discount when buying
10 or more, would it be a good idea to give them away as Christmas gifts?
In the reply it claims the book was in harmony with the Bible and Pastor
Russell supervised his close friend in revising the book and publishing
it. So this friend went into marketing the book. Your church recommended
it, said it helped one to better understand the devil's organization and
many have derived benefit from reading it. On the previous page I saw the
name Judge Rutherford. I seem to recall hearing that he was a prominent
teacher in your church then. Do I understand this right that these prominent
teachers supported this recommendation to distribute this book? I wondered
if this meant that if you felt the demon's message was true then it would
be alright to distribute the message? But that would be different from the
first page we looked at (April 1, 1994, The Watchtower, page 31)
that said even if it was true one should not pass on stories told by demons.
And is this not what the Bible calls paying attention to demon inspired
messages, something we are not supposed to do? — I don't understand what
all this means. Does God approve of distributing messages from demons or
not?"
4) Foreword to Angels
and Women, pages 4 and 5:
"This is supposedly the forward to the book. It repeats that the
book was dictated to a spirit-medium by a demon and discusses what demons
do to trick people. . . . From the other articles we saw before I guess
your church no longer approves of the persons that were behind this. Right?"
5) March 15, 1990 The
Watchtower page 13, 14:
"In paragraphs 15 and 18 it seems to be talking about the same time
period as when the book Angels and Women was in the process of being
published. It says this was the time when Jesus inspected your church and
found it was warning people about the dangers of spiritism. From this I
wondered if your church teaches this book was one of those ways used to
warn people about spiritism. Is that what this means?"
6) February 15, 1979, The
Watchtower, page 8:
"This article is also about the evils of spiritism. It appears to
say if a Christian were to consult a spirit medium he would not be fighting
the demons as he should. Any books that quote from a demon-influenced spirit
medium should be destroyed. Christians should shun anyone who claims to
get communication from the invisible spirit world, even if the person thinks
it is God's spirit world. I concluded from all this a person must reject
demonic material or be rejected by God. Did I misunderstand this?"
7) October 1, 1955 The Watchtower page 603:
"This next page seems to criticize the Catholic church for suggesting
that some of its members have had communication with spirits who are in
the next life. I see the question for paragraph 32 at the bottom of the
page it asks about messages from Christians who have died. Then in paragraph
33 it says this belief, that one can receive information from Christians
who have died, is really an invitation to spiritism. Then it mentions an
ex-Catholic named Greber that got involved in spiritism and believed he
was getting communication from God's spirit world. Is this article condemning
all this or is it saying it is alright to get information from Christians
who have died? So if some Catholics believe they have received communication
from persons who have died and are now spirits, does God approve of that?"
8) Revelation - Its Grand Climax At Hand! (1988) pages
124-125:
"This next page really puzzles me. In the question for paragraph
17 at the bottom of the page it asks "the fact that the elder could
locate the answer suggests what?" Then in the paragraph the answer
appears to be that your church leaders claim to receive communication from
Christians who have died and are now spirits. My guess is you must have
changed your view on this since this other article was written in 1955.
Do you now believe your religious directors receive messages from spirits
who have gone to the next life? Does this mean your church has changed its
position on whether this is really spiritism? I don't mean to upset you
but I am trying to understand this. If someone were at your meetings where
this question 17a was asked and responded they felt this was a form of spiritism,
would that be a problem or not?"
9) February 15, 1956 The Watchtower pages 110, 111:
"This next article in paragraph 10 mentions a reference to Johannes
Greber ( 'Yo-han-ness Gree-ber') and how he was a spirit-medium who communicated
with the spirit world. It also says he did a translation of the New Testament
in 1937. The next paragraph then quotes from his demonic Bible and says
the spirits helped him do his translation. I think they are condemning this
demonic Bible, true?"
10) Make Sure of All Things
(1965) page 489; January 1, 1961 The Watchtower
page 30; September 15, 1962 The Watchtower
page 554; Aid to Bible Understanding
(1971) pages 1134 and 1669; The Word - Who is
He? According to
John (1962) page 5; October 15, 1975 The
Watchtower page 640; April 15, 1976 The
Watchtower page 231; Aid
to Bible Understanding (1987 Spanish edition)
page 1258:
"Here is another page that confused me. This next photocopy shows
several times where your church's publications referred to Greber's demonic
Bible (from 1961 to 1987). This first one is from a publication Make
Sure of All Things, the 1965 edition. This quote says that modern translations
make the meaning of John 1:1 clear. Then it lists three translations as
examples, one of them is Greber's demonic Bible. Of course now your church
does not use demonic material, even if it sounds true. So apparently at
that time you thought God would approve of this but now you say God did
not. Is that how you see this?"
"These other quotes all seem to be references where your church
quoted Greber for support of your teachings. Does this mean they changed
their view of him sometime after 1956, when your church condemned Greber,
and before 1961, when they started quoting him for support?"
11) Aid to Bible Understanding (1987 -
Spanish Edition, page 1258):
"This page again shows the 1987 edition of the Aid to Bible Understanding."
April 1, 1983 The
Watchtower page 31:
"Here is a question about Greber's translation and why it is not
being used anymore. The answer says they felt it was improper to use this
translation anymore for support because Greber relied on the demons for
help in doing his translation. But four years later the 1987 Spanish Aid
to Bible Understanding book used Greber's Bible. So I wondered if your
church was saying it was still alright to quote from Greber's demonic Bible
or not? I thought these other articles said if someone used material from
a spirit medium then God would reject that person because he had been unfaithful.
Also, what about these publications that quoted Greber like the Aid
book and these Watchtower magazines - if a person had these should
he get rid of them because they contain demonic messages?"
Questions For
The Photocopies On United Worship
Page . . .
1) June 1, 1994 The Watchtower page 11:
"I think I understand this page and agree with it. But it is one
of the points I would like you to clarify because it sounds different from
another page I have and I want to be absolutely certain of what you believe.
It makes the point if persons commit serious sins such as spiritism or idolatry
but are not repentant then God rejects them because their worship is not
pleasing to him. Next it talks about marks that identify true religion.
One of those marks is that the true church would worship only the one true
God."
April 15, 1995 The Watchtower page 18:
"This next article says God's standards do not change, especially
on idolatry. - Putting this together made me think this meant worshiping
someone other than the one true God would cause one to be rejected by God.
But I don't have that right, do I?"
2) Reasoning from the Scriptures (1985, 1989) page 218:
"This next page is the piece I am trying to fit in. This first article
says you believe Jesus is really Michael the archangel as mentioned in Daniel
and Revelation."
Theocratic Ministry School Schedule for 1990 page 4 for March
19 and April 16:
"I assume because of that, this school schedule mentions again Jesus
is Michael and he is not to be worshiped. So you believed Jesus is Michael
and he cannot be the one true God so Jesus must not be worshiped - is that
how you see it? Does that mean worshiping Michael would be false worship
and idolatry? - I am not trying to persuade you of anything and I am not
asking yet why you believe this, I am only asking what
you believe to be certain I understand this. Later we can discuss why
you believe this."
3) December 15, 1971 The Watchtower pages 759 & 760:
"I am guessing about this next page. This looks like it is quoting
from your charter and says the purpose of your church is to worship God
through Jesus. Because of the brackets around the word 'through' and because
of the next page I figured this meant your charter was changed when your
church stopped worshiping Michael. Is that what this all means?"
4) Amendment to the charter of the Watch
Tower Bible and Tract Society (signed October 2, 1944; added by order of
court February 15, 1945); obtained from the Recorder of Deeds Office, 101 County
Office Building, 542 Forbes Ave., County Office Bldg., Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2947:
"This claims to be the amendment to your church's charter. It starts
on this page describing its purposes. I see it was apparently signed by
Nathan H. Knorr as the President."
5) . . . continuing on next page of the
charter . . .
"On the next page it continues by saying the purpose of your church
is 'for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus'. At that
time did your church think Jesus was the one true God or was he Michael?
. . . It further says if anyone does not act in harmony with these purposes
they can be expelled. So it appears at that time if any member of your church
did not worship Michael they could be expelled. Is that what this is saying?
So this made me wonder if your charter has been changed since then. Do you
know? Did you get a copy of this charter when you joined your church? Could
I see it?"
Reasoning from the Scriptures
(1985, 1989) page 202:
"This second article quotes from the charter. Since this book quoted
it in 1989, could there be a more recent version of this charter? Or are
these amendments still considered current? I am really puzzled by this."
6) September 1 & 15 1893 Zion's Watch Tower (pages
1580 & 1581 in the reprints = pages 280-284 in the original magazine):
"This next page is taken from two pages of the 1893 Watch Tower.
Under the section "Our Chicago Convention" it seems to say your
church's original position was you worshiped Michael and his Father equally.
Was that your original position? But your position today is that bowing
in worship to an angel is idolatry and is therefore wrong. Isn't that what
you believe? . . . From the other articles we saw before I guess your church
no longer approves of the persons who taught this. Right?"
7) Preparation (1933) pages 328-329:
8) October 15, 1945 The Watchtower page 313 paragraphs 29, 30:
"The next page says in 1945 your church taught that angels are commanded
to worship Jesus. Then this article reasons that John 5:23 implies that
one must worship Jesus as they worship his Father. It appears from reading
the next page it was about 12 years later that your church came to its present
understanding. Does that fit with what you know?"
9) August 15, 1941 The
Watchtower page 252:
"Here too in 1941 this article says all the earth shall worship
the Son as he worships the Father. So apparently at that time you thought
God would approve of this but now you teach God did not. True?"
Make Sure Of All Things
(1953) page 85:
"And then in 1953 in this heading it says Christ is to be worshiped
as a spirit. I assume this meant he was worshiped as Michael, not as the
one true God. Right?"
"So my question is - While your church did appear to worship Jesus
equally to the Father, they worshiped him as Michael the angel and not as
the one true God. Was your church leadership united on this issue? If that
is true, does this all mean your church did for a time teach idolatry or
did God's standards on idolatry change or what? And if it was idolatry,
did God consider those who taught this to still be approved because 'once-approved-always-approved'
or were they guilty of false worship?"
10) Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand! (1988) page
36, side box:
"Since you see Jesus as Michael, this would explain the next page
that says you honor the Father more than Jesus."
August 1, 1991 The Watchtower, page 9 paragraph 7:
"This article says about the same thing. The greater honor is to
be given to the Father. I do understand the Father has a higher position
than Jesus but I don't know your view of John 5:23."
11) Worldwide Security Under the "Prince of Peace"
(1986) page 10 paragraph 16:
"I think I understand this now but I was a little surprised. This
seems to say Jesus is not the mediator for most people but he is the mediator
for a few. Is this because you see Jesus as an angel or what?"
February 15, 1964 The Watchtower page 109 paragraph 21:
"Since you see Jesus as an angel, that would explain this next article
too. It says your church is a people for the Father but not a people for
the name of Jesus. I kind of understand what you mean but it would help
if you could explain how you view these scriptures: Matthew 24:9; John 16:14;
John 20:31; Acts 1:8; and Acts 4:12?"
12) August 15, 1970 The Watchtower, page 493, paragraph
16:
"This next page is not about Jesus or Michael but it is about what
true worship is and how important is it. Just as I was worried about your
beliefs of worshiping an angel I was concerned about what I saw here."
"If I understand what your church is saying here then I would say
I agree. This has to do with Daniel and how he carried on true worship.
A law was established saying he could no longer pray according to his custom.
While he could have chosen to pray in secret, he did not. He disobeyed those
who told him to stop and risked his life to continue public prayer. To me
this is a vital part of true worship and no one has the right to tell us
to stop. At first I guessed your church was saying Daniel set the right
example here but I must be missing something because I do not understand
the other pages."
June 15, 1990 The Watchtower page 28:
"This statement has to do with the same subject of what worship
is and how important it is. If I understand this, I completely agree here
too. It says song and prayer at meetings are an important part of united
worship."
October 15, 1979 The Watchtower, page 20, paragraphs 7 & 8:
"This appeared to say the same thing. Your church does not stop
their customary worship just because someone wants to restrict them. It
further mentions the example of Daniel and how he would not stop his public
worship for anyone or any reason. Then it says faithful members of your
church do not stop their public worship either. I assumed from this that
if the government allowed you to engage in public worship but a member chose
not to, then that member would be considered unfaithful. But when I looked
at the next few pages I figured I must be misunderstanding this whole issue
of what united worship is and if it is important."
13) 1995 Yearbook
page 212,213:
"This is what I could not put together. This seems to say even though
your church could meet freely for worship and prayer, your church leaders
wanted to convince the Mexican government you were not a religion so that
it could hold educational meetings in public buildings. To do this your
church leaders gave a directive to all the members, just like the one given
to Daniel, that they could pray in private but not publicly. They also had
to stop singing praises to God and stop using the Bible in their ministry.
Their meetings were not to be religious but only educational. This was only
in Mexico so they were not united with the rest of the church in the worship
aspect but only in the educational aspect. How does this harmonize with
these other articles about Daniel's faithfulness and how prayer and song
are essential parts of united worship? - I am really confused about this."
14) 1995 Yearbook
page 232-233:
"This says for 46 years until 1989 your church continued to be known
in Mexico as a civil organization and not as a religious one. Then they
changed and decided to be known again as a religion. The church leaders
then allowed your members to pray publicly and to sing again. So what I
want to understand, do you say Daniel was faithful for disobeying that directive?
What about your members in Mexico, were they faithful or unfaithful?"
Questions
For The Photocopies On Neutrality
Page . . .
1) June 1, 1994 The Watchtower, page 12, paragraph 17:
"I think I understand most of what is on this page but I wanted
to be certain. This article discusses churches that have involvement in
politics and war. Does this paragraph mean if a religion supports war in
any way at all a person interested in true worship should completely
break ties with it, even if one has friends in the church and has learned
a lot from them."
1986 Yearbook page 112:
"This article seems to be an actual example of that. It tells about
a person who was in some church during World War 1 and his minister
prayed for victory for the Allied armies. This fellow disagreed with
that and left to join your church. Do you believe he did the right thing
or would you say he left for a trivial reason?"
September 1, 1971 The Watchtower page 532:
"This says to keep integrity one must loyally maintain strict
neutrality. Then there is an example of how this mother and son did
not even want to appear to be militaristic. While the officials in charge
of the school thought this was being too strict the article says they were
rewarded for holding to their religious convictions. So does your church
today put emphasis on maintaining strict neutrality? I know some churches
are not very strict and if someone is strict, they would not be welcome.
If someone was very strict on being neutral in your church would that
be a problem or would they still be welcome?"
July 15, 1950 The Watchtower page 216:
"This next article says your church refused to go along with the
U.S. President to pray for peace during World War 1. From this it appears
in 1914 your church was neutral towards war. True? Today, do you
see praying for peace during war time to be a serious wrong or only a minor
problem?"
2) March 15, 1990 The Watchtower page 13 paragraphs 15,
16, 18:
"In paragraph 15 it says Jesus inspected the churches in 1918. Then
it goes on to ask if churches that supported war in 1918 could be acceptable
to Jesus. I think the paragraph answers with 'No.' Then in paragraph
18 it asks who was feeding people good spiritual food in 1918? I get the
feeling this is looking at history to see if there were any churches that
were neutral. But I was not absolutely sure of the answer."
"I am struggling with this because the other articles I have, seem
to say that in 1918 when Jesus was looking for a church free from involvement
in war, your church was recommending buying war bonds and praying for the
Allies to win. That did not seem to fit the previous page where it said
one must maintain strict neutrality and if a church was not neutral -
like in praying for victory or for buying war bonds - then that would
be a reason to leave a church. Do you see why I am puzzled by all this?"
3) June 15, 1987 The Watchtower page 15, paragraph 3:
"This appears to say your church advocated praying for the Allied
armies to win the war. Does this mean your church changed its view between
1914, when they would not pray for victory, and 1918, when they
would? So in 1918 did Jesus not find a church that was strictly neutral
towards war and politics?"
4) June 1, 1918 The
Watch Tower page 174:
"This seems to be the actual article mentioned on the previous page
where your church members were encouraged to pray for one side to win the
war. . . . From the other articles we saw first, I guess your church
no longer approves of the persons who taught this. Right?"
5) May 15, 1918 The
Watch Tower page 152:
"This article is a message from the President of your church.
Here he discusses the Liberty Loan and the buying of Liberty Bonds. First
he says many members of your church had bought the war bonds. Then
he says 'When the Government asks to borrow his money and gives its promise
to pay in the nature of a bond, if he can do so he should buy the bond.
. . . The Association believes in supporting the Government in every way
it can.' Down below he says staff members at your church headquarters
set aside 25% of their monthly allowance to buy these war bonds. So
apparently at that time you thought God would approve of this, but now
you believe God did not. True?"
6) June 1, 1918 The Watch Tower page 168:
7) March 1, 1919 The
Watch Tower page 67:
"This article says your church at that time 'was not opposed
to the methods used by the government in carrying on the war.' It also
tells about how some members wanted to be neutral over the issue
of buying war bonds but this Watchtower article
criticizes them and says this was a very trivial reason to withdraw
their support. I am not sure what this all means when I try to understand
the first page we saw."
8) October 1, 1984 The Watchtower page 22:
"This article in 1984 by a Mr. Karl Klein talks about
that time when your church was advocating the war bonds. It comments that
the directors of your church did not clearly understand the issue of neutrality
but some members did understand it. He adds that these ones who wanted
to leave your church over the buying of war bonds were not being loyal and
he criticizes them. To me it sounds like he is saying something different
from the first page we saw (June 1, 1994 The Watchtower, page 12,
paragraph 17). There it said to be loyal one must maintain strict neutrality
and if a church is not neutral then break ties with it. I am really
confused. Has your church changed since 1984 on what loyalty to God means
on the issue of neutrality? What do you believe today? Who did the right
thing, those who advocated buying war bonds or those who broke ties because
the church was supporting war? - I am confused as to what you believe now."
9) The Encyclopedia Americana International
Edition, 1995, Vol. 17 page 305; The book The
War Period of American Finance 1908-1925 by Alexander
D. Noyes, 1926, page 183:
"These two items just explain what the Liberty Loan was and how
it was for the purpose of financing World War 1."
10) August 1, 1967 The Watchtower page 454:
"I have heard of the wild beast and I think this is saying the League
of Nations and the United Nations make that up. True? Then this seems to
be speaking about true Christians and how they have not been marked in
the head for supporting the League of Nations in either thought or word.
They have been without spot. This article added that true Christians
took the course exactly opposite to what the religious institutions
of the world have done. My question is - When this talks about Christians
who did not support the League of Nations in either thought or word, who
is this talking about? I thought just about all churches gave some
kind of support or admiration to the League of Nations when it was first
proposed, including yours."
September 15, 1971 The Watchtower page 560, paragraph 8:
"This tells of churches that said things that attributed prophetic
acts of God's kingdom to the League of Nations. Then it said your church
consistently exposed the League for what it was, a disgusting thing.
But if all churches admired the League when it was first proposed, then
does this mean your church only admired the League for a time and
then consistently exposed it? Is that what this means?"
October 1, 1983 The Watchtower pages 15 & 16, paragraph 9:
"This paragraph quotes Revelation 17:8 and says the admirers
of the image of the wild beast will suffer destruction. But what if
a church only admired the wild beast for a short time? Could it get
the mark removed and not suffer destruction?"
11) February 15, 1919 The
Watch Tower page 51:
"This is the page that puzzled me. The second paragraph starts out
by saying your church could not help but admire the high principles
embodied in the League of Nations. It goes on to mention how wonderful
its goals were and lists them. Then the last part says what the League was
proposing to do was the same as what God's kingdom will do on earth after
the great time of trouble. Do I understand this right? Then were my guesses
correct? At first your church was like other churches in that it admired
the wild beast but later it did the opposite and began to consistently
expose the League. Thus it got the mark of the beast removed. True?"
12) August 22, 1995 Awake!
pages 6,7:
"This article talks about the World War II time. It mentions Hitler
coming to power and how your church had a convention in Germany soon after.
Your church then made a statement to Hitler about its intentions. It then
adds your position at that time was 'immovable neutrality' and refused
to support the German ideology. But I must have misunderstood this because
of what this next article says."
1934 Year Book
pages 130-131:
"This tells of a document written by your church's president that
was unanimously adopted at that convention in Germany. The declaration was
then sent to the German government. That declaration is reproduced here
in English and says some puzzling things."
13) 1934 Year
Book pages 134-136:
"Here it says that the most oppressive empire is the United States
and Britain. Things must have changed quite a bit since the
June 1, 1918 Watchtower that said the United States
was divinely ‘shadowed with wings.' Then it says the Jews are to
blame for the world's problems. It next says your church's position
and the German government's position were similar. On the next page
it says instead of being against the principles advocated by Nazi Germany,
your church stood squarely for them. Do I understand this right? How
does this harmonize with the Awake! article on the previous page?"
April 22, 1997 Awake!
page 11:
"This article really puzzled me. It says that your church has been
consistently neutral since the turn of the century through the two world
wars. The title indicates that this identifies the religion approved
by God. So does this mean your church truly has been consistently neutral
since 1900 or what?"
"In putting this altogether, if I took the strict position that
one must be absolutely neutral in order to be loyal and faithful to God,
then I would have to say all these actions and the persons behind them were
not faithful or loyal. But if I took this strict neutral stand, would I
be welcome in your church?"
| 
