Michael Jackson - Is He a Jehovah's Witness in Good Standing?
Michael Jackson - JW in Good Standing?
Jehovah's Witness views of disfellowship or disassociation are well known
"Dr" Firpo Carr - a JW in good standing - defending Michael Jackson in public. He couldn't do that if Michael was not a Jehovah's Witness!
Jehovah's Witnesses completely shun any member that becomes disfellowshipped or disassociated as required by church policy. With the recent use of JW spokesman there is an indication that Michael Jackson has been reinstated as a JW in Good Standing.
The guidelines of the organization are very clear. Note the comment in the organization's website:
*** Official Jehovah's Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, July 20, 2002 ***
Beliefs-Frequently Asked Questions
Do you shun former members?
Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: "Remove the wicked man from amon g yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family changes, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.
Note that "someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers". How then, is Firpo Carr allowed his spokesman? Firpo Carr is a long standing member of Jehovah's Witnesses has pioneered for many years and authored several books that defend the organizations polices on racism. According to CNN he is a spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson's family " something that could not go on if Michael Jackson was not a member in "Good Standing" with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Read the story on CNN, where Firpo Carr comments.
Firpo Carr says among other things this:
He's so concerned with the children, not only his own, but all children. He wants to shield them from this negativity, that could eventually be damaging to them in later years. They love their father. They hate to be without him ... they are so fond of him and he's fond of them and, as I've mentioned, all children.
It would appear that Firpo Carr is employed by the Jackson family, what does the organization say about working for a disfellowshipped person? Note comments from the 1981 Watchtower regarding employment as well as "sharing in the sins" of a disfellowshipped person,
*** w81 9/15 p. 24 DisfellowshipingýHow to View It ***
20 Other problems arise in connection with business or employment. What if you were employed by a man who now was expelled by the congregation, or you employed a person to whom that happened? What then? If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself. Also, this might impress on him how much his sin has cost him in various ways.ý2 Cor. 6:14 , 17.
*** w81 9/15 pp. 25-26 DisfellowshipingýHow to View It ***
NOT SHARING IN WICKED WORKS
25 All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: "He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works." 2 John 11.
26 Many of Christendomýs commentators take exception to 2 John 11. They claim that it is "unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit of our Lord," or that it encourages intolerance. Yet such sentiments emanate from religious organizations that do not apply God's command to "remove the wicked man from among yourselves," that seldom if ever expel even no tori ous wrongdoers from their churches. (1 Cor. 5:13) Their "tolerance" is unscriptural, unchristian. -Matt. 7:21 -23; 25:24-30; John 8:44 .
27 But it is not wrong to be loyal to the righteous and just God of the Bible. He tells us that he will accept "in his holy mountain" only those who walk faultlessly, practice righteousness and speak truth. ( P s. 15:1-5) If, though, a Christian were to throw in his lot with a wrongdoer who has been rejected by God and disfellowshiped, or has disassociated himself, that would be as much as saying "I do not want a place in God's holy mountain either." If the elders saw him heading in that direction by regularly keeping company with a disfellowshiped person, they would lovingly and patiently try to help him to regain God's view. (Matt. 18:18; Gal. 6:1) They would admonish him and, if necessary, "reprove him with severity." They want to help him remain "in Godýs holy mountain." But if he will not cease to fellowship with the expelled person, he thus has made himself "a sharer (supporting or participating) in the wicked works" and must be removed from the congregation, expelled.ýTitus 1:13 ; Jude 22, 23; compare Numbers 16:26 .
As pointed out in the 1981 Watchtower, employment would not be appropriate nor defending in anyway the integrity of a disfellowshipped person. So why then does Michael Jackson's brother and other family members, some of which are Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing, appear on TV defending him. This would be absolutely impossible if Michael Jackson was NOT a Jehovah's Witness. By defending him, they also accept his lifestyle and his choices and they support them in public. They share in his sin if he is disfellowshipped.
When Michael was asked in a 2001 TV guide interview directly if he was a JW he said "yeah" and went on to comment about his life as a JW. It is a well known fact that Michael Jackson disassociated himself in the mid-later 1980's but by the actions of recent note it appears that at some point he was reinstated to be able to receive the endorsements from his JW friends and family.
Let's just say Michael was NOT a Jehovah's Witness. This would put the Jehovah's Witnesses in an impossible situation. Many other families have to live with the fact they are not allowed to talk to their mother, father, sister or brother. All because of the Watchtower's shunning policy. That policy was reinforced by a August 2002 article in the Jehovah's Witness internal journal "Kingdom Ministry" it make the following comment in an article entitled, "Display Christian Loyalty when a Relative is Disfellowshipped,"
"3 This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved, God's Word states that we should 'not even eat with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person, this would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, or trip to the shops or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant. "
"4 What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah's view of matters: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, neve r r eceive him into your homes or say a greeting to him." Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15.1981, page 25, says: "A simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship- Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?"
Note the example given as to how to treat a mother,
"13 After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly siste r r ea liz ed that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Im mediately after the assembly, the man called his mother. and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized."
Does this mean the Jackson family and friends are an exception to the rule and do not have to live by the doctrine of the church while other member are required to follow these directives when dealing with their family members that may be disfellowshipped?
This would be a compromise of doctrinal integrity. Every JW and Ex-JW knows that and so does the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses
The only possible conclusion is: Michael Jackson is a Jehovah's Witness in good standing!
At a Thanksgiving dinner for the needy in Las Vegas , Nevada , Joe Jackson -- father of pop icon Michael Jackson -- told reporters that his son is a "good boy."
An interesting scenario arises if this is the case. Was Michael Jackson molested as a child? If so was it investigated by Jehovah's Witness elders as required by their guidelines on dealing with all abuse allegations? Note the comment from the Watchtower Website on dealing with abuse,
"When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the acc user to see what each says on the matter."
You may read the entire document at this link,
When a member confesses to child molestation the matter is then reported on a secret database the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain in their headquarters in New York . In most cases the crime is not reported to authorities. The database has been reported to contain over 23,720 instances of confessed molesters in the JW community. If Michael was molested what could have happened to assist him if the molester had of been properly reported to the police? Following this thought through, when Michael Jackson was first accused of child molestation in the early 1990's was he a witness in good standing then? If so then he most certainly would have had to submit to an elder investigation of the matter first. In the event he did meet with elders, did he confess to anything? If so is that information secretly held at the Jehovah's Witness child molester database in Brooklyn New York ? Would this information be helpful to the current investigation of abuse allegations against Michael Jackson?
The truth of these matters may never be known for as a religion the Jehovah's Witnesses child molester database is off limits to any law enforcements officer or Judge. They have used and will continue to use the first amendment of the US Constitution to guarantee their right to hide crimes against children as a religious right. In the recent associated press article dated 4-1-04 the Phillip Brumley the lead counsel for the Watchtower legal department made this comment,
"Philip Brumley, Watchtower's general counsel, says his religion cannot alter its beliefs and doubts secular courts will demand this."
"Do you change doctrine because someone feels something is more convenient, even if it's not in harmony with Scripture?" he asks."
Mr Brumley is patently stating, "To hell with the children we maintain our doctrine and will use the first amendment to protect our child molesters." The sad truth is if a church doctrine dictates committing crimes against children is this to be sanctioned by the courts of this land? How long a bloody battle in the courts will it take to make the simple point to all religion that the line has been crossed when the cover up of child rape is viewed as a directive from god.
Michael Jackson may be a sad result of these distorted directives supposedly mandated by the interpretations of men who say they are speaking for God. Watchtower officials have been strangely quiet when it comes to statements about the status of Michael Jackson with regard to the religion. When the accusation was put forth that he had converted to Islam it was quickly corrected, yet no official comment about his actual status as a member in good standing with Jehovah's Witnesses. The circumstance and doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the protection of child molesters in a secret database are publicly defended by their P R Spokesman JR Brown as well as lead Counsel Philip Brumley. The organization is currently spending hundreds of thousand of dollars defending the religious right to confidentiality of their child molester records in courts across the USA . If Michael Jackson has a record with the religion he will immediately benefit from Jehovah's Witness attorneys coming to his aid to spend millions in legal defense of any record they might have on him.
The core issue remains what are the civil rights of children? Do the rights of a religion supercede the rights of a child when it comes to the prosecution of rapists? Presently the religion's right prevails and to hell with the children. When Christianity wakes up and realizes that the very Bible edicts they profess are being compromised by the most simple teaching of Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:14, He reached out to children as a first priority and would never put them in the position that the Watchtower child abuse policy and any other institution that sees matter similarly is trying to do.
Children have rights; they might be termed as "civil rights" in that as individuals they should have a greater right to be protected by the laws of this country. When the civil rights movement happened in the 1960's it was due to the color of a man's skin and the commitment of thousands to stop the unjust oppression of the innocent. Should this fight for children rights have any less significance? The innocence and vulnerability of children should demand the adults in charge to do what is morally and ethically right. It appears some religions like Jehovah's Witnesses have lost the handle on how to do this. It is imperative that they be helped to "find the handle" by the proper interpretations of the US Constitution's first amendment and prosecute to the fullest extent of law anyone in religion or elsewhere that allows the non-reporting and cover up of crime.
Whatever the status of Michael Jackson in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses it is certainly apparent that inconsistency exists in how he is being treated by members of his family and friends. It is sad that the doctrine of shunning appears to be inconsistently dealt with while the policy of protecting child molesters remains inflexible as directed by the Governing Body leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is which doctrine or policy if either is being applied to the Jackson family?