For those unfamiliar with the earlier thread, it can be found here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/121203/1.ashx
I received an email today from "Ed" (names changed to protect the indoctrinated). I am copying here his first email and my response, followed up by the one received today. This one today, I don't even know what to say. He didn't respond at all to any of my evidence and reasoning that the WT has an extremely flawed character, to put it mildly. He definitely seems disconnected from reality. Not sure what he means by my having my head in the sand. I may not even respond to this one. What do you think?
From Edward/active JW for many years, but never a servant (7 September 2006)
Hi guys,
I received your info along with the picture and your personal history/experiences. None of it came as a shock to me, as we had talked about some of this before. I feel, in fact that we have gone through some of the same things and thoughts but have come to different conclusions and perhaps outcomes.
I knew about the U.N. thing already (and many other things). My take is that, like some other things, someone or some people there felt it was a good idea at the time so information could flow back and forth. In hindsight, a bad thing. The Governing Body is made of men who make mistakes, and sometimes scramble to cover them up. Guided at times perhaps, but they have made mistakes and will probably continue to make mistakes. Sometimes the consequences are bad and people are hurt. "Apostasy" and disfellowshipping is sometimes skewed to suit the needs of the organization because it is larger than the individual. Unity is at stake and the individual could take a hit. I didn't say it was always right. I marvel at the breakups of couples that are disfellowshipped for a time and then re-appear with different mates, are repentant and then are re-instated. Wrong, and then right, but you can see both sides. Those who may have been disfellowshipped for speaking out when the house was prepared so long ago for Abraham and others to be resurrected and live there were no doubt hurt. I'm sure there have been times when I think something went wrong, but if I had all the information it may appear otherwise.
I always wished that, instead of overreaching sometimes, the society should say, "this probably means", or "apparently", or "could mean". Maybe that's too wishy-washy, but there are some things I believe we can never be sure of until way later and CLEAR hindsight can be used. (deceased elder we both knew) said that many times. When you consider 1John 4:1 and related scriptures you know mistakes have been made.
I don't think that anyone or any organization has the whole truth. There's just too much to know and too many mistakes and miscalculations to make. My faith lies in the basics, not the things that I would consider icing on the cake if indeed they are true. In the end everyone will be judged by the heart, not where they are. This my opinion.
I could never be an elder and be as dogmatic as they may need to be at times.
Why do I still go to meetings and go out in service (not a lot of time there)? I still believe most of the things I've learned there, and if I wasn't there I would drift, wind down and do many things I shouldn't. When I see what other religions have, I feel fortunate, even with the problems. How many Muslims are there in the world? Catholics? Hindus? Buddhists? Others that put the flag above the creator and kill each other? How about "The Lord's Witnesses" that were sure the U.N. building was going to be destroyed by a nuclear weapon on a certain day last month. They urgently warned the NYC government, the U.N. and the Watchtower to clear out of town. It didn't happen and their posted warnings were removed the next day. On my car radio the other day I happened to hear a preacher pleading with his listeners to urgently take in his "new" information. He said many have been lied to, because God's name is not Jesus, it is Yahweh or Jehovah, but that name has cleverly been removed from the Bible! This was his new information! How long have you known that?
Sorry I've rambled, but I've skimmed the top of what's in my heart and my head.
Stay well and don't work too hard!
Edward
Response to Edward (15 September 2006)
Hi Edward,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to our mailing. It is, at the same time, amazing, yet not surprising, how many have failed to even acknowledge it. For those who have responded, I am appreciative, regardless of whether they agree with anything I wrote or not. Obviously, this has been a difficult time for us.
I don’t want to launch into a lengthy reply to your email, but will respond to what I sense is the gist of it. Of course, I am open to talking at any time, as I have been.
I read your email a number of times, and I can’t help commenting on your use of the word "mistake", which appears about five times. In my experience, this is a common mechanism that Witnesses use (not just Witnesses, I know) in dealing with apparent moral failings of the Organization. I think the reason for this is that a "mistake" is really just something inherently innocent. A momentary lapse of judgment. Something done in the heat of the moment, without forethought. Witnesses use that line of reasoning, because then it is an easy matter to excuse the Society, because, after all, they’re just imperfect like everyone else. If we don’t forgive them, how can we be forgiven? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Look at all the good they’ve done. Where else are we to go? Any other line of reasoning could lead a Witness to a conclusion they cannot accept, and lead to cognitive dissonance. Without realizing it, a premise which is false, predetermines a pattern of thought that is easily predictable.
The evidence at hand stands as a loud witness against the contention that many of the Society’s actions were "mistakes". But for argument’s sake, let’s say that they were. Ed, if you made a "mistake", that you later learned caused harm to someone, even though you didn’t mean it, what would you do? Well, common sense and basic decency would dictate, that we would first go to the person, express our remorse for whatever they suffered, explain how it happened, and ask what we could do to make things right again. Further, if we were in a position of some authority over that person, I believe we should also let them know what we were doing to try and assure it wouldn’t happen again.
Well, what is the Society’s record with regard to it’s "mistakes"? Whether we consider the Malawi situation, the alternative service situation, the 1975 debacle, the 1914 debacle, the UN scandal, the multitude of "adjustments" with regard to the blood issue, and there are so many others — take your pick — there is a clear, repeated pattern in how they respond.
First, they just go silent. Ignore it. Hope it will go away. Pretend like it didn’t happen. And you know what? If they wait long enough, it does! Because time heals all wounds. And there is a continual turnover of membership, newer ones being unaffected emotionally by things that happened in the foggy past. Just like we were unaffected when we became Witnesses in 1974, by the multitude of dogmatic statements that were made with regard to 1914 for decades. Ed, if you had caused serious harm to someone, even by a mistake, and decided to just ignore it, and say nothing, what should we think of you?
The next thing the Society does, if it doesn’t go away, like the 1975 problem, or the alternative service issue, is to make some sort of "official statement" in which they acknowledge, in a vague fashion, that "mistakes were made", apparently by some non-descript entity, and that it has worked out "to Jehovah’s praise", so how could anyone complain? Again, I ask, if you caused serious harm to someone, is the appropriate response to simply say, "Hey, somebody made a mistake. But look how great everything worked out!" What does that say about a person’s character?
What I find especially revealing of character, is that they combine this last tactic, at times, with a laying of responsibility on the victim of their "mistake" for any negative consequences! And this, as a condition of their supposed "apology"! Such as in 1914, 1975, or the alternative service issue. With 1914 and 1975, they made statements, years later, to the effect that some of us took things a little too far, and went beyond what they said. I don’t know about you, but I never came up with an expectation that Armageddon would arrive in 1975 on my own, and I don’t know of any Witnesses who did. But there was a continual barrage of information, magazine titles, and comments in the Watchtower, the Awake!, the Kingdom Ministry, and many assembly parts, from 1968 until 1975, obviously carefully engineered to build this expectation in their audience. Again, if you hurt someone badly, and turned around and blamed them, what does it say about the sort of person you are?
Are not these tactics, which we have seen used over and over and over again by the Society, indicative of a heartless, prideful and thoroughly unChristian character?
And all of this is making the assumption that these actions of the Society, especially regarding the UN matter, were "mistakes". The evidence shows otherwise. Ed, thousands of lives have been lost, damaged, ruined or wasted, as a direct consequence of trusting implicitly in an organization that claims to be a "true prophet of God", "God’s channel of communication", etc. The harm comes as a direct consequence of their lies, deceit and intentional manipulation of those that trust them.
As if all this were not enough, if anyone dares to suggest in any way, even confidentially to a close friend, that the Society has violated serious moral principles and caused harm, they then initiate "damage control" with the policy of cutting them off from all their former friends, and in many cases families. That threat constitutes their final method of dealing with their "mistakes". Again, Ed, I ask you to search your heart. If you caused serious harm to someone, and they complain to you about it, and you respond to that complaint with such harshness, administering a form of "death" to them, what does it really say about you?
If you continue to remain a part of the Watchtower Society or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to support them and their activities, in spite of what you know, we respect your right of choice, and we will never let that stand in the way of friendship. But as for Karen and myself, painful as it is, we must stand on principle.
Our love to you and Cheryl,
Lenny
From Ed, October 11, 2006
Lenny,
Sorry about the delayed response to your response. I've been much too busy, too many things to do.
I would say that mistakes do take on more significance if they have had serious consequences that have been ignored. Yes, I believe there should be apologies made because there are a significant number of people out there similar to you, or ones that have been more seriously directly effected by something in the past. Will apologies be made? Maybe, maybe not. If they are made it will likely be within an article and slightly veiled so not everyone will even catch it. Large scale, open, transparent admissions will probably not happen as there would be too much negative fallout. But who knows what the future may bring?
It's obvious that the society, organization, governing body (whatever you want to call it) wants to keep everyone believing the end is just around the corner and their messages are tailored as such. It helps swell the ranks, but they would really be remiss if they weren't putting out that general message and the end IS just around the corner. We do need to stay awake, as we know the scriptures tell us that the end will come as a thief. It may be an exaggeration, but I'd rather think the end is very close than think it is quite far away yet. I keep going because it does keep me inclined in that direction. When you look at the world situation taken together with the destructive potential of rapidly "advancing" technology, you realize that it can only go on so long until it has to be brought to an end to prevent mankind from destroying too much and too many.
Sometimes I feel like I'm acting selfishly, using the organization for what I get from it (I guess I'm just a harlot), but I don't have my head in the sand. I think you went for quite a while with your head in the sand, as I can remember some things that you said a long time ago that I never did believe and still don't. People were being "judged" when we went to their door and they didn't respond favorably. Everyone everywhere will have gotten the message and had ample time to respond by the time the end comes. If you were a witness you were on the "for" side and everyone else everywhere is on the "against" side.
Anyway, enough for now.
You probably spend a lot of time now thinking or saying, "How about those crazy witnesses, huh"! Well, "how about those crazy Muslims, huh"! I don't know if you've ever seen it but check out jihadwatch.org sometime. The average person (especially younger ones) in "civilized" or "developed" nations thinks most about entertainment, food, sports, etc. and hasn't a clue about what the jihadists are urgently trying to do.
Ed