It may not make any difference, but if it did,....what would you suggest?

by whyizit 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  whyizit

  My JW friend and I had a conversation.

  It seems she received an anonymous letter from an "apostate" person. Explaining why they left the WTS.

  Of course, this person must have left the JWs to pursue a deviate lifestyle. Since there weren't a bunch of sited Bible verses to substantiate her claims, my JW friend is trying to dismiss it all as a sour person who thinks they missed having a childhood, due to over-zealous JW parents who were supposedly "too strict".

  She comented that had this person given good Biblical reasons as to why she left, and supported those reasons Biblically--THEN she might be more inclined to take the letter seriously.

  Now, I know this is a bunch of BS. Just looking for reasons to NOT hear the blatant truth. But suppose you were in her situation. If there were one (or more) Biblical references that would have made you take a step back in awe, or if there were a teaching that the WTS practices that JUST smacks you in the face with the reality that "THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL", once you look back on it objectively, could you share it here?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Are you able to use this as an opportunity to show her some biblical reasons for your thoughts?
  That would be like "calling her bluff."

  There are tons of things that I researched early on that made me question WT doctrines.
  Primarily, I had to question the accuracy of new light, the light getting brighter, and the Bible definition
  of false prophets. Other than the scripture on the scripture on light getting brighter, it was mainly
  WT articles themselves that affected my further progress toward the door. "We are a prophet"
  "We are not inspired" "We are imperfect humans" "We are spirit directed" "You must follow the
  slave" "Unity"
• 

  whyizit

  On The Way Out:

  Please give me specifics!

  I've had several conversations which really seemed to make a dent in the whole mess. She's still convinced that the Bible supports the WTS views, however. I know the way out is a long one. Easier to get the gal out of the WT, than getting the WT out of the gal.

  But I think that is where we're at. I've been able to point out a few WT flaws, such as the teaching that Christ returned in 1874. That came out of the 5th Chapter of the Proclaimer's book.....that SHE sent me!

  If that were true THEN, why isn't it NOW? When was this changed? By whom was it changed? Of course, I got no answer, but the point was made.

  NOw, I am really searching for Biblical evidence that may actually make sense to her, even though she is still in a semi-cultic fog. An "AH-HA!" moment is what I am hoping for. Got one? PM me, even! I need all the help I can get!

  Thanks!
• 

  PoppyR

  At our recent apostanoodle in London, it became clear to me that for everyone it's something different.

  For me the 607 thing was HUGE as was the NGO. for others it is the policy on child abuse etc. I find it difficult to sum up why I dont believe any more to my JW relatives without getting into a huge debate... and never winning because they have a brainwashed answer to everything.

  For my son, the thing that cracked it for him was when I asked him what he thought about the flood, ie animals and babies drowning and God looking down and thinking that was good. This God that was supposed to love these people like I love my children. Then I compared that to today and all these billions of people having to die so that God could prove he was right..

  Strangely out of all my arguments, it was that one that really made him think (animals I think!)

  Poppy
• 

  momzcrazy

  First I would say it wasn't a Watchtower article, but someone speaking from their heart. A person does not need to back up feelings with Bible verses. Maybe they are like me, as far as everyone else is concerned, my reasons for leaving are not up for debate, so why get into a big scriptural discussion over it. I actually think it was kind of the person to even send the letter, they must think alot of the recipient. Especially if they were friends, did they always talk about the Bible when discussing their lives? Probably not.

  It is sad though, that the recipient feels the need to have a more "complete" explanation. No one really owes explanations, except to family members maybe.

  Not everything needs to be Biblical, jeez they drive me crazy!

  momz
• 

  chickpea

  i really like bumper sticker wisdom...... one such oft quoted example for me is>> people will NOT let facts get in the way of what they choose to believe.....

  in fact t-shirts can be fonts of wisdom too... my older daughter has one that says>> i can see your lips are moving, but all i hear is blah blah blah.....

  add those two together and i believe it can be fairly certain that a devotee of the WTS will never see anyone's abandonment of the borg as anything other than a failure on their part.....
• 

  sweetstuff

  I'd write her an anon letter myself, and put in the biblical facts, details, websites. Let her think its from the same person or someone else. Then see how she reacts and what she says when confronted with the facts staring her right in the face, that's what I would do.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  On The Way Out:

  Please give me specifics!

  I suggested that you "use this as an opportunity to show her some biblical reasons for
  your thoughts."

  You could use the passion of what you know and understand. Asking others for specifics
  on their journey can help, but we all have different passions and understandings and
  roadblocks. Mine might have worked for me, but they don't even work for my wife, let alone
  some friend of yours.

  You got a wedge in there about Christ's return in 1874. Expand that wedge if that's what
  you have a bunch of thoughts on.

  NOw, I am really searching for Biblical evidence that may actually make sense to her, even though she is still in a semi-cultic fog. An "AH-HA!" moment is what I am hoping for. Got one?

  There may be many "AH-HA" moments, but most JW's will just dismiss them. There are scores
  of websites and books that point out Bible inaccuracies or problems with wild interpretations of the
  Greek. Perhaps you are even looking for archeaological evidence that WTS simply has it wrong.
  "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl OlafJonsson has that. Still, it's deep and WTS tells it's
  minions to force the JW's to reject any "proof" that contradicts what they say.

  For what it is worth, here are excerpts from jwfacts.com that helped me with "the light getting brighter."
  http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/light.htm

  The main justification from the Watchtower for changed doctrine is Proverbs 4:18:
  

  "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."

  To interpret "light" as referring to Watchtower "doctrinal" understanding is simply justification for prior error. Three aspects to consider are:
  

  • What is the intended meaning of Proverbs 4:18?
  • Does Watchtower doctrine get brighter or change?
  • Would Jehovah direct a religion to promote falsehood?

  Proverbs 4:18

  Rather than extract a sentence, in entirety the context of Proverbs chapter 4 is a comparison of behaviour between good and bad people, not the revealing of doctrinal truth through an organization. The surrounding verses say, "the wicked …do not sleep unless they do badness. … The way of the wicked ones is like the gloom; they have not known at what they keep stumbling… listen to the discipline of a father … keep my commandments … safeguard your heart." For thousands of years people have understood this scripture to be discussing behaviour.
  

  "What is clear from Proverbs is that the reader can choose to either seek wisdom or live a life of folly. (Prov 4:14-19)" (www.thisischurch.com/christianinfo/proverbs.htm Mar. 25 2005)

  Brighter or Changed

  Let us entertain the idea that within this scripture is hidden a second prophetic meaning; that Jehovah would progressively reveal truth to his people at the time of the end. This concept is still not relevant to the Watchtower history. Consider whether the following change is really a matter of doctrinal light getting lighter:
  

  Imagine being the Witness parent of a child that needed a kidney transplant in 1970. Although the Awake! 1949 Dec. 22 had described transplants as "wonders of modern surgery" in 1967 God revealed that transplants were wrong in his eyes. The Watchtower 1967 Nov. 15 pp.702-704 stated that being now "enlightened by God's word" God's people understood that transplants are against divine principles and cannibalistic. The parents must sincerely have believed they were putting Jehovah first when watching their child die, refusing them the opportunity of possible survival through a transplant. How would that parent feel on reading the Watchtower 1980 Mar. 15 p.31 -"There is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue…. It is a matter for personal decision…" The enlightenment of 1967 had proved to be dark, harmful and in need of later correction, a regressive doctrine that resulted in the unnecessary death of members. When a doctrine changes and then reverts back to the original position this is not evidence of light getting brighter, it is evidence of a lack of Holy Spirit directing the Governing Body.

  The concept of light becoming brighter implies that previous doctrine was correct, but incomplete. The Watchtower Society has promoted many significant doctrines that were later discarded as incorrect. Others have changed back and forth, even reverting to their original position, in each case contradicting a former truth.
  
  It has regularly been the case that Watchtower doctrine is not illuminated but eclipsed. It was not increasing light that dictated in the 1950's that Jesus was no longer to be worshipped; it was a fundamental teaching that was (or currently is) wrong. Failed date prophecies, pyramids, superior authorities, the generation; these were not clarifications - these were wrong teachings. How many wrong teachings did God allow to become part of the Bible canon? Now compare that with how many wrong teachings are contained within the Watchtower over less then 150 years. Ongoing reversal of doctrine can only indicate God is not involved in these new flashes of what later turn out to be falsehoods.

  (jumping down the page)
  

  Eager

  Additional Watchtower justification for incorrect interpretations is to attribute them to eagerness. People that criticise this righteous eagerness are negatively trying to divert people from the importance of the times.
  

  "It is easy for the established churches of Christendom and other people to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses because their publications have, at times, stated that certain things could take place on certain dates. …Have they not, rather, encouraged spiritual sluggishness by considering expectation of "the end" to be "meaningless" or "an insignificant myth"? Have apostates … promoted Christian alertness? Have they not, rather, induced spiritual sleepiness?" Watchtower 1984 December 1 p.18
  
  "Jehovah's Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus' second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect." Awake! 1993 March 22 p.4

  In application to itself the Watchtower insinuates that alertness is more important to truthfulness. In application to other religions sincerity is not enough, teaching untruths makes their followers unacceptable to God.
  

  "For us to be acceptable to God, our sincere beliefs must be based on accurate information. Jehovah's Witnesses in your community will be happy to assist you in examining what is involved in serving God with sincerity and truth." Watchtower 2003 February 1 p.32 Sincerity-Desirable, but Is It Enough?

  To be eager does not justify being totally wrong. Many religions are eager, without relying on false predictions to motivate their members. The Seventh-day Adventists use statements such as "See you later, God Willing" to show they recognise God may intervene at any stage. This is a healthy recognition of God's timetable without encouraging serving to a date. Making mistakes in God's name has not promoted long term eagerness; it has resulted in followers losing their faith in the Organization.
  

  Conclusion

  The Watchtower Society did not originate the concept of excusing failed predictions as "new light". Barbour had used this concept to justify why the end did not arrive as predicted in 1874. Religions claiming to have all the answers consistently prove to be wrong. The Watchtower reliance on the "new light" doctrine is no more than an excuse to justify inaccuracies. "New light" is an unhealthy concept that promotes blind, unquestioning devotion to an earthly Organization.
  
  Deuteronomy 18:20 - 22 provides a foolproof way to determine if words spoken have come from God:
  

  "However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: "How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it."

  Watchtower changes include numerous false dates, significant doctrine and the promotion of pagan symbols and teachings. Rules on shunning, medical advice and education have been adversely life changing, even life threatening. Falsehood does not originate from Jehovah. Doctrinal meandering cannot be justified as new light; rather it is proof that God does not direct the Watchtower Society.
• 

  Vivamus

  My exeperience says that as long as someone does NOT want to see reason ,.. no matter how many arguments with biblical references you throw at them, they won't see reason.
• 

  UU Now

  Not everything needs to be Biblical, jeez they drive me crazy!

  Especially since not everyone looks to the Bible to guide their life choices. Choosing not to do so does not automatically make one a depraved deviant.