@redredrose:
[D]ue to familial circumstances I felt able to make the decision to break free from this religion.
I read your post with interest.
I became intrigued by your saying that you have decided to leave Jehovah's organization "due to familial circumstances," suggesting that this decision of yours was triggered by an event of some sort. I don't ask what that event was -- your reasons are your own -- but I was thinking about the emotional toll that may result from the execution of this decision. You wrote:
I don't want to be drawn into an argument that would leave me wide open for charges of [apostasy].... Our very few friends do know but I don't want to give them away.
Apostasy is when someone -- not just one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but anyone that has ever studied with Jehovah's Witnesses -- speaks to someone else about any Bible doctrine that they either know, or have reason to know, to be contrary to what the Bible teaches and teaches others to this effect. For example, I believe you know as one of Jehovah's Witnesses that we reject the trinity doctrine that might be said to be one of mainstream Christianity's primary doctrines about the Christ; most of the folks in Christendom believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be God the Son, one of three "Persons" of an unknowable triune God. Just skip the next two paragraphs if you are already familiar with the Comma Johanneum controversy, @redredrose, because I mention it here to make a point about what would constitute apostasy, and not to bore you with information that you already possess.
You may or may not have heard of controversy regarding the Comma Johanneum, which refers to the gloss at 1 John 5:7 in the received text (Textus Receptus) that is used in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (I won't quote it here), but the defense made by proponents of its inclusion in the KJV is essentially that its removal from the KJV threatens to undermine the biblical basis of the doctrine itself. In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote a dissertation that rejected Comma Johanneum as a fraud in the treatise entitled, "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture," which was first published in 1754, in which he explains how the Comma crept into the Latin Vulgate as a marginal note to 1 John 5:7, only to later be included directly in the text.
On page 88 of his treatise, he wrote: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts [here referring to both 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16], I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now [that] the debates are over." It is important to keep in mind that Newton had no theological cross to bear, for he wasn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Knowing the truth about Comma Johanneum, that is to say, knowing that the words added to the verse at 1 John 5:7 in the KJV are spurious, were you to use this text in order to prove, as might anyone associated with any of the mainstream Christian churches today, that Jesus is part of a trinity, knowing as you do that this notion is bogus, that God is not triune, that Jesus is not "God the Son," not one of three "Persons" of God, but the Son of God, then you would thereby be guilty of apostasy. So when you wrote --
I don't want to be drawn into an argument that would leave me wide open for charges of [apostasy]....
-- unless you were to believe this doctrine to be true and teach others to this effect, you would not be guilty of apostasy. It is not uncommon that from time to time doubts will come into one's mind that we cannot resolve on our own, but if we do not soon find someone that can help us to resolve these doubts, cynicism if often the result, and so once we begin to suspect there to be something sinister, even deceptive, about the things that we are being taught, very often we might find ourselves sneering at those teachings and at those attempting to beguile us, fool us. Or, we might begin to feel sorry for those trying to teach us things that we no longer believe to be true because we realize that, while they may be sincere, they are sincerely wrong.
There are those that refuse to get baptized until it has been proven to them that the archangel Michael is the Lord Jesus Christ. They regularly attend all of the meetings, and engage in many of the same activities in which Jehovah's Witnesses engage, but they have yet to enter God's spiritual house, His spiritual tabernacle, because they have yet to be issued a white robe, the one that those symbolizing the dedication to God through water baptism are issued. God doesn't permit just anyone to enter his temple where His servants are rendering sacred service day and night; they must be wearing this robe.
By all accounts, they lead good Christian lives, their children are well-mannered little people and they love Jehovah. But the "Michael" thing is a problem for them, and they will withdraw from discussions where the "Michael" thing is mentioned. They don't begrudge their spiritual "brothers" and "sisters" -- yes they view them as such and their families are all viewed affectionately as such -- for believing this, but that pass on commenting when they are asked to make a comment. The elders know why; we all know why they do this. They are not sure, but they do not want to be accused by anyone of corrupting anyone else's faith to this effect, which is a commendable position, and we believe God and Jesus both look favorably upon someone that needs to 'see the print of the nails in Jesus' hands and needs to stick their hand into Jesus' side.' (John 20:25)
Why, later on, Jesus appeared to Thomas, understanding perfectly that Thomas had doubts in his heart, doubting the fact that Jesus had been resurrected, and while some elders might in such a situation show themselves to be all upset over Thomas' attending meetings with the rest of the apostles that had no such doubts at all, breathing fire wanting to flex some theocratic muscle and kick Thomas out to the proverbial curb, as some might say, Jesus was a kindly elder, was he not? Jesus told Thomas to 'put his finger right into his hands where the nails had been, to inspect his hands, to look at them, to take his hand and see how far he could stick it into his side where one of the Roman soldiers had pierced him.' (John 20:27)
But you know what? Jesus gave Thomas opportunity to become fully convinced that Jesus was alive again, that Jesus had, in fact, been resurrected, just as Jesus had said he would be, just as the apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had been, so that Thomas would "stop being unbelieving but become believing." We don't know how long Thomas' investigation took, but we do know that Thomas doubted the report of Jesus' resurrection for at least eight days (John 20:26), and we also know that Thomas was given the time he needed to overcome them.
Jesus knew that there would be those whose interest would be pricked upon their hearing the good news about his resurrection and his Messiahship in the kingdom of God, and likewise Jesus knew that the interest of many would be picked upon their hearing the good news about the established heavenly kingdom of God, but that some would doubt.
You think the elders today are out to flex theocratic muscle and I say to you that you are right; some of them will misuse and have misused their authority to inflict injury upon the flock, those having doubts, those needing time to fully embrace the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Not months, but some have needed years to become convinced, not that Jesus was resurrected back on Nisan 16, 33 AD, because they are "fully convinced" of this, but of other things the Bible teaches or touches upon that are "hard to understand." (2 Peter 3:16)
Thomas' doubts as to this one thing was resolved in about a week, but he may have had other doubts he needed to overcome three months later. But the Bible tells us about what was a major hurdle for Thomas, and it was addressed. What might be your major hurdle(s)? You can go to one of your elders and tell him in confidence what you're feeling or doubting, or, if you believe yourself to be in one of those congregations with one or more elders that seem to enjoy flexing theocratic muscle against the flock of God, you can discreetly visit another congregation and seek out one of those elders in it, let them know you're baptized and why discretion is necessary, telling one of them your situation, your doubts, the things that give you pause about what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, and perhaps your fear of being charged with apostasy will not be realized at all. And perhaps, in time you, too, will be "happy ... and yet believe" that you have indeed found the truth. (John 20:29)
@saltyoldlady:
But I had already turned in my letter requesting DA - in fact I did it via email - such a great invention.
I want you to know that I did read your post.
Of course, we all have reasons for the things we do, and I'm sure you had your reasons and were ok with your decision to formally disassociate yourself from us, which was what you decided to you. I would advise @redredrose to take you advice, and I have my reasons for giving her advice that is contrary to what you gave.
Unfortunately, we are all imperfect, the elders are very imperfect, and when we become cynical of these glorious ones based upon our focusing on their many faults or the stories you may have come to hear about their life before they became Jehovah's Witnesses, you could easily find yourself comparing your life with theirs and begin conducting yourself in such a way as to convey a superior attitude toward these men, and that's what they are, men. But they were all appointed by holy spirit and these imperfect men -- these elders -- were appointed to the end that they might serve for your joy, lest they be removed for serving some other end that is not theocratic in nature.
I would rather @redredrose PM me, than for her to send any emails or letters, or take any step that could lead to her motives in wanting to let others know that she had doubts being wrongly construed. Although I do not believe your intentions were bad in giving her such advice -- and I mean this -- what you advised her here is, in my opinion, neither good advice nor loving advice, and I wish her to reject your advice for I find it to be both bad and unloving.
@djeggnog
