I think most on this board can sympathize with your feelings and situation. I would like to address a portion of your post, you mentioned that you sometimes just want to say, "....Apparent contradiction. EVIL APOSTATES would say that."
In the DC part about "Human Apostates," the brother was very careful to specify the difference between "doubters" and "apostates." For him, it was all about tone. The viewpoint that apostates desire someone to follow them is the crux of the organization's argument. Many people are leaving, enticed but what they have read or seen. Others, however, are simply falling by the wayside. They are mentally checking out because it just doesn't make any sense. Some leave and make a scene, others leave and no one knows why...and interestingly, no one particularly cares to ask.
For one, I have never heard as much commotion regarding an adjustment in teaching as I have heard about the FDS change. Old timers are concerned. They recall the 1981 article about the "objectors." They remember the attack against those that were "not of our sort" that had the audacity to question doctrine and the hierarchical structure of the organization. Now, they see that the same belief that was categorically dismissed as arising from objectors, namely, the identity of the FDS being classified as the worldwide remnant of anointed...a class.
That same objection is now the standing doctrine. There is no "class." There is only the GB.
This, unfortunately, is hard for many to swallow and the organization is experiencing the blowback. Therefore, the need to define the difference between a "doubter" and an "apostate." Afterall, you can't have a CO or DO speaking to his fellow CO's or DO's or even members of the Writing Committee and questioning things be labeled as an apostate can you?
So, when you find it hard to swallow something, it may be best to speak in terms of doubt or don't speak at all. You would be surprised how many old timers are doing the same thing.
SOP
