If they get into the 'food at the proper time' business then just tell them you always make sure to compare the "food" you're offered with the Master's menu, just to make sure it's food from his kitchen and not someone else's. In other words, if the "food" doesn't match the menu then you have no choice but to reject it as coming from the Master. The menu is the Bible.
How would you counter these common JW arguments?
by Leander 18 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Leander
Liberty, at first I was thinking of quitely fading away but I'm having other thoughts now. While I don't intend on making a spectacle or forming an anti-JW campaign I do plan on making it known why I have made my decision to leave. I probably would never be able to fade away quitely however, I was fairly enthusiastic before I began having doubts. And even now that I'm convinced I need to leave I still try to be energetic with my public speaking. I guess because of that the elders consider me to be potentially a good overseer. They've even wanted me to conduct the Watchtower on a few occasions although I'm just a MS. So if I miss more than a meeting I usually get calls from the elders asking about me which makes it hard for me to just fade in peace.
Wow Bjc, that is an excellent argument. I'm aware of the UN scandal but I never thought of using it connection with that scripture at Matthews. This is great, that is solid evidence that the WTS is flat out wrong.
-
simwitness
dedalus said:
Sorry, but no. I try to avoid talking with Witnesses about the Bible, because they only hear the verses they want to hear, in the way they want to hear them. Plus I don't believe in the Bible, and if perchance that comes out, I'd be really screwed.
This is very true.Leander:
All of the arguments given to you will help to prove your point, but only if you can stick to your guns on them. I would stick with "inconsistancy" in thier teaching instead of trying to prove one thing or the other as wrong/false. Look for the "shifting sands"... where would you want your house built? on the sand or on the rock? The "shifting sands" on core teachings are probably more important than anything else, especially if you can show "back and forth" messages. Use the "Alpha and Omega" Revelation stuff to show that they can't keep the teachings straight.
I also think that Luke 21:8 is extremely powerful... but as you have pointed out about the "false prophet" bit, they will most likely say that it "does'nt apply to us".
Most likely they will ask you if you accept the WTBS as the F&DS. Your answer to that question is what they will "judge" you on.
-
Farkel
Leander,
You've been given some excellent observations. I agree with everything said by everyone here from flower to Alan F.
For what it's worth, my advice about "explaining" things to elders comes from Mark Twain:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You can't win, and the pig actually likes it."
Farkel
-
LittleToe
Leander:
There's always a cost involved in leaving them. You need to consider how much you are willing to pay.
This is especially difficult if you have family still within.I was in a similar boat to you, in that I was a high profile elder who wouldn't have just been left alone.
Even though I left, in no uncertain terms, I still received a couple of visits.
You need to decide which is your biggest issue (for me it was Christ, for you it sounds like the UN thing), and be well prepared on that single subject.
The truth is that they won't really visit you with open ears, anyhow.Even though you seem set on your course, don't underestimate how much it is going to hurt you. I hope you have some real flesh-and-blood friends around you, as well as cyber-friends.
Feel free to email.Hope it goes well - take care.
-
Carmel
Leander,
When I chose to exit, I got the second degree from my family just as you anticipate you will get. I had just finished studiing a unit on political propaganda and it came to me that just like politics religion has its tendency to put a spin on "truth" and one has to be exposed to the other persons' view point before you can make a knowledgible choice. I simply told them I was being subjected to religious propaganda and for me to find out if it is true or not I had to step out of it and analyse it honestly and fairly. If it stands up to scrutiny, fine, I'll be back, if not, adios amigos!
This got me past the initial interrogation, and I went my way investigating all the various christian alternatives as well as other belief systems. It became apparent that others had much more logical cosmologies and certainly lived lives that would be in line with NT biblical behavior compared to the JUU's. Guess what! I never returned to the mothership.
carmel
-
AlanF
Leander, a few more thoughts:
I agree with some other posters that it's probably better to leave as quietly as you can. But if you insist on leaving something for the elders to think about, you have to do it in as non-confrontational a way as possible. I think this is best done by leading them by the nose to certain conclusions, first starting with WTS publications that they cannot disagree with, then hitting them with a Scripture that is so clear that they can't ague about it. That's what the business of Luke 21:8 is all about. Here's an outline of what to do:
Make a photocopy of the pages at the front of the 1930-1985 Publications Index that list WTS publication titles and symbols. Highlight in yellow every title you can find that sounds like "the time is at hand" (I think there around a dozen). Find the 1964 WT article that is the only substantive discussion of Luke 21:8 the Society has ever made (use WTCDROM to find instances of "Luke 21:8"). Make a copy of the article and highlight in yellow the part where it specifically states that the ones who say "I am He" are claiming to be Christ's representatives.
When you start to discuss one of your "concerns" with the elders, don't introduce it by reading Luke 21:8, as this will tip them off where you're going and they'll do everything they can to avoid listening to your line of reasoning. Instead just say that you found something in a Watchtower that you'd like to get their agreement on. Then go right to the 1964 WT and show them the underlined part. After that you can discuss the scripture from the viewpoint of the article. You'll see what I mean when you find the article. During this discussion you'll likely find the elders agreeing that many have "come in my name, saying `I am He' ". Bring up David Koresh if that helps. After that, figure out how to show them the stuff from the Index, then show them the highlighted titles. They'll be rather disturbed at this point. Comment that it's pretty clear to you, from these titles and your experience as a JW, one of the Society's main focuses since its inception has been to proclaim to the world, "The Time Is At Hand". Immediately pull out your NWT and read Luke 21:8, emphasizing the phrases about those who come, saying "I am He" and those who proclaim, "The time is at hand". Having already established that the Society itself agrees that those who proclaim "I am He" are not claiming to be Christ, but his representatives, you can point out that the Governing Body certainly claims to be Christ's representative because of its claim to represent the "faithful and discreet slave". So here we have a perfect match between what Luke 21:8 explicitly says "false prophets" will do -- i.e., claim to represent Christ and falsely proclaim "the time is at hand" . Point this out to the elders and then ask them how you should view the Society, in light of the further admonition in Luke 21:8 to "avoid them". You'll leave them gasping for air.
In 1994 I did exactly the above in a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder. He literally sputtered for awhile, and tried to avoid giving an answer. I firmly demanded an answer as to why this scripture ought not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses, given that the description fit them perfectly. He finally said, "It can't apply! We're God's people!" Golly gee, Bert! Don't you see what a ridiculous statement that is? You could excuse adultery with that. You could excuse child molestation! In fact, that's exactly what you and the other GB members did back in 1984 when you let Leo Greenlees off the hook for raping a ten year old boy!
I hope this gives you some good ammunition, Leander.
AlanF
-
Elsewhere
Leander,
You are making a single fatal mistake - you are assuming that you HAVE to answer their questions.
You are leaving, therefore you are no longer under their authority. Screw 'em!
Just keep telling them that you have seen some disturbing things in the organization that have made you conclude that they are not "god's organization".
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x >< -
Quotes
My 2 cents:
Don't bother trying to argue scripture and doctrine, you're damnd if you do and damned if you don't. Their circular reasoning is so "pat" in their own minds they simply won't understand your point, or will refuse to even consider it. If, by some miracle, you can get one to think and consider what you are saying, and it starts to make sense, then they will likely become even more defensiive becuase they fear they are being successfully decieved by Satan.
If I were you right now, I would ask a series of questions that will lead them to see the problem with the UN fiasco. Something like this:
Q - Is it true that JWs cannot have jobs like policeman (carrying a gun) or work in a shop at the tobacco counter (selling "Satan-sticks") or work as say, a secretary or librarian for a church of Christendom or a political party?
A - Yes
Q - Is it true that if a supposedly faithful JW went out and got one of these jobs, they are not acting in accord with scripture? Even if they did it out of necessity (e.g. to feed their family)?
A - Yes
Q - And if such a one held this type of job for 10 years and was then discovered by the congregation, there would likely me a JC formed to determine (1) if it is true and (2) are they repentant? -- just like any other reported case of serious wrongdoing?
A - Yes
Q - And if upon discovery, that bro/sis quit the job, but at the same time tried to minimize their wrongdoing and did not show signs of repentence, then that would indicate a seriously flawed, un-christian conscience?
A - Yes, that sounds like they are not repentent of their actions
Q - And those that are not repentent of serious wrongdoing are to be either "marked" or perhaps even disfellowshipped, to protect the purity of the congregation?
A - Yes, we are to protect the spirituality of the congregation.
Q - Even if that one is prominent in the cong, or a close family member, then we must mark or perhaps even DF?
A - Yes.
Q - That is why I must turn away from the Witchpower Babble & Trick Society, to protect my spirituality. They made an alliance with the UN, and are unrepentant about it.
{Then show them copies of letter from the SOCIETY "explaining" their involvement. Don't bother with anything not from the Society, it will be ignored as "Apostate lies". But letters on Society letterhead are much harder to ignore}.
You can get scans of these letters at many web resources including http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/united_nations.htm
One more thing. If possible, spend $100 on a microcassette recorder with remote active mic, and wire yourself for sound recording before any conversation. Trust me on this, you will be glad you did!
===========================
For interesting Watchtower Society literature quotes, complete with references but without any editorial, check out:
http://Quotes.JehovahsWitnesses.com