Why I Stopped Apologising For The WTS

by NewWay 47 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  outnfree

  Welcome to the Board, NewWay!

  Very nice post! I know one of the things that bugged my husband when I converted post-marriage was the "I didn't marry a Witness"! Sort of your situation in reverse. He is SO happy that I'm out now. I truly hope you will be able to gently liberate your family.

  outnfree
• 

  NewWay

  Thanks to everyone for the encouraging remarks. As I currently have the time available, I will be making it my aim to writing something here each day, so watch this thread. Writing about one's experiences can be therapeutic, and indeed I feel the need to 'let it all out' as I've had so little opportunity to do so thus far in my life. However, if in the course of reading my experiences it helps anyone in any way, then that would be great because my heart goes out to all those who have experienced emotional damage by association with the organisation.
  
  Spice: Thanks for the invitation to 'rant and rave'. It is difficult for me to release anger because of having got the impression when I was young that it was vulgar. I'm working at convincing myself that its okay to express justified anger. It is a little bit more difficult for me, than most people, because I disapprove of swearing. So whereas a lot of people could just tell someone to "*&$@% off!", although I would like to occasionally because that's the only language some people understand, there is something repellant about it which prevents me from doing it. Repression of anger and the feeling of it being wrong to hurt anyone (even if they deserved it!) meant that it was impossible for me to defend myself properly at school when confronted by a bully. I remember the frustration I felt when one such bully finally made me snap and all I could do was throw him around the room, but I could not bring myself to hit him - and this when I actually had him pinned on the ground! I know that may sound strange to some folk. So even if I do get into 'rant and rave' mode I don't think anyone need fear!
  
  SYN: I'm sure that there are many JWs who had a lonely childhood. It's very, very sad.
  
  Matty: Its good to know that there are folks out there that have experienced similar things. Thanks.
  
  Crawdad2: Yes, 'playing it cool' is a good way of describing it. If my wife and family were ready and would not be hurt by my disassociating myself, I would do it right away. Its easier for me, because as I said to one confidant, "If I were ever disfellowshipped, then it would make no real difference to my life because no one associates with me now anyway!"
  
  hillary_step: Check your email box.
  
  Flip: No one actually warned me about a possible breakup of marriage. The cries I heard were from two sources, newspaper articles discussing JWs, the odd TV program, and comments made by householders in the 'field service'. At the time I convinced myself that they were just saying that simply because they hated JWs. You said: "Perhaps in other words, the information you ask your spouse to contemplate threatens her association with the only social structure she believes she feels comfortable with, at the moment." That hits the nail right on the head. This is the problem when we put all our 'eggs in one basket'. If we disgarded them we would have no eggs left. That is why for many it is so difficult to break free, because the psychological damage can be enormous. In my eyes the society is reprehensible for creating a social structure that is like an island surrounded by water.
  
  Windchaser: Keep watching this thread.
  
  ISP: Things are a lot better as I gain more confidence and irradicate false guilt. In fact our family has been a lot happier lately.
  
  JoeSchmoe: It looks like I just may have found a true 'hiding place from the wind'.
  
  outnfree: So happy for you and your husband. Only time will tell when/if I am able to liberate my family, but I love them too much to do anything hasty. Now, I must get on with writing Part Two!
• 

  NewWay

  WHY I STOPPED APOLOGISING FOR THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY - PART 2

  Although I'd had doubts about the veracity of the claim that the governing body of JWs were God's representatives (and hence channel of communication) on earth, it wasn't until I had been married for several years that a solid change of viewpoint took place within me. Crystalisation OccursSome years ago I had a 'shepherding call' from two elders, whom we shall call Brother Old and Brother Young.
  
  Brother Old, then in his late fifties, was (and still is) well-known as coming from one of the 'foundling' families of JWs in the area. To understand this man's mentality, it is necessary to be aware of the following facts. His childhood years coincided with the Presidency of J.F. Rutherford, and he got baptized at a very young age (I think he was eight at the time). All his immediate family have remained JWs and his children have at one point or another been pioneers, as has he and his wife. Basically, all he has ever known is a life associated with JWs. He is a likeable man, who it seems prefers to stay out of the limelight, but is by no means unsure of himself or lacking in confidence. I have always felt that although he undoubtedly has a sensitive side, this is firmly put in its place when it comes to loyalty to the organisation.
  
  Brother Young, on the other hand, then in his mid-thirties, had been baptized for only a few years, but it was obvious that his character and his compliance with organisation requirements justified his early appointment as elder. This man was also of pleasant nature, and one could certainly say that he was humble. His background was quite different from Brother Old's, and although he had only recently become a JW he was well aquainted with the Bible before his conversion due to his family's religious affiliation with Judaism.
  
  The main reason for the call was to encourage me to be more regular in meeting attendance and field service. We spent some time talking on this point and looking up scriptures. Then the conversation took a different turn and we found ourselves discussing 'the faithful and discreet slave'. I cannot recall much of what was said, but I do remember asking them what would happen if a Christian was really not convinced with an interpretation that the 'slave' gave on a particular scripture. The answer that came back was along these lines: 'We just must wait until our difficulty in understanding is resolved'. There was no suggestion that the 'slave' have a difficulty in understanding the right interpretation. Yet this answer was all to familiar to me. So, in reply, I gave them an example:
  
  In chapter 12 of the book 'The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived', it states that the 'heavens being opened up' at the time of Jesus' baptism refers to Jesus' memory of his prehuman life in heaven returning to him. Yet, recently that view has changed to the effect that we are to take it that the sky (heavens) literally opened up. Now when I first read the chapter in the book, before the change in view, I could not agree with the interpretation. The reason for this was that Luke 2:49 says that as a child Jesus recognised that he was God's son by saying that he must be in his father's house (i.e. the temple) - that he was not using the term of God as any other Jewish worshipper would is indicated to me by the fact that Joseph and Mary did not understand what he meant (verse 50). Apart from that, how can it be proved that anything other than a literal opening of the heavens was meant? Now, if my understanding was different from the 'slave's' how could I, if for instance I was reader at the book study group, read out the relevant paragraph without contradicting my understanding? Unless I said anything, the other brothers and sisters would assume that I agreed with the current view.
  
  I explained to these elders that my conscience would not permit me repeat a view (whether at meetings or out in field service) that I saw no scriptural support for. To me it would be as bad as lying. I also pointed out that in this instance it turned out that the society had to correct it own understanding. So it is simply not fair to assume that the difficulty in understanding is inevitably with the individual JW if they disagree with an interpretation. The elders did not seem to want to commit themselves and things went fairly quiet. Very soon after that they left. I don't recall receiving any more 'shepherding calls' after that.
  
  To me, who had the correct understanding in this case was neither here nor there, I would willingly correct my understanding if convincing evidence were brought forth. It wasn't that I wanted to be right and the organisation be wrong. What annoyed me was the arrogance of the society in expecting that the sheep should just assume that where a conflict of understanding lay, it would automatically be the sheep who needed to be 'readjusted'.
  
  This 'shepherding call' proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Suddenly, a crystalisation occured and my view of the governing body (as the 'slave') changed for good. At that point they became not God's sole channel of communication who were fed scriptural truths directly from Him, but as merely a man-made organisation that it was his purpose at this time to use for a particular part of his purpose. I reasoned that this was not impossible as the Bible revealed that God had even used nations not dedicated to him to achieve certain aspects of His will - for instance, the Persians under Cyrus which facilited the return of the Jews to their homeland.
  
  (To Be Continued...)
• 

  joeshmoe

  I had a similar experience involving the 607BCE date. I was doing some research for an instruction talk from the All Scripture Inspired bk. It simply stated that there was plenty of evidence from Assyrian/Babylonian archeological finds to pinpoint the date at 607.

  I had up to that point had no reason to ever question the society, just took it at face value. But for the talk, I thought it would be nice to bring out some additional information. So I hopped on the internet for some quick research. To my dismay all evidence seemed to point a date around 20 years later. And the evidence just kept growing into a mountain.

  I gave my talk, simply quoting the society literature on this issue, much as i'd heard thousands of other brothers from the stage. But that evening after my talk (and all that night and into the morning) I continued my research, and found that for the first time in my life, I simply disagreed with the society stand.

  And that I think is the point. We all reach that moment of truth from different directions, but when we get there, the issue is: I'm not allowed to disagree. But I DO disagree. And it begins to dawn on you that you've given away your personal right to decide right and wrong for yourself to someone else.

  As you said:

  . It wasn't that I wanted to be right and the organisation be wrong. What annoyed me was the arrogance of the society in expecting that the sheep should just assume that where a conflict of understanding lay, it would automatically be the sheep who needed to be 'readjusted'.

  And from there, the scales just kept falling from my eyes. The control that this man-made organization had over my life, that I had given it over my life, was stunning. I never fully saw that until I was ready to get out. And until those inside realize on their own that they are under that control -- and how powerful and extreme that control is -- they won't fight against it.

  I'm looking forward to more of your story!

  -Joe
• 

  JosephMalik

  New Way,

  Read both parts of your story. Looking forward to the rest. Welcome to the faith. Our Lord has set you free.

  Joseph
• 

  NewWay

  Joe:

  Actually, the date 607 BCE itself has not really been an issue with me. We know for sure (or as sure as archealogical/historical evidence convinces us) that the end of the Jewish captivity in Babylon effectively ended in 539 BCE and, being generous, I can accept that it could well have taken until 537 BCE before the first group of Jew returned to their homeland. So regardless of the actual length of the captivity of the Jews, as long as the Jews actually returned in 537 BCE, we still arrive at 1914 CE (i.e. 2520 years - Wow, its like riding a bicycle: you never forget!). However, as you pointed out its just not on to say 'there is plenty of evidence' if there isn't. But, of course to imagine that the Bible (God forbid) could actually be in error, that 'seventy years' should read 'fifty years' (which, by the way, we know was of special significance to the Jews, i.e. jubilees - when all land was returned to its original owners) would never be countenanced. Also, it would never be given consideration that perhaps the line-up to 1914 CE could actually be a coincidence, despite the fact that incredible coincidences do happen (ever seen that show 'Million To One'?). I'm of the opinion that because 1914 CE was indeed a very significant year in world history, many JWs feel bound to the organisation in awe because it was the first (and as far as I know the last) religious organisation to have found the end of the 'gentile times' via an actual Biblical formula. To them its too amazing to be discounted as mere coincidence.
  
  Talking about coincidences, an unusual thing happened to me today - albeit not of earth-shattering proportions. Yesterday my wife ordered me a pair of new casual shoes via mail order, and was told that they would arrive within two days. Earlier today I had been chatting with my wife when I suddenly made mention of the shoes. Now I'm telling the absolute truth, it could not have been more that 5 seconds after uttering the word 'shoes' than there was a ring on the door bell and, yes you've guessed it, a courier was waiting outside with the order! Well 'it has been said' that 'truth is stranger than fiction'.
  
  Joseph: Thank you for taking the time to read my posts. In line with what you said, Jesus words are rather apt, 'You will come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free' (John 8:32). Its interesting that if I were to say that I feel as if a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders, a typical line of reasoning from a 'loyal' JW would be: 'Of course he feels that way, he couldn't stand being obedient to Jehovah. He may be happy now but it will be a shortlived happiness.' I pay no attention to such reasoning now, nor any of the other emotional blackmail techniques used to 'encourage' one back into the fold. Whether gentle or not, the organisation's 'encouragement' actually amounts to threats of divine punishment. No wonder a lot of JWs don't come across across as particularly happy people, at least not the ones that I know of.
• 

  NewWay

  WHY I STOPPED APOLOGISING FOR THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY - PART 3

  Over ten years ago, I started a fulltime computer studies course with the intention of becoming a computer programmer - which I did for some time. This has proved extremely useful because when I was at the end of my school years microcomputers (in fact computers in general) where a specialist subject that was only just making its way into the classroom; so many of my age were not computer literate. It gave me a head start before personal computing really hit the UK scene. Often I would be asked to help friends who had just bought their first computer, and I felt a real sense of pleasure being able to be of practical use in this way. I have always been interested in 'logics' and how things work, so when computers and information about them started to become more generally available I felt the urge to find out more. Programming appealed to me because it appealed to both my creative nature and my interest in problem solving. I also taught myself the basics of hardware and how to upgrade the various computers I had - this was much more satisfying to me than letting someone else do it. So as Britain came to use micro-computers in earnest, I was well prepared. A Doorway OpensWhen my native country started to take the Internet seriously (as ever lagging behind America by a number of years) and the telecommunications companies finally made connection and use economically acceptable for the majority of Britons, the door to a huge store of human knowledge and experience opened up. People found that the privacy afforded by this new mode of communication meant that they could read all sorts of things without having anyone police them. Of course this freedom is a double-edged sword that can be used for 'right' or 'wrong' (depending on one's point of view). It seemed to me that the organisation was caught off guard by the Internet and was slow to react to the obvious dangers (whichever way you view it) that this could pose to JWs. Looking back, I get the impression that the organisation was reluctant to even acknowledge it or comment on what dangers might be out there for fear that this might pique the interest of some curious JWs. In my many years of association with the organisation I got the impression that they felt a good tactic to use to avoid confrontation and having to answer questions was to encourage silence. Indeed if an individual JW had a major concern about the society, s/he was told that Jehovah would deal with it in His own due time - there was never any way in which the organisation could be taken to task over anything, or felt that they owed other people (particularly 'the sheep') an explanation.
  
  After taking my first few tentative steps into the world of online discussion as a member of a music forum, I had the idea that there might be opportunities to 'witness' via the internet. So, after doing a search at the MSN communities homepage, I found a forum for discussion that seemed to be specifically for discussion of JW beliefs. I thought, 'Great, a ready audience, and I no doubt will get to meet other JWs.' When I came to the site for the first time I just assumed that the manager of the community was a 'loyal' JW - why s/he even had a link to the official WTS website! I didn't notice, until a little while later, that other links included were actually to 'apostate' websites.
  
  One of my first posts involved making a rebuttal concerning the accusation that the WTS was a false prophet. Although by then, as pointed out earlier, I had come to the conclusion that the society was not God's personal channel of communication in the sense of being told directly from Him how to understand the Bible, I still felt that He could be using them to congregate all 'the desirable things (NWT) of the nations' (Haggai 2:7) since they had shown the initiative as a body to announce the coming end of the system of things and the establishment of 'Jehovah's Kingdom', something that no other religious body - that I knew of - was doing. At the time, the use of God's personal name was paramount, and it was something that the organisation often drew to the attention of JWs.
  
  My first involvement with online 'witnessing' was not the pleasant experience I expected it to be. Yes, over the years I had from time to time met with argumentative, rude people in my door-to-door preaching - what JW hadn't? But opposers in the forum seemed to be of a different breed. They always appeared to be aggressive (and in some cases what one can only describe as 'rabid') and cunning, had no qualms about resorting to name-calling - despite their obvious belief that they were 'Christians', and had from what I could see nothing upbuilding to say. Although it was difficult to take at first, it only made me more sure that I had the right religion, since had Jesus said that 'if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you' (John 15:20)? It also helped that some community members who identified themselves as JWs gave me some enthusiastic responses. One thing did bother me however. Many of the 'JW' posts were brash in their treatment of 'opposers' and were not devoid of name-calling, nor what I considered to be rude. When I decided to address this observation I was pleased when some of these 'JWs' apologized. Nevertheless, there were others who made excuses saying that they had been provoked. I did'nt accept that as an excuse, because I felt that when out 'in the field' representing Jehovah and Jesus Christ we should never give the 'opposition' any legitimate cause for complaint. Our concern for protecting our good name as JWs should prevent us from retaliating. I guess I was wrong!
  
  (To Be Continued...)
• 

  NewWay

  WHY I STOPPED APOLOGISING FOR THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY - PART 4

  Very soon after joining my first Internet 'JW' community, I was asked to help out at another one that had a much larger number of members. I decided that this would be a better place to 'witness' as the one I had started at was starting to reveal itself as an 'apostate' forum. It turned out that the manager was what I saw as a disgruntled JW member who just wanted to stir up trouble. So I moved on to the other site and started to contribute many posts dealing with various aspects of JW belief. My hope was that even though my view of the leaders of the society was different from many JWs, I might help to defend our religion from the negative comments made by opposers, and at the same time help counteract their efforts to put off genuinely interested non-JWs. Without letting others know how I personally felt about the 'slave' (the governing body supposedly representing all 'anointed' JWs), I made excuses for these men pointing out that they were imperfect but were nevertheless running an organisation that had God's blessing. It was during this time that I took an excursion into the land of 'apostates' and 'Christendom'. Making Contact With Different WorldsDespite withdrawing membership from my first 'JW' community, my curiosity was aroused by a particular Internet link being publicised there. So, nervous though I was at the thought of 'playing with spiritual fire', I took a look.
  
  The feeling I had was akin to that experienced by me as a young child when on a rare occasion of bad behaviour I sneaked into the garden of a local house knowing that the owners were on holiday. The door to the conservatory attached to the side of the house was actually unlocked and so I - with trepidation - opened it and looked inside. As I was a child my attention was drawn to the toys lying around. I plucked up the courage to examine some of them, my eyes regularly keeping watch in case the family should suddenly return. I knew I had done wrong in trespassing, but I had this strong sense of wanting to know what other people's property looked like inside. I definitely was not there to steal anything. Yet the whole experience was disturbing, and as soon as I left the place a huge sense of relief prevailed. Nevertheless, I was bothered by the thought that maybe someone would find out I'd been there and I would be in serious trouble.
  
  What disturbed me about this site was that the owner had actually become involved with 'Christendom' and that there were pages that ridiculed the organisation - I felt that the methods used were both disrespectful and childish. I thought to myself, 'Is there no one who disagrees with the society who does not end up being a part of 'Christendom' or adopting the aggressive ill-mannered spirit of the world?' Although I didn't agree with the society's view of itself as God's channel of communication and was indignant its arrogance and treatment of the sheep, I still had no wish to give up beliefs which I felt had been satisfactorily argued for in the society's publications. I also wanted nothing to do with the me-ism, coarseness, lack of affection, and loose morality so prevalent in the world. So my first experience of 'apostate' web sites only helped me to consider that JWs were the only people on my wavelength. Yet, there were two things that this particular site included that made me sit up and take notice.
  
  There was an article stating that subliminal images could be found in various publications of the society. I remembered what a JW friend of mine had said back in the eighties, that some recent Watchtowers featured illustrations with hidden 'faces'. This worried me, and I looked through my own copies. I was shocked to find that this was so, that these 'faces' were not combinations of shading that could properly be interpreted as flukes. At the time I felt like throwing them out as if they were demonised (you have to be a fully 'paid up' member of the organisation to understand that type of reaction)! I remember thinking later, why has the society not said anything about this. Not too long afterwards the society wrote an article on rumours. It said that some brothers were spreading a rumour that a JW illustrator had introduced hidden pictures into publications and had been disfellowshipped as a result. It was obvious that this article was designed to stamp out this rumour. I was disappointed because no explanation as to why these hidden pictures had appeared was given. I felt that the society had a responsibility to the flock to give more information, even if it the society was not at fault - e.g. they had been the victim of sabotage. The fact that there were more hidden images still appearing in publications provoked more alarm. When I checked out the reference to page 159 of the 'Revelation' book and looked at the outstretched hand of the angel, it was obvious to me that the 'face' in the hand was deliberate since there is no way that the folds of skin on the palm of a hand could come anywhere near to looking like that! I thought that the silence on this subject only helped to strengthen the view that the governing body were purposefully introducing strange images into their publications. Despite the evidence of such hidden images, JWs were obviously expected to adopt an 'emporer's clothes' position to this.
  
  The site also featured a chapter from the book 'Crisis of Conscience' by Ray Franz. I was aware of the 1979 incident via an announcement in a Kingdom Ministry, but I did not know the details. My impression is that JWs in the UK know very little of what happens among their USA counterparts, apart from what is of a positive nature. I have found in my online activities that most information about the society comes from USA sources, and many online dissenters are from that country. It does seem that the British culture - certainly that which exists among those of my generation and before - makes it more difficult to question authority, and I think we tend to accept things more often with no more than a grumble. Reading the chapter from Ray's book, reinforced my view that this organisation could not be anything more than man-made.
  
  I visited some more 'apostate' sites but had such an uncomfortable feeling inside that I determined to stop this line of enquiry for good. Back at the second 'JW' site things started to get so confrontational that I decided to look for other places I could 'witness'. So, I searched for other 'Christian' oriented forums that I might join and found a UK community that seemed to project a reasonably restrained atmosphere. I felt that the cultural differences between Britain and America were probably a contributing factor to my feelings of discomfort in the 'JW' site I was leaving - most posters appeared to be from the USA. I mean no disrespect to the American people, but to understand this cultural difference you only have to compare the USA and UK versions of the 'Jerry Springer' show. The difference being that in the UK version the bodyguards have nothing much to do, and there are very few bleeps!
  
  Before I started posting at the UK site, I determined that I would not reveal my religious affiliation. I didn't want prejudice to get in the way of serious Bible discussion. I wanted people to consider my views on the basis of the arguments I put forward, not on the basis of what they thought of my religion. I had some very good discussions at that site and was surprised by the civil manner in which discussion generally took place, and was pleased that people were not afraid to apologise or give others the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who proved to be a trouble-maker was given due warning and very quickly removed from membership if they did not change their attitude. Although association with this group did not change my core beliefs, I learned quite a few things about what made people believe a certain way and why. Nevertheless there came a time when I felt I had to say more and that would inevitably lead to someone working out that I was a JW. So I moved over to another site that was a general forum for religious debate, so it did not matter whether you were JW, Mormon, Catholic, Atheist, or 'Pagan', all were welcome to participate. (To Be Continued...)
• 

  hillary_step

  NewWay,

  Thank you for this conntinuing series.

  You are I suspect quite right regarding the relative ignorance in the UK of apostate issues. I speak frequently with JW's in the UK and almost to a man they are ignorant of the struggles against the WTS regarding the blood issue, shunning and child-abuse that are taking place both within and without the court system in the US and Canada. I am sure that as the Internet compresses the world even further this ignorance will diminish.

  Keep up the good work - HS
• 

  NewWay

  Thanks Hillary_Step - if that is your real name ;0) I got your email and will definitely keep in touch. BTW, thanks for explaining the name; another piece of information to file away so that I can look good in a conversation!