We sent the above thread to a friend of ours, who is a former Bethelite, former elder, who exited the JW's about the same time we did. He is the one who actually got Dave to start investigating things. This is part of his reply. It's a bit long, but good reading. He doesn't post here, but maybe someday.
Original thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/63064/1.ashx
< astute observations. I think we've all recognized that the organization
has been morphing for several years. To that fellow's list, I'll add
these:
Taking on a definite monastic flavoring, we read that at Bethel Homes,
Bethelites are designated "ministers, all part of a special religious
order" (1993 Yearbook, p. 18), and they serve "under a legal vow of
poverty." (Watchtower, 12-15-93, p. 13, par. 12) As if completely
forgetting that true worship is a way of life, the daily text discussion
at Bethel is now referred to as "morning worship." (Watchtower, 6-15-94,
p. 28) And in a 1999 Watchtower we see a photo taken in Castro's Cuba
with a caption that reads: "Governing Body members sign gift Bibles for
public officials." (5-15-99, p. 8) We certainly didn't see these features
even twenty years ago, did we?
The way I see it, the organization will either become a mainline sect or
it will eventually peter out completely. With the demise of the "this
generation" carrot-on-a-stick, the Witnesses have pretty much lost their
apocalyptic profile and hence, any real sense of supposed "urgency." From
a sociological standpoint (based on what I've read), when an "end-time"
movement loses its apocalyptic profile by distancing itself from
predictions linked to a date, then it sets itself up to become a mainline
religion.
However, I tend to think the organization will eventually disappear after
years of decline--but whether in our lifetime or not, I obviously don't
know. Time will tell. The reason I think it will come to nothing is that
(unlike Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists) the WT Society hasn't begun
focusing on something concrete and tangible like providing hospitals
and/or universities, and thus shifting it's reason-for-being to something
practical and productive. Rather, it continues to make the "preaching
work" (i.e. sharing the organizational message) the be-all and end-all.
As such it is destined to continue to lose whatever "evangelistic
enthusiasm" that once existed, only to become an eccentric little group
that highlights a "paradise earth," and subscribes to a peculiar brand of
"dos" and "don'ts."
The year 2014 is little more than 10 years away. I've periodically
pondered on whether or not those in WT leadership haven't been giving
some thought to possibly trying to mitigate the disillusioning effects of
a 100-year anniversary of the supposed end of the "Gentile Times." And
recently I've learned that there are inklings of the organization feebly
attempting to restore a "carrot" to its "stick" and thus regain its
"apocalyptic profile."
I haven't seen it, but apparently a main article in the December 15,
Watchtower, draws a parallel between the conditions in Noah's day prior
to the Flood and the conditions on earth since 1914. Supposedly, it then
draws attention to God's statement to Noah (Genesis 6: 3) that he would
bring destruction within 120 years and goes on to point out that '90
years have now passed since 1914.' Evidently there's no precise assertion
being made that this means that only 30 years remain before "the
end"-however, it certainly seems to lay the groundwork for unbridled
speculation among "the friends." (Imagine that! Tempting the brothers to
do what they counsel them not to! This speech is shocking!) If this is as
I've heard it is, then "blind guides" and "blind followers"
notwithstanding, there seems to be a type of perverse cruelty that
permits some people to toy with the hopes and lives of others. But again,
I've not read this firsthand. Have you heard anything about this article?
Has anyone posted anything like what I describe? Let me know.
I like what the fellow online said about the Witness organization
trending toward what in politics is called the "Soviet Disease." To my
way of thinking this only goes to bolster the idea that the organization
will eventually come to nothing. Didn't the Soviet Union finally break
apart and disappear?
I recently saw the 2004 Yearbook. I read a few paragraphs from the
opening letter from the Governing Body. Reading it actually made me
somewhat sick to my stomach. It made me realize just how much I've
distanced myself from the organizational jargon and how it acts to
channel your thinking and hem you in emotionally. I do believe it's
gotten worse in the last 10 or 15 years relative to "mind control"
aspects. At least 25 to 35 years ago (and back) there did seem to be some
well-reasoned articles with more rational appeal. Now it's largely just
mind-numbing pabulum and drivel. (No wonder some feel the need to keep
things interesting by staking out the homes of "apostates" and taking
surveillance photos of their driveways!)
That fellow online noted how the "organization has sunk into a stunning
dependency." Curiously, this nicely coincides with a self-indicting quote
(unseen of course), made in The Watchtower a few years back when the
words "sect" and "cult" were discussed:
"A 'sect' has been defined as 'a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine
or to a leader.' Similarly, those belonging to a 'cult' have 'great
devotion to a person, idea, or thing.' Actually the members of any
religious group who strongly adhere to human leaders and their ideas are
in danger of becoming slaves to men. A strong leader-oriented
relationship can lead to an unhealthy emotional and spiritual dependency.
The danger may be compounded when a person is reared in a sectarian
atmosphere from childhood."-Watchtower, 3-15-98, pp. 10,11.
Hello! If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck-what do you suppose you've got on your hands? I guess it's a case of
seeing others as fat and hypercritical but seeing oneself as pleasantly
plump and rather discerning. Go figure. [Thankfully, we have Etymology,
which is a branch of linguistics that can explain what no Anglo-Saxon of
a thousand years ago could ever have dreamed: How his word for diarrhea
would some day outperform a wild card by coming to mean just about
anything a person wants it to; as in "No ----!" or "---- happens!" or
"---- yes!" or "---- no!" or "---- faced," or that all-time stellar one:
"the whole ----and kaboodle!" Basically, ---- means pretty much anything
but excrement these days. While a time-traveling Anglo-Saxon might be
sorely perplexed, he'd find himself a kindred spirit with those told:
"So, brothers 'this generation' can mean just about anything, now can't
it?"]
Reading your friend's posting made me revisit a short essay I wrote
almost 10 years ago. In it I made use of a quote from the April 8, 1993
Awake! Given recent problematic developments within the organization,
it's ironic that this quote is taken from a news item entitled, :"Victims
of Pedophile Priests Speak Out." After referring to victims speaking out,
Awake! (p. 31) said:
"But NCR (National Catholic Reporter) notes that speakers sounded another
theme repeatedly throughout the conference: 'The first abuse is sexual;
the second and more painful, is psychological.' This second abuse occurs
when the church refuses to listen to victims of abuse, fails to take
their accusations seriously, and moves only to protect the offending
priests. 'Fairly or unfairly,' NCR reports, 'they portrayed Catholic
clergy as belonging to an unhealthy and misguided group more bent on
preserving privilege and power than in serving lay needs.' Several
speakers made ominous comparisons to the Reformation, which split the
church wide open in the 16th century. According to Richard Sipe, a former
priest turned psychotherapist and expert on sexual abuse by Catholic
clergy, all this institutional denial reveals 'a deep, desperate and
knowing personal involvement in the problem.' He added: 'The church knows
and has known for a long time a great deal about the sexual activity of
its priests. It has looked the other way, tolerated, covered up and
simply lied about the broad spectrum of sexual activity of its priests.'"
Of course, when I used this quote I had no way of anticipating the
problems the WT Society itself was to have with this very same problem.
At the time I took and applied what was said in a different way. Forgive
me for quoting myself:
"The ghastly nature of the above may seem unrelated, yet, at least
consider these similarities: Does not a sort of psychological abuse take
place when the organization refuses to acknowledge damage done by
erroneous presentations [e.g. the 1975 buildup] and fails to take
individual's concerns and questions seriously, regarding its claims,
mistakes, and inconsistencies? and only moves to protect its image by
repeating its claims, and upholding its positions, in the printed page?
Is it not possible that a motive for all this might be that the
powers-that-be, made up of a somewhat insulated and misguided (albeit
well-intended) group, are more bent on preserving the status quo and all
that goes with it, than in actually addressing individual concerns? Is it
a case of 'institutional denial' revealing 'a deep, desperate and knowing
personal involvement in the problem'?"
That fellow online whom you cite asks: "Just how childishly dependent can
Witnesses become?" Answer: When you're dealing with the 'psychologically
abused', then apparently they can become pretty dependent.
He also asks: "How deep can this cajoling, threatening, nagging, and
pleading amidst platitudes get?" Answer: When the cajolers, threateners,
naggers, pleaders and platitude-spouters are "an unhealthy and misguided
group more bent on preserving privilege and power than in serving lay
needs', then apparently it can get pretty deep. And since what is
involved is "institutional denial" which "reveals 'a deep, desperate and
knowing personal involvement in the problem,' then we're talking as deep
as the deep blue sea.
If you hope for anything resembling truth, once the court of popular
opinion is in session, position yourself somewhere between the man with
the tar bucket and the fellow with the whitewash brush.
Regards, XXXXX>>