Should you write to the society?

by sleepy 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  when someone comes across something in the "truth" that disterbs them should they write to the society or is this pointless?
  I think they should write for several reasons.
  1.You must give them at least a chance to present their side of the story.It is no good just relying for others for your information you can not be shure what the society really belive until you hear it from them yourself.
  Wasn't just relying on the judgement of others part of what got you in in the first place.
  Its good for us to try and advance in our way of thinking during life and part of this involves doing our own research which is not complete until we go to the source of our conflict.
  Also if you bring up the point with someone it gives more weight to your argument if mention you wrote to the society and this was their answer.
  2. The more poeple that write in with the same points the more difficult it will be for them to hold to an erroneous stand.
  The more different people that write the more ways of expresing the point will be heared different ways will make sence to different people.
  Remember its not just the same person answering all letters but different people who will have to do research an answer your point, which could make them think.
  (This assumes that the society is genuinely mistaken and not corupt, although it could be a bit of both)

  Of cource if you do not want hassle off your elders dont tell the society you are a brother/sister or just give a different name ,prehaps you could give the address of your place of work or somewhere else if you don't want to be traced easily.
  In my case I just made it sound like I was an intrested person.
  Or you could make out that you need some help in presenting the societies case to an intrested person who has quetions.
• 

  Francois

  I wrote to the society back in the mid-70s about an elder who was the most egregiously execreable bastard I've ever known. It was about ten pages, legal size, single-spaced, and typed. It went off like a canon. Sparing you the gory and lengthy details, it resulted in getting the offending, offensive elder - C.B. Mitchell - removed. And that's a matter of public record. Of course, not being an elder was more than he could tolerate, what with having been a "glorious one" and all. He went to a nearby congregation and got his buddies over there to put him in. What an ego.

  Ever notice how these "servants" refer to the cessation of being an elder as stepping "down"? If they don't think they're better than everyone else, why would they characterize it as a step down? Instead of a step UP? Assholes.

  Anyway, back to your question. That letter was a very long time ago. I don't think they respond to them anymore. Too many to handle. And the fact that you have to hide your identity from them, so as to avoid the inevitable negative repercussions, speaks volumes about what kind of organization they've got going. Fear-based at the very minimum. Couple that with an unwillingness to be accountable for what they say and do, and you've really got a dangerous situation. Like the Moscow subways: Expensive chandeliers and no public bathrooms. But you'd better not complain. For in the case of the JWs, criticizing them is criticizing God himself. (And I'm the virgin Mary).

  Don't waste your time.

  Francois
• 

  ozziepost

  Thanks Francoise for the thoughts.

  Elders being deleted or no longer serving or whatever being referred to as "stepping down" has long irked me. As an elder I always where I could corrected bros/sis for using the term. As you rightly point out, it implies that they have a lofty position from which to "step down" from, so when were they elevated?

  I wonder if anyone knows where it originated?

  Cheers,
  Ozzie
• 

  troubled

  I'm 90% sure that I AM going to write to the Society about my concerns, as soon as I finish my research, and find out which claims are definitely substantiated and too big to ignore. Not sure how long it will take though.

  If and when I write, I WILL put my name on it. I will present it tactfully and honestly. I will not pretend to be someone else, as though I have something terrible to feel ashamed of or hide (questions).

  Whatever response I get (if I get one) will just be one more piece of information that will ultimately help me make a decision one way or the other.
• 

  Englishman

  Not until I get an apology.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  MadApostate

  Troubled:

  I don't know what your current circumstances are with respect to your association with the Borg, but sounds like you are inactive(?) and questioning.

  IMHO, writing the WTS with concerns/questions is the BEST way to uncover their true nature.

  No matter how respectful, tactful, etc your letter is, IF you question a teaching you will receive retribution from the local cong in some way or another. It may be later than sooner, depending on how much groveling you do in the letter, but they WILL GET YOU!!!
• 

  Mulan

  Dear Sleepy and Dear Troubled,
  I'm sure many of us on this board know of at least one person who did as you are contemplating. Their response will be to "SHUT YOU UP", whether that means disfellowshipping you, or correcting your thinking, believe me, you will NOT be enlightening them on anything.

  They will NOT want accept a lowly publisher as being able to research and find things they of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, have not seen. So, you will be making a big problem for yourself, and for the elders in your congregation, who will be instructed to deal with you. You will not likely get a reply from NY.

  My husband was an elder for 25 years, until 1996, so we both know how these things are handled. Carl Olaf Johnson, a JW, in Sweden, did what you are thinking of doing a few years ago, when he researched their faulty chronology, and he was disfellowshipped pretty quickly. He went on to write some amazing books about his research, that have helped many of us to see the light, about chronology.

  I just had to warn you.

  Marilyn (a.k.a. Mulan)
• 

  anon

  You could preface your questions with this quotation:

  *** w98 8/15 20 Strengthening Our Confidence in God's Righteousness ***
  19 Jehovah’s organization does not discourage sincere, timely questions, as some opposers mistakenly claim. (1 Peter 1:10-12) However, the Bible counsels that we avoid foolish, speculative questions. (Titus 3:9) Asking reasonable questions and searching God’s Word and Christian publications to find Scriptural answers can increase our accurate knowledge and can thus strengthen our confidence in Jehovah. The organization follows the example of Jesus. He refrained from commenting on questions for which the proper time for answering had not arrived. He explained: “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present.” (John 16:12) He also admitted that some things he himself did not know at that point.—Matthew 24:36.
• 

  LDH

  Sure why not? Everyone loves to get a form letter in response to their heartfelt thoughts!

  I'm not a gambling woman but I will bet my life that at the bottom of the letter you'll see "We encourage you to continue to go to the meetings and see the congregation elders."

  Yeah, why would anyone go pour out their hearts to a bunch of men the WBTS has called "Untrained Volunteers?"

  Don't WRITE the Society, instead READ the Society. Read everything they've written and compare it to today's current 'teachings.'

  Lisa
• 

  philo

  Ozziepost

  Elders being deleted or no longer serving or whatever being referred to as "stepping down" has long irked me. As an elder I always, where I could, corrected bros/sis for using the term. As you rightly point out, it implies that they have a lofty position from which to "step down" from, so when were they elevated?
  I wonder if anyone knows where it originated?

  I can only surmise that this expression is a reflection of the class reality, which exists is the organisation, and is supported by…

  1. Comparing the positions of elders with that of 'princes' in this paper kingdom, and the greater one to come.

  2. The term overseer and elder are interchangeable.

  3. JW's give their talks from raised platforms, and elder's do most of the talking.

  4. Every JW knows the hierarchy is structured with God at the top, and that direction feeds downward through the offices. To deny this structure denies the congregation's raison d'etre. Therefore the 'step up/step down' is well known to be humblising talk and nothing serious. The best example starts with the WT view of women, "the head of the woman is the man". This is extended to "the head of the congregation is the Christ". This analogy probably gets misapplied, in the minds of dubs, to justify why they feel like "the comely feet" while elders are the "heads" of the local body.

  5. The WTBTS has constructed a class-based theology in respect of salvation and judgment (GT crowd/144,000), and implicit in this view are the notions of 'upper' and 'lower'.

  I am sure that any elder describing his own resignation as a 'step up', would be seen by the congregation as glorifying himself.

  philo