Elder 1,
I will be in town on xxxxxx, December xxx. I will be available until noon.
I'm sure you would agree that my everlasting life is an important enough reason to revisit some of the outstanding questions I posed last year to be addressed. I sincerely would like to hear what response you can offer. As the 1958 WT, May 1, pg 261 in the bound volume states: "Are you willing to put your religion through ... a test? There is nothing to fear, because if you have the right religion you can only be reassured by the examination."
1.) Why do many WT publications take out of context quotes from prominent scientists? Although I could choose many books, I'll focus on one. The book "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?".
The book says of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, referring to his book The Selfish Gene, "At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." (WTBS, 1985, p. 39). The implication here is that Dawkins is "admitting" that his evolutionary theories are uncertain and should be treated as "fiction". In context, though, we can see that Dawkins is saying no such thing at all: Here is the quote in context. "This book should be read as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p.ix)
Another example of distortion and misquoting from the Life book. Life quotes writer Francis Hitching as saying "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." (WTBS, p. 15) The implication here is that evolutionary theory is being rejected by biologists. However, the Life books' neglect to quote the very next sentence in Hitching’s book, which goes on to say: "Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms." (Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 4) The Life book claim that Hitching concludes that evolution is "in trouble" is simply untrue. Hitching himself, in a passage that was conveniently edited out by the authors of Life, explicitly states that evolution is "a fact" and "approaches certainty in scientific terms". What is being questioned, Hitching writes, is the prevelance of the Darwinian mechanism in evolution, not the validity of evolution itself.
These are just 2 examples of many many misquotes found throughout the book. I can also provide examples from other publications if you would like.
2.) Why would informing parents of young children that a certain individual is a registered sex offender amount to 'slander'? I was told this would be the case last year in a meeting with Elder 2, CO, and you, Elder 1.
I was also told that 'we (the elders) followed the law'. While that may be true, Jehovah's Witnesses are supposed to be 'no part of the world'. Why resort to protecting an individual who has been found guilty of a serious crime in fear of somehow 'slandering' their name? It seems that mainstream media has picked up on this serious problem. Note NBC Nightly News on 11/21/2007 and how the official JW media site again misquotes prominent individuals in the field. Click the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfNWI58w6qs
3.) If Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow infants to be baptized, why did I observe a 9 year old get baptized in the (city name) Congregation? While a 9 year old will have a much better understanding than an infant of the importance of baptism, how can you claim they have a full understanding of what baptism means? Speaking of infant baptism, the Insight Volume 1 has this to say:
Insight Volume , page 251 "All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do."
Can a 9 year old demonstrate these things? Would a 9 year old be allowed to marry, which is of lesser importance and therefore should have fewer barriers, if they met the above requirements for baptism?
Thank you for preparing your answers as they will have a large effect on my personal decisions regarding my faith.
As a heads up, I will be digitally recording the meeting. I have not seen any publicly available policy which prohibits me from doing this. If there are some private policies I'm not aware of, perhaps in the "Flock" book, I would like to review these before the meeting.
I look forward to meeting on December xxxx.
Thank you,
Mavie
