Rather, it is the motivation behind such questioning of some people that apparently needs to be given greater attention than the question itself. This becomes evident when a person believes they have no other recourse than to turn to opposers and/or defectors for clarification of troubling matters – thus laying the groundwork for the potentiality of further exploitation.
****One problem with Watchtower apologists, and Jehovah's Witnesses in general, is to make an assumption about the state of mind, or motivation of anyone beginning to question. What makes the determination of the person's motivation more important than the question being asked? A fear that the question may not be answered sufficiently well to satisfy the questioner? Or a fear that beneath such questioning lies what the Society hates the most, to answer to their own and admit some wrong? And as the Governing Body wishes that Witnesses not talk to those on the other side (even while engaging in the sacred work of preaching to everyone), just what mechanism is in place to hear the arguments from all sides? None. Again, there's the assumption that opposers and defectors will always want to exploit!
Hence, sometimes more important than ‘why’ certain individuals are dissatisfied with the role the WTS plays in their spiritual lives is ‘what’ leads these ones to a course of dissatisfaction (and perhaps eventually to opposition) in the first place? This is a long and often difficult study in itself, due mostly to the complexity of situations that lend a person to search for rationality or respite from foreign sources while being in the midst of a personal dilemma. Be that as it may however, it is an important concept that those seeking Jehovah’s friendship do well to consider…
****Oh! It's a long and often difficult study? Ever tried doing the simpler thing, answering the questions asked, rather than getting into the mind of the questioner? Isn't Jehovah the one searching hearts? Why don't let Jehovah do that, and you, face up to what Paul wrote about being ready to defend the faith before anyone requiring such? It's a strange concept, one fraught with pain.
It is my hope that all of us will think candidly about the processes driving disaffection and apostasy despite the fact that they entail a great deal of self-analysis and disclosure; and are often not easily observed, since the “heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.” (Jeremiah 17:9) Yet honesty concerning one’s motivations is an integral factor in determining whether an individual will accept or repudiate refining counsel or understanding that comes from the engine room of Jehovah’s earthly organisation. If not, a person may silently become disaffected and subsequently turn to apostate information due to seemingly rational, faith based judgements. In truth however, this is no more than the foundering of decision justified by scrutiny.
****Interesting! So why don't offer refining cousel first? Why bother to strangle the messenger? Witnesses are happy to meet religious people who ask sensible questions when they go out to preach. do they expect these same "thinking" people to stop thinking once they become baptized? How could Jeremiah 17:) be applied to someone honestly asking a question? What desperate hearts?
Examining this point, I would like to cheat (sorry) and paste a quotation from a paper that I am working on concerning this issue.
“When under the influence of apostate ideology, the person affected by this thinking experiences an often difficult and sometimes confusing array of emotions. For one to have their life so drastically altered that there arises open repudiation against ones former associates there first has to occur what could be termed a deconversion – reconversion process. This process, which happens prior to their renouncement and subsequent hostility, is the culmination of many long hours spent pondering various discrepancies, spiritual or scriptural, that have hijacked the individuals disposition and absorbed it into one of brooding, fascination and speculation concerning the congregation and its convictions.”
*****So what exactly is wrong with this picture? First off, not all apostates are hostile to the congregation. To link apostace with subsequent hostility is a tactic the Society employs all the time. It's a false option. Besides, your quote takes off from a wrong location; not all who begin to question are already under the influence of "apostate ideology", rather, it is the inconsistency in teachings, and a conflict between what is preached and what is actually done, and indepth study, up from the state of knowing nothing, and thing like that, that make people begin to question. Your quote mentions, but ignores discrepancies, say.
Needless to say, I hope that any who may be inclined to engage a known apostate in dialogue will reconsider – not only for the hitherto reasons, but more importantly because of the biblical mandate against such an act. (Romans 16:17)
***Even Satan was allowed time in God's court.
