Dear... Anyone Who Can Be Helped
It begins (and ends really) with the Bible. I have always stated that the Bible is the source of my beliefs. In a large way this is true, though these beliefs are shaped by JW’s interpretation of those scriptures. The Bible asserts it is inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16). Though men wrote it, the concepts and facts are of divine origin. It has been preserved in its current form through divine direction and intervention to ensure we have it as intended now in the last days. This is a very comforting assertion, however, it also creates the issue that any provably false items will essentially invalidate the whole unless you are willing to undertake additional mental gymnastics.
My first real impediment is not attributable to any one verse. Rather it is the theme of prayer. It goes back to my daughter asking me why Jehovah didn’t help those people in concentration camps but he helps others. The answer is that we don’t understand God’s will, be patient for when he wants to act (2 Pet 3:9), time and unforeseen occurrence befalls us all (Eccl 9:11), or we cannot expect divine intervention for each of us individually all the time. These have been the answers I have always given. And yet, at the meetings a sister will comment how she prayed that she needed a good call in the ministry that, and she got one, and that this was God answering her prayer (Lu 11:5-10). The call may never listen to the scriptures again, but God intervened so she could have a good day.
Congregations will pray about acquiring property for a new Kingdom Hall and the positive or negative outcome is attributed to him (Luke 11:9 ), with negative answers meaning it was not God’s will. People will pray for mates, some will get them, some will not, some will end up marrying terrible people. Those who get good ones or those who don’t will attribute it to God’s will and move on. A bad mate is because you didn’t listen completely, people are imperfect, or you and your mate are not following scriptural principles correctly. It seems odd to me that God will intervene directly for ‘some’, not for others, or that his intervention is so inconsistent (from a human perspective). I will agree that we cannot know how God works at his level, but it also has to be considered that perhaps it is purely a mental trick like meditation or therapy or anything like that which can soothe our anxiety. Of course, if prayer is just a psychological trick, a lot more comes into question, both scripturally and organizationally.
The next big issue is Adam, and his existence as the first human. Jesus sacrifice, our hope for the future, and everything in the Bible is pinned on Adam and his original sin. Bible Chronology firmly plants existence, or at least his sin (since we don’t know how long Adam & Eve lived before that) at around 6000 years ago. Watchtower publications and others have tried to be more specific, but 6000 is good enough. Archeology continues to find artifacts, human remains, and other things older than 6000 years old. On July 17, 2019, while I’m in the throes of this analysis, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced a 9000 year old settlement found near Jerusalem. Otzi man is 5500 years old and from the southwestern Alps. This doesn’t preclude Adam at 6000 years old, but it’s pretty far from the Garden of Eden for just 500 years into mankind. Fully preserved mummies have been found at 10,000 years old in North America. There are skeletons that have been dated to 40,000 years old.
The JW argument against it is that carbon dating is flawed, and glaringly. The problem is, there is a lot of science out there which proves that carbon dating is highly accurate. Fluctuations amount to differences of a few decades over a measurement of thousands of years. And it has been studied a lot. One of the more common arguments that it can’t be trusted too far back is that the flood changed radioactive decay due to a number of things such as the absence of a ‘water canopy’ or water pressure on elements. The water canopy idea is somewhat based on Genesis 7:11, but that’s not really what the scripture states, nor is it a required interpretation. The origin of the ‘canopy’ idea that I can find is from a new-earth creationist around the year 1900. It seems that this idea was very much ridiculed even at the time. Were it real, any potential impact on carbon dating has been disproven as matter from under the depths of the sea, matter from meteors, and matter from the moon have been confirmed to show the same curve of radioactive decay. So is all of this science, and the technology which is based on it (nuclear reactors among others) and everything wrong, or is the Bible’s account of Adam?
When you look at the account of Adam, if some of the components written in another book, they would be dismissed as obvious mythology. For example, Eve being made from a rib in Gen 2:21,22; the snake speaking to Eve in Genesis 3:1 (of note is that it does not say a spirit controlled the snake); and God cursing the serpent in Genesis 3:14 would all be seen as obvious myths in every other context. The snake is pretty weird too. If it was Satan that controlled the snake, why would the snake be cursed for something it didn’t do? Why was the snake being cautious relevant? How did Eve not know that animals don’t speak unless she was only a day old? The Bible presents and necessitates that this account is 100% factual, with no room for myth, exaggeration, or other inaccuracies. With spirit creatures, and God, all things are possible, but the accounts feel mythological.
Naturally, this moves in to the Biblical account of the Flood. Genesis 7:19 & 20 attest that the whole earth and even the tallest mountains were covered by 20 feet of water. The implications of this are hard to reconcile. If this covered the whole earth, then Mount Everest at 29,000 feet above sea level would be covered. Data that I can find indicates that 99.999% of the world’s water is on the earth already, leaving a fraction of water in the atmosphere. That’s about 3,095 cubic miles of water, which is great, but that’s only an inch or so of water across the planet (with what is in the atmosphere today). If all the ice on the earth melted, that would add another 216 feet of water based on current science. It’s deep, but nowhere near enough to cover even small mountains. The earth is a closed environment, meaning that the amount of water in the ecosystem should not be changing by any meaningful level. As a result, to account for the Biblical account of the flood, we need to say that the earth was flatter, and that the flood caused mountains to rise. Water weighs a lot, but to argue that an event cataclysmic enough to raise a 29000 foot tall mountain, with all of the other cataclysms that would happen as a result of that type of shift in the earth’s crust, and the time it would take for volcanic and tectonic shifting to subside, are simply not plausible. The existence of Pangaea or the original supercontinent has also been speculated to have been broken up by the flood, but again, 4000 years ago is not sufficient based upon the above implied cataclysms. The Bible also fairly precisely locates the Garden of Eden near the Tigris & Euphrates rivers (Gen 2:10-14) as placed after the flood. If there was significant tectonic shift, this location would have been drastically shifted, and the Bible would be wrong.
The flood account also puts all of the animal life on the planet in the ark at Gen 7:8,9. The ark was very big. It’s essentially 1.5 million cubic feet, with multiple floors. This could absolutely hold a lot of animals, though it would limit their movement and allow minimal room for food. 370 days on the ark for this would require additional miracles by God, such as essentially holding animals in stasis, or miraculously providing for food and waste removal (that’s a lot of work for 8 people). All things are possible with God, but there would seem to be an easier way. If the flood was only 4000 years ago, it also seems unlikely to see the amount of diversity we see earth wide in species, particularly with a lot of species existing only in one isolated area. Consider the odd things in Australia and New Zealand, or all of the climate specific species which would have had to migrate rapidly to survive (or additional miracles).
There are other things which I was taught growing up at meetings about the flood which have not really been repeated recently. Statements were made about the former tropical climates in the arctic, Mammoths frozen with food in their mouths, or fossils on a high cliff wall. These were cited as proof of a flood 4000 years ago. These days, these are not mentioned because they have been shown to either have been much older than 4000 years, or just hearsay as in the case of the mammoth. Thus the flood seems likely a myth, or an amalgamation of miracles far beyond a conversation with Noah, direction of animals, and subsequent flood.
Similarly, there continue to be other miracles in the Old Testament which would be dismissed as myths were they in any other book. The Genesis account of angels taking bodies and having sex with women and then the Nephilim (Gen 6:4) is similar to other polytheistic myths. Perhaps the Bible is the truth which others are based on, and the other myths are distortions of reality as presented in the Bible, but this is purely conjecture. There are also accounts such as the donkey seeing an angel (Num 22:23) on the road, and Samson’s hair (Judges 16:17) which are miracles in the Bible. Accepting these as miracles is fine, but my concern stems from the fact that were these accounts in any other context other than scripture, they would be dismissed as fables.
This then leads to the question of Canonicity or if the items that are in the Bible belong in the Bible. The books in the Hebrew portion of the Bible was essentially determined by Jewish religious leaders a few hundred years before Christ. This was well after the Jewish nation had lost the direct blessing of Jehovah. Similarly, the Christian portion was decided by the leaders of Christendom several hundred years after the apostles died and ‘apostasy’ set in. Clearly, the creator of all things could manipulate these non-God fearing men to include the components he wanted in His Book, but it still sticks in my head. Then there are 2 books which I find particularly confusing. The first is Song of Solomon. This has been explained as being a representation of Jesus love for his heavenly bride class. Yet the book reads like a story of unrequited love by a horny man for a young girl. Comments about breasts (Ca 4:5; 7:7) seem to have little spiritual benefit. The fact that she didn’t love him back (Ca 6:3) also seems contrary to the thought of Jesus heavenly bride class loving him.
But the Song of Solomon is nowhere near the most controversial book of the Bible. That would be reserved for the book of Daniel. Daniel is significant because one of the most convincing aspects of the Bibles trustworthiness is that it foretells history in advance through prophecy. Daniel is key for this due to its prophecy about Medo-Persia, the rise of the Greek empire, and prophecies which are said to have taken place in the 20th century. The case for Daniel being a true prophecy has several facets. The accounts of Daniel in the Babylonian court are historically accurate. It has details about Belshazzar being a ruler, and in the role that he was in, which were not confirmed by any other sources until around 1880. Interestingly, the clay tablets which prove Belshazzar’s existence age are verified through carbon dating (I’ll get to that). Additionally, Daniels recounting of the details (Dan 5:29) of the Babylonian court is also very accurate. It would seem unlikely, if not impossible for someone who did not live in that court to have known these details. Daniel is also different in that it is broken up in Hebrew and Aramaic at different parts. The book also has two very distinct parts, that of the Babylonian court and that of prophetic visions, though these topical breaks do not follow the linguistic breaks. The topics are very different, and the writing style is also different. Could it be 2 writers? Some would say yes. To further complicate items, the Septuagint version of the Bible contained 3 other unrelated stories in the Book of Daniel. As to who Daniel was, Ezekiel refers to Daniel as a man of Wisdom, linking him with Noah & Moses. It’s somewhat anomalous that a contemporary would name him in that context of ‘men of old’ who had wisdom, but it’s a point for Daniel having existed when referenced against other scripture. Other criticisms of the book point to the fact that it so specifically details the rise of Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan 8:20-22). This is cited as evidence that it was written after as they discount prophecy altogether. However, they also note that this book did not appear in any Hebrew references until ~150 BC, which would have been well after the events that were prophesied, and that prophetic book compilations from even 200 BC contain other prophets, but not Daniel. To make the link to Christianity, Jesus quoted from the book of Daniel, meaning that he found it as canonical. Nothing is able to definitively determine if these sections were written before the fact as prophecy, or after the fact, as claimed prophecy.
Another cited plus for Daniel having been written in the 6th century BCE is that Josephus records an event where Alexander hears that he’s been named in the prophecy of the Hebrews, reads it when he gets to Jerusalem, and ends up sacrificing to Jehovah and not requiring additional taxes. This would mean that Daniel was written and trusted by ~400 BC. This sounds like pretty convincing proof until you read about how much of Josephus’ writings are really inaccurate, and how Alexander never added taxes to cities that welcomed him (like Jerusalem did), and it was his practice to sacrifice to local Gods. Where does that leave the book of Daniel? Inconclusive, but unsatisfying as to the prophetic nature of the book. The book is used strongly to point to 1914, which is a key belief. So to doubt anything about Daniel would be to undermine one of the key doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
There are also the other things about the Scriptures which have never really clicked with me. Abraham lies about Sarah in Genesis 12:13, when it would seem that Jehovah could simply have protected them. Also, Jehovah hates lying (Prov 6:16,17). Lot gives his daughters to a horny crowd at Genesis 19:8, which disturbs me even writing about it. The fact that Abraham was ready to kill his son at Genesis 22:10 is also really messed up. It is used to show Abrahams faith in the resurrection, but as a father, I have no idea how he could get that far. Moses made one mistake (Num 20:12) and was kept from the Promised Land. Granted, it was a fairly big mistake, but for all the good he did, it still seems like the punishment didn’t fit the crime. At the other end of the punishment spectrum, you have David with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11), and censuses (2 Sam 24) and other things. Yet compared to Moses, his punishments seem to be tiny by comparison. The stories of David also seem to be overly heroic in nature, almost akin to Arthurian or Greek legends. His prowess in battle (1 Sa 16:18), song (2 Ch 7:6), beauty (1 Sa 16:12); killing bears and lions (1 Sa 17:34-36), giants (1 Sa 17:50) – it seems a bit much at times. When you look at the accounts of Jesus, he is mild, doesn’t overreact, always shows love and brings peace, except one time at the temple when he makes a whip (John 2:13-17) and drives people out in ‘righteous rage’. It would seem a perfect man who could always turn away rage with a mild answer could have handled the situation differently. Perhaps. There’s more, but these are top of mind.
In the end, I can understand those who look at the Hebrew Scriptures as Jewish history with the same embellishments that any orally passed on history would have. The Jews are unique in their preservation of names & families, which is significant as it adds an air of accuracy and trustworthiness to it. But the primary understanding as evidenced by archeology and history is that the Jews did not have a written language until around 800 BC. That’s a lot of time required to pass on chronology based on word of mouth. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tiny town at the time of the Davidic Empire, but he is seen as a powerful king. Divine inspiration does mean that the Bible is accurate and everyone else is wrong, but at what point does the evidence push the tipping point against that?
Then it comes to the interpretations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It seems only appropriate that this begins with the leadership of the organization. Jehovah’s Witnesses started with the understandings of Charles Taze Russell. A number of these beliefs, such as 1914, have their roots with Seventh Day Adventists, with whom he associated as he began the Watchtower and his own path. He attested that he was the conduit of truth for mankind as part of the time of the end. Russell saw himself as the faithful and discreet slave personally. This mantle was then passed down to ‘judge’ Rutherford, and Nathan Knorr. Each of these saw themselves and are referred to in publications as being the leader of the organization, which is a bit contrary to having one leader of Christ (Mt 23:10)
We currently see these men as having been put into place by God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), which is able to direct his people on earth. Naturally he would need a conduit to do so, and these men were his choices. Holy Spirit is seen to have a hand in the appointment of all of the leaders in the organization, from the Governing Body, through Circuit representatives, down to Elders and Ministerial Servants. Having God’s hand so actively guide an organization is a huge comfort. The troubling side is that there have been child molesters and others who have been appointed Elders and have used their position to further their abuse. Shouldn’t the direction of the Holy Spirit prevent that from happening? How can the Holy Spirit direct these men to be appointed but not direct these children away from these monsters?
The anointed class are those who hope to serve in heaven as part of the 144,000. They claim that they have been spoken to by God to understand this appointment (1 Pet 1:3,4). In 1935, it was widely taught (and still understood) that this number of 144,000 was largely ‘sealed’ and new servants of Jehovah would overwhelmingly have the earthly hope. All of those on the Governing Body today would have been spoken to by the Spirit after 1935 based on their age. When growing up, a brother in a neighboring congregation began partaking of the Memorial emblems, thereby showing others he was anointed. While no one would confront him on it, since he was an ‘ordinary’ brother with no special privileges, he was seen as a bit of a nut job. Time bore this out to be true as I believe he left his family and killed himself sometime after. Recently, another brother began taking the emblems. He is only a few years older than me and has served the organization in various avenues of service in other countries. Again most people see it as weird, but due to his service it is ‘less weird’. If it is God’s will, who are we to question?
Also, while the anointed Governing Body still serve as the primary teachers of the organization, there was established another ‘class’ of servants to assist, called the Nethinim. This is linked to the temple servants of 1 Chron 9:2. This is a small group, buried in the Hebrew Scriptures, with no parallel in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It seems like it may have been invented and linked to this group as an explanation for why non-anointed are doing more.
The attitude of those in charge also troubles me. If we look at the humility that angels showed (Rev 19:10) in the Bible, and what is extolled (Mt 18:4), it would seem appropriate to expect very humble men. Humble is defined as not proud or haughty, not arrogant or assertive; reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission; ranking low in a hierarchy or scale. The early leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses were absolutely not. Russell and Rutherford were intimidating men, leading by their force of personality and strongly claiming that they were being specially directed by God. It can be argued that this was needed to establish God’s modern organization, but humility was not a strong suit of these men. In current congregations it’s a common question when meeting others, ‘who are your elders’ or ‘who is your coordinator’. I do not understand why the names of men who are to be humble (Phil 2:3) and serving the flock is so important. Many find these men unapproachable and aloof, similar to Christendom’s clergy.
The Governing Body members have also recently begun to take a more prominent role. They are featured in videos on JW.org. The names of those giving the talks are featured more than the theme or a scriptural thought in the titles of the videos. Their faces and names are now prominent among the worldwide organization. This became such an issue that a comment was made in a recent Watchtower that it was inappropriate to request these men to sign your Bibles. I appreciate the humble stance on that, however it is the prominence that they chose to give themselves which led to such a scenario. For years the authors of Bible publications, translators, etc. was always concealed with the reasoning being that we do not need to focus on the men, rather we need to focus on the content, and that they do not desire prominence. This no longer seems to be the case.
The lack of humility is also seen in the area of corrections in understanding that have been made. I do not recall ever seeing an apology that a statement was wrong. Rather, each change is explained as increased ‘light’ which helps us to clarify our understanding. One of the biggest areas where this happens is with dates of the end, even though Acts 1:7 says that it does not belong to man to understand. Initially Russel stated that the Lords Day had begun in 1874. This was later changed to 1914. Prophets were expected to appear in 1925, and they had a palace built for them in San Diego. This date doesn’t get much play past 1926. 1975 loomed large as it being pointed to as 6000 years of man’s existence. Nothing happened, and the Society has distanced themselves from anything with that date, but the publications before stated everything just short of 1975 is the end. Dates have definitely become less prevalent since 1975, but through my research I’ve never seen any retraction or apology. There are only mentions of ‘new light’ or ‘clarifications’.
The concept of the ‘generation’ (Mt 24:32,33) has also seen repeated changes. The current understanding of the generation based on a 2008 Watchtower is that any anointed contemporaneous with the anointed who saw the events of 1914 would be these ones, and the article suggests that this understanding means that some anointed on earth when the great tribulation begins. This pushes the generation out into sometime in the later 21st century. The Watchtower of 3/1/84 identifies the generation as those alive for the events of 1914, which there may be a handful of. Going farther back to 5/15/65, the generation was those who would have understood the events of 1914. Online resources do not allow me to go back further. The troubling part is that the generation keeps getting expanded once the previous time period runs out. There is no apology, no correction, just ‘this is the understanding’. The date is never pushed out too far, so as not to create apathy, but it keeps shifting.
One of the other more clarion call type of announcements made by Jehovah’s Witnesses was “millions now living will never die”. This statement was made in 1920 in accordance with the understanding of the generation at the time. Despite how proud and confident all were of that proclamation, and continued to be even into the 1980’s, it has never arrived. And it simply slides into the background as though it wasn’t a blatantly false proclamation. There has never been a humble retraction of any of this. Instead it is dismissed as being overzealous for God’s Kingdom to come on earth.
One of the more awkward changes, due to the horrible nature of the crime, is the handling of child sexual abuse. Previous advice had encouraged those involved to keep such matters in the congregations so as not to bring reproach on the congregation. Pointing to 1 Cor. 6:1-8 and 1 Cor 5:11-13 it was also advised to settle matters between each other in the congregation, not involving ‘outsiders’. Then in 2019 it was stated that it is up to the accuser if they would want to involve law enforcement and has always been this way. For anyone who has been in the organization for a few decades, this is simply not the case.
An organization which is humble would acknowledge their mistakes, apologize, and move forward. The ‘new light’ explanation seems to be the least humble way to address changes. It would seem that this is necessitated by the organization claiming to be led by God’s Holy Spirit. To admit mistakes as mistakes allows for the questioning of other areas and decisions, and questions God’s blessing. It is unfortunately more reminiscent of the Catholic Church than a humble organization which is focused on serving and pleasing God.
There have also been some interesting interpretations and points made over the years. When the scriptures are analyzed, the positions taken in the publications seem to be tenuous at best. The biggest continues to be 1914. Without repeating the doctrine, the date of 1914 is when Jesus was enthroned as King in Heaven, and the ‘last days’ began. This date depends on counting forward from 607 BCE which is when Jerusalem fell. This date of 607 is determined based on the ‘pivotal date’ of Cyrus conquering Babylon in 539 BCE which is well established archeologically. Cyrus issued his decree to rebuild Jerusalem in his first year, which pushes the restoration of Jehovah’s worship to 537 BCE. Based upon the seventy years stated in Dan 9:1-3, this is counted back 70 years to 607 BCE. The 70 years is obtained from what Jeremiah had prophesied that the Jews would be in Babylonian captivity for 70 years, and Daniel concurred that this happened as the 70 years drew to a close. Dating in the Bible puts this in October, so we end up with October 1914 which is about when WWI began. This seems to be a big win for Bible prophecy and supporting the organization that Jehovah allowed to see this. The biggest issue is that there is substantial historical evidence which points to the date of the fall of Jerusalem as 587 and not 607. This is huge, because if the event is 20 years off, the calculation to 1914 should be to 1934 (it also changed 6000 years of man’s existence to 1975). 1914 is perhaps the biggest doctrinal point of the entire organization. If this is wrong, it would be difficult for the organization to exist in its current form in any way.
Related to the 1914 date calculation is the interpretation of the 42 months as described at Revelation 11:2. This prophetic time period is applied to a very small group of people following 1914 being persecuted an imprisoned. It is not months of weeks and weeks of years, but strictly months. The issue of 1914 as a date notwithstanding, this seems to be an odd attempt to reinforce how important 1914 and makes the difficulties that the organization had in that time period of prophetic significance.
This also brings up the interesting aspect of numbers in the Bible. For Bible prophecy, days can be counted as years (Ezek 4:6), and a year length of 360 days is used for calculations, even though a true solar year is 365.25 days. The Hebrew calendar has leap months to account for the fact that 360 can’t be consistently used. Prophetic calculations stick with 360 days per year. Numbers in the Bible in general are of immense significance. The Revelation – its Grand Climax book in particular brings significance to numbers, factors, and multiples of numbers. Some numbers such as 24 elders (Rev 11:16) are figurative, whereas other numbers like 144,000 (Rev 14:1) are literal. As to which date is what, if it is literal, representative, or needs further calculation, this is left up to the Governing Body who is guided by Holy Spirit.
Another case of an odd position based on scripture is the place of women in the organization. The apostle Paul is fairly clear about the position of women in the congregation and that they are not allowed to teach (1 Tim 2:11-14). Witnesses do not allow women to teach at the congregation meetings, but allow it in the field ministry. There seems to be no such leeway in the Apostles writings. When you consider the other things that Paul says about singleness (1 Cor 7:7) and marriage (1 Cor 7:28), it seems he either had a tough relationship or some other type of issue with women. Women were used as prophetesses in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus relationship with Mary & Martha would indicate that he at least wanted them as followers, though no apostles were women. Culturally in 1st century Judea this probably would not have been possible, but it also raises the question of how much of the restrictions on women in the Christian scriptures was driven by the culture of the Jewish people of the time.
In the process of this stuff coursing through my mind, there was the Watchtower study of July 28, 2019. The article outlined the flapper movement from the 1920’s as being the beginning of the end of sexual morality. This I found hard to swallow. The Bible is full of accounts of temple prostitutes (De 23:17,18) and history shows people worshiping phallic symbols and various sex acts as part of religious custom have existed all throughout history. Many other cultures have also had a far more ‘liberal’ view of sex long before the flappers of the 1920’s. It seems bizarre that such a statement would be made about the 1920’s when the history of man (even that presented in the Bible) paints a very different picture.
John 13:34,35 states that Jesus’ followers would be known by love among themselves. It is one of the best areas of being a Witness. You can travel to other lands and be welcomed. People are helpful and kind at the Kingdom Hall and during disasters. But when you look beyond the surface of that, the reality is not particularly different from that of the rest of mankind. For example, at a convention, people will remark about those that they met, and friendliness. People are undeniably friendly at these events. However, greeting someone sitting next to you and chatting is not terribly different from the experience at a hockey game. During breaks, people still stick to those they know, and social interactions aren’t particularly different. At social events with people you don’t know, there’s not particularly any additional friendliness. People you don’t know remain people you don’t know and life goes on, just like anywhere else.
When I was suicidal myself a few years ago, two elders came to the house to comfort me (1 Th 5:14). They were kind, and concerned, and pleased I was getting professional help. Despite the fact that I was remarkably close to taking my life (planned, prepared, etc), neither of them ever spoke to me about my depression or how I was doing again. It still boggles my mind that there was no follow up from these who are assigned to shepherd the flock of God (Ac 20:28).
The love that is shown in disfellowshipping is also tough to understand. The position that a religion needs to adhere to its principles and reason (Rom 12:1), and the reasons (1 Cor 5:5,6) for the excommunication can be understood. But to claim that it is a way to show love to bring them back to Jehovah is just silly. Preventing a person from talking to lifelong friends and family seems extreme and purely punitive. Jesus ate with sinners and was scorned by Pharisees (Luke 15:2), which makes this seem to be a more pharisaical position. People who are repentant probably shouldn’t have been disfellowshipped in the first place. People who do not feel repentant for the sin they committed which led to the disfellowshipping may simply feign repentance to get around the shunning and then drift off to enjoy the middle ground. Someone who was never baptized and rapes children will be shown more love than a Witness who begins smoking cigarettes and doesn’t quit and is thus disfellowshipped. My friend who was disfellowshipped (and coming off drugs) was so overwhelmed by the thought of going to his first meeting in years that suicide was his chosen alternative. What kind of punishment does that to people? How is that loving or Christ like?
To add to the strangeness here, the elders in the congregation are given books and letters with specific instruction regarding disfellowshipping matters which are not shared with the congregation in general. Based on my lack of experience as an elder, I can only speculate as to how rule based or Bible based these writings are, but the lack of transparency in such a life changing matter cannot be seen as beneficial for any in the congregation.
The definition of ‘separate from the world’ (John 17:16) also seems to be a bit over zealous. If a brother allows his child to get a four year BA type of degree, it may affect his ability to have privileges. The argument for this is that all should be focused on the kingdom (Mt 6:33) and this shows a lack of spirituality. Extracurricular sports are similarly shunned because it allows bad associations (1 Cor 15:33) to rub off. The reasons do make sense in some ways and can be supported by scripture. Unfortunately, this leads to a distorted viewpoint of the other 99.9% of the world. Those who are raised JW will assume that everyone in the world is vile unless they get to know Jehovah and become a witness. There will never be exposure to be able to take wider viewpoint of the world. Again, you can make the case biblically that this should be avoided based on the 2 previously cited scriptures, but it remains a practice that doesn’t seem to have any relationship to first century Christianity and is a bit cult-like.
Literature from the Watchtower often advocates following principles. And if Bible principles are followed then all will be good. The reality is that the men in charge of the organization implement rules rather than sticking to principles. Modest dress is a reasonable principle found in the Bible (1 Tim 2:9,10). At times this is embraced as you will see individuals wearing their culturally defined clothes and styles. Some of these styles in some cultures may seem to be immodest or gaudy in others. Who decides what is modest? From the scriptures, it appears to be a personal preference matter that should take into consideration others (Mt 18:6). Yet at an annual meeting of the Society just a few years ago, a member of the Governing Body all but outlawed yoga pants under the explanation that they are immodest and make unmarried men too horny. Beards were similarly determined to be immodest and for many years facial hair would prevent a man from having privileges. Facial hair is still somewhat scandalous even though a Watchtower said it shouldn’t be. Tattoos have also been deemed immodest in publications. Oddly, the only prohibition against tattooing is in the Mosaic Law (De 14:1,2) which Christians are not under. Additionally if someone has many tattoos from time not as a Witness, and then becomes one, the existence of these tattoos do not impact their privileges, evidencing an interesting double standard. Movies and entertainment also yield a double standard. Rated R movies are strictly verboten. There are movies which I can think of such as Schindlers list which are Rated R because of the heaviness of the material. The Watchtower endorsed Purple Triangles is very heavy as well, but is ok. The Bible says to not even think or speak of some things (Eph 5:3), but these items are discussed in detail in some Witness publications. And prohibiting thought is pretty tough. Unattainable goal aside, there are items in that list which would preclude much of the entertainment enjoyed by the majority of the Witness population. Spiritism alone would rule out nearly every Disney cartoon ever made. Football should be banned as well due to its violence. These items are ruled a conscience matter, and also follow the standards the world defines. Why does this flexibility exist in some areas but not others? Why are there rules in a book of principles when Jesus said that ‘we need to love God and our fellow man, and the rest hinges on that’ (Mt 22:36-40)?
“Secular” authorities are only trusted when it fits the message that is being given. A Bible researcher or commentator may be given the utmost credibility when substantiating a point regarding 1914. However, that same commentator may make an additional point against the establishment of a literal 144,000 and that comment will be dismissed and not discussed. The writing style analysis of ‘minor’ prophets and Greek scriptures will be cited when proving that the author was who they say they were, but writing style will be dismissed when used to argue that the earlier books of the Bible are compilations performed at a later date. Carbon dating similarly will be relied on when assessing the pivotal date of 539 BCE or the existence of King Solomon, but when that same science is used to show that man lived greater than 6000 years ago, this dating is ridiculed and stated to be a reflection on the failure of science to truly understand the world, and their sad rejection of God. The logical contradictions required to embrace such reasoning are painful to contemplate.
Perhaps in response to the analysis of experts cited in the Societies publications, recent literature has taken a more vague method. This includes statements such as “says one researcher”, “one author wrote”, or “one reference work” with no references provided. It would be totally factual to say that ‘many researchers state that the earth is flat’, yet that by no means makes the statement true. This is the tactic of a propagandist who wants people to believe by an appeal to a random authority. In this case, the authorities are not named and is not scripture. To continue the propagandist methodology, recent Conventions have featured videos with highlight the prophesied impending attack on God’s people as military men storming the homes of frightened Witnesses. The result has been audible gasps and much conversation about the need to ‘stay firm’. This military intimidation imagery is a common manipulative tactic of demagogues who are endeavoring to influence without facts. The fact that an organization which claims to be directed by Holy Spirit directly from God would use such methods is disconcerting. Shouldn’t the Bible be enough? Are random uncited authorities and frightening imagery really needed?
But one of the most damning points to be found is the absolute rejection of criticism or questioning. If I was to share the points outlined above with an Elder in the congregation, it is likely that I would be disfellowshipped quickly for not agreeing with ‘the Society’. I would like to think that they would take the time to reason with me, and to work things up from a scriptural basis, but the fact that I am terrified to do so is significant. Apostasy literally means a standing away from. From that perspective, their analysis would be correct. However, I would expect love and a desire to readjust me (Gal 6:1) would factor in as well. The rejection of criticism brings me back to what started me on this journey, that being the current political climate. The rejection of all facts, and blind acceptance of a leader feels too much like the ‘America First’ idiots following Donald Trump or the Nazi soldiers in WWII. As Jehovah’s creation with brains of our own, is it wrong to use that brain and to investigate things on our own? The Bible encourages this (1 Pet 1:10,11; 1 Th 5:21), yet I know my own research would be scandalous, since I did not come up with the preferred conclusion. The Bible Students, as they were called at the turn of the century, would say boldly, “religion is a snare and a racket”. Perhaps that has become true of this religion as well, one that no longer follows the Scripture it holds dear, and instead favors the traditions and empty deceptions of men (Col 2:8), unable to honestly assess its teachings.
That’s not to say that there is no good in the organization, and things that do not bring me joy, comfort, and happiness. The hope for the future (Rev 21:3,4) is one of the primary things. Realistically this is perhaps the biggest draw for being a Jehovah’s Witness in the first place. The hope for the future as outlined in the Bible is prominent in the ministry, conversations, and the organization in general. Granted, the preceding criticisms of the Bible draw that in to question, but believing that there is more to life than 80 years of chaos, and eternity in peace is coming is an amazing draw.
This hope, Adam’s creation and Jesus ransom, and God’s involvement in mankind’s existence also brings a larger meaning to life. This is something that I do not believe others outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses have. This is a wonderful benefit for being a believer. The hope and meaning also provides a way to help others. The ministry becomes a wonderful, fulfilling activity which is needed to help other be happy. People doing things that they find meaning in, and helping others, is one of the best ways for people to find happiness in general.
We are pacifists, militantly so even (which is funny). I think this is amazing, as war is one of the more horrible aspects of mankind. There are not many other organizations which are so consistent in their hatred and avoidance of war.
The religion is largely devoid of ritual. There’s a little bit with the annual observance of the Memorial of Jesus’ death, but it’s almost just a procedure. When you look at a lot of other religions, there are costumes, candles, secret cues, directions to pray, and all of that other stuff. It’s a significant differentiator when it comes to religion, and significant in Christianity especially. By all accounts, the first century Christians did not embrace ritual, it was only the later adoption of practices from pagan religions that added this.
At its core, Witnesses are united. Each of the 8 million publishers around the world will explain the same primary doctrinal points of 1914, the Kingdom, and our hope for the future. We attend assemblies, meetings, and conventions with the same subjects, the same scriptures, and the same material. It is pretty amazing. The US DoD is the largest employer worldwide with 2.8 million people. They all work for the same organization, but I do not believe there is any consistency of belief. Other religions will have many ‘members’, but these will disagree with the core religious beliefs of other ‘members’. Obviously, we are human, and beyond those core items, people have their own consciences and beliefs, but the core identity remains united across culture, background, and language.
We also advocate a simple life, not worrying about monetary or physical accomplishments as there is a far more important and enjoyable future to come. Most everyone recognizes that money and things do not bring happiness. As a group we live that. Many people who work at the headquarters or offices and traveling overseers live happy lives at near poverty level. The meaning that they get from their work is far superior to what having a Maserati could bring. The positive effect on people’s lives as a result of living their beliefs is real.
The problem comes with what to do with the previous analysis. I could write more, but the keyboard is almost broken already as this may be the longest single topic I’ve ever opined on. I have to stop somewhere. Thus I come back to the beginning, a line of reasoning which has always helped me to continue as a Jehovah’s Witness. I exist. I’ll take that as a fact. I’ll also agree that the universe and everything had a beginning. But that beginning came from something. Was that something a ‘singularity’, which had always existed but which suddenly exploded into what came to form into existence? Or did the beginning of the universe come from someone who had always existed and decided to create life? When I look at the order and complexity, I still go with the Creator. Evolution is a mass of even more miracles than the singular miracle of the existence of God.
So I have a creator who made things which are beautiful and amazing and gave me the ability to enjoy life. The next step in that reasoning is ‘is it reasonable that God has requirements for you?’ I’m not sure anymore. It doesn’t seem reasonable that he has requirements for the rest of his creation, like deer or trees or mosquitoes. But humans are definitely a few levels above other life on earth. The Bible puts us ‘in God’s image' (Gen 1:27), which would seem to put an onus on us. But that requires belief in the entirety of the Bible. Based on what I know, I’m not sure that this is a reasonable stance. Is all of the belief in the Bible and the mental gymnastics and tunnel vision required just because we want to believe in something more? Life is so short, and a longer life is so appealing, so is that enough to ignore the detraction's to the belief system? Every culture and religion seems to have their own hope for life being longer. Animals live short lives, tortoises live longer, and there’s so much to learn and do, can’t there be something more? But is a belief in a paradise earth in eternity, as I have believed my whole life truly based on solid fact or is it just a dream because I want there to be something more?
Being a Witness is an ok way to live your life. It instills excellent morals and living according to it is a good way of life. However, clearly I have doubts about what I have built my life around. What does Jehovah think of those who have doubts? Are those who are so confused by the world that they cannot commit to following explicitly the organization which claims that it is his sole means of communication and the sole means of salvation in the ‘time of the end’ (Dan 11:40) condemned by God? Does the fact that I believed as a child, continued into my 40’s, and now face challenges judge me as even less worthy of the Biblical hope than someone who never believed? I have been taught that those killed by God at Armageddon, which is imminent, will not have a hope of resurrection because they have rejected him. So does the existence of this organization as God’s channel mean that the 99.9% of humans alive today, which is about 7% of all humans who ever lived, will not have a chance at life as God originally intended because the world has them too confused to commit to being a Witness? 2 Pet 3:9 says that God wants all to be saved, what would a fair chance for all really be? Is it just that all of these (and me) have a bad heart condition (Matt 7:17-20)? If so, how much of that should be blamed on a creator or imperfection? Can the fact that these do not respond to a knock on their door on Saturday really mean they are not worthy of salvation?