After running JWsurvey for more than two years, the time has finally come to share my story.
Why has it taken so long? Because when I first set up this website I was still technically a Witness – constantly in fear of reprisals from my family or my local elders if my true identity was ever discovered.
Now, after much discussion and soul-searching, my wife and I have both made the decision to part ways with the organization – regardless of how our Witness family responds.
There are multiple reasons for this huge leap, the main one being that my wife is pregnant. Both of us refuse to raise our child in a religion we know to be false, or to allow any of our relatives to attempt this with the excuse that we are still Witnesses – which would be the case if we remained inactive.
Taking this stand has come at considerable cost – a cost imposed on us by Watchtower. We have yet to hand in formal letters of disassociation, but we have let our family know gradually over the last few weeks. This has resulted in a considerable backlash.
On my side of the family in particular I have been subjected to insults and character assassinations – attempts to call my motives into question and frame me as “selfish” simply for acting on my convictions, and standing up for my own beliefs.
My father (who is an elder) hasn’t been abusive, but he has reaffirmed that he will be shunning us the moment things become official. We spent a few days vacation together in picturesque Northern Croatia before I sat him down and attempted to explain my position.
After I revealed the information on the UN/NGO scandal to Dad by showing him newspaper articles from 2001, he was initially nauseous and didn’t want to hear any more. A day later he told me he refuses to hear my side of the argument, and will be shunning me once things are official. In his mind there is no contradiction that he will be spending his time trying to persuade people of other faiths to challenge their convictions, while refusing to hold his own beliefs to even the slightest scrutiny.
It has been deeply hurtful and distressing for me to witness my own father, who I deeply love, surrender his reason and common sense with so little struggle – especially with so much at stake. It is still more distressing that I am being blamed for any shunning that ensues even though these are Watchtower’s rules, not mine. After all, I am happy to have a relationship with all of my Witness relatives no matter what they believe.
The more I observe the utter refusal of certain family members to even listen to my reasons, and hold me to a decision I made when I was 11, the more obvious it is that I am escaping a manipulative cult where independent thinking is ruthlessly crushed and loved ones are considered expendable wherever loyalty to the Governing Body is concerned.
You may well ask what brought me to this stage, and how I came to doubt my beliefs in the first place? I am writing a book on this at the moment, but I will do my best to present a summary of my story in this article.
***When this article was written, I still felt the need to keep my real name secret due to concerns over my family. Since then I have decided to be open about my real name, which is Lloyd Evans, but I will continue writing under the moniker “John Cedars” since that is the name so many people know me by.***
An unconventional upbringing
I was born in Manchester, England, in 1979 and raised in Wilmslow, which used to be a quiet leafy village in the suburbs, but is now a wealthy neighborhood known for its celebrity residents – mostly footballers and their wives.
I had an upbringing in which Armageddon was very much a real event that could strike at any moment.
One evening, our family worship featured an “Armageddon drill.” My father received what turned out to be a fake phone call telling him that the Great Tribulation was upon us. My family was to hurry to join the brothers and sisters at the local kingdom hall, because we would all be heading off to Macclesfield Forest to make our escape from the authorities under Satan’s control.
I remember running upstairs and frantically stuffing various items in my rucksack, including a recently released book called Revelation – It’s Grand Climax At Hand incase I somehow needed it. In that moment I was convinced I was witnessing the end of the system of things.
It was only when I came downstairs and saw the smiles on the faces of my parents and sister that I realised the joke was on me.
I was baptized in December 1990, age 11. I remember my mother crying at my baptism. In the years that followed I did my best to make my parents proud by being an exemplary Witness youth.
My parents were not as strict as others in our congregation, so they encouraged me to go to college after high school. I studied art for two years. Even so, it wasn’t long before I felt the pull of pioneering, in no way diminished by the constant pressure from the platform for young ones to pursue full-time service as a “career.” I started regular pioneering in September 1998 – the same month that I was announced as a ministerial servant. I had just turned 19.
The following year I experienced my first “crisis of conscience” when the Daniel book (or Pay Attention To Daniel’s Prophecy) was released at the “God’s Prophetic Word” District Convention. I remember being initially very excited. I felt I would be able to relate to it more than the Revelation Climax book, which by now seemed crazy and garish to me. I took my copy of the Daniel book home and read it quickly.
As I devoured its convoluted reflections on bible prophecy, feelings of disappointment slowly overcame me. I encountered various explanations of scripture that simply did not add up. For example, how could the Roman Empire become Anglo-America in one prophecy, but become Nazi Germany (an enemy of Anglo-America) in another? Should there not be some kind of consistency in God’s inspired word?
The more I dwelled on this and other issues, the more I suspected that the Governing Body was simply making things up as they were going along – “shoe-horning” scriptures to fit historical events.
My doubts eventually came to the attention of my Presiding Overseer after my ministry partner snitched on me. He took me aside one afternoon while on field service, listened to my issues for a while, and then said: “Listen, I just want to know one thing. Do you believe in 1914, or not?”
When I said that yes, I believed in 1914, he said, “Well that’s all that matters!” – and our conversation was over. After this bizarre exchange, I pressed ahead with my progress as a Witness, but always with niggling doubts in the far reaches of my mind.
A life-changing tragedy
Then in 2001 my world collapsed when my mother died of breast cancer. I was 21 at the time. Mum first fell ill in 1999 but received treatment, including a mastectomy, which forced her cancer into remission. But it resurfaced a year later and consumed her very quickly, despite aggressive chemotherapy. On May 9th 2001, Mum’s doctor gave her three weeks to three months to live. She passed away 12 days later while we were on our final family holiday in Cornwall.
Mum’s death forced me to push any lingering doubts as far back in my mind as I possibly could and soldier on with my “career” in the organization. After all, serving Jehovah loyally was my one and only chance of being reunited with her in the resurrection. I couldn’t let her down.
When I was 22 I began applying to attend MTS (now the “Bible School for Single Brothers”). I was finally accepted at the age of 25, and attended the 29th Class in Britain at the Assembly Hall in Dudley. I was thrilled and extremely proud, not least because by going through the course I was fulfilling one of my Mum’s dying wishes.
Mum had told me in one of our final conversations that in the resurrection she wanted to see a video of my MTS graduation. She didn’t know that the filming of graduations is prohibited by the organization, but simply by going and graduating I knew I would be meeting her expectations. I would film what I could while I was there, just in case.
Attending MTS was a mostly uplifting and enjoyable experience. What I most appreciated was the camaraderie and friendships with guys my age from all over the UK and parts of Europe. It felt as though there were little or no distinctions between students who were ministerial servants (like me) and students who were elders. We were all sharing the same experience together as those seeking to learn.
During the course there were one or two moments that made me stop and ponder, such as during one class when our instructor told us to put a line through some words in one of our volumes of Insight on the Scriptures. Apparently this change was required because of “new light” since these books were published.
The words we were asked to delete can still be plainly seen on current versions of Watchtower Library. I thought to myself at the time, “If these words are so wrong that we are being asked to delete them, shouldn’t ALL Witnesses receive similar instructions for their Insight Volumes?”
After two months the class came to an end, and I graduated along with 21 others. My Dad, sister, and some of my close friends came along to what proved to be an emotional graduation ceremony. I was interviewed and asked to relate my experiences leading up to the course, including the death of my mother and the fact that I had quit my job in order to attend.
At the end of the graduation I joined my classmates in singing an acoustic rendition of “Life Without End At Last” with my guitar. The audience erupted in applause. It felt like I had reached the pinnacle of my achievements within the organization. I was determined to put my training to good use.
A year after my MTS, I flew out to Croatia for a reunion with a number of my classmates. One student, named Miroslav,* invited us to spend some time with his congregation in Sisak, about an hour’s drive south from Zagreb.
It was in Sisak that I met my future wife, who was pioneering at the time. After a few months of getting to know each other through emails and phone calls she agreed to move to the UK so that we could pursue our relationship.
Six months after her arrival I proposed to her with a cheap silver ring (all I could afford as a poor pioneer!) on a row-boat in the middle of a windswept lake in the Lake District. She accepted, although later joked that she only said “yes” because she wanted to get off the boat!
We were married in the summer of 2007 on the Croatian coast, and honeymooned in Venice, Switzerland and Paris on our drive home to the UK. On our return, we resumed pioneering together in the same congregation.
We began married life living in a small basement flat in a rough part of Stockport. The sound of police sirens screeching through the night formed the soundtrack to most of our evenings. Looking back it was an inauspicious start to our new life together, but it was all we could afford as pioneers on part-time wages. In fact we couldn’t afford even that, because we soon started to slide into debt.
The call to elderhood, and the anti-climax
In April 2008 I was thrilled to be appointed as an elder. I felt as though I could finally put my MTS training to full use, and take a more active role in helping people. I already loved giving talks, but it was the shepherding side that I was really looking forward to. I was anxious to help people with their problems in any way I could.
But it wasn’t long before reality started to sink in, and I began to see what being an elder was really all about. I soon discovered that elder bodies are intensely political, easily manipulated by strong personalities, and that elders are most definitely not appointed by holy spirit as Watchtower so often claims.
Our congregation had a particularly thuggish Presiding Overseer (now known as a Coordinator) who seemed to delight in bullying the brothers and making their lives miserable. He would think nothing of counselling a brother who bought a new Range Rover on being too materialistic, or imposing arbitrary rules on a teenage boy not to socialize with a young sister he liked.
When I did my best to correct this bully elder’s overbearing behavior in the only way I could think of, I was chastised for going about it in the wrong manner. I was kept as an elder, but stripped of certain privileges, including my pioneer status.
My wife also had her pioneer status removed at this time, even though she had nothing to do with my elder issues. I was told that, since both of us had been failing to meet our hour requirement, I was to break the news to my wife that she too was no longer a pioneer.
And so, after eight years of selfless full-time service for the organization in two different countries, my wife was unceremoniously sacked as a pioneer through her husband without so much as a “thank you.”
My lowest point
But these troubles were soon to pale into insignificance when my wife made a heartbreaking discovery. She learned that, though I hadn’t cheated on her, I had been fraternizing with girls on the internet in ways that I shouldn’t have done as a married man. I had a big issue with cyber sex and pornography, which I had developed as a teenager, and which remained with me even into my marriage.
I am not proud of my actions, and to this day I grimace at what I put my wife through. She has never been anything but loyal and loving, and it saddens me that I hurt her by betraying her trust so early in our marriage.
I also feel it was hypocritical of me to accept an appointment as an elder with the aim of helping others and offering spiritual guidance when I had so many issues of my own to contend with. I was living a double life and being dishonest with people.
Even so, I can’t help but consider these actions to be very much a by-product of sexual repression in my formative years. In particular, I think of the difficulties I had in finding a marriage partner from a narrow pool of Witness girls, and the unscriptural Watchtower injunctions designed to induce guilt over masturbation.
Of course, I accept responsibility for my actions and I do not blame Watchtower for everything. After all, plenty of Witnesses seem to develop into well-balanced adults without these problems.
But my wife and I both now realise that sexual repression in my upbringing was a major factor. It forced me into finding ways of satisfying my natural sexual urges as a virgin without intercourse so as to remain “morally clean,” and this led to an unhealthy dependency on the internet and pornography.
Once my wife discovered my problem we had a number of emotional exchanges. Decisions needed to be made. My first instinct was to sweep things under the rug and work things out between us, but in the end I decided to stand down as an elder and move back to the congregation I had grown up in to receive discipline.
Apart from anything else I knew I wouldn’t get a fair trial from the bully elder, who would doubtless want to make sure I suffered further for daring to question him. This matter involved my wife and I, and not him – so I chose to receive my punishment from elders I felt I could rely on to be impartial.
I wrote an exhaustive confession in a letter and posted it through the letter box of my new Coordinator. Before long I was summoned to a Judicial Committee and made to relive everything I had done in excruciating detail, despite my signed confession which had already explained everything.
At one point I remember being reduced to tears. By the end of it all, it was decided that I should be reproved and not disfellowshipped. However, my reproof was to be publicly announced both in my new and former congregations to make it clear that I had done wrong during my time as an elder.
A fresh start
Around this time my wife and I agreed that we needed a fresh start, so we decided to move to live with her parents in Croatia. Our years spent pioneering had left us with very little money and a mountain of debt, but we at least had an opportunity to build an apartment for ourselves without worrying about rent or mortgage payments.
And so we packed up our belongings and made the move across Europe to Croatia in the summer of 2009. At the time I recall being determined to restore my spirituality, and maybe even work my way back to serving as an elder again eventually.
For the first few months in my new congregation I continued under the restrictions from my reproof in the UK, meaning that I couldn’t answer up at meetings or participate in any talks on the Theocratic Ministry School.
I was reduced to being a mere observer at meetings that I could scarcely understand due to the language barrier. I knew a few words of Croatian, but certainly not enough to follow closely what was being said.
Before long, something unexpected happened. My identity as a Witness disintegrated as I could feel myself being unplugged from the indoctrination. For the first time I began to ask myself, “What do I truly believe?”
I recalled my doubts about the Daniel book from when I was 20. I found I was able to add a number of other issues and teachings that I could no longer agree with. Eventually I sat down and wrote a list of nine “grievances.” When I looked at the list, it was obvious to me that I was now only a Witness in name only. There were just too many things wrong with the organization for it to be the “truth.”
Eventually my restrictions were lifted and I began giving Bible readings in Croatian on the school meetings. Elders would give me encouragement, leaving me with the impression that I would be re-appointed before too long if I just put forth a little effort. But by this time it was too late. I was already waking up.
Then one day in May 2011, after pouring out my feelings to my wife, I decided to declare myself inactive. I felt I needed to let my Dad know of my decision by telephone. I recall him being heartbroken. I broke down in tears once I had finished talking to him. No son relishes the idea of being viewed as a failure by his father.
I wrote a letter to my elders briefly explaining my reasons for being inactive. In hindsight, I realise that my elders could have very easily taken this as a letter of disassociation and severed me from the organization there and then, but for some reason they didn’t want to do this. At least, not to begin with.
Stalling the inquisition
Two elders visited and we had a long and tearful discussion. I explained that I would still be attending memorials each year (to keep my family happy, in my mind) but that I could no longer go preaching when I had so many doubts. They chose to respect this, so I assumed that would be the end of it.
Around this time a new elder joined our congregation from Zagreb bethel, and he soon learned of my inactivity. He decided he didn’t like the way things had been handled, and convinced himself that there must be more to my decision than I was letting on.
This elder pulled my wife to one side at the end of one meeting and interrogated her in the back room, asking questions about my behavior and quizzing her as to our business affairs. My wife and I run a small business, and he and others had come up with a theory that I was staying on as a Witness just so I could exploit Witnesses when handing out work.
All of this happened at roughly the time I finished reading Crisis of Conscience and learned of the 1980 witch hunt against the likes of Raymond Franz and Nestor Kuilan. It felt very much like my elders had me in their sights in the same way, and were determined to disfellowship me on any pretext – real or imagined. All they needed now was a chance to grill me for information having failed to get anything from my wife.
I received a phone call from an elder asking to arrange a visit, but I told him in no uncertain terms that they had broken the rules by interrogating my wife without me being present, and I would therefore not be cooperating with any attempts to offer me “help” until I received a full apology.
Predictably the apology never came, and I was finally left alone. If there was one thing I knew I could rely on, it was the pride of elders and their tendency to deny doing anything wrong. This uneasy stand-off gave me the freedom I needed to explore my new reality without being immediately separated from my family.
The birth of JWsurvey
As things settled and I grew accustomed to my new life as a “fader” I continued to trawl the internet for information. JWfacts.com in particular was a real eye-opener. It was on Paul Grundy’s site that I learned of the UN/NGO scandal, Rutherford’s letter to Hitler, and the Mexico/Malawi scandal. Barbara Anderson’s website also informed me on the complexities of the child abuse issue, and how Watchtower is causing real harm in that regard. Everything began to fall into place.
The more I learned, the more I wanted to share. I was also curious as to how many others like me were out there. I began thinking of ways to poll such ones for their opinions so that people could see at a glance what the consensus was among thinking Witnesses.
Then one day I proposed setting up a survey of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I began experimenting with ways of making this a reality. I thought it would cost a lot of money to set up, but an Ex-JW web developer and writer called John Hoyle came to my rescue completely out of the blue. He contacted me and essentially said, “If you want I can build you a website that can host your survey, and you won’t need to pay me anything for it.”
At first I thought it was impossible for a complete stranger to be so kind and make such an offer with no thought of payment, but I figured I had nothing to lose in accepting. Before long, JWsurvey.org was launched. The rest, as they say, is history.
A reason to take a stand
Fast forward two years or so, and yesterday I found myself attending a hospital appointment with my wife, who is three months into her pregnancy. This was our first opportunity to see our first baby in the womb by means of an ultrasound.
As the grainy images came up on the screen, I was overwhelmed with emotion. I could see our baby’s heart pumping in its chest. I could see its legs folded buddha-like beneath it. I could even see its fingers as its hands were raised almost covering its alien-like face.
The thought occurred to me, “I will love this person unconditionally its whole life, no matter what it thinks, says or does. I will never allow myself to be separated from it, no matter what happens.”
Unlike me, this child will be taught only proven facts – not religious dogma designed to reinforce the unquestioned control of an elite group of deluded theocrats who insulate themselves from even the mildest criticism.
There will be no “Armageddon drills.” There will be no fear, guilt, or paranoia. There will be only love and acceptance. My child will have all the opportunities I never had as a youngster – including the chance to build a life for itself doing and believing whatever it chooses, with my support.
Yes, my Witness family is bitterly disappointed in me. Yes, they view me as a traitor. But there is nothing I can do about that other than to build my own family, free of such rifts and divisions. Though this is proving traumatic for me, I cannot live the rest of my life bending over backwards to conform to the expectations of my indoctrinated forebears.
They may prefer for me to remain inactive, trapped in some sadistic vow of silence so that the mother organization can continue to wreak havoc undisturbed. But I refuse to tacitly bend my knee to Watchtower for a moment longer. A stand must be taken. A line must be drawn.
After all these articles it is high time for me to talk with my feet – especially with my child’s future at stake. Yes, fading is a great option if you can stay quiet and pull it off, and I support those who handle matters in that way. But if you are an activist like myself with something to say about Watchtower and the means to say it, you will find it increasingly difficult to keep it going for too long before something has to give.
The journey continues
I know many of you reading my story will be disappointed at my personal failings, but please understand that I am only human and never set myself up as a role model or spiritual guru for anyone. I am interested only in exposing the scandals and falsehoods of an organization that claims to represent God as honestly and journalistically as possible.
I have not the faintest interest in drawing off followers, preaching alternative doctrines or telling people how to live their lives. I am interested only in revealing the truth about Watchtower, and I feel my experiences within the organization, both good and bad, put me in a great position to do this.
Nothing I write should be considered as beyond question – in fact I am happy to receive criticisms and make changes to articles if needed. I am committed to using my energies to join with other more seasoned campaigners in informing the world about what I view as a damaging cult, which I see tearing my own family apart and threatening countless others.
To all those who have sent messages of support and solidarity over the past few days via Facebook and email, I give my heartfelt gratitude. It is not easy to make this stand. I have shed more than a few tears, but I know what I am doing is right.
By going through this pain now I am sparing future generations from the same problems. I want to give my child a life free from fear and indoctrination, with the opportunity to explore this amazing thing called life without the shackles of ignorance and servitude. I can think of no finer legacy to pass on.
*Miroslav has recently been disfellowshipped for apostasy. On his facebook profile, he identifies himself as a follower of the Bible Students.
Translations: Romanian | …
Related video…
Hello Mr Cedars!
I know who you are :-) We were associates. In fact I’m only a few years older than you, and was in a neighbouring congregation, Altrincham. (Maybe a clue?)
Your story is great, and it is almost exactly the same as mine, although I managed to avoid baptism a little longer (16) and somehow sneak to university (I even managed to pass while being persecuted for going!). I also managed to avoid becoming an Elder etc, because from a fairly early age I didn’t believe any of the core teachings of the WTS (1914, The generation prophecy, The 144,000 anointed, etc)
Look after yourself, and your growing family. I can’t tell you how happy it feels to know your (and my) children will not be indoctrinated and mind controlled by this organisation.
Just one point re: UN/NGO. You realise that the WTS had to sign up to their charter to be accepted, and included in this charter was an agreement to disseminate and regularly reference information from the UN in their magazines (the Watchtower and Awake). If you analyse their articles during the the time they were signed up, the number of UN quotes/references are ridiculous. Following their severance (and the publication of a letter from the UN explaining this due to the volume of enquiries) the UN quotes almost cease…
All the best, congratulations, and good luck. I will be in touch at some future point.
Moonlight, The only “people” (by the way, there are two genders) who appear nervous, are the ones that live in fear and have (because of conditioning) to defend the indefensible. You do have other choices and I do so hope you find peace soon, so that you do not have to find yourself on a site where your irrational statements continue to be ignored.
If the JWs did not label their every pronouncement as THE TRUTH, the New Light lark would not be so risible. Perhaps, instead of THE TRUTH, every doctrinal pronouncement could be labelled: ‘Another notion we are kicking around just now’. Sure, it is a bit of a mouthful to say ‘I’m in the notions being kicked around by afew old guys in New York State just now’. But it would be considerably more honest than the currently ridiculous: ‘I’m in THE TRUTH’.
@IronStylus – “I’d love to chat more but have to read part of Hebrews chapters 1-8 for this week’s bible reading. You should read it too. It can’t hurt.”
[Camera zooms in on safari guy wrestling with anaconda in the Amazon River jungle] What we’re seeing here is the devotion to duty. “I have to…”? Psalms 119:103. Matt. 11:30.
I remember I devoured Hebrews (not just 1-8, but the entire 13 chapters in one sitting–after gulping down Romans, Ephesians and Galatians to learn what this Christian thing is all about). And, it has a fascinating history–almost not being included in the “official canon”. It’s a shame that you have to leave off reading, right during the good parts discussing the priesthood and sanctification and its intense discussion of the disadvantages of legalism and the Law–that we are condemned by it, etc, etc.
Of course, you can glean so much more and progress farther when you have a translation that isn’t awkwardly rendering word for word but yields the intent of the text in a modern tongue and are liberated from re-reading and re-reading to make sense of a verse.
Message for JBob since you are reading Hebrews notice in chapter 1 it says Jesus is not an angel. Yeshua is God and he is not the Archangel Michael. Read your Bible and think.
@Rowland, Before Rutherford & Knorr began using this phrase “the Truth” (taking a title belonging to the Master) and concreting it in the minds of the r/f JW’s, early Adventists, Christadelphians (many were Congregationalists, Stone-Campbellites, and Methodist-Episcopal pastors and itinerant ministers), and Bible Students under Russell’s tutelage used the term “present truth”. In fact, one of the ministers that Russell heard and credited as restoring his faith, Jonas Wendell, published a magazine titled “The Present Truth” (later named “Meat in Due Season”)[that should make your ears prick up]. Today, an offshoot Bible Student group–Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement–also issues a publication with this same title.
The JW’s thus used phrases like “progressive truth” and “new light” to distinguish their brand of shimmering light. The intent is the same: what we said a week ago, if contradicted today, today’s statement is the “truth”. Somehow, the Oracle is allowed to garble the Omen without retribution from the Revealer.
@Babs, preaching to the choir Babs…
From my perspective, you are correct in that Jesus is not an angel.
However this does not rule out that Jesus is Michael.
Two scriptures in Daniel refer to him not as an Angel, but either as a Great Ruler, or as a Great Prince.
I will quote them here for all to read.
Daniel 10
13 But the king of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty one days. But, lo, Michael, one of the first rulers, came to help me. And I stayed there with the kings of Persia.[LITV]
Daniel 12
1 ¶ And at that time, Michael shall stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people. And there shall be a time of distress, such as has not been from the being of a nation until that time.[LITV]
In the book of Revelation it shows how Michael is actually in command of the Angels, and no reference to him being an Archangel.
Revelation 12
7 And war occurred in Heaven, Michael and his angels making war against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels made war, [LITV]
Yet the book of Jude that mentions that Michael is an Archangel, at least by the way that it is translated by Bible translators.
Jude
9 But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses; he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, “Let the Lord rebuke you!” [LITV]
But notice a preceding verse of this same book.
Jude
14 And “the seventh from Adam,” Enoch, also prophesied to these men, saying, Behold, “the Lord came with” myriads “of His saints,”
15 ¶ “to do judgment against all, and to rebuke all” the ungodly of them concerning all their ungodly works which they ungodly did, “and concerning all the hard things ungodly sinners spoke against Him.” I Enoch 1:9; 5:4; 60:8 [LITV]
The Book of Enoch apparently is the source of Jude’s information which is not included within the Bible cannon.
Here is a couple of links to more information about this. That is of course if Cedars will allow these links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8576/why-is-the-book-of-enoch-not-regarded-as-canonical
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2011/01/1-enoch-in-judes-bible-canonicity-and-scriptural-inspiration/
There are many more links discussing this book and it’s authenticity.
Anyway the point I am trying to make here is that even though the Bible writer of Jude may have been sincere and had good intentions, where he got the information from is dubious and suspect.
Hence the reference to “Michael the archangel” is all suspect.
The previous comment in reply to babs mason’s comment.
A searcher for truth and Babs
Just checked and there are 27 versions of Cinderella, some say there are 345 variants of the story. I prefer the Indian version. The good thing about Cinderella is that nobody gives a hoot.
The role of story is worth considering, maybe.
“Also, before most parents realize it, a growing child is ready, in his own mind at least, to go out and challenge the world. In the last two thousand years, nothing has helped this exploratory need as much as the fairy tale. What distinguishes the fairy tale is that it speaks to the very heart and soul of the child. It admits to the child what so many parents and teachers spend hours trying to cover up or avoid. The fairy tale confirms what the child has been thinking all along — that it is a cold, cruel world out there and it’s waiting to eat him alive.
Now, if that were all the fairy tale said, it would have died out long ago. But it goes one step further. It addresses itself to the child’s sense of courage and adventure. The tale advises the child: Take your courage in hand and go out to meet the world head on. According to Bruno Bettelheim, the fairy tale offers this promise: If you have courage and if you persist, you can overcome any obstacle, conquer any foe”.
http://bkmarcus.com/2009/07/25/what-is-the-purpose-of-fairy-tales/
Interestingly, a modern commentator, Clarissa Pinkola Estés has done a lot of work about the nature of story and in these non patriarchal times, she focuses on the woman. Her latest book (which I have not read) is about the woman as a saviour. “The Blessed Mother is often ‘Friend to the friendless one’ and Mother to all—yet too many of us have been estranged from her for far too long. Untie the Strong Woman opens a channel to this sacred and nurturing force—“breaking through walls that have held us back from her presence, and instead, inviting us to shelter under her starry green mantle.”
Similar use of language and intent appears present throughout history.
Iron Stylus and fellow WT defenders, please switch out the lights before you leave the building.
Hi Cedars,
a big step for you, but it is worth it.
Being a father myself (my son Liam was born last year), I decided myself to not let him grown up like I did.
The good thing: I left the organization in 2003 and there was enough time to move on.
Last year all memories and feelings came back… good and bad feelings about my time as a witness and about my family being still witnesses.
I’m looking forward to read more from you. My english is good enough to understand most of your text (I’m from Germany).
Congratulations, John, making this weighty decision and taking another step forward to real liberty, peace, and security. I’ve been following your blogging for some time now and agree with some fellow blog-followers that your site is one of the very, very few I appreciate and enjoy reading, i.e. JW and WTS and GB related.
As you’ve discovered by this time, it’s a very big step a person is taking to STEP AWAY from the WTS. Just always keep in mind, good brother, some of us who have gone before you, really HAVE SURVIVED it all, even the shunning from family and friends – especially here in South Africa.
You and your Wife and Unborn I only wish the very Very VERY SUPER BEST on your journey. Keep on doing what you’re doing at this site, John; I’m happy to be one of the big crowd here that roots for you :)
Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D., Professor of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University writes “There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view of the new religions to the public, the academy, and the courts by virtue of their ready availability and eagerness to testify against their former religious associations and activities. Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group. Indeed, the various brainwashing scenarios so often invoked against the new religious movements have been overwhelmingly repudiated by social scientists and religion scholars as nothing more than calculated efforts to discredit the beliefs and practices of unconventional religions in the eyes of governmental agencies and public opinion. Such apostates can hardly be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. Even the accounts of voluntary defectors with no grudges to bear must be used with caution since they interpret their past religious experience in the light of present efforts to re-establish their own self-identity and self-esteem. In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses.”
Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book “The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement”, Professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion. “Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.”
John Gordon Melton is an American religious scholar who was the founding director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and is currently a research specialist in religion and New Religious Movements with the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. While testifying as an expert witness in a lawsuit, said that when investigating groups one should not rely solely upon the unverified testimony of ex-members, and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents. Melton also follows the argumentation of Lewis Carter and David Bromley and claims that as a result of this study, the [psychological] treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members largely ceased, and that a (perceived) lack of widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions would in itself be the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.
LogicalAnswer, thanks for the copy-and-paste without the reference, but please don’t do that again.
It’s interesting you should mention Lonnie Kliever, who is one of 22 experts on religion recommended by Scientology’s “Freedom” magazine. http://www.culteducation.com/reference/apologist/apologist42.html
In fact, unsurprisingly the very words you have copied and pasted above appeared in an issue of the same publication in its own tirade against apostates… http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol28I2/page34.htm
And in 1994, Kliever wrote a paper in which she defended Scientology’s right to keep certain details about the Church’s auditing and upper-level teachings confidential, saying: “The Church of Scientology is fully entitled to maintain the strict confidentiality of its upper levels of auditing and training materials as a matter of religious duty and legal right.” http://www.theta.com/copyright/kliever.htm
If Watchtower apologists are now so desperate that they need to run for cover under the same umbrella as the monstrous and vile Church of Scientology with its billion year contract and its child labor outrages, that itself tells us everything we need to know. I for one will not be losing sleep over what some Scientology defender thinks of my opinion as an apostate, whatever credentials (as Professor at a “Methodist University”) she may so freely abuse.
And furthermore, let the record show that unlike Watchtower, I do not demand that you read ONLY my side of the argument and not the other. This is why I repeatedly post references and links to Watchtower materials so that readers can check the veracity of what I say for themselves. The last time I checked, there were no links to JWsurvey.org or JWfacts.com on JW.org. Again, this should tell you all you need to know about who is seeking to mislead and manipulate.
Logical answer: many of us were caught unawares by the manipulative cult of the JWs. As kids we had no choice. Those generalisations from a handful of profs. give no references regarding specific grumbling apostates. Your screed sounds about as convincing as a JW warning against mentally diseased ‘human apostates’. I do not know your religion, if any. Please bear in mind, though, that the Jehovah’s Witnesses that you seem so anxious to defend, believe you deserve the death penalty. If you are not a Jehovah’s Witness the JWs look forward to the day of Armageddon when God murders you for not being a Jehovah’s Witness. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, the JWs look forward to the day of Armageddon when God murders you for interacting with apostates.
Logicalanswer
The JW lawyers in the Conti case said to her. You were only sexually abused a few times, why are you making a fuss?
The courts found that this kind of statement, missed the point, was ignorant, arrogant and completely lacked sensitivity and understanding.
The above reads like a similar ridiculous defence.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make Sue. My post was not a JW response to anything. It is strictly a list of observations about apostasy from studied professionals who are in no way associated with JW’s. I don’t know what the Conti case, or something that was supposedly said by anyone’s lawyer has to do with that.
LogicalAnswer
Religious scholars, who have a particular perspective are not impartial authorities. They use the term apostates in the context that supports their views.
I do not accept the concept of apostasy as I do not have any religious beliefs. That concept has no meaning for me, but I know it is used to create fear in those who have been or are still subject to indoctrination.
you quoted this, ‘that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion
minor incidents, turning them into major incidents”.
This was what Conti was accused of doing.
The Conti case is referenced here:
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/candace-conti-speaks-out-at-rna-2013-conference
Hope that helps.
I’m not sure why my post would be found out rightly objectionable. I used only third party sources. While you say that Lonnie Kliever’s observations may be skewed, I fail to see how her assessment, being in agreement with such reputable professionals as David Bromley can be summarily dismissed based on this fact alone.
Here is a link to David Bromley’s Wikipedia profile. You can question his qualifications to form an educated opinion based on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Bromley
I also find it curious that you have called me out for posting third party information without providing sources, yet Sue’s comment about something that was supposedly said during a court case has went unquestioned.
“I’m not sure why my post would be found out rightly objectionable. I used only third party sources.”
You used a third party source by naming the source but not the material from which it was taken – thus making it difficult to check the quote.
A far more decent way of making your point (unless you deny trying to make a point?) would have been to say, “What do you think of Lonnie Kliever’s statement in [state source] when she said [give brief quote].” Instead you dump over 500 words of someone else’s opinion at the end of my life story, and you expect me to be grateful?
“While you say that Lonnie Kliever’s observations may be skewed, I fail to see how her assessment, being in agreement with such reputable professionals as David Bromley can be summarily dismissed based on this fact alone.”
So Lonnie is allowed to dismiss my opinion as a former believer, but I’m NOT allowed to dismiss hers as a card-carrying defender of the Church of Scientology? Now that is “skewed.”
And I remind you that I encourage all of my readers to delve into both sides of the argument. The same cannot be said of Watchtower, and so Lonnie’s argument immediately falls flat on its face – or at least is rendered irrelevant in my case.
“I also find it curious that you have called me out for posting third party information without providing sources, yet Sue’s comment about something that was supposedly said during a court case has went unquestioned.”
That “something that was supposedly said” has been reported on on these very pages if you would be good enough to spare a moment to look under our “Child Abuse” section, so I think I’m more than entitled to let Sue off from any obligation to quote references. And in any case, her comment was much shorter and far less encroaching than yours (if I can call a 500+ word copy-and-paste a “comment”).
I have also noticed that the term “cult’ has been applied numerous times against your former religion. And anyone that you feel my be defending said religion is labeled as an “apologist”. I think your readers may find the following links interesting as regards these terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_story
LogicalAnswer – your name is becoming increasingly ironic, because there is little that is logical about your comments, and you do not answer the points that are put to you – at least those put to you by me. You simply evade and switch to another argument.
Now you are seemingly crying persecution over the use of the word “apologist,” and you imply that the word “cult” is over-used. You will find few sympathizers with that viewpoint here.
If you don’t want me to identify you as a troll, please stop acting like one. Consider that a friendly warning.
@LogicalAnswer – this shows that you are in need of education regarding the terms used in the “real world” when writing and debating. An apologist is a term that is used for ANY defender of a controversial topic, or position. It is equivalent to being labelled a defender of the faith.
A cult can have a negative connotation when used, but its Merriam-Webster secondary definition refers to a group of adherents to a system of beliefs, “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents”. But, in general and accepted form it refers to a subset or small body of adherents that are apart from the mainstream or general population. JW’s enshrine themselves in the latter definition by theology and by practice.
It’s a cult. And, some would say a “toxic cult”.
LogicalAnswer
I did reply earlier, but it seems to have gone into the ether.
My main point was this – the quotes you use are by religious types who are arguing a particular point to support their thinking. People, such as myself, who has no religious beliefs, can dismiss them as having no value or authority.
Cedars pointed this out much more clearly than I did.
The reason I mentioned the Conti case, which I would have thought most people on here would have been familiar with, but nevertheless the link is below, is because you quoted this “hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents”. This is what the JW lawyers tried to use the same logic. The authority for this was the account given by her mother on the same link below, if you care to check it. There are two interviews with Conti’s mother on Youtube, where she explains what they were put through in order to defend the organisation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n55KAMCVz5E
@LogAnsw – first, the write-ups here are very unacademic, even through from titled professors, in that they appeal to “nebulous authorities” (‘repudiated by social scientists and religion scholars’–which ones? references? it’s like reading a Watchtower). We also must ask why is it necessary for a person who chooses to leave JW’s or any authoritarian, life-dominating group to justify leaving? Most persons have a choice to leave or join churches without a scar being published against their good name. This is not the case with any JW, or JW child. The above statements come from uninformed individuals who do not recognize the smear given to persons who voluntarily leave, or involuntarily leave, JW’s. Not only the smear, but the social ramifications of leaving.
It is only individuals who are acquainted with toxic cults, religions, groups and businesses who can state with clarity why individuals are outspokenly, outraged.
@Jbob
No one ever said that leaving religious group makes you an apostate. It is being an activist against said religion that does. People join and leave religions all the time. That doesn’t make them apostates. As far as the professional opinions of David Bromley, he certainly has a long career of studying religions and their effects on people. I’m not sure why everyone is so offended at the info I have posted. They are well within the posting policies of this site and. They aren’t my opinions, but those of professionals who have made a career out of studying the very issues being raised on this site, and this thread in particular. If my posting of third party information from reputable and credible sources is a violation, or would be considered “trolling”, then I’m not sure it could ever be said that this is a site dedicated to reason and intelligent debate.
@LogicalAnswer – I don’t recall where I mentioned anything about apostate. Nice try at introducing terms that were not part of the conversation to derail the topic. But, back to the focus of my critique, where and who are the experts these “experts” you quote reference to debunk any outspoken criticisms of the group? I defined two terms which you seemed to think perjorative, but you skipped to a different topic as you failed to counter my demolition of your experts statements. Simply because this expert has a long-career of studying religious groups doesn’t qualify him as an expert on those who have left same groups. Those individuals would fall into the expertise of sociologists and psychologists who study group dynamics. If you were quoting these “nebulous external authorities (NEA’s)” that the previous experts listed, we might have cause to consider your arguments. For now, this is second-hand knowledge and assertions without proof.
@Jbob
Are you saying that is a quote was from a credible Sociologist that that would qualify as an expert?
LogicalAnswer – If any of your profs. had presented case histories of ex JWs and their declared reasons for warning others about the cult that had done so much damage in their lives, your initial comment might have carried some weight. All they do is make generalised references to people who have left their religions. The overall impression, by those who have never been involved with the JWs, in the UK at any rate, is of a bunch of rather nerdy, but harmless, religious enthusiasts. Those of us who have experienced life as a JW have a completely different story to tell. Try reading works by James Penton, a qualified sociologist and ex JW and you will get a solid, specific, reasoned and referenced account of this damaging cult.
Thanks for sharing John Cedars! An honest record of events is important in making peace with the past. I always appreciate your writing & attention to details.
James Penton, while obviously a very educated man, is not a qualified Sociologist as you claim. He is actually a professor emeritus of history. I could not find any accreditations for him in sociology. But I did find an interesting bit of info about one of his books on his Wikipedia page.
In 2004 he published Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution, which highlights what he claims are discrepancies between the religion’s official history of its opposition to Nazism during World War II and documented facts. Historian Detlef Garbe, director at the Neuengamme (Hamburg) Memorial, criticized Penton’s “new theory” that in the 1930s the Watch Tower Society had “adapted” to National Socialism’s anti-semitic aggression. Garbe suggested Penton’s interpretation reflected a “deep-seated aversion” against his former religion and that “from a historiographic viewpoint Penton’s writings perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity”.[12][13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Penton
However David Bromley is obviously a very well accredited and accomplished sociologist.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1983-
Affiliate Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1994-
Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1983-1986
Head, Department of Sociology, University of Hartford: 1980-1983
Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hartford: 1980-1983
Director, Institute for Social Research, University of Hartford: 1980-1983
Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Arlington: 1974-1980
Acting Chairman, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Arlington: 1976-1977
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Virginia: 1968-1974
If you assume that he never ran across an ex-jw in all of his research, then that would be quite a stretch of the imagination. Actually be not being a former jw, and studying religion from a sociological viewpoint in general, he is able to be much more objective in his findings. Actually by your response you have in fact reinforced his professional findings. Thank you.
James Penton, in ‘Apocalypse Delayed’ does give the JWs credit for extending civil freedoms in the US. The right not to salute the flag and the right to evangelise in the street were reinforced by JW campaigning. Whatever Bromley’s glittering CV there is no specific evidence that he ever came across ex JWs before drawing his conclusions.
You have made it clear, anyway, Logical Answer, that you do not care for ex JWs who campaign to discredit their erstwhile cult. On a different note, are you able to list nay reason why anyone should leap to the defence of an organisation whose ‘achievements’ over its 134 year history amount to the following:
1. Unnecessary deaths through the blood transfusion edicts.
2. A series of duff prophecies about Armageddon.
3. Nightmares caused by fear of above bogus Armageddon warnings.
4. Wasted lives through the railings against higher education.
5. Protection of pedophiles through the 2 witness rule.
6. Split families through shunning.
7. Social isolation through the damning of popular celebrations like Christmas and birthdays.
8. The basing of its authority on a ridiculous and unevidenced calim about the WBTS Gov. Bod. being somehow connected to the Faithful and Discreet Slave as referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24.
What on earth is your motive for leaping to the defence of an organisation whose entire litany of achievements (save perhaps the civil liberties as referred to above) are negative and cruel, and in the case of the blood edicts, murderous. ?
I have not reinforced Bromley’s findings. I merely wrote that there is no reference to his having studied the topic you initially raised as it refers to this thread. You have merely assumed that this Bromley guy must have come across ex JWs. Your assumption is not enough. His litany of academic posts and publications contributes nothing without a specific study of ex Jehovah’s Witnesses and the ex JWs’ need to campaign against their erstwhile mentor.
Can you please revise your response into literate English, please?
Bromley worked to set up a kind of directory of Religions/cults, WRSP. JW’s are listed. The accuracy or otherwise is amusing if nothing else. If this is the reliable source then nothing more needs to be said.
“Since the presidency of Rutherford, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been organized hierarchically, with exclusively white men in leadership. Many of the leaders of the church have little formal education. The hierarchy is headed by a President, who oversees The Governing Body of seven. The president and the governing body are all deemed to be “anointed.” The governing body remains at the church’s Brooklyn headquarters”.
I left a post previously that did not go through for what ever reason.
Basically, what I said was, either the Watchtower Organization is what they say they are and everyone should come to this organization for salvation or they are lying, are of the devil, and should be avoided. It is one or the other not both.
THEY NOW TEACH, (new light) that in 1919 they were chosen by Jesus to be his organization and he has been using them ever since to instruct his people. As I said before, (in a previous post that did go through) If Jesus appointed them in 1919, he is a false prophet, because they were involved in false prophesy at that time. (See: the book (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, pages 88-90,and 97.) Talks were being given in 1919 and the organizations (own book) MNLWND came out in 1920. From 1919-1925 they taught that the end was coming in 1925. The end did not come in 1925 and the things they said were going to happen at the time did not happen. It was false prophesy, plain and simple.
Point again:, If Jesus chose them as they NOW say he did in 1919, he was involved in false prophesy. I myself am an ex-Jehovah’s Witness. I do not believe Jesus would have anything to do with a lie. (FALSE PROPHESY) Think about it and be honest with yourself. Do not pass this point by. It is the very foundation that they now stand on. They themselves are the ones that promoted this teaching. (They like this Idea)
I forgot to post the links for my last comment.
http://www.has.vcu.edu/wrs/AUTHORS/DavidBromley.htm
http://www.has.vcu.edu/wrs/profiles/Jehovah%27sWitnesses.htm
Hope the interview went/goes well Cedars. Looking forward to hearing it.
Thanks, Sue. This documents Bromley’s credentials as a researcher of various new religious movements. However, what should give Logic pause is that JW’s have been around over 80 years — by name — longer by affiliation with concepts and theology since 1840’s [being generous in linking to Christadelphian theology]. So, how does this group fit into “new movement”? Is it a shroud of secrecy that kept outsiders from learning its inner sanctum, or how it has evolved from a one-man anointed leader into a group of seven? We can see that the VCU project already has murky details when it comes to leadership, which means any indepth study is absent. Even with a sizeable research staff, any study of the thousands of emerging movements will only have a skimming of the highlights and recency coverning what the group appears to be during that year.
And, as a college graduate with multiple degrees–advanced–I can tell you that a research staff generally consists of assistants working on thesis and research. Diligent, but limited coverage.
Basically,
I’m trying to get some of these Organization defenders to try and answer my previous posts. They talk about all kinds or things, but avoid the very foundation.
Quite apart from the abject failure to provide any realistic defence of the JW cult, not a single one has advanced any reason why anyone should want to waste their lives as an unpaid mag. distributor for a global property and publishing corporation whose prime product is human misery. Apart from duff prophecy, family breakup through shunning, wasted opportunities and a life of ignorance through the sneering at education, unnecessary deaths through the blood flip flops and social isolation with with the Birthday and Christmas ban; what, JW defenders, in its 134 years, has your grubby little corner of Christendom achieved?
G. DAVID (Sanddollar)
They cannot do it, because if they start to deal with those questions, (my points were ignored as well), their whole pack of cards collapses. Basic cognitive dissonance.
Something you should know regarding the CoS, Cedars, far back in 1990’s, there existed a Cult Awareness Network (San Francisco)–an entity which was notorious at exposing dangerous cults from the Kohoutek Comet cult (Heaven’s Gate) to Church of Scientology (CoS), Unification Church (“Moonies”) and Hare Krishnas (airport flower sellers). CoS sued CAN and acquired CAN properties and began running it for “religious freedoms”.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/
Jbob, Yes, that was my thought as well.
@rowland You make a boastful claim that it is tantamount to murder to not accept a blood transfusion. In fact the opposite is the truth. See the link that explains the misunderstanding of the so called lifesaving blood-transfusion. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/24/medicalresearch.health In fact recent studies by Johns Hopkins University have shown that the doctors need to be better educated on the use of blood transfusions. ” A 2012 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine study published in the journal Anesthesiology found that doctors vary dramatically in deciding when a blood transfusion should be ordered. According to Dr. Steven Frank, leader of the study, many doctors are ordering blood transfusions prematurely or unnecessarily. “Anytime there is such a large variation in a practice, there’s probably room for improvement,” he said. “There’s more overuse of transfusions than underuse.” – See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/health/hospitals/211933301_Bloodless_Medicine_safer_and_more_costs_affective_for_all__experts_say__greater_acceptance.html#sthash.NZmF15cD.dpuf The typical doctor attends many years of college yet in that time only studies blood transfusion in medicine for some 3-6 hours. ” The resistance is primarily behaviorally based. Physicians get about between 3 to 6 hours of training in transfusion science in medical school. They don’t know a whole lot about it. So most of bloodless medicine or transfusion-free surgery really is education for clinicians in how to handle these situations without blood .” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2013/07/12/july-12-2013-bloodless-surgeries/19167/ In fact in its myriad of achievements (civil rights victories, human rights victories being among those) one of the most successful in the eyes of the medical community is the advancement of bloodless medicine, including surgery and emergency trauma. Although not the originators of bloodless medicine JW’s because of their strict and scriptural stance on blood have advanced the medical community for the better. Many doctors are now considering that in the future hospitals will go to mostly non-blood procedures, due to the high cost and lack of blood donations. No where close to murder the stance of JW’s on blood is in fact lifesaving.
Nobody is suggesting that there is no room for improvement in medical practice, including that involving blood or blood substitute transfusion.
Please do not try and pretend, still less imagine that you can convince anyone else, that JW motives are geared towards improvements in medicine. No; they have, since 1945, simply contorted some antique Jewish dietary law and applied it to blood transfusion as yet another means of control. There have been thousands of unnecessary deaths on account of this cruel diktat.
Recipients of blood are made to feel that they will not survive this mythical horror invention of Armageddon if they dare to defy any diktat of their power crazed controllers.
Further, in recent years, JW directives have become the ultimate in hypocrisy. They have allowed the use of blood fractions, but still demand that JWs do not donate blood, the only source of those fractions.
Do not imagine you can convince anyone that JWs have the remotest interest in improving medical practice. In their ideal fantasy world, the post Armageddon one, there will be no disease, and thus no need for medics.
As the JWs frown on education beyond the basic literacy required to read JW lit., there are almost no doctors in JW ranks. Therefore medical advocates of blood transfusion and bloodless surgery alike, will, according to JW monstrous, and fortunately, utterly erroneous and idiot prophecies, shortly all be murdered by Jehovah in that great Armageddon obscenity, the central obsession of that hideous little JW cult.
The “duff” prophecies of the early WT writers in no way determines that they did not have God’s spirit in directing their work. In the Gospel accounts we see that the disciples of Jesus were very concerned with the coming eschaton of the Jewish system in the first century. Their Weltanschauung consisted of the perception that Jesus would overthrow the Roman government and set up a new government on earth that would be ruled eternally by the Messiah and usher the Jewish peoples into a long awaited “city with real foundations” or paradise that was promised to the father of their nation Abraham. This is supported by the fact that Peter when speaking to Jesus after Christ had revealed to his close disciples that he would have to be killed to fulfill this prophecy of Messiah, told Jesus “Be kind to yourself Lord you will not suffer this fate”. Jesus succinctly rebuked him. Thus showing that the Weltanschauung that was perpetuated by the Jewish leaders. that had in fact ingrained itself into the ideals of everyday Jewish people was wrong. But even after being rebuked by Jesus himself, who said that even he God’s own son did not know the day nor hour, the disciples continued to hold on to their old beliefs. It was not until Jesus after his post resurrection manifestation when walking on the road with two of his disciples, revealed the truth, the “new light” to his disciples. Jesus words would have fallen short of their intent if he had given them when he was still alive. It was not until he had expired and re materialized, showing his followers that even death of the Messiah could not prevent the destruction of the Jerusalem that they fully understood his earlier prophecy. That is why they remarked that their minds had been opened. They understood. At the advent of the Christian group that would in time become Jehovah’s Witnesses there were many different Weltanschauung about the coming of Christ and the prophecies concerning him. Russel’s Weltanschauung was obviously skewed, he was no better off than the discoples of Christ who were standing right there with him in direct communion to him and still could not get the sense of what Jesus was saying, until he the time was proper and they could fully grasp what he was saying. In the early history of JW there were many expectations that simply were nothing more than expectations. They were not accurate, they failed. That does not lead to the conclusion that Jesus was not directing the work of these early pioneers of truth ant more than one could conclude that Christ’s disciples must not have had his direction based on their failed expectations. In fact at Pentacost 33 we see that many still had a misconception of what was going to happen concerning Messiah. They were not abandoned and thrown aside because of a lack of faith. No Jesus directed holy spirit to be poured out so that the returning Jews could learn the truth in their own language and get in line with the “new light” that had been discovered by his disciples. So in a similar way Jesus directs his earthly organization today. He reveals truths through holy spirit in their own time. He does not hold against anyone with a proper heart condition the fact that they had failed expectations at one time. Failed expectations about the coming of Armageddon does not mean that one does not have holy spirit and is not being used by Christ. After all Jesus’ Apostles had the same problem.
So, summarising:
Then – Disciples: It’s any time now
Jesus: No, guys, you’ve got it wrong
Now – JWs: It’s any time now
exJWs: No, guys, you’ve got it wrong.
Being wrong doesn’t matter. In fact, it has been a hall-mark of end-time thinking since the very beginning. So the JWs get it wrong and that is just one more way in which they show themselves to be in line with the earliest Christians.
Forgive me if I am not persuaded.
JwApologetic, er I mean JWDialectic – first things first, ever heard of a thing called paragraphs?
Now to your ‘argument’…
“But even after being rebuked by Jesus himself, who said that even he God’s own son did not know the day nor hour, the disciples continued to hold on to their old beliefs. It was not until Jesus after his post resurrection manifestation when walking on the road with two of his disciples, revealed the truth, the “new light” to his disciples. Jesus words would have fallen short of their intent if he had given them when he was still alive.”
That is a complete misrepresentation of Watchtower’s version of new light, not to mention the scriptures themselves.
In John 16:12 before his death Jesus said, “I have many things yet to say to YOU, but YOU are not able to bear them at present.” And concerning the Great Tribulation Christ told his disciples, “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt 24:26)
Then, following his resurrection, when pressed as to whether the kingdom would be “restored to Israel” (per the ‘Weltanschauung’ as you put it) Jesus said at Acts 1:7: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction…”
Rather than issuing “new light,” Jesus politely told his disciples to mind their own business as to the exact timing of the Great Tribulation. What you claim as “revealed truth” was actually a pointed refusal to reveal truth.
In comparison, rather than humbly and discreetly leaving the timing of the apocalypse in God’s hands, Watchtower has tried to put a time limit on Armageddon throughout its history (1914, 1925, 1975, 1914 generation…) – all the while claiming to do this under the “guidance” of the holy spirit of a God who “cannot lie.” (Titus 1:2)
To scripturally justify so-called “new light” as presented in the publications, you need to abandon your disappointing attempt at arguing the doctrine through Jesus and answer the challenge laid down in the following video…
That is the most tortuous and ineffectual way I have yet read, of trying to explain away the duff prophecies of Jesus and of the WT. St. Paul, a post Ascension and post Pentecostal Apostle was discouraging marriage on account of the imminence of ‘The End’ and fantasising about a rapture even after your ‘new light’ stuff , so your silly justification for all this idiot prophecy falls at the first fence.
@rowland your argument is based upon a false dichotomy and not the facts at hand. Paul never discouraged marriage based upon a coming eschaton. He simply encouraged those that had chosen to remain single to use their time to the full, a wise assessment. The eschaton he warned against was in fact not a spurious idea but as we see by historical evidence occurred in 70 c.e. Your attempt to skew the events are pathetic.
You don’t need a Thessalonians style rapture to avoid being destroyed with the Jerusalem Temple. Paul’s ‘End’ was much bigger than that.
Nice try but wrong. the new light Jesus revealed was in fact new truth to the disciples. He was not withholding truth from them but was waiting to reveal it at the proper time. In fact when he was walking on the road to Emmaus he revealed to them nothing new. It was in fact things they had heard before. So he said to them: “O senseless ones and slow of heart to believe all the things the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things+ and to enter into his glory?”+ 27 And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures”. Their viewpoint was skewed they did not understand the truth that they had read in the scriptures until Jesus explained it. It was never hidden it was there the whole time they simply did not understand. Jesus never told any of his disciples to “mind their own business” that is an unscriptural view of the intent of Jesus words. The fact that one is willing to admit mistakes due to a misunderstanding of events based on what at the time is perceived to be scriptural shows a willingness to be humble. After all one is admitting that these are not set-in- stone doctrines but based upon revealing of truth from the only source of truth Jesus Christ.
“Nice try but wrong. the new light Jesus revealed was in fact new truth to the disciples. He was not withholding truth from them but was waiting to reveal it at the proper time.”
Utter nonsense. So by saying NOTHING Jesus was revealing “new light” and “new truth?” Either your grasp of the English language is not what it should be or you are attempting to evade arguments and confuse people. I suspect it’s the latter.
I’m afraid I’ve decided to block you. I welcome “dialectic” discussion, but your motives in posting seem purely apologetic and deceptive. You insult other posters as “pathetic” if their sentiments don’t chime with your Watchtower-dictated beliefs. And I notice you made not even the faintest glimmer of an effort to answer the challenge in my video. If you later decide to do so by email in a calm and respectful manner I will consider letting you back on, but until then I believe the black list of our spam filter is where you belong.
Adieu.
It seems as if you are dodging your original claim that the decision to not accept blood transfusions is in fact murderous intent. Have you changed your stance based upon the viewpoint of those that would have an actual claim to such a foul cry?