I have here a letter that I'm going to read to my family and friends when they question me about my beliefs. I've been planning on reading it to them for 2 months now, and I'm finally ready to read it to them. Many of you know my situation with the internet, and how I have very limited time for research. For those that don't, I'll explain. I'm a rather young XJW, and I still live at home. I saw something wasn't right with the WTBTS so I left. They were curious about my new ideas about the WTBTS, so they checked my history. They found out I visited this site various times, and pulled the net, since they were paying for it. (And I find it disturbing why they still want to check up on the private internet browsing habits of a 21 year old man.) since then, I've been saving up money for a new computer and for DSL access, which I will have shortly.
Well, here's the letter, with the requests for references. The final, correctly spelled version will be posted on this thread, and I will give updates on how they reacted to the letter.
God has chosen a group of men that included the right hand man of the famed Apocalyptic cult leader William Miller (Who said Jesus would return in 1845), a man that claimed white people were superior to black people, a man that based some of his dates for biblical prophecies (Including 1914) coming true on the measurements of the great pyramid, (An object that wasn't specifically mentioned in the bible), and an alcoholic who tried to sue somebody when the person revealed data about his alcoholism?
What would you think if God chose these guys just for auxiliary roles in his organization? You would scoff at the idea. You'd think that I'm insane. Yet, these men that were mentioned played key roles in the formation of a controversial church. Actually, I'm only mentioning 2 people. CT Russell and Joseph Rutherford. And they claim to be chosen by god.
You're probably crying and screaming "Apostate" after seeing those claims. But let's take a closer look at the idea of apostacy. I could only be considered apostate if what I say isn't true and is only to lash out at God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit, be they separate. What I say is very true, and is backed up by scripture, non-bound volume magazines/books/KM's and official records of various secular organizations.
If I'm apostate for simply disobeying the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" then you should consider Witnesses (Back then, they were Rutherford-Controlled Bible Students, the Bible Students and the JW's didn't part ways yet.) who believed in the germ theory in the 1920's as apostate, they should consider witnesses that got vaccinations in the 1940's as apostate, and they should consider those that didn't believe in the generations teaching in 1990 as apostate.
(The WTBTS no longer sanctions these beliefs, by the way.)
Does that mean that the Witnesses that doubted those beliefs and didn't follow them were apostate, or were they simply not "Going beyond what is written?" just as the bible says?
Think about it.
Remember, being apostate means that you're sinning against the Holy Spirit, and going beyond what is written is a sin against the holy spirit.
I have a solid case not to join the JW's just for that point alone. They've been proven through some of the above actions that they're not with god. The last time I checked, false prophets, drunkards, and dishonest men (Gal 19+20)) did not inherit the Kingdom of God. If God wouldn't allow them to join him in his kingdom, why would he ever let them lead his people on earth?
False prophets? Drunkards? Dishonest men? Are you shocked at those claims? Read on further and you'll see these claims explained.
Rutherford was a known drunk. In fact, Rutherford sued a man for libel for telling the public that Rutherford was a drunk. The case was later lost in court, due to a simple clause in the libel law. It isn't libel if it's the truth. The case is recorded in secular courts and I have a copy of the secular court record right here.
(This is where I need your guy's help.)
The claim of dishonesty is backed up in these next few points.
There's a coverup on their origins, which leads to more confusion on whether Russell was chosen by God. It strikes many people odd how the Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the copyright on the name "Bible Students", even though according to their claims, they changed their name from "Bible Students" to "Jehovah's Witnesses". All companies who have undergone namechanges still keep the copyright to their former names. Marshall Feilds owns the copyrights to the names "Dayton's Department Store" and "Hudson's Department Store", Verizon Wireless still owns the copyright to "Ariel Wireless", yet the Jehovah's Witnesses do not own the copyright to the name "International Bible Students." There are currently 2 religions named "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "International Bible Students".
If the Bible Students really did split off into another religion, then the Jehovah's Witnesses would have the copyright to the original name and would be able to sue the Bible Students for the usage of the name or similarities to the aformentioned name. Contrary to the official statments of the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, C.T. Russell did not found the roots of what would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. He founded the Bible Student religion, a religion that's almost the exact opposite in organization to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
In fact, Russell chided other religions for being organized in that manner. The Bible Student religion in a nutshell: (In reference to the International Bible Students, not the Dawn Bible Students, although there are many similarities between the 2.) The religion doesn't meet in churches, it doesn't have publically ordained ministers, but rather, the religion puts emphasis on regular people reading the Bible and studying it with similar people, trying to know everything they could know about the bible so they could be closer to god. They print publications, but they put more emphasis on the Bible rather than their publications. Why would God choose a man who would create a new kind of church with a distinct behavior when he would intend for them to become just like the other churches, who owe to their massive amounts of corruption due to the fact that they are organized?
Now not ignoring their current controversies, being a Witness would be still incompatible with the Bible, read Matt. 7:17. And what are their current controversies? There's the infamous child molestation scandal. There was a 2 Witness policy for every child molestation incident, which was later revised after the major child molestation scandals began. The 2 witness rule in a nutshell says that 2 people have to witness the incident. That's rearly ever the case in child molestation cases, where there are 2 other witnesses to a child molestation.
Whatever you say, using the 2 Witnesses rule to an offense like child molestation is ludicrous, and boarders on the sickening. Do you think if Jesus was on earth today, he would defend that flawed policy? He knew that there were some exceptions to some biblical laws due to special circumstances. In fact, the ancient laws of the Jews provided for special exceptions to be shown in the laws, and Jesus chided them for showing no special exceptions. Yet there were no exceptions shown in the 2 witness rule. (Think of the time where Jesus fed himself wheat on the Sabbath.)
Then there's the UN debacle. They blasted the UN in their publications. In fact, you could have gotten disfellowshipped just for being an employee of the UN. (I need your help with this one too, I need to get a quote from the WT/Awake on this.) But the WTBTS for a short time, were members of the UN. Yes, this may seem shocking to you, but they were once a member as recently as 2001, the year that the London Guardian broke news of their involvement in the UN. (Need London Guardian JW story URL, either from the LG website itself or from archive.org.) It's very well documented, and the WTBTS even admitted to being a member organization in a document. (I'm attatching the Patterson letter to this document.)
The WTBTS was a Non Governmental Organization of the UN (NGO). Why is that important to know? Well, 3 reasons. 1. That's the only way how a religion could join the UN. (I need a link to the NGO criteria here.) They were in the same ranks as the Catholic Church, The Latter Day Saints, and various Neo-Pagan churches. (Yes, the same churches that worship phallic shaped objects). They are all members of the UN. And so was the WTBTS. They were rubbing shoulders with phallus worshippers for god's sake! (No pun intended.) Aren't the Witnesses supposed to be "No part of the world?"
The second reason is quite obviously they blasted the UN for being Satan's organization on earth. But yet, according to them, they were associated with them just for a library card.
Doesn't that go against the commandment to "Avoid the appearance of evil"? IF the UN were evil, then avoiding the appearance of evil would include not joining them for any reason whatsoever.
A 3rd reason: Joining the UN as an NGO would mean that you're accepting and acknowledging the UN charter, (Need UN Charter URL Here) which includes the honoring of the UN as the only way for peace. Not to mention, you're also required to write something that honors the UN or one of its agencies in your publications, and in fact, there was an article honoring the UN's work. It's referred to later on in this article. It featured Eleanor Roosevelt, and the title of the article is "A Job Finally Done". (Need Date)
You deny my claims that they were associated with the UN? Then go to http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/materials/articles.htm and see for yourself, a record of the article that honors the UN, as required by the rules of being an NGO. (And for those of you with apostaphobia, that's not an "Apostate" site, that's an official UN site.)
In defense, a Witness might say "Despite all those scandals, they still have the closest thing to the truth, so it's best to stay with them."
Let's look at these "truths". There are the endless predictions and insinuations of the years the endtime would occur. (Watchtower April 1, 1923, p. 106, The Watchtower, 1984 3/1 Pages 18-19, Kingdom Unity a Reality Today, Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1989) And they've claimed that they were prophets. (Awake June 6, 1986), yet their "Prophecies", which included the 1925 return of holy men of old, like Abraham, and Noah; (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89-90) the increase of earthquakes, an idea that was later debunked by various seismological institutes, (You Can Live Forever On A Paradise Earth, 1984) and the Endtimes coming before the end of the 20th century. (Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1989)
Some Witnesses would also say in defense "But those are only people, not Jehovah." The Sadducees were also just people, also claiming to be with Jehovah, does that mean that they're righteous, despite rejecting Jesus? You might say: "But even though the Witnesses had a bad past, their present isn't as controversial and they're still a good religion." Ignoring all of the current controversies following them right now, can you read Matthew 7:17 and honestly say what you said?
Matthew 7:17 clearly says "A bad tree cannot produce good fruit." Trees have roots, and when a tree's roots are rotten, all of the tree is rotten too, down to the fruit. The roots of the Witnesses are based on dishonesties, one being the coverup of such bizzare doctrines and teachings as their doctrine against vaccinations, the skin of Negroid members of the church turning fair after Armegeddon is over, and even the teaching of Aluminum being "The Devil's Metal". All quoted in the WT's of the 1920's-50's, ones that aren't recorded in the WT CD Rom which also lends over to my claim of them being dishonest.
These are clearly false prophecies, no matter how you can cut it. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 1 John 4:1 Matthew 7:15-20
With truths like these, it's no question that they're a "Rotten Tree". As Matthew 7:17 said, a rotten tree can't produce good fruit.
Now I would rejoin the Witnesses on the apologetic level, like how many other agnostics are still active members in other churches. But for me to do that, I would have to do this: Say how the generation of 1914 seeing the times of the end malprediction being revised is a sign of the light getting brighter, yet ignoring how it's become more vauge (I.E. The generation starting at an unknown time.) Defend the idea of blood being sacred and not to be taken even when life is endanged, while at the same time, teaching about God shows exceptions to rules when people and treasured animals are in danger, mentioned in Jesus' parable of the sheep falling down into a hole and being saved on the Sabbath, and think nothing about god mainly using a man that were found to be in a U.S. civil court responseable for fraud (Need secular source for this.), and god using another man that lost a case against another person after he sued the other person for libel when the other person revealed his alcoholism.
Then I would have to act in the prejudiced manner that all people who do not follow the Witness religion are the same, be it that they're serial killer child rapists to the lady that feeds the homeless in her basement, to the mentally tortured goth on the street wearing a pentegram, when in fact, they're as different as can be. Lastly, I'll have to convince other people to whitewash over those facts. I would have to teach them teachings now that may not be "true" in a few years, which would be in effect, lying to the people I have to preach to. Then I would have to convince them to turn their lives into an Orwellian existiance for a company that hides their history from their members.
Now you see why I don't want to be a Witness? And by the way, if there is an afterlife in the Biblical sense, I'm not going to be punished by god for not following the Witnesses. Why? Let's look at Deut 18:20, 22 "20 However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die........22: When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him."
You're a smart person. Who's prophecying in God's name? The Jehovah's Witness, or the simple agnostic?
