My last meeting with the elders

by seattleniceguy 20 Replies latest members private

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    This post was originally a response to the "Passionate Confrontations With Elders" thread, but it got to be such story that I decided to create a new thread for it, lest I hijack the former or be accused of posting off-topic.

    About a month before I decided to DA myself, two elders came by to set me straight and question me regarding the "considerable talk" that was going on about me. My visitors were the PO, who we'll call S, and an "annointed" brother, Z, who was widely believed to be playing with just a few cards short of a full deck.

    I liked the PO a lot. He was a nice guy. He was the kind of guy you wouldn't mind going to a ballgame with. Very straightforward, rational, too. The annointed brother, on the other hand, had totally defied my efforts to relate to him from the very first time I saw him. His meeting parts were outrageous for their unorthodox quality. He would customarily insert very long, obscurely related anecdotes into very short parts, like the counsel segments of the Theocratic Ministry School. Of course, everyone thought it was adorable, since he was annointed ("You can really see the spirit on him!"), but I could never get into it. He was just loopy, to me.

    So it was this unusual pair that showed up at my house. By this time, I was strongly convinced that the WT's take on the universe was horribly out of alignment with reality. As S and Z came in, I felt a sort of pity for S. He looked dejected in advance, like a man walking into a losing battle.

    After a few introductory remarks by the two elders, I discussed my issues, and what I had learned in the last few months. I presented a lot of straightforward arguments, to which S listened and nodded silently. Z seemed to be missing the meaning entirely. At one point, I asked a question as a part of my argumentation. It was a question that had a very clear, unavoidable answer. Z made an evasive remark, but when my eyes met those of S, I saw a lucid understanding stirring somewhere deep inside.

    After about 40 minutes, the elders made a few remarks about how people missed me at the meetings. I thanked them for their time and watched as they left quietly. It was at this point that I realized that S had said almost nothing for his entire visit. In fact, mostly he had sat in a contemplative pose taking in everything I said without offering the slightest counter-argument. Since Z had shown from his responses that he was a lost cause, I spoke directly to S for most of the conversation, and I remember an expression of creeping realization in his eyes for much of it.

    A couple weeks later, I was shocked to hear that S had stepped down as PO, and that Z had taken his place. The news inpired hope in me that S might be coming around, but it also made me a bit sad to think that my former congregation, once renowned for its reasonableness compared to other KHs, would soon likely be among the absolute weirdest in Seattle.

    I continue to hold out hope that S is moving along his own path of spiritual awakening. Time will tell. I'm rooting for him.

    SNG

  • Mulan
    Mulan

    Hi..............please PM to me and tell me their names. I am only curious, if I know them. My mother and stepfather used to be in the Central cong., and didn't you say you had gone there too? In any case, I know lots of elders in the Seattle area, and would like to know who they are.

    Marilyn/Mulan

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    Very cool...thanks for sharing your experience. It would be wonderful if some of the things you said to S will help him see the truth about the troof.

    If you have time, I'd love for you to post some of the things you discussed with the two elders.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Nothing like having a crazy man at the helm! Z is going to make some interesting things happen.

  • nilfun
    nilfun
    If you have time, I'd love for you to post some of the things you discussed with the two elders.

    Yes, I too would be interested in reading what you said to him that preceded his stepping down aside.

    Thanks for sharing this with us

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Way to go, NiceGuy! Plant those seeds...

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Thanks for sharing. "S" really reminded me the brother in charge of the Translation dept. in the French Bethel. We had been working together for years and liked each other. I remember my two last conversations with him. The first, when I resigned from Bethel. The second, a few months later, when I had been disfellowshipped and went back to get the few things I had left there. In both occasions I could read understanding and, yes, even envy, in his words and eyes. Unfortunately, he stayed within (I can still remember his words: "All that I have, I owe the organization"). He even became the president of the national corporation for some time. A nice guy all the same.

    Oh, and I agree with Elsewhere about "Z": crazy people are definitely needed in key roles...

  • Special K
    Special K

    Hi seattlenice guy

    Well, if the way you talk to someone is as articulate and as well put together as what you write here onthis forum..then I can certainly see that there would not have been much for S to say to refute anything you said.

    Probably a really nice guy this elder who obviously seen a lot of reasoning and searching had been done by yourself..as probably evident by what you must have shared with him.

    Interesting.. I hope someday you might see this man again and hear that he left the J.W. religion.

    sincerely

    Special K

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    That story was very well told SNG.

    Since I've been on this board, I've been shocked at who all had doubts, who left and so forth. The PO sounds like a nice guy, I knew several elders like him. Maybe he'll make it over the wall too.

    Chris

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Dr. Watson and nilfun,

    I can't recall all the details of the conversation, but at the time, I know that I was more concerned with logic problems than things like lack of love, etc. Also, because I didn't want to come across as apostate (as yet), I didn't discuss some outright disagreements I had with policy or doctrine specific to Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainly, my problems were lower-level than that. My issues were of two related classes:

    1. The Society asked me to discount scientific theories - notably, the theory of evolution - that I felt had at least some validity.
    2. The inspiration of the Bible - and in particular, the Society's proof for it - did not hold up under scrutiny for me.

    These two points were strongly related for me. For example, one major problem I had was with the deluge. I pointed out some of the many barriers to believability, and I showed how evolution provides a much more reasonable explanation. I don't want to rehash this whole thing, because the topic has been taken up quite thoroughly in another thread here, but evolution provides a simple, straightforward answer for things like:

    • Species that exist only in one extremely isolated area (e.g., species that live only in Hawaii, or marsupials in Australia)
    • Clearly related species that are specialized per distinct habitat (e.g., lynx, snow leopard)
    • "Junk features" in animals (e.g., appendix in humans)

    I didn't want to dwell on this topic for long, because trying to talk to Witnesses about evolution is generally impossible unless you're dealing with someone who is extremely enlightened. The very word is enough to send them into anaphylactic shock. Instead, I focused on the logical failure of any Society literature to show the inspiration of the Bible. I had re-read the God's Word or Mans? book very recently and had found that none of the evidence held up to even mild scrutiny.

    For example, the Witnesses talk about the book of Isaiah a lot. I once hung the hat of my faith to a considerable degree on Isaiah's prophecy regarding Cyrus' conquest of Babylon, because the prophecy was fairly clear, and the fulfillment definitely happened, in a very striking way. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of Isaiah are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to, at earliest, 225 BCE, some 500 years after the Witnesses say it was written. The only reason the Witnesses say Isaiah was written in the 700's BCE is because it says it was.

    I said, "Imagine you find a document that describes in detail the events of the 20th century. It mentions a few notable wars in such way that it is clearly speaking about events in the 20th century. It even uses the names of a few important people. The document is dated October 1, 1510. You discover this document after all the events it describes have been fulfilled. There are no manuscripts dating earlier than the 21st century. Now, which is more straightforward and rational: that the document is a prophecy from God? or that it was simply written after the fact?"

    To this, Z replied, "Well, see, you're...show me the document. You're just making things up. You have to show me the document first." Unable even to respond to such refusal to think, I turned to S, and I saw that he clearly got the point. He made no reply.

    We also talked about another favorite subject for Witnesses, their "unity." Witness unity was nothing remarkable, I suggested, because of the way in which it was created. I could create a club with exactly the same kind of unity, I submitted. "Imagine I create a club with certain rules for entrance. Ten people join the club, and I say, 'Look at this! Total unity. My club is great!' As soon as someone does something I don't like, I throw them out of the club. My club retains its unity simply because it crushes dissent. There's nothing very remarkable about that - and certainly nothing miraculous."

    I compared and contrasted Witness unity to the unity that appears in any social gathering, such as a "worldly" club. Since I went to Japan through a Rotary scholarship, I used that club as my foil. Rotary gatherings exhibit the same peaceful atmosphere as Witness assemblies. The reason is that Rotarians consider each other as friends and compatriots. Why would any Rotarian mistreat his fellow Rotarian? The real difference in the unity of the Rotarians and the unity of the Witnesses is that the Witness unity is a unity by decree, whereas the Rotarian unity is more spontaneous in nature. In this way, the Rotarian unity is actually more impressive to me.

    I don't feel that I unleashed any really devastating logic on the two elders. My main point was to show how "proofs" for the Bible and the WT Society disintegrated under mild scrutiny. My whole point was that I wasn't bending over backwards trying to come up with logic to defeat their arguments; rather, the correct logic was extremely simple in nature.

    It's kind of funny to write about this stuff. It's so obvious in nature that I almost feel silly recounting it to you. But for Witnesses, this kind of thinking is really mind-blowing.

    SNG

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit