Dear Mom,
I know you’ve wanted to ask me these things for a long time. I told you once that if you did ask, you would have to make some choices, but that I would give you an answer if you decided to ask. I may not answer in the order of your letter, and I’m sorry if I jump around, but I will answer as best as I can. I want to respond in writing so my thoughts will be a little more organized. (Husband) would prefer to discuss these things face to face if you wish.
First, the easy stuff: As far as the Zodiac, I think that stuff is academically interesting, but quite silly and nonsense, though of historical and social interest. I couldn’t figure out what you meant at first, so I looked up my “xxxxxx” page and discovered that Blogger (the page builder that I used for that page,) thought my birthday was in 1756. At the time, it wouldn’t let you sign up without a birthday, and automatically filled in the astrology. So that’s that, and I’m surprised you would automatically assume I follow that.
For the harder questions: You ask why I didn’t close my eyes and pray at (Brother's) and whether I don’t believe in God anymore. Really, that’s two different questions. I did not say “amen” because I understand what it means, and I wasn’t comfortable with (brother) -or anyone really, speaking for me in prayer. So I choose not to participate in a group prayer. Whether I believe in God? Well, not as he’s represented by religion. I don’t think most of the rest of the family has ever been comfortable letting (brother) or Dad pray for them either, but they probably don’t understand the significance of the “amen,” so it is easier for them to go along.
I can’t answer for anyone else who has left the Organization. I can tell you why (best friend) left. She was blackmailed into getting baptized in the first place, even though she had not “made the truth her own,” and had made no dedication. Then she was falsely accused of immorality and ordered to a judicial committee. When she told them she hadn’t done anything immoral, she was told she was a liar. She refused to attend any kind of kangaroo court so she was disfellowshipped in absentia. That’s the bare bones of the story. I’m sure she’d share the details of it with you if you asked.
(Friend's) story is significantly more complicated, with a great deal of confusion, lack of love and support. He is fine now, married to a very nice girl, with a college degree and excellent employment with one of the (Nearby town) school districts. We hear from him from time to time. He was always like a little brother to me. I could no more cut him off completely than I could cut off my own brother.
I know you feel that’s wrong. This is one of the primary reasons I cannot continue to participate as a Witness. Disfellowshipping. I feel very strongly that this doctrine is a serious perversion of Jesus’ teachings. He never in any way condoned the teaching of disfellowshipping or shunning. He forgave immediately. We were never meant to put ourselves in the position of turning our backs on family and loved ones, especially for the sole reason that they disagree with us.
Disfellowshipping is nothing like time-out. Those children received loving attention, even while they were sitting in their chair for a very short period of time. And when it was over, they were allowed immediately back into the good graces of everyone in the room, with my effusive praise for being good kids. There was no probationary time, no “public reproof,” I never made them stand out on the street and say “I was bad, now I’m better, but I have to wear this sandwich board saying I was bad for the next two days.” So unloving. So unjust. So un-Christ-like.
I might instead ask you why their families turned against them? I know that you believe it was “discipline,” but isn’t it possible that the discipline was unjust, unloving, and hastily carried out? Let’s ask (best friend) about that one. Would you go back to a group of people who accused you of something you didn’t do, wouldn’t listen to you when you said you didn’t, then arranged to have you cut off from everyone you ever knew in punishment for the thing you didn’t do?
And I know the claim is often made that “Jehovah will straighten it out in his time.” But these meetings are supposed to be directed by Holy Spirit. Why was it not “straightened out” before it even happened? Would a loving God let something like this happen to teach someone a lesson? To “test” them? So, if he did, wouldn’t he be bloodguilty if the test was beyond what they could bear? Or perhaps this is not really a test from God, but a test from men. In which case, the men who separated her from her family are actually the “bloodguilty” ones.
Perhaps from our side, it is our families who have turned against us. I know for a certainty that I have never turned against my family. (Husband) has never turned against his family, (best friend) has never turned against her family, and (friend) has never turned against his family.
I know that when people leave the Organization, we often thought “what bad thing did they do?” or “what bad things did they did they want to do?” We assumed that their leaving had something to do with a bad attitude, a bad heart, a wish to engage in illicit behavior, etc. Why is it that it is rarely assumed that a person left because they could no longer in good conscience continue in active association with the Witnesses? Why is it never assumed that a person leaves based on strong principles?
And make no mistake, it takes strong principles and great fortitude to leave. To communicate to others the real reason for leaving puts one at great risk of being cut off from those he loves. It is easier and safer to merely express disinterest in matters religious and simply "disappear" from sight rather than to let friends and family know the real reasons. At least in that way a person can hope to maintain normal relationships with their loved ones.
The problem is that "normal" relations do not really continue, because now there are certain subjects that have to be avoided to maintain the facade. The relationship becomes very superficial. We can talk about the weather or work, or maybe other family members’ work or vacations, but not the real values and thoughts around which our lives revolve. For the one who leaves, there is a sense of always being viewed with disapproval, suspicion and sometimes grief. The one who has left does not feel there is a need for these feelings, especially the grief, but feels deeply grieved himself, for “causing” that feeling in someone he loves. This creates incredible frustration, because you want to talk about these very important ideas, but knowing that the merest mention of disagreement with Watchtower doctrine will be viewed with fear, misunderstanding and the undercurrent of suspicion of apostasy. You fear to say a single word lest that word triggers a reaction mandated by the very thing you object to. Eventually, you find that your own integrity forces you to answer the questions, regardless of consequence. After all, you left for matters of conscience, and your conscience tells you that the issue can no longer be avoided. This is exactly the position in which I find myself, due to your questions, Mom.
J.R. Brown, on the WT.org website claims that if people will just leave quietly, nobody will stop them, they are free to leave. Yet this is such a gross misrepresentation of what really happens, which is that your family may choose not to speak with you, most of your friends will cut you off, perhaps you will lose your livelihood, etc. All for “leaving quietly.” And if someone should press you for an answer to your leaving, the consequences of being honest and truthful are far, far more egregious.
It is such the case that even acknowledging that you believe something different than WT approved teachings, can end up in disfellowshipping. Simple questions that stem from lack of doctrinal knowledge are acceptable, but questions that come from serious study and research are discouraged and even punished, if they should be found contrary to the “current understanding.”
And yet, if a person were to question a currently held belief, based on deep research, find that the teaching was contrary to scripture, and refuse to hold to the current teaching, he would be disfellowshipped for apostasy. But when “new light” came, would that person then be reinstated with apologies? No, he would still be disciplined for challenging the authority of the Society. The response to questions such as these are overwhelmingly to attack the motives of the questioner, rather than to examine the question and try to find an answer. I have experienced this myself. How can this be, yet the Society not be guilty of dogmatism?
You speak of a deep, deep hurt. Believe me, I feel the same thing. I feel that nothing I do has any importance to you next to some directive to do more! do more! in service to the Watchtower society. I feel that nothing I have ever done otherwise has that importance. I feel that no matter how intelligent, successful, helpful, kind and happy I am, it will never have any significance next to the fact that I no longer practice a particular belief system.
I suppose you could say I left because of my training. I learned always to look for the veracity of a matter, before taking it as my own belief. I was always skeptical of any new idea. But I never turned that skepticism on my own religious beliefs. Why? Because I was told never to question. Repeatedly, so much so that to question was something that could only be from Satan. Yet, I was also taught that the truth could stand up against challenges. Does that mean I went looking to challenge my faith? No. But there were things that would come up randomly that made no sense to me. Disfellowshipping was one.
Think of this: Peter denied Jesus. He wasn’t sanctioned, reproved or disfellowshipped. He regretted his actions bitterly, and he was forgiven instantly. He was given the keys to the kingdom less than two months after the event. The prodigal son was welcomed back immediately upon his return. How unjust, unloving and unscriptural the policy of disfellowshipping someone, then making them sit in the back of the Kingdom Hall for months, before a committee of elders determines that they are sorry enough, and have proved themselves enough to allow them the “privilege” of once again being spoken to by their friends and family. Then they must wait many more months for restrictions to be lifted. Jesus gave absolutely no support for these policies, and in fact they go entirely against Jesus’ actions.
In the first Century, disfellowshipping, a Jewish practice of expulsion from the community, (John 9 gives an example of the man born blind who was expelled from society for acknowledging Jesus,) this practice was adopted by Paul for the Christian congregation. Even then, when expulsion was practiced, it was for the basest of sins, and it was conducted in public, as it was in the Jewish religious system and continues to be all the way until now. The whole thing, not just an announcement. Everyone in the community knew what was done, that the doer was unrepentant, and that he was expelled by council. There are several examples of exactly this procedure. Nothing about it was secretive. There was no committee of three men who conducted a secret hearing with the accused. The accused did not stand completely alone with no defense. Since we assume that this arrangement is by divine guidance, why does the current practice differ? Russell established the same method for handling expulsion, and as far as my research has shown me, it is still practiced that way by the Bible Students and other Adventist type groups that were associated very early with the Bible Students.
Why is it so secretive now? How can we be sure that this is not also a perversion of justice? There is absolutely not a shred of scriptural support for the manner in which it is conducted now.
For me, my questioning started subtly, with a question about what happened to anyone who was disfellowshipped for taking an organ transplant or Factor VIII for hemophilia. These are now acceptable medical treatments. Were those who were disfellowshipped at this time then reinstated with apologies for the misunderstanding? Or what about the dead ones who followed Watchtower policy? Did the WT apologize to their families for creating a faulty policy that cost them their lives?
I found this thought quite disturbing, but put it out of my thoughts. Then, I began research on the Cross vs. the Stake, so I could answer a sincere question that was asked of me at a householder’s door. What I discovered, through my research, was that the Society does not really know for sure, that Jesus was not put to death on a cross. Yet, this continues to be a mainstay identifier of “false religion…” do they use a cross? To me, it seems very dishonest. If they are being misleading about that teaching, what else are they possibly manipulating?
It was about this time that I attended a get-together at the park in (hometown). There was George Rxxxxx, allowed to be unsupervised with, and touching peoples’ children, in spite of the fact that he is a registered sex offender. Yet not a single person seemed to be keeping an eye on him, even when he had a young girl from the Spanish congregation holding his hand and sitting on his lap. I warned her mother that the child was holding the hand of a convicted pedophile. She was horrified that nobody had told her. Why were these children not being protected from an opportunistic molestor? Why did she not know that she was exposing her child to danger? For my efforts, I received a phone call and was told not to be spreading malicious gossip. Unbelievable. Did Jesus really love little children? I believe so. Do the elders? Does the Society who made the directive that I could be called into a judicial meeting and disciplined for “spreading malicious gossip” for warning a mother that her child was vulnerable to a child rapist in good standing in the congregation? Do they care about the children? Or do they first and foremost care about protecting themselves from litigation?
That was the last gathering I attended in (hometown). I decided that, no matter what, I could not have any association with a congregation that refused to look after its littlest, most fragile members.
We continued to attend meetings. There were some very wrong things I observed, drunkenness, propositioning, drug use, one drunken sister got very hands on with me in a sexual way, I told her to back off, and she began screaming at me, accusing me of all kinds of vile things, including cheating on my husband. 15 people stood in the same small room and watched this happen. When I asked them to back me up as I went to the elders, everyone of them said they saw nothing, heard nothing, and didn’t want to be involved. (By the way, there were both elders and their wives, as well as pioneers who witnessed this, the drunk sister being a ministerial servant’s wife as well as an auxiliary pioneer. He was appointed as an elder within the year.) But when I finally reported them to the elders, they closed ranks, and (husband) and I were completely shut out from all social activities. These men were the ones who I viewed as most faithful. These are men who both of you speak of with a great deal of respect. The sister remained a pioneer. In fact, she was used in a demonstration the very next week following my phone call to the elders regarding her conduct. She also continued to have very public drunken displays all the way up until such time as we left (congregation) and no longer heard of her. She was also not the only elder’s wife (nor elder) to have a known and very public drinking problem.
I saw elders run their business in an unlawful way, then joke about how they just “forgot” to record their income, or “forgot” to report business equipment, including company vehicles worth thousands of dollars.
This is just the tip of the iceberg… in several congregations.
Still, I believed that it would all be “straightened out.” But at what point do you stop seeing the corruption, lies, greed and mishandling of poor innocent people as just “individuals who make mistakes,” and start seeing it as symptomatic of a bloodstained cup with the outside wiped clean? At what point do you realize that it is not the people who leave who break up the family, but rather the ones who stay, and dogmatically adhere to a policy that will not allow them to carry on having “natural affection” for a loved one who no longer believes in the same doctrine? When do you realize that the “two witness rule,” is not really for the protection of the innocent, who will NEVER have the luxury of an impassive observer to their rape, but rather for the protection of the perpetrator? White-washed graves?
Many of those who leave go back to their families when they are desperate, simply because that is the only time their JW families will have anything to do with them. The desperation is most often seen by the JW family as an “opportunity” to get them to comply with the Organization’s requirements of fealty and credulity, whether they really agree or not. At least they could act like they believe, and come back to activity. There is no room for choice, because it is a “Sophie’s choice.” You either give up your integrity to keep your family, or give up your family to keep your integrity.
At what point do you say “I can no longer be a part of an Organization who will not truly apologize for the damage they’ve done with their capricious policies, but instead falls back on the excuse of ‘imperfect men’, apologizing with one hand and taking away with the other if you do not accept their “apology” and pretend as if you are unaffected by the damage?”
Was there an incident that finally made me wake up? I suppose there were some very unkind words spoken behind my back by a pioneer and elder’s wife that I wasn’t meant to hear. But really, it was more a general sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that something was seriously wrong and I needed to stay away. I remember the day (husband) and I decided to just not go to the meeting for no other reason than it felt wrong to attend. I remember the relief I felt.
Not attending gave me permission to really research my beliefs. I found that very little stood the test of proper research. In fact, I found very little consistency between early Witness beliefs and now. Even looking at the JWs of my childhood brings a completely different picture. The Organization holds this up as proof of truth. “See, when we realize our mistakes we correct them. This proves we have divine approval, because we are humble.” Did you know that the Scientologists and the LDS make the exact same argument?
You say that “the organization and truth has progressed way beyond where you left off.” We left only 4 years ago, in late 2002. Is “truth” really that much of a moving target? If so, how could you really call it “truth”? Is it really “accuracy,” “reality,” and “actuality,” if it changes so dramatically every few short years? Current “truth” would be virtually unrecognizable to a Witness who died when I was a child. It may even be unrecognizable to (Brother who studied with my parents, who died about 10 years ago) most certainly to (his wife who died in 1975). Is this truly the same “truth” that she believed and taught to you?
You and Dad taught me to have a love for truth. But I see very little truth here. What I see most is a great deal of legalistic policy, meant to protect a very insular group from outside influences that could weaken holds on the minds of the people that support the group. Critical thinking is not something to fear, it is something to be embraced. We encouraged everyone we met in field service at the doors to “hold up a measuring stick” against their beliefs to see if they met the measure. I did so with my own and found them gaspingly lacking. (Husband) feels very much the same as I do, for his own reasons, though as I mentioned, he’d rather discuss it face to face. He’s very articulate about his reasons and feelings.
I am saddened that regardless of how happy I am, how much stronger my marriage is, my life successes, you and Dad will see me as a failure, someone to be pitied and grieved over, because I no longer see your religious choices as “truth.” Because I choose not to return to the Kingdom Hall, due to the strength of my convictions, you view me as good as dead. I am sad that you both look only to some indeterminate time in the future, and do not embrace right now, while I am here and you are here. Instead choosing to believe that I can “barely tolerate” you, or else that I have been offended by some personality conflict and have chosen to behave in a petty way, shooting my own self in the foot, as it were.
I love you and Dad very much, and I wish my family could see me for myself, rather than solely as someone who “left Jehovah.” Someone who, no matter how good things are, “the news about (me) is not good,” viewing me as a dead man walking. I’m sorry, but I do not accept that point of view.
Love, (me)
