Well an elder finally rang, and sure enough it was one particular elder I was close to when I was a dub; I still do have a lot of time for him personally as he is genuine. All the same however, hes a company man and I am a great believer that the person who is going to betray (if at all) will often will be the one you least expect it from. I think it was him predominantly because he/they thought his call could be disarming.
Well, I spoke to him very briefly, and in that time he tried to get my address off me on several occasions - he tried to ascertain when it would be most convenient to call (to which I was non committal) but careful not to do anything which could put my relationship with my mother at jeopardy. He mentioned that both himself and another elder (the words 'two witness rule' came to mind) would like to visit to see if my view could be changed and whether I would be coming back to the meetings.
I said that it seems very official that another elder be present at the same time and asked why that was, to which I was told that it was better that two people were there - transparent I thought.
I didnt commit to a time when they could call and he didnt manage (not through want of trying) to get my address so I think I have successfully evaded their visit; apparently I am to ring them when I am free which I guess will be never .
Anyway this led to me speaking to my mother on the subject to which I mentioned how the conversation went and highlighted the fact that if I said I didnt wish to attend meetings again they could disassociate me by proxy; something to which she naively suggested wasnt possible; I said that I wasnt going to take the risk and that I just simply wanted to be left alone and do not recognise their self appointed status.
A very interesting conversation then took place between my mother and I. I normally just accept her beliefs for what they are but when she starts to spout her indoctrinated crap I just see red and have to challenge them.
Our conversation covered, apostasy, disassociation, disfellowshipping and my usual favourite, the WTBTS and its failures.
Apostasy
I pointed out that I had been accused of apostasy some years ago when I was asking awkward questions about child abuse within the organisation; I mentioned also that I had more questions which were more pointed than that and would mention them should the elder/s arrive at my door. I said that whilst I dont recognise their labels I didnt wish to be labelled an apostate for her sake and have it cause problems between us; to which she agreed. She said that I couldnt be deemed to be an apostate by asking questions but if I didnt accept the answers, I could be. So essentially I can ask questions but when I am given complete bullshit answers that make no sense, I have to accept them if I dont wish to be branded an apostate; putting it like that, I know made her think. She then asked me what answers I would accept; I said ones which were accurate, honest, rational, verifiable and above all believable- I asked her whether requiring these sorts of answers made me an apostate, to which she said no. A springtrap is laid open should I ever be disfellowshipped for asking questions and not accepting bullshit answers.
Disassociation
I asked why it was that the society had changed their announcement upon disfellowshipping and disassociation to say 'joe bloggs is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses'; she said that she had not heard of this change and wasnt sure about it. I pointed out that this was the case, and that my refusal to return to the meetings ever could be construed as my wishing to be disassociated and lead to me being treated as disfellowshipped - Again she was not aware of this but I think I have laid open another springtrap of doubt should I ever be disassociated by proxy.
Disfellowshipping
I went to town on this point as its something I fundamentally disagree with; I asked her what the purpose of disfellowshipping was; she said that it was primarily to keep the congregation clean and to hopefully rehabilitate a wrongdoer to return to the congregation - laughable really but I managed to keep a straight face. I had previously asked her whether it was a punishment to which she said (in her usual delusional voice) 'of course not, its a loving thing'. So taking all this into consideration I asked why it was that a close friend of hers despite being extremely sorry for what she had done, was disfellowshipped. Her response was that her actions had become common knowledge within the congregations she had attended and that the congregation had to be seen to be doing something about it. It doesnt take a lawyer to see the glaring inconsistency between this comment and the comment about disfellowshipping not being punitive does it? Of course I went in for the kill and said that it obviously is a punishment then if she was repentant but was still disfellowshipped and asked her what purpose did it serve given that she was sorry. She tried to backtrack and counter the argument but even she could see she was not making any kind of rational sense; I suspect another seed of doubt is placed on this issue.
She then foolishly related the disfellowshipping to a family scenario which I could sense was something that obviously had been spoonfed to her by some elder on the platform; to be honest I felt sorry for her at this point because I could see her coming unstuck on this argument or line of attack very quickly. She gave an illustration of a drug addict within the family and asked what my actions would be if I was in that kind of situation and it was my son. I asked her whether she considered her family to be her congregation to which she said it was.
My answer was that if my son was a drug addict I would never abandon him; I would never give up on him and that I would love him unconditionally; I said that I would do all I could physically do to get him back on his feet and to give him the support he needed. She asked whether I would have him live with me to which I said that it would depend on the circumstances- if he was seeking rehab and making progress of course I would have him live with me. If not I would make sure he was adequately provided for in other areas - but what I would not do is abandon him, refuse to speak to him, ignore him, shun him and treat him as an outcast as that would only exacerbate the problems. I was then silent as I let that information sink in. She tried to backtrack that a family scenario was probably a poor analogy but I was keen to point out that it was her analogy as she considered her congregation to be her family. I think I made my point on this and another seed of doubt is sown.
WTBTS
Its long since been known that I do not accept the WTBTS as gods organisation on earth and whilst I am not a Christian in any sense of the word I am prepared to argue hypothetically from a Christian standpoint as it makes more sense from my mothers perspective. I said that other christian organisations use the bible and believe they have the truth, what makes the WTBTS so sure they have the truth? She said that JWs are the only organisation who do not go to war, abstain from blood and follow the bible exclusively.
I countered this by asking what would happen at armageddon if a person had followed the bible exclusively, refused to go to war and abstained from blood - would they still die at Armageddon? Her response (which is a typical dub response) was that, if a person isnt for jehovah and his organisation then they are against and will be treated as such. Of course I was expecting this and pointed out that it didnt make sense given that this person obviously was living (what she had to accept) was a christian lifestyle.
I pointed out their failures in relation to child abuse and she had no response for that in the slightest as she is more than aware of the court cases being heard in the states.
We touched on apostasy again slightly in that she would think that I was apostate only if I wanted to make her doubt her beliefs in the bible and in jehovah; I was quick to point out that I would indeed challenge her beliefs if she made them known; she obviously challenges mine (albeit rather poorly) and so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
To be honest I wasnt getting much further and decided that it was best to end the conversation before she got upset; what was apparent though was that her indoctrination is so severe that its impossible for her to think rationally and actually apply some common sense; her brand of thinking is so in tune with their circular reasonings and bullshit rhetoric its sickening. Never before have I felt more sorry for my mother - yet I have to face the possibility that she is happier where she is.
Thought I would share!
Gary