One of the most disturbing aspects of the organisation for me is that the Watchtower leaders prefer legalistic, harsh, pharasaical interpretations on a range of doctrines/policies that have the potential to severely harm peoples lives, when there are more loving and reasonable positions/interpretations that could easily be adopted by the Governing Body without feeling they were betraying the scriptures.
For example:
1. Blood transfusions a clear no-no scripturally, a gross sin worthy of disfellowshipment (harsh, pharasaical legalistic approach) - OR - It's debateable and we can't be sure. Dogmatism not appropriate in matters of life or death. Is up to the conscience of mature, baptized Christians (reasonable, kinder approach).
2. Bible 'two-witness' rule applies to cases of alleged child sexual abuse, "We do not go beyond what is written" - Ted Jaracz (harsh, rigid, legalistic approach). - OR - In scripture the 'two-witness' rule only applied to sins against adults, not innocent children. Children need extra protection. Jesus said love and mercy more important than OT scriptural rules (loving, sensible approach).
3. Must totally shun all disfellowshipped/disassociated persons as if they're dead, no matter the reason for being announced as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", even if they're family (with rare exceptions) or close friends. 2 John 9-11 applies to all disfellowshipped persons (harsh, legalistic approach). - OR - 1 Cor 5 is clear on avoiding socialising/eating with them. If bump into them incidentally, be polite and can offer some encouragement in spirit of 2 Thess 3:14. Do not treat as a friend nor as an enemy. 2 John 9-11 only reserved for those now teaching disbelief in God and Jesus (more reasonable, less cruel approach).
The men who run the organisation could very easily adopt these more loving and reasonable positions using sound scriptural reasoning that is just as/more cogent than the reasoning they employ to support their current legalistic, fanatical interpretations. The rank and file wouldn't think twice if there was a shift to these more moderate positions. It would be quickly accepted as refreshing 'new light'.
Yet the few men who run the organisation, who have total and unquestioned authority over all JW doctrine and teaching, continue to uphold the harsh, legalistic positions. Why? Why do they stick with these cruel, rigid interpretations when there are sensible alternatives with sound scriptural arguments behind them. If they are presently ignorant to alternative interpretations then surely a spirit of love and intellectual curiosity should move them to investigate alternative interpretations that are more in accord with the godly law of love, particularly in matters concerning the health and safety of little children. Why they don't do this is very hard to fathom in light of Jesus' clear condemnation of the Pharisees legalistic, rules based approach to worship, insisting on strict adherence to rigidly narrow interpretations of scripture while shoving aside love, mercy, justice.
Like many ex-JW's, I will never contemplate returning to the organisation as long as these unloving, harsh, legalistic policies that are entirely debateable are upheld by the Watchtower leadership, policies that have harmed and even contributed to the death of many.
