I'm getting the distinct impression that certain details of what I wrote have either been missed or are being deliberately ignored by a number of commenters here.
So, before I offer any responses to some of the comments made, allow me to recap some key phrases from my post yesterday so as to reinforce the points I was making. I wrote . . .
The abusive "shepherd" is not the "flock."
The control [the Governing Body] exerts over the brothers and sisters is reprehensible, and several of its key theological doctrines are false and have misled and continue to mislead millions.
The Governing Body and its Watchtower Society is not our "religion."
The Family has been infected by a number of false teachings and has been wounded by the harmful control of the "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Remaining with the Family is not the same as endorsing the Watchtower Society, just as remaining in solidarity with abused siblings (though they may suffer Stockholm Syndrome) is not the same as endorsing the abuser who abused them.
I've noticed many here do not see (or perhaps refuse to see) a difference between the Watchtower Society and the people who collectively are the faith Family known as Jehovah's Witnesses. There is, in fact, a huge difference. By way of analogy, one (the Governing Body) is the "wolf in sheep's clothing," the other (the Family of brothers and sisters) is the "flock." They are not one and the same (any more than the Russian people under the tight control of the
Kremlin during the Soviet era were one and the same; one was a "sheep"
the other was the "wolf")..
I've noticed that the term "organization" is employed by many here to refer to the "wolf" and the "flock" as a single entity, as if mutual partners in the commission of a crime. I reject that characterization outright, and for reasons that I already explained in my comments yesterday. It is why I rarely ever use the term "organization." Instead, I use the term "Family" to refer to the brothers and sisters as separate from the Governing Body and its Watchtower Society that has taken control over a large part of the Family (though not all of it, to be certain). It's vitally important to make a distinction between the two.
Allow me to offer another analogy. We can liken the situation of the Witnesses under the control of the Governing Body to the Soviet Union era: the Russian people under the tight control of the
Kremlin were not in willing collusion (at least not the vast majority of them) with the fascism under which they themselves were suffering. They were, in a very real way, captives. The Russian people are analogous to Christian witnesses of Jehovah as a faith Family. There was the Soviet Union, which is analogous to the Watchtower Society. It was operated by the Kremlin, which is analogous to the Governing Body. The population captive within the Soviet sphere of influence as a politically controlled group is analogous to "Jehovah's Witnesses." The communist/fascist ideology under which the people were politically controlled is analogous to the appellation "the Truth." Yet as a culture, the people were Russians, not Soviets. Their home was Russia, both historically and geographically. "Soviet" was an imposed political designation. When the Soviet Union fell, the people as Russians, though greatly wounded, remained.
This is how I see the situation. Yes, many have escaped, and no doubt for good reasons. I do not blame them for this, nor do I disparage them for it. Yes, many of those escapees (though certainly not all) have become driven by a bitterness that blinds them to reason. Yet many, like myself, remain. In my case, it is by deliberate choice. Because the Family is my home and my culture; it is my "Russia." I do not support the Watchtower Society (the "Soviet Union") or its policies ("the Truth") under the control of the Governing Body (the "Kremlin"). As a dissident I work patiently from within, with my brothers and sisters. I will not abandon them, nor will I unfairly categorize them as being in collusion with the Watchtower Society as one "organization" willfully fomenting a crime of religious fascism.
So, having recapped and reinforced my key points on this particular matter, I'll be back later to respond to some of the responses to my remarks from yesterday.