This week we are treated to two videos from distinct sources that are linked by a common element: Deception. Sincere lovers of truth are bound to find what follows to be deeply disturbing, although there will be some who will justify it as what the Organization calls “theocratic warfare.”
What does that term mean?
To answer that, let’s look at the various references to it in the literature of jw.org. (Underlining added.)
No harm is practiced, however, by withholding incriminating information from one who is not entitled to know. (w54 10/1 p. 597 par. 21 Christians Live the Truth)
So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does not harm anyone; on the contrary, it does much good. (w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy)
God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” (Eph. 4:25) This command, however, does not mean that we should tell everyone who asks us all he wants to know. We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. But we may not tell a falsehood. (w60 6/1 p. 351 Questions From Readers)
While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it. (it-2 p. 245 Lie)
I would suggest that the term “malicious lying” used in the Insight quote is a tautology. Lying, by definition, is malicious. Otherwise, it would not be a sin. Nevertheless, it isn’t the fact that a statement is untrue that makes it a lie, but the motivation behind the statement. Are we seeking to do harm or to do good?
The thrust of the foregoing publication references is that “theocratic warfare” allows the Christian to 1) withhold the truth from undeserving ones as long as 2) no harm is practiced; but 3) it does not allow the Christian to tell a falsehood. While that last point gets into a grey zone, we can say for sure that telling a falsehood that does harm is, by definition, a lie; and Christians mustn’t lie. After all, the God we choose to imitate is the source of all truth, but his enemy is the liar.
The November Broadcast
With that in mind, let’s start with this month’s broadcast. David Splane spends the first quarter of the broadcast explaining how the Organization ensures the accuracy of its reference material, citations and quotations. (On a personal note, I find his manner of teaching to be condescending. He speaks as if he is instructing little children. Three or four times in this video he assures us that “this is going to be fun”.)
While the history of the Organization’s use of outside references is hardly stellar when it comes to accurately conveying the author’s thoughts, we can put that aside for now. Likewise, the Organization’s penchant for failing to disclose the source of its so-called accurate references is—while a bone of contention among serious Bible students—best left for another time and another discussion. Instead, we will merely make note that Governing Body member David Splane is extolling the virtue of the Organization’s exhaustive research effort to ensure that we, the readers, never get any information that is not thoroughly accurate. That being said, let us now move to the 53 minute 20 second mark of the broadcast video. Here, the speaker is about to defend the Organization against accusations from apostates and the world’s media that we do harm by sticking unbendingly to the “two-witness rule”.
In line with the theocratic warfare mindset, he withholds a number of truths from the audience.
He reads from Deuteronomy 19:15 to support the Organization’s position, but doesn’t go on reading the next verses that discuss how Israelites were to handle situations where there was only one witness; nor does he discuss Deuteronomy 22:25-27 which provides an exception to the two-witness rule. Instead, he cherry-picks a verse from Matthew 18:16 where Jesus speaks of two witnesses, claiming this allows a transition from the Mosaic Law into the Christian system of things. However, he withholds the truth revealed in the previous verse that shows the sin is to be dealt with even if there is only one witness to it. He also speaks of a judicial committee not being formed when there is only a single witness, but fails to explain how the entire congregation (not some made-up three-man committee) is called to judge a sin in Mt 18:17, a sin that started out known to only one witness (vs. 15).
What he is failing to reveal is that the “two-witness rule” in Deuteronomy 19:15 was provided to a nation with a complete legislative, judicial, and penal system. The Christian congregation is not a nation. It has no means of prosecuting criminal activity. That is why Paul speaks of the worldly governments as “God’s minister” for executing justice. Rather than defending the two-witness rule, he should be assuring all members that whenever a credible report of child abuse is made to the elders—even if there is only the one witness, the victim—they will report it to the authorities to allow them to use their forensic and investigative expertise to ascertain the truth.
The rule—based on the Organization’s own publications, remember—is that we can only withhold truth from 1) those who do not deserve it, and even then, only 2) if we do no harm.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are the ones this GB-sanctioned broadcast is addressing, and they deserve to know the truth about the Organization’s judicial practices. It is now a part of public record in numerous court documents from different countries that the rigid application of the two-witness rule has caused great harm to countless “little ones”, our most vulnerable, our children.
Do not lie and do no harm. Apparently, not happening.
In good conscience, we must cry foul at this transparent attempt to protect the interests of the Organization over the welfare of the flock.
Before the Supreme Court of Canada
A brother in Alberta, Canada was disfellowshipped for drunkenness and spousal abuse. As a result, he lost sales in his real estate firm as Witnesses boycotted his business. He sued, and apparently won. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Canada appealed the case, claiming that the Government had no right to intrude on church matters. Apparently, other churches agreed and ten groups applied as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to support the Watchtower’s appeal. These included a Muslim and Sikh group, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, an Evangelical association, and the Mormon Church. (Strange bedfellows from a Witness point of view.) It seems none of them want the government meddling in their internal affairs. Be that as it may, at the 1:14 minute mark of the video, David Gnam, a witness lawyer serving at the Canada branch, defines disfellowshipping for the Supreme Court Justices this way:
“That word [disfellowship] is used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t use the word “shun” or “shunning”. They refer to it as “disfellowship”, “disfellowshipping”, “disfellowshipped”, because that really gives the sense of what’s taking place within this particular religious community. “Disfellowship” literally means no further spiritual fellowship with the individual, and as I point out in paragraph 22 of my factum, the nature of the relationship then of a disfellowshipped person is not completely shunned. The disfellowshipped person is able to come into the congregation, the congregation meetings…they’re able to attend in the Kingdom hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they’re able to sit wherever they like; they’re able to sing the spiritual songs with the congregation. As far as their family members are concerned, normal family relations continue, with the exception of spiritual fellowship.”
“Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t use the word ‘shun'”?! As you can see from the printed program from last year’s regional convention, this statement of David’s is untrue. That is putting it kindly.
What Brother Gnam has described is a fairly accurate account of how the congregation should treat a disfellowshipped individual in line with Jesus’ words at Matthew 18:17 and Paul’s words to the Thessalonians at 2 Thessalonians 3:13-15. However, it is not an accurate description of how the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses treats disfellowshipped ones. We must bear in mind that David Gnam is speaking on behalf of the Organization and so has the full endorsement of the Governing Body. What he says is what they want conveyed to the nine Justices presiding over the highest court of the land. Has he spoken the truth?
Not even close!
He claims that a disfellowshipped person is not completely shunned, but that he is only denied spiritual fellowship. However, any Witness knows that we are not to say even so much as a “Hello” to a disfellowshipped person. We are to speak to him not at all. Yes, he can come into the Kingdom hall, but he will be told to wait for the song to start and then come in, and to leave immediately after the final prayer. This enforced humiliation is part of the “disciplinary process”. He will be “encouraged” to sit at the back. No one wants to sit near a disfellowshipped person. It would just make them uncomfortable. I know of a young sister whose reinstatement was delayed for over a year because she insisted on sitting with her non-disfellowshipped sister in the middle of the auditorium instead of alone at the back.
How can David Gnam say, with a straight face, that “the disfellowshipped person is not completely shunned”?
He then brazenly misleads the court by claiming that “normal family relations continue” and that only spiritual fellowship is denied the individual. We all saw the video at the 2016 Regional Convention where the disfellowshipped daughter was calling her family, but her mother upon recognizing the caller ID refuses to take the call. The daughter could have been phoning because she lay bleeding in a ditch after a car accident, or to tell her family that she was pregnant, or just to have the non-spiritual fellowship which David Gnam claims is allowed. Since only spiritual fellowship is denied the individual, and since “normal family relations continue”, why would the girl’s mother not be shown taking the call? What is the Organization teaching its followers with this convention video?
For this not to constitute a lie, David Gnam and the Organization supporting him would have to believe that 1) the Chief Justices do not deserve to know the truth, and 2) that in misleading them, no harm will be done. Why would the Supreme Court of Canada not deserve to know the truth about Witness judicial procedures? Are they a violation of natural justice? Are they a violation of Bible law?
Whatever the case, a real problem might develop were the court to see that the Watchtower lawyer was intentionally misleading the nine Justices. That is precisely what happened less than 30 minutes after David Gnam made his statement, when Chief Justice Moldaver asked for a clarification. (See the video excerpt.)
Chief Justice Moldaver: “So there’s no sin for a member of the congregation to continue business with Mr. Wall even though he has been disfellowed…Is that what you’re saying? In other words, could someone be brought up on the carpet in the Jehovah’s Witness religion for associating with someone who had been disfellowed and continuing to provide them business?”
David Gnam: “The answer Justice Moldaver is as I gave to Justice Wilson when he asked me the same question is: It’s a personal decision. Members make their personal decision based on their religious conscience, but it is a group value. To…ah…because it’s part of the religious practice of discipline. Disfellowship is a discipline. And so if…if a member of the congregation was willfully associating with someone who was disfellowshipped, the elders would likely visit that person, talk to them and try to reason with them why, as a religious value, they should not associate with that person as long as they are disfellowshipped.”
Chief Justice Moldaver: “…members should generally do things to help that person, could be economically and, in other words, Mr. Wall is a real estate broker, if you’re going to buy a house, go to Mr. Wall.”
David Gnam: “That would not be promoted in the congregation.”
Chief Justice Moldaver: “That’s not promoted”, nodding his head.
David Gnam: “Not at all. In fact, the evidence is to the opposite. The evidence in the affidavit from Mr. Dickson is that the congregation is encouraged not to use the congregation as the basis for business relationships.”
Chief Justice Moldaver didn’t pull David Gnam up on the carpet for this, but one can safely assume that this contradiction in testimony did not go unnoticed.
Let’s analyze this together. Remember that David Gnam has already assured the Court that disfellowshipping is not shunning and that it only involves spiritual fellowship. One must therefore inquire, What spiritual fellowship does the Organization perceive takes place when one employs a real estate agent? Do the buyer, seller, and agent all hold hands and pray before finalizing the sale?
And what is this double-speak about it being a personal decision, but also a group decision? We can’t have it both ways. It’s either a personal choice or it’s not. If it’s a group choice, then it can’t be a personal one. If a member makes a “personal decision based on [his] religious conscience” to engage in a non-spiritual business association with the disfellowshipped person, why would the elders visit with the member to try to correct his thinking? If it is a conscientious decision, then the Bible tells us to respect it and not to impose our own conscience, our own values, on the person. (Romans 14:1-18)
David unwittingly exposes his deception by demonstrating that the Organization’s claim that we do not direct people to shun a disfellowshipped one is a lie. He claims that each one makes a personal, conscientious choice, but then shows that when this “personal choice” is not in line with “group think”, an “adjustment session” is called for. Pressure is brought to bear. Ultimately, the individual will be told that he may himself be disfellowshipped for “loose conduct”, a catch-all term that has been warped to include disobedience to the direction of the elders and the Organization.
The Witnesses of the congregation in question all knew what would happen if they continued to do business with Brother Wall. Calling it a personal, conscience choice plays well in the press and in the courts, but the reality is conscience has nothing to do with it. Can you name a single moral, grooming, or entertainment choice in life where Witnesses are free to exercise their conscience without the pressure of “group think”?
In Summary
While there may be some justification for the term “theocratic warfare” as defined in the publications (“No one would blame you for not telling the Gestapo where the children are hiding.”) there is no justification for lying. Jesus called the Pharisees, the Devil’s children, because he was the father of the lie, and they were imitating him. (John 8:44)
How sad that we should be seen to follow in their footsteps.
Addendum
Does this excerpt from a “Question from Readers” support David Gnam’s contention that disfellowshipping is only of a spiritual nature and does not constitute shunning?
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
“Forbid us to kill apostates”? Seriously? We have to be forbidden to do this, otherwise…what? We’d be free to do so? It would be the natural inclination to do so if we were not specifically forbidden? Why even bring this up if all we’re talking about is restricting “spiritual fellowship”? Is killing someone a good way to limit spiritual fellowship?
[…] The organization promised the ARC in 2015 to see what they could do about the two-witness rule. The latest monthly broadcast (November 2017) gives the answer. Absolutely nothing: “We will never change our scriptural position on that […]
Seeing the November broadcast and remembering Stephen Lett’s talk about apostates driving the lies of child abuse among witnesses, really makes me feel nauseous, when I hold it up against the Royal Comission’s findings and personal experiences. When I told two elders some time ago about my concerns regarding how the flock was (mis)treated (also bearing I mind child abuses), I was asked the “do you believe Jehovah leads the GB” question and told that I was working against the Body of Elders. I was shocked and heart broken, because I had expressed myself in good faith. It is as… Read more »
Hi John,
While Ezekiel 34 applied to the nation of Israel, Jehovah is not a God who changes. His Son is now the principle shepherd and he reasons as does his Father. So the reasoning found in that chapter applies today as much as it did back then.
Interestingly JofA, that particular video with Steven Lett has been taken down off JWorg ,I think from memory’s sake about 2weeks before the ARC , can’t be sure about that, only downloaded copies exist elsewhere , to me that says it all.
Hi John, what you say is just what happens. If I ask questions, having spent days of research, in all sincerity, the question comes up “Do you trust the GB”, or something remarkably similar. No real answer to my question, but an interrogation to find out whether I believe Jesus/jehovah is directing the Organisation. Really I feel they are just looking for me to say enough for them to push me out.
Members will not see there is something wrong because they will not even look at the Canada court case, partly because they will not be aware of it and partly because anything other than JW.Org is considered bordering on the apostate. And the rest of us can hardly suggest they look at it because they will then view us as apostates. You are spot on. There is something very very wrong going on here. It all reminds me of words (Walter Scott- Marmion) “Oh what a web we weave when first we practice to deceive”. Fortunately Jesus reminds us that… Read more »
Just as a side note, watch the 13th minute of the broadcast and notice the audio edit of when apostate Christianity became official. The video of Brother Splane doesn’t match the audio when he mentions the year.
‘Accuracy’ in all things…
You are one sharp spotter, Rudytokarz.
As a matter of clarity, I can recall two brothers being recommended as elders who had divorced and remarried based on the confessions of adultery not shared to us by their former wives. Their divorces were admissible due to the witness of Jehovah himself to the former wives’ confessions.
That being the case, much will be answered for since so much more has been left on the table of the highest court in the universe.
Very astute observations. Yes, facts, both secularly established factual evidence and Bible truths are the two sources of our Christian belief. Jesus as the Christ provided those two lines of evidence – in his role of fulfillment of the many prophecies establishing his credibility, and the evidence-based facts of his miracles, including healing and raising the dead. The facts of the matter were staring right hearted and hard hearted one in the face. And just look at the different responses to the Christ when this had to be acknowledged … and the treatment of his believers who chose to exercise… Read more »
Wow, Wow Wow. Liar Liar pants burnt to a crisp. Far beyond pants on fire. I would like for them to give that same explain to the congregations. I remember a Watchtower that said “do not try and communicate even through text messages. He has the nerve to say normal relations continue. WOW WOW WOW Joseph Anton, I have to say I remember sitting in the Kingdom Hall when the announcement about the two witness rule. I remember clear as day because I thought it was the most absurd thing I had ever heard. Simply because in Child Abuse cases… Read more »
Yes this was a PSA – Public Service Announcement – . This white suited Gary Breaux was extremely vague, haughty and deliberately deceptive. It was the ARC – the Australian Royal Commission – that brought the term “Two witness rule” to the fore. It was them that questioned heavily Jeffrey Jackson etc about that and how it all applied to child abuse. I was disgusted at what was said beginning from around the 51 min mark forward. To state that ‘apostates are talking about the 2 witness rule then the media, then others etc …” without stating the actual reason… Read more »
I don’t believe for a second this was about answering the charge of “opposers.” I believe it was a PSA designed to wire the words “apostates” with “two-witness rule” so that the R&F will be immediately suspicious of any member who uses the words “two-witness rule” once these cases become more common, and a bigger part of the public conversation. Most of us had no idea the two-witness rule even existed before all of these child abuse stories broke anyway. I’m sure there are brothers and sisters scratching their heads at this section of the monthly broadcast because he never… Read more »
You may be on to something …
JWs already associate “frequent mention of Christ” = “member of Christendom”.
It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to associate “two witness rule” = “apostate”.
The indoctrination to avoid anything controversial will have an automatic chilling effect on any discussion of child abuse at all. JWs will start thinking any discussion of child abuse is being sympathetic to apostates or is an act of disloyalty.
… hmm …
It sounds super reasonable when you hear him discuss it. Of course you have no clue that the rule has been applied to rape and molestation cases – where two witnesses makes absolutely no sense.
Spot on.
Gary Breaux: “Now there’s something the apostates are talking about and trying to put forward. Media has picked it up. Others have also picked it up. And that is our scriptural position of having two witnesses, a requirement for judicial action if there is no confession.”
It is noteworthy that Breaux said witnesses “will never change their scriptural position on this subject”. This statement must have come directly from the GB. There must be A LOT to hide.
The comment about being dogmatic about the two witness policy arose because of what apostates have been saying. Good, they are aware of these issues, then they have to be aware of how they are twisting scriptures by continuing to support it because apostates also explain how they are doing that. Rather than address this, they choose to try and hoodwink the rank and file. They do this deliberately. Why did he also fail to mention that their two witness policy is in fact two eyewitnesses? They have exceptions to the two witness rule anyway. If persons of the opposite… Read more »
Does anyone remember Dinah having a second witness when Schechem raped her? Did Simon and Levi need another witness when they went to count coup against the man who raped their sister, and lead to this (one of my favorite) exchange between disappointed father and sons: 30 Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have gotten me into trouble; now the Canaanites, the Perizzites, and everybody else in the land will hate me. I do not have many men; if they all band together against me and attack me, our whole family will be destroyed.” 31 But they answered, “We… Read more »
This is why nurturing an “us versus them” mentality in the flock is absolutely vital to continued existence. Most Witnesses wouldn’t think anything was wrong with lying to Satan’s Satanic Court Systems to preserve the spiritual habitat of the Congregation. Most Witnesses will abandon their children if told to – again, in order to preserve the spiritual habitat of the congregation.
What year did they come out with the Sheep-herding the flock of god book? I think I was lost in translation during that period. Anyone? (Worldling-?)
2010 and a reprint in 2012. It is continually being updated esp. regarding child abuse issues. As I mentioned in another comment the Australian Royal Commission (ARC) introduced it into evidence so it is now in the public domain.
Sounds like a tainted union= united nation
Thanks again for making us (me!) aware of what is going on in different places around the world. My frustration is sometimes levelled at the questions being asked, (and not answered truthfully), by the prosecutors since they lack the personal experience and knowledge of Witnesses.
I fear not much change will come about as a result of these cases and the WTB&TS will massage the outcome as a win.
Excellent accentual Value on that comment roddles. I Dont know if you’re new But “I AM” welcome. (Worldling-?)
Is it a “normal family dealing” to e-mail one of your children? Mr. Gnam says it is okay even if they are DF’d. Perhaps he missed this statement:
*** w13 1/15 p. 16 par. 19 Let Nothing Distance You From Jehovah ***
” Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail. “
What if you let your disfellowshipped Brethren paint your porch for free would that be okay or would they rather you hire a commercial painter? Hello come in….. “Rank Outsiders” (Worldling-?)
Well, at last we have the truth. The two witnesses rule is a rule that is unbendable.
So woe betide the next child who is abused, you are on your own !
The girl who is raped in the field (Deuteronomy 22 25-7) has no chance of justice.
I shall have to turn down the gas underneath the blood on the cooker now. It was boiling over after reading the notes on the Canada Supreme Court explanations.
I myself had a Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire moment. 🙂
Mi sangre hierve de irá …cuanto quisiera gritar a voz de cuello tanta basura que sale de los labios de la watchtower. “Como se convertido en una prostituta la población fiel “!
quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt? (worldling-?) ( mateo= Mt 27:11)
In March this year the Australian Royal Commission heard the response of the WT org. regarding the inquiry conducted in 2015 into current policies and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to child protection and child-safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. The responses by the two Representatives in March from the Australian Branch also contradict the idea that they don’t shun as they clearly stated they do. Also note the age the WT representative states as to qualifying for baptism. Clip- https://youtu.be/27J4LX1d3W0. This is also a lie as an earlier broadcast this year saw Stephen Lett… Read more »
Thanks for that clip, LightBrighter. I noticed that they were asked (and answered in the affirmative) that they shun those who disassociate themselves because that’s what the Bible says to do. I would love for someone just once to ask them while under oath to show the scripture where that direction is found.
(Heb 6:16,17,18) Hello!! To the Halo-ed One ( Worldling-?)
In defense of David Gnam (and I say this sarcastically) he is only quoting the official JW website which says:
“What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
Any JW knows that this statement is misleading at best and not at all truthful.
At the 55:40 mark of the Broadcast, Gary Breaux says “we will NEVER change our position” on the 2-witness rule.
I guess the Royal Commission has their answer to their suggestion.
Here is what the Shepherd the Flock of God book says on page 116: (This book is now in the public domain thanks to the ARC.) “6. If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures. Review with them information from the “God’s Love” book, pages 207-208; The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, pages 26-30; or the article “Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped” in the August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry.… Read more »
Even when some things are not clearly in print, the Org’s “oral tradition” of laws and rules are still enforced. Sound familiar? Hmm, Pharisees maybe?
I would have to read over the apostolic doctrine to confirm.
I can’t help it but take a look at the title of the Book you are reading from it does not say Flock of Jehovah’s or Flock of Jehovah’s Son Jesus Christ. Open your eyes!! The “God” of this world has blinded those not willing to see. (Jn 17:12) Worldling-?
Power in numbers! What David Gnam testified was the truth. It’s the idealogy imposed upon the congragations that keeps everyone snookered…Worlding-? (Num 1:3)
Thank you Meleti, I also picked up on similar red flags pertaining to both videos. I am truly at a crossroads in relation to how I truly feel about what goes on “behind the curtain”. If the two witness rule were truly about making sure justice was meted out properly for all sides I think I would understand. What Gary Breaux did was totally disingenuous. He didn’t provide the subject of the matter nor did he keep it in context as your above article laid out. I dare any practicing witness to go ask an Elder the particulars on the… Read more »
Filius90, you are not the only one going through this. So many say the same thing, the feeling of relief at finding they are not alone, not the only one feeling this way, must be like Elijah felt when Jehovah told him he was not alone, but that 7,000 others had not bent the knee to Baal.
Welcome to our growing community.
Meleti
Two thumbs up on that Meleti!! I caught a chill reading that comment. Must be that endangered “ol ghost” again (Lu 7:27) Worldling-?( Ez 34:11,18,19 NWT 1970)Worldling-?
Nice to hear from you Filius90.
Welcome to the forum. My blood is boiling too- it’s not just you….
Filius, this is such a sad story. I am sorry you are in so much anguish over it.
Which is worse, a young sister’s life and heart and conscience being ruined, or an organization that willfully covers it up?
How can it be that a group of people (presumptuously) claiming to be “God’s organization” could so easily forget His words? “You must be holy, because I am holy.”
What further reason does one need in order to leave them?
Even alcohol and drugs won’t offer any releases from the prison of violence in which we English speakers are incarcerated. Worldling-? ( Heb 6:18)
And especially the fine “encouragement” to treat those not following a moral life style as disfellowshipped. So a disassociated or disfellowshipped person we are not even say a greeting to such a one, and this has been stressed with comments like,” even a little contact” is wrong. These are not personal decisions, you will be disfellowshipped for association with disfellowshipped ones. Yes we have all seen it. This is not just, loving, kind or even bible based to treat ones like this. Jesus taught us how to act, this is emotional blackmail used to keep members in line. Plain and… Read more »
Welcome,brother Filius, your pain is shared and felt.To help clarify ‘what’s what’,maybe can you?just google search:’signs of a cult’…After reviewing just 4 sites(3 of which are by mental health professionals),I saw the same info on them–All revealing what you’ve also been waking up to,that this org is men’s–NOT our God’s and Christ’s–Ways..and a wonderful help(to me personally)was finding the essay”A new start in the spiritual journey”at Werner Bible Commentary site..so very soothing. You are at the critical point where one’s Faith is being shaken–but not lost.You will find helps hope and healing–sharing with all these Dear ones on here who… Read more »
Will do. Thank you.
Welcome Filius90 I can’t really add to what Devora already said , but yes your faith does a shaking and it can bring you to a crossroad, the question that helped me was , what do I actually have faith in? My honest answer was that I only had a faith if I was loyal to the org and it’s leaders. I feel many that get to this stage end up atheist or agnostic because they have really been robbed by ” Jehovah’s organisation” , Ray Franz said in Search for Christian Freedom, that the org has appropriated people’s time,… Read more »