Christ's Bones: Why They'll Never be Found

The internet click-bait purveyor, Ranker, posted an article that made it's way back to the top of the Facebook dung-heap. The thumbnail said that there was stronger scientific evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus. Being a healthy skeptic, I wanted to read this "evidence" for myself.

Ah, Ranker, you foul villain. Snookered again!

The article turned out to be a rebuttal to the assertion that Judeo-Roman versions of crucifixion found in the Gospel accounts had never occurred. This new evidence derives from bones found to have had a metal spike driven through the heel, commensurate with the narrative that Jesus was nailed to a cross. But Jesus just happened to be a tangent; bait, if you will.

Several years ago, the archaeological discovery of an ossuary (bone box / pictured above) inscribed with "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus" gave new weight to the possible historical figure of Jesus. The ossuary, if memory serves, was even inscribed with a rudimentary cross. In time, the Israeli Antiquities Authority charged owner Oded Golan with forty counts of forgery, which were later dismissed. The ossuary was pulled from public display and returned to Golan. Much contention has been had over its authenticity, with several analyses determining that the debated inscription could not be any less than fifty years old. Thus, with insufficient evidence to call the ossuary a forgery, and insufficient evidence to authenticate it, everyone shook hands and walked away.

The ossuary, which also happened to be empty, is not particularly unusual. These boxes are common artifacts of 1st century Jerusalem which are often emptied by those taking possession. But that does glaringly eliminate the possibility of genetic testing. Neither here, nor there, I suppose.

It occurred to me, however, that the discovery of Jesus bones can't happen. The gospel account says that his body ascended to heaven and disappeared. Luke 24, which details the account most clearly, doesn't say anything about a body left behind, or discarded robes falling back to earth. This process of transmogrification entails the dissolution of the physical body as the soul of the person is carried off to heaven. If then 2 Timothy 3:16 is an absolute and all Scripture is a result of God's inspiration, the writer of Luke's account cannot be mistaken. The remaining gospel accounts don't discuss the event in any great detail, but they certainly don't contradict it. So it can be reasoned that the body of Christ was destroyed during his ascension.

Let's suppose, however, that archaeologists later discover an ossuary inscribed with something as unmistakable as "Jesus of Nazareth, performer of most excellent party tricks, son of God". Let's also suppose that that ossuary uncharacteristically contains bones. This now becomes an issue of great interest, and not just by historians.

There are a few possible scenarios. Firstly, the Christian public may accept the existence of the bones with gracious aplomb, but now have to account for a major discrepancy in the bible. The infallible word of God is now perceptibly fallible. The only responsible answer is to examine everything. The incredibly likely outcome of that is that Christianity will falter as parishioners from all denominations exit in droves. Churches will fail as monetary support dries up. Evangelical work will come to a screeching halt. It's pretty much the worst parts of Revelation for most of Christendom.

More likely, in my mind, is that the largest authorities in Christianity (Vatican) snatch up those bones before they become public knowledge and hide them away from the laity. That is the only way in which they hold on to any measure of control. This also prevents the uncomfortable void of a moral compass suddenly lost. Too many Christians use faith as the only foundation for decent behavior. There would likely be a whiplash effect wherein millions of people worldwide suddenly have no conscience in the face of no eternal consequence. Keeping the bones a secret would be the safest thing for the largest number of people.

The latter scenario being of the most benefit is what I expect will happen. However Dan-Brown this may feel, it's indisputable that religious organizations thrive on comparative ignorance. When passive steps no longer satisfy that mandate, active steps are sure to follow. Omissions mature into lies. Whether it's a matter of religious faith or secular life, asking the question "what didn't they tell me" is often a wise exercise.

Look around for the people who benefit most from your ignorance. Those are the ones who will hide truth from you.

Freedom of (Supportive) Speech

As citizens of our respective countries, we have come to rely on leaders waffling on positions. What rhetoric they shout in one moment can leave them silent in another. Usually because that position no longer serves a purpose. As Witnesses, we've become all too familiar with "new light" changing policies and practices with each convention season. There's no real end in sight.

As an avowed apostate, I often enough engage in conversations with people about Witnesses. One of those recent discussions was actually rather complimentary toward the Society at first. While recounting a recent news story in which a young boy who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance had his chair kicked out from under him by a classmate, some commenters said that he had it coming; that being dumped on his ass was his classmate's 'freedom of speech'.

To the person relating this story, I pointed out that forced patriotism is an issue that Witnesses helped to resolve in West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnett 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Pulling the wiki for reference, I pointed out that the US Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 majority that it was unconstitutional for a school to compel students to salute the flag. Justice Robert Jackson went so far as to say that "compulsory unification of opinion [achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard]" and was antithetical to the principles of the 1st Amendment.

And then I stopped.

I noticed who was serving as Plaintiff's Counsel; Hayden Covington, who was also Vice President of the Society, having been appointed in 1942.

I grinned an apostate's grin.

Later, in 1954, Covington would appear before a judge in Scotland, this time to provide testimony in the case Walsh vs. Clyde. During his testimony, the following exchange occurred:

Q: [Court] It was promulgated as a matter which must [have been] believed by all members of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Lord’s Second Coming took place in 1874…?

A: [Covington] It was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.

Q: And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

A: Yes, because you must understand we must have unity …

Q: Back to the point now. A false prophecy was promulgated? 

A: I agree to that.

Q: It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

A: That is correct.

Q: If a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong and said so, he would be disfellowshipped?

A: Yes … Our purpose is to have unity.

Q: Unity at all costs?

A: Unity at all costs…

Q: A unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

A: That is conceded to be true.

Now, you can go to the dictionary, thesaurus, or Google if you wish, but the phrase to which Covington concedes ("enforced acceptance of false prophecy") is only a gently massaged paraphrasing of Justice Jackson's majority opinion just ten years earlier.

Bringing this full circle, Witnesses have successfully and correctly argued that dissent is a guaranteed right in support of one's conscience. To be forced to support a paradigm, they felt, was unfair. To be discriminated against, punished, or otherwise maligned for dissenting was also unfair. But compulsory unification of opinion is something that the Society was evidently reliant upon, so long as it applied to their shared faith. That continues to be true to this day.

I have to admit my own frustration when exploring this topic. Speaking out against an injustice, but then embracing the same kind of injustice as a matter of institutional policy, is absurd. It is the most blatantly dishonest and manipulative behavior I can imagine. It irreversibly mortgages the integrity of an organization, or person; disenfranchises the people whose dissent they once fought to protect.

Now, if this causes you some degree of discomfort, take heart. It only means that you are still sane. It is one of the hallmarks of a cult (and I am hesitant to use that word) to say "no one treats our members like that except US!"

They divide you from society through the promise of the truth. Then they divide you from your fellows when you catch them in their lies.

Which part of that is supposed to make sense?

A Ruse by any Other Name

I remember a young brother in my home congregation once giving an Instruction Talk during the old Theocratic Ministry School format. Dan was a relatively new Ministerial Servant and, to the best of my recollection, this was his first talk of this type.

He used an effective illustration of a bag of candy that one may think was empty, but actually contained a lone treat if one was willing to check thoroughly. With his illustration, he was drawing a correlation to theocratic knowledge. When we think we've taken every last bit of understanding from a topic, looking once more could yield a small morsel of enlightenment.

And then I remember that this blog is about Jehovah's Witnesses...

C.T. Russel had embarked on his mission to expose bible truth through exhaustive scriptural examination. His fledgling Society had the admirable mission of making Christianity purely Christian. That meant excising pagan practices, false teachings, misunderstandings, and baseless tradition. Almost brilliant in its simplicity. But nearly one-hundred years later, young Ministerial Servant Dan stood on the dais and expounded on the virtues of exhaustive examination, while disturbingly ignorant of his religious foundations.

As Witnesses, we once proudly claimed to have stripped away all the practices that were not biblical in nature. We, almost haughtily, professed that we were the only true Christians left in the world. But we had actually returned to the evolving roots of all religions. What Pastor Russel had set out to do in the late 1800's had been forgotten. Replaced with new understandings, the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are ones that Russel would not recognize.

Over the decades, Witnesses have modified their beliefs to include practices once thought to be unscriptural. Blood transfusions are an easy example. Taking literally the admonitions not to consume blood as a biblical prohibition of medical blood transfusions, hundreds or thousands of Witnesses have denied this proven medical treatment for the fear of eternal destruction. The policy was to disfellowship anyone who accepted this proven medical procedure. The new stance is that it wont get you disfellowshipped. It would seem that the Governing Body no longer feels it will cost a person eternal paradise. Whether they erred in issuing the old policy or the new, and one of them is certainly wrong, the bible has rules about accidental blood-guilt.

That's not really the point here. Blood transfusion, along with every other baseless stance, are tangents of a much bigger problem. Watchtower belief systems have expanded over time. They are tweaked to close gaps, explain inconsistencies, and make exceptions... Just like every other religion.

While at one time Witnesses may have moved in the right philosophical direction in removing those Old World, non-Christian practices, new ones are now just as tightly woven into their beliefs as those they sought to remove. So what progress has actually been made?

To be frank, none. It's the same old song-and-dance. Indecision about blood transfusions, the repeated revision of the 1914 Generation doctrine, financial consolidation, child abuse scandals, power struggles, organizational splits, government collusion, scientific suppression... the list goes on for quite a while. And it all points to the same thing - Jehovah's Witnesses, as an organization, are as likely to veer off course as any other mainstream religion.

Religious organizations peddle fairy tales as fact that no one really wants to dispute, and being a system of cognitive stasis at their core, they are dependent on followers who don't ask questions. It's the ultimate long con. One would think we'd have looked behind that particular curtain by now, so why does it persist?

Conformity with social groups, even in the face of empirical falsehood, is usually the safer bet for the individual. It doesn't accomplish much to be an outlier because of an inconsequential point of contention, and psychological experiments have demonstrated that even clearly false information is readily assimilated by people to avoid becoming an outcast. This acceptance of group paradigms is known as conforming behavior.

Harvard's Herbert Kellman has identified a number of these behaviors, of which Internalization is the most common. Internalization is analogous to "making the truth your own". It is the practice of making beliefs integral to one's thought processes. Other conforming behaviors may only be an external display, but Internalized beliefs have the deepest and longest lasting hold. Also called Informational Social Influence, subjects turn to peers for accepted truth by which to guide their own thinking. Our experience among Witnesses is hard to characterize any other way. The Society is very clear that Witnesses must be unified in their thinking, and seeking outside validation is reason enough to be shunned.

We sometimes refer to this dedication to the charade as "drinking the kool-aid". It's most predictable in groups that also restrict your socialization outside the group. The aforementioned conforming behaviors become requisite in the face of banishment. Time and again, we encounter former Witnesses who have struggled to cope with living in a new and strange social environment. Hardly a one of us will claim that it was easy to make that transition. Sadly, far too many of us have fallen to destructive coping mechanisms like drugs or alcohol, or even suicide.

It's humbling to admit that we were duped for as long as we were. But the comforting thing is that its in the past. No one there can impede our progress forward into an enlightened and fulfilling life.

What else could smell as sweetly?

Breaking Cycles, Part 2

In the previous post, I discussed the problem of inviting hurt into our lives by dwelling on injuries of the past. It really shouldn't be any surprise that feeding that flame of resentment is toxic. It steals our joy from us, prevents us from pursing our nature, and renews the victimization we once suffered.

Other reflections are for the purpose of ignoring certain realities. The Watchtower Society spends inordinate amounts of time and column inches extolling the virtues of meditation. Constant reflection on God's word, and the extra-biblical publications distributed by Witnesses, are the only way to prevent consumption by this wicked system. Why, it's best to start the day with spiritual reflection, and on your coffee break. May as well bring the iPad in the can with you so you have something wholesome to read while you do something unclean.

These practices serve as blinders. Their sole, and very effective, purpose is to completely occupy one's time so that critical thought is a practical impossibility. There just isn't time to examine anything else.

For one reason or another, we all went searching for more information. For my part, I was simply lazy and didn't care about the Society in my twenties. I was content to be unplugged from the constant reminder that I was sinful and inadequate. It wasn't yet important to me to really validate what I knew or didn't know about the Society. That would come later.

All I could be bothered with at the time was avoiding discussions about my past as a Witness and, with far more determination, preventing a future as a Witness. Even hearing the word "witness" from the television caused me substantial anxiety. I wish that was a joke. It's this particular trigger word that has largely prevented me from enjoying crime dramas.

It took time to learn to think again. The once pervasive reminders I endured of Christian thinking were harder to slough off than I'd like to admit. Keywords, like the one above, practiced responses, patterns of speech... all of it had to be unlearned. Oddly, defending other religions was even a practice I had learned. It was ingrained in me to defend the right to believe, even if it was a contending faith. Thus, when the documentary Going Clear debuted on HBO, I was hesitant to watch. But I did.

By the end of it, I was shaking with fury over the undeniable similarities shared between Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses. No, we're not talking about anything so trite as a religious belief. We're talking about the hierarchy of their organization, their own jargon, prevention of free thought, and expulsion of apostates. In either case, you could transplant the beliefs of one into the organizational structure of the other and still have a functional tax shelter.

Here's the thing that really only starts to make sense when you've been away from it for a while. Witnesses could be asked to compare their beliefs and practices with Scientology, and I'm certain that they would almost unanimously agree that there were no comparisons to be had. What they would say Scientology does is to pervert faith and belief. But what they would say Witnesses do is to protect their Christian brotherhood. In actuality, the only differences between the two are the jargon they use to embody the philosophies of these practices.

SEAORG, for example, is the equivalent of Bethel. Both encompass the managerial departments and personnel of daily operations, including Ecclesiastical development. Members of both are permitted to marry, but must resign if they wish to have children. Both work unusually long hours in performance of their duties. Both are given small allowances for basic needs. Both are provided room and board as part of their service. These are functionally the same entities under different names.

What Witnesses call "apostates", Scientology calls "suppressive persons". These people are shunned by other members of the church; often losing contact with faithful family members, and enduring legal battles to maintain custody or contact with minor children.

Dissenting thought is not permitted. Openly questioning the teaching of the church is not permitted. There is no transparency above the level or position a person occupies in the church at any given time. There is no financial accountability.

But as long as one persists in the cycle of reinforcement, none of these glaring issues is worth examining. They are casually dismissed, explained away, or ignored wholesale. It is the goal of this indoctrination to make followers so incredulous of the outside world that any challenge is avoided. Watchtower has become very good at this. Very good. So good, in fact, that followers must often resort to semantics to differentiate themselves from "false religion".

For example, Witnesses do not "shun". They "disfellowship". Disfellowshipping is the prohibition of contact with rebellious, unrepentant sinners. Thus, the disfellowshipped person is not allowed to pollute the spirituality of obedient members of the church. Now if that sounds a lot like shunning, don't be alarmed. Except for being exactly alike in practice, they have nothing in common.

See? Semantics.

The cycle is one of denial. Denial of understanding. Denial of truth. Denial of reality. For as long as a person commits themselves to that cycle, there is no opportunity for growth.

Damn. To be honest, I wish I could go back to the start of my life and hit the reset button. Who knows what kind of person I could be now if I hadn't been strapped on that merry-go-round so early in my life.

I've got no clever turn of phrase to express that...

Breaking Cycles

I try to be active in the ex-JW community for the sake of those mired in their hatred of the Society. The sad reality is that there are a vast majority who have become stuck in a cycle of animosity towards Watchtower. That animosity certainly has merit, but I'm reminded that we sometimes assimilate that into the very definition of ourselves.

We probably know people who tell the sames stories, make the same complaints on a daily basis. The subject matter isn't actually important, but the fact that it occupies so much of their time and personal context that it is actually part of their fabric. Dyed in the wool, as it were.

The closest correlation that I personally have is actually at the opposite end of the emotional spectrum. As a teen, I developed an intense crush on a young sister that was close friends with my cousin. We became friendly ourselves, eventually becoming pen pals and writing letters for nearly two years. To say that I loved her would be accurate, if not a little askew. Those feelings were one sided, as they often are, and I was left contending with this pervasive occupation of my thoughts.

At least for a time...

That crush eventually began to wane, but I was not ready to let go of it. She had been my very first serious romantic interest, and that was precious to me. So much so that I was distressed at the thought of losing it. Even as unfulfilling as it was to be the only one who felt it, the idea of letting it diminish caused physical anguish. That led me to a cycle of self-abuse that itself was difficult to break.

This being back in the days when cell phones were also handy bludgeoning tools, I had a few photographs from her high school to keep the image fresh in my mind. When I felt the rush of my feelings beginning to fade, I would look at those images and dwell on the small amount of time we'd spent together. I was willing myself to feel emotions that had long passed their sell-by date. I was hurting myself because I somehow concluded that overcoming those feelings somehow stole something from me, and that thought terrified me.

I see the same pattern of behavior occurring among apostates. Complaints that are years or decades old are still being repeated. This is usually knowledge that is part of the compendium of apostate information. It's even in the Welcome brochure... But some people are so inured to this information that they cannot pass an opportunity to wallow in it again, leaving behind the same comments they've left for years, renewing the acuteness of their hatred.

Like me and those school photos, apostates often absorb and dwell upon those words that once so succinctly enveloped the depth of their despair towards Watchtower. They stare at that old injury until their memory is keen enough bring back the hurt that went with it. Thus, they start the cycle anew.

It may all seem rather obvious, but that isn't healing. True healing comes in the form of letting the past be past. Purposely inviting hurtful histories into the present forces us to relive the injury and go through the healing process again. With it, you have the same emotional burdens.

I think we all want to be free of Watchtower, but far too many of us keep inviting them back to relive old times. What we lived through certainly shaped us, but it doesn't define us, and we don't have to give Watchtower that leverage over us. Look for ways to be productive, to use you experiences to help other people. That is the biggest middle finger you can give them.

And We Had a Gay 'Ol Time

It's Pride month for the LGTBQ community around the country, if not the world. They're in the midst of taking the lime light and being loved for who and what they are. This past weekend, I was blessed enough to take my own son to revel in the self-acceptance that filled the air and streets of San Diego.

Being raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I was taught to dislike the LGTBQ community, not on the merits of their character, but on the abstract value of their activities. In the mythos of Abrahamic religion, the first of the Bible's Gods rained down fire and sulfur upon Sodom and Gomorrah in retribution for their supposed sins. We all know the story, though some forget that Lot and his daughters ended up knocking boots in a cave shortly after the aforementioned razing. I may be mistaken, but I think incest was also prohibited by Mosaic law. Neither here nor there, since the narrative makes it clear that God was okay with this, but all three of them should have been pulled down on the carpet for those shenanigans. Lets just make that a punch list item to address at Judgement Day...

I'm at somewhat of a loss, though. Apologists for the Bible believe that even though Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality in the gospel accounts, he still addressed it by inspiring Paul to later mention in throughout his letters. Barring the other obvious differences between the teachings of Jesus and Paul, there were three years of Jesus ministry encompassed in the gospels. Do they really mean to imply that Jesus didn't have the time to mention something that takes up so much column space in later bible books?

"Don't have sex with the same gender..." There! Was that hard? No, of course not. Yet Jesus never took the time to mention it. Also, in inspiring the Gospel recollections of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it wasn't worth writing down. It was, however, for Paul; the apostle that never traveled with the Savior.

As we say back home, where the gene pool is shallower, "that dog don't hunt."

The entire idea of Christianity is that Jesus was the Great Teacher. If there was a lesson that he didn't teach, how is it proper to infer the lesson ex post facto? I don't really think that it is, but that is admittedly an opinion. However, I will point out that many of the lessons that came both before and after Jesus are infinitely more complicated and restrictive. [Insert sarcasm font] Nothing like the Pharisees against whom he spoke...

So let me tell you what I observed at the Pride festival this year.

Love. Lots of love. 

What? Too simple? Okay, you have me there.

I was a guest among chosen family, firstly. While I have intimate ties with my traveling companions, our hosts, Randy and Chuck, hardly know me from Adam. All the same, they extended to me the same hospitality that they did countless strangers. At a charming Craftsman on Lincoln, the "uncles" happen to have ring-side seats for the staging area of just one arm of the parade procession. For the people who congregate there to prepare for their march, Chuck and his husband of 35 [or so] years, Randy, provide Bloody Caesars (a much improved version of a Bloody Mary) and open their home to anyone on the street.

Secondly, the people on the street were there to represent the diversity human existence. No matter how vanilla I may seem to be, I am part of that great diversity, and am thus as joyfully embraced. I encountered people of every preference and proclivity. Each one of them smiled at me and my mundanity just as sincerely as at each other. They were gracious and cheerful, standing for pictures, and encouraging unflinching acceptance. 

And here's the icing on the cupcake, as it were... Everyone mattered. Every color, gender, preference, expression of human identity mattered. And this is where I felt humbled. I, me, the person I've grown to be, has always felt a special fondness for this version of the human self, which is but a mote of dust on the pallet of human color. But they were just as joyful for my blandness as for their own brilliance. 

What is magical about something like this experience is that people like this, who are this joyful, this loving, is that they bring out your own inner light. You feel yourself become brighter with their smiles and flair.

The manner in which most of us were trained sent us on a quest for God's grace. I don't believe in that the way I once did. I'm rather of the opinion now that the search for it kept me from seeing it all along. If I'm to believe my own observation, I imagine that this experience is what that grace would feel like.

The Problem With Absolutes

I've tried to be emotionally neutral about being a former Witness. There isn't much good that comes from harboring unending anger towards an organization that, at the institutional level, hasn't two shits to give about my opinion. Likened to drinking poison and hoping your enemy dies, expecting them to change because of my hurt feelings is foolish. It's another example of external control psychologies that permeate society.

Sometimes, though, I think that anger has a place; particularly in the face of injustice. Humans are keen to disparities and abuses of favor. It isn't hard to spot when a person is receiving preferential treatment, and it doesn't take long for us to get tired of it. But it is so pervasive that we can see it at every level of our social structure. Carried to an extreme, it even constitutes violations of civil rights.

This is not that extreme. It's just hypocritical bullshit, unfortunately.

When I disassociated myself a few months ago, I did the superlative favor of informing my family personally, instead of having them find out through congregational back-channels. I fully understood where that would lead, and the familial bonds suffered predictably. Most of us already comprehend the depth of pain shunning can bring, so there's no need to expound on it here. We understand that there is no right of birth or basic human dignity that cannot be undone by a firmly held belief. But how and what should you feel when that belief is only as firm as the perceived offense to the shunning party's religious pride?

You see, I was raised by a mother that is really only concerned about the outward appearance of comparative piety. Were I simply inactive, it could be plausibly denied that I was an apostate, but sending that letter removed all doubt. The whole of the Organization now knows that she and my former-elder father had failed as Christian parents. Shunning is the only way they save face.

I know, that in itself is not exactly an inequity. I knew what the price would be to disassociated, and I accept that. But we also know that even tangential choices can be called into question by the congregation. Our rejection of worldly practices was supposed to be so absolute that we didn't utter holiday greetings, participate in holiday parties, or encourage the celebration thereof. I knew of households so strict about this policy that even using the word "Christmas" was verboten, being replaced instead with "X-mas" (the topic of substitute swear words also comes to mind).

So this past Father's Day, while I spent the day with my son, and neither hearing from, nor contacting, my own father, I was a bit surprised by my cousin's Facebook post to her father. Now, don't let me give the false impression that my cousin or my uncle are in the wrong. They are not Witnesses. Never were. And while she didn't specifically say "happy Father's Day", it was posted on Sunday and written directly to her dad. It was sweet, appreciative, and loving.

There, as a subscript to the post, was a heart. The heart was placed there by my mother.

It was small. Likely, no other person in the world would even care. There could be no mistaking its intent, however. My mom was endorsing a worldly holiday observance. Although it was for her non-Witness brother, it was no less complicit.

Alright... so that's how it is...

Witnesses are acutely aware that they should be acutely aware of hypocrisy. Jesus was very aware of it and pointed it out frequently. I used my better judgement and did not hijack well-wishes meant for my uncle to point out my mom's hypocrisy. But I admit, I did fume over it for a while. One is either fully invested or divested from the faith if it's to have any integrity. A little bit of straying from the path is still straying and, as my mom demonstrated, integrity is apparently contextual.

This has been one of my biggest bones of contention since I first entertained the idea of disassociation. Why? Well shunning typically arises from the dedication to moral philosophies which stand in opposition to those doing the shunning, and it is absolute. There is no wiggle room. Shunning is not invoked for something as paltry as liking a Father's Day wish, but the rejection of the holiday as a Christian activity is similarly absolute. So I'm left wondering which part of that is okay...

The thing is that it's not okay. A legitimate complaint could be lodged about this, but that brings me back to how I started this entry. Is it worth being angry about it? Does a person who doesn't have the integrity to treat everyone outside themselves with consistency deserve my energy? To be succinct, no. The don't deserve it. We have no duty to direct any of our energy to them. It certainly may be worth it if it is in alignment with our greater goals (such as spending time to write about it for other apostates), but we're under no obligation.

For me, this is just another ember in the burning bridge that tied my potential to the prison of constrained thought. The energy that I give to this is actually for the benefit of those still seeking the freedom of an unencumbered spirit. That's my greater goal. I have a deep and abiding distaste for bullies, and there is nothing quite as brutish as isolating a person because of their transient contextual differences while only pretending to have the high ground.

The Wheat and the Weeds

One of the conundrums of being a Christian is the [sometimes] explicit belief that God has a purpose for everything in creation. It was not an accident that the stars align the way they do, that the moon orbits where it does, or that there are dandelions in your yard. There were no accidents listed in Genesis. There were no footnotes explaining the exceptions. God made what He did with intent and forethought. That brings up a very worthwhile question about people who choose to follow the teachings of the Society and those who don't.

Don't all have a role to play in God's purpose for the Earth?

We all remember the parable known by the title of this entry. A servant of God sowed figurative wheat in a field. While he later slept, another came and sowed weeds among the wheat. The undesirable weeds became intertwined with the wheat and could not be plucked without also risking the wheat.

Often, those of the apostate crowd are likened to the weeds. We grew spiritually with the faithful, and though we were known to be different, we were allowed to continue until we were mature enough to be harvested along with the ripened wheat and duly separated. The weeds have no value, after all. Except... see the comment above about all of creation having a purpose.

Weeds are sometimes the only thing that will grow in an inhospitable environment. Where water is scarce, the thick and tenacious roots dig deep underground to find it. The prickly and dense leaves protect them from the scorching sun or hungry animals. They bloom flowers to attract bees that are responsible for most of the pollination world wide. They anchor the soil to prevent erosion from wind and rain. Weeds are necessary.

Accepting that this unfortunate child of creation has an undeniable and critical function in our ecosystem, is it fair to discriminate against them simply because they're hardy and coarse? Perhaps not, but we were taught to dismiss them anyway. We develop products to selectively eradicate them. We pay our children to go out and pull them for a modest fee. It is culturally normal and acceptable to exclude weeds from our gardens and yards.

Isn't that bucking God's purpose? It's kind of a subtle middle finger to the Creator if you think about it. And since we, the weeds, are part of creation and therefore from God, what is our purpose?

We all live under the burden of other people who think they are better than us. Some are vocal about it. Others, less so. It stems from the mistaken assumption that living is a competition. For them to have what they want, they believe (because they are taught to) that we must go without. In the case of Witnesses, they also mistakenly believe (because they are taught to) that they are the only source for what we want.

Our indoctrination often included anecdotal evidence that people who left the Society were miserable. This was not without merit, since we'd also been indoctrinated to find happiness in the company of spiritual brothers and sisters. In taking that away from us, they also took our happiness. The Society, intentionally or not, taught us how to imprison our own minds.

I've previously written on the concept of scotoma. It is a fancy word that encompasses a mental "blind spot" of sorts. Some may phrase it as the mind "seeing what it wants to see". I prefer to think of it as a barrier that is present only in the abstract and that we cannot see around. You know, for example, that you cannot lift a five-hundred pound barbel. Any object that you mistake for a five-hundred pound barbel will be immovable because you are mentally adamant that you cannot lift it. This phenomenon has been proven under hypnotic suggestion, so there is scientific basis for the claim.

In a similar fashion, being programmed with the mental scotoma that you cannot be happy without the association of your spiritual family can effectively prevent you from finding it. But remember that you have been classified as an undesirable weed by people who accept that everything in creation has a purpose... except you. They invalidate their own belief.

Here's the good news. Scotoma are entirely voluntary. You can get rid of them if you want to. First, be accepting that you are good. You have purpose, which no other person may define. Secondly, there are sources of happiness out there that do not rely on the fickle associations of common faith. Choose to surround yourself with people who reflect your values. It's not difficult. In seeking out that which speaks to you, you will encounter those who share your vision. Embrace them. Remember that your happiness comes from being you. Not from being who someone else wants you to be. And people who share your values will not ask you to change for them.

As you move forward in your journey, with or without the association of Witnesses, remember that no one gets to define you, except you. It is not within the grasp of any other person to understand your purpose, or quantify your value. If they do not see you as wheat, it is simply because they have not yet discerned what you bring to the table. And that failing is entirely theirs.

Snake Oil and Religion

Occasionally, I try to reach out to people who are still active Witnesses and pique their interest in critical examination of their faith. Perhaps it's overly optimistic to hope for a reaction, but you fail 100% of the times you don't try. So far, I'm batting 1.000. I'm not so disheartened that I'll quit, but I certainly don't expect to convert many. Sometimes the seed, however, will lay in wait until the soil is rich enough to let it sprout.

In having one of these conversations recently, I started to understand what one of the biggest road blocks is. It's the belief in the promises being sold by the society which can't be validated. It doesn't even have the dignity of a pyramid scheme in which the higher levels succeed by recruiting new subordinates. When you commit to being a Witness, you don't even have the Cinderella story of your forebears to look upon as a template. Their only claim to fame is that they've been waiting on the payout longer than the new ones. Success and perseverance are not the same thing. 

Back in the old days, shysters and flim-flam men traveled from place to place offering miracle cure tinctures for a nickle a bottle. By the time anyone realized that his promises were bogus, he was in another town selling to the next bunch of rubes. And this is how they made their fortunes, off the hopes of the desperate and indigent.

It's not that religion appeals to the gullible that makes it so detestable. In fact, some of the most faithful people I've ever known were also some of the most intelligent. The real rub is that it's so easily accessible to people who have reached the end of their rope. Witnesses, like many other evangelicals, often claim to have met someone who had "just been praying to God for help". Humans are generally self-serving and don't turn to the almighty until all other avenues are exhausted. A promise, any promise, of relief from a grievous imposition is often enough to elicit a commitment from the afflicted person.

Often, these people have endured incessant pain. They have sought relief from every source they can find, even trying things that are unconventional and no less hokey than a deity. The stock and trade of the Witness movement is not that they have a special God. It's that their God is offering relief within the lifetimes of His followers. Every other religion brings a promise of eternity to the table, redeemable upon one's passing. To most people, that's just way too long to suffer. So finding a faith that promises a reward years, or even decades, sooner than any other belief systems makes it very appealing indeed.

That zeal produces its own placebo effect. The promise itself is so absolute that every minor taxation of time and effort seems like an infinitely appreciable investment. Nickle by nickle, the confidence-man extends the engagement of the audience while producing no tangible return. However, the people buying in feel better because of the assurances that the temporary measure offers as proof of God's love.

The conversation that led me to this realization is one that we've overheard numerous times. The conventions and assemblies always include the story of a person who wandered away and spent years in a miserable condition. This one was no different. After eight years as a disfellowshipped person, my friend from days gone by returned to the congregation; realizing only after a long isolation from her family just how "loving" the provision of disfellowshipping is. She called it a "protection for both sides". This is one of those catch phrases that the flim-flam man uses to convince people that it's the best course of action without any evidence to the same.

The reality is that the loving provision is a smoke screen that obscures the ineffectiveness of the treatment offered. It manufactures its own desperation as a result of the withdrawal. Back in those same good old days, the very tinctures that were offered were compounds that included powerful and addictive analgesics. Cocaine and heroin were often a mainstay in the one formula to the next. Indeed, it offered comfort, but no cure. But it also brought with it dependence. Taking away the customary therapy magnified the belief that it was effective, as my friend above experienced. Thus, the association, while bringing no actual remedy to the person in need, became a new and more powerful disease. There is only one cure for that.

The loneliness and isolation that we all experienced when we stepped away from the Society was a temporary but intense burden. There were times when it was nigh unbearable. But we made it through. Now, with the clarity of an unencumbered spirit, we can see the cure for what it is. An anesthetic that slows the senses and self-awareness of people who are being manipulated. The pain assuaged by the concoction just brings a new pain when taken away.

Sadly, its enough to keep too many going back for more.

Of Wolves and Sheep

For a large portion of our lives, too large a portion, the virtues of being a sheep we extolled by the Society. So much so that we snidely referred to people who rejected the Good News as 'goats'. Sheep were meek, teachable, and gentle in spirit. Stuffed lambs were often gifted to newly baptized persons as a heartfelt "welcome to the flock". We accepted our place under shepherds as good sheep were supposed to do.

It was a warm and safe place to be, among the sheepfold. We were surrounded by people who understood us, and whom we understood. But there are things that we may have forgotten about what it meant to be a sheep, if in fact we ever realized it at all.

Sheep are a herd animal, the purpose of which is to gain safety in numbers. Primarily because a member is also what we typically call a prey-animal, it's common for them to become food for something larger and meaner. Such as it is, being a sheep grants you the boon of the eyes and ears of the herd. What could have slipped by the attention of one rarely escapes the attention of all. With that also goes herd-mentality. Individuality does not exist (unless the wolves are out), and what the herd does, the individual must also do for maximum benefit.

But wait... those all sound like positive benefits, do they not? That really depends on your point of view, Obi. The sheep is ultimately a self-serving animal. It's commitment to community is based on its ability to be comfortably away from the vulnerable fringe; not because they actually care about the welfare of the others in the herd. They don't gain any special access to food, shelter is unaffected, and being a sheep requires no industry.

The hum-drum of this existence is a little difficult to overstate. However, it works for some. Where sheep become really interesting is when you apply Selfish Herd Theory. Along the lines of self-service mentioned before, being part of a herd also increases the chance of subordinating a less capable member in the event of an emergency, or herd panic. First proposed by W.D. Hamilton in 1971, the theory was used to explain activities in which social groups will aggregate in stressful situations.

We've seen it happen many times. There is a mob movement where a majority of the members flee in a uniform direction. While there are a minority who flee elsewhere, the larger body of the group includes weak or infirm members who are either outrun by the majority, or trampled and left behind (presumably to their demise). The uniform flight response offers any one individual the increased probability that they can surpass a subordinate member, thus gaining an advantage in the flight towards safety.

For some of you, the light bulb may be starting to flicker.  I've written before that the goal of most active Witnesses is not to be the holiest of the holy. Rather, they aim to be be holier than the other guy. In that respect, the least capable members are run over and left behind, being allowed to drop by the wayside as the more attuned Witnesses huddle for warmth and community, thanking God for their blessings. They weren't looking out for each other at all... They only needed someone else to run a little slower, or have a little less faith.

I suddenly have a lot less respect for sheep.

Wolves are the most common predator that sheep face. They are also about as diametrically opposed to the paradigm of herd mentality as they can be. Packs of wolves have a common interest - success through cooperation.

Wolves rarely operate alone. Where only one may be visible, more wait in the wings. Yes, they have their own pecking order, but wolves are without a doubt social animals (not to be confused with herd animals). The common good can only be served through the health and vitality of the individual. Sick and weak members are a detriment to the others, so it behooves all to promote strength rather than to exploit weakness, as we see in sheep.

Packs operate under their hierarchy to successfully hunt, raise young, and maintain order. This is starkly different than a herd which simply mimics behaviors of their nearest neighbor, wherein one flees and the others follow suit. Wolves instead operate under deliberate direction, with specific goals, and discrete metrics of success. As one retreats, another advances. As one tires, another gives chase. As one group hunts, the rest guard the den.

I don't mean to undercut the importance of community. It's nice to have people with similar interests and complimentary skills. However, it's important that we not confuse community with cooperation. When it's time to face danger, being a sheep will just get you run over by the younger, stronger, faster members.

In becoming an apostate, I had to examine the nature of what I aspired to be. No matter what role a person serves in the congregation, they will always remain a sheep. Women are the least fortunate in that they are subjugated by virtue of gender. Men have opportunities to attain responsibilities, but no matter how high they climb, there is no summit. Success can only be measured by how far from the bottom one has traveled. Like sheep and other herd animals, the safest place to be is in the middle. Only the strongest and most dedicated ever get there, because you win at being a sheep by not being the slowest or the weakest.

I'm quite certain that this is the type of person I don't want to be. There are times when that mentality is appropriate to survival, but our humanity is not measured by how efficiently we flee danger. It's measured by what we do to help others who are in danger, and what we are willing to do to avert it.

The Society considers me a wolf. I think I shall thank them for the compliment.

Misapplied Faith

The book of Hebrews calls faith the "assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." Scholarly dismissal of Hebrews from bible canon not withstanding, faith is almost always agreed to be a belief in things you can't see. The problem with discussing the bible with those who are faithful is that they often have no interest in the things they can see.

In a recent JW broadcast segment, Stephen Lett makes the erroneous claim that there is more evidence for "the Kingdom than there is for gravity." Yeah, he actually said that. Take a minute, because I sure had to...

Juxtaposed against Hebrews 11:1, Christians rely on centuries of assurances as the basis for their belief in all the things they practice. The two clauses of that scripture are not exactly polar opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive by their nature. But they almost certainly will never occupy the same space. Why is that?

Firstly, I don't think anyone will rightly contest that the "assured expectation" clause is the right of every living person, religious or not. You can hope in whatever you want, and can even be internally or externally assured of that. Whether that comes to fruition is something that only time will establish. It requires no validation, and most often requires revision after evidence to the contrary arises.

Secondly, the next clause is not faith. It's science. I'll even give you an example...

In 1781, British astronomer William Herschel discovered Uranus. Having done so without the use of both hands and a map, what had once been regarded as a star was definitively identified as a planet. Numerous astronomers then took to observing Uranus and all noted the same basic thing. There were irregularities which could not be explained by Newtonian Gravitational laws... or could they?

French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier concluded that the effect which was observed on the orbit of Uranus had to be the result of another heavenly body not yet discovered. He calculated the presence of the planet Neptune using only mathematics and the laws of gravity. To be clear, no one had yet laid eyes on Neptune through a telescope. Interestingly, English astronomer John Couch Adams had been making the same calculations independently and arrived at his conclusions just two days after Le Verrier.

On August 31, 1846, the world was publicly put on notice that another planet was believed to exist. On September 23, 1846, Johann Galle of the Berlin Observatory, having been notified by both Le Verrier and Adams independently, looked into his telescope and found Neptune just 43 arc seconds from its predicted location. Using the Sun as a starting point, La Verrier and Adams missed by 580,000 miles. Put your finger on the period at the end of this sentence; on an astronomical scale, they were closer.

That, friends, is the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Laws, predictable, repeatable laws that can yield the same result across independent investigations are evident demonstrations. Gravity has no form that we can measure. But it does have predictable behavior with defined values. Can the same be said of faith?

Faith is actually a belief in something for which there will eventually be proof. Heretofore, the only thing evidently demonstrated is that humans will do almost anything if they think God is behind it,  which has generally required the dismissal of science throughout history.

Watchtower takes their rise from a few well-meaning men to their current stature as evidence of God's involvement. This is their "evident demonstration". Judaism, Islam, and every branch of Christianity has endured longer and hold more adherents than Watchtower does. Multiple religious movements around the world are growing faster than Watchtower. Multiple groups are under the fire of persecution. Every religious leader mentioned in the bible was under God's direction, often with direct lines of communication (though curiously, Jesus was never depicted of hearing God's voice directly... figure that one out). The Governing Body, however, is not inspired... by their own admission.

What then has been evidently demonstrated? That a group of people who have a common goal can achieve great things? That the world at large is tired of religious abuses? In no way, shape, or form can there be said to be any evidence of Godly involvement in the Watchtower organization. It's just not there. At least no more than any other religion. They are subject to the same pitfalls and perils as everyone else on the planet, religious or not.

Gods and Dolls

I saw a play when I was in elementary school. I can't recall the title, but the premise was that the creations of a doll maker came to life and began experimenting with their own "upgrades". The first, and most rebellious of the dolls, found a heart crafted by her maker. She placed in on various parts of her body, determining that her forehead and elbow did not feel like the right place for the heart to reside. But, having placed it over her breast, she instantly became aware of its purpose and its power.

Some of the other dolls tentatively followed her lead, though one adamantly chastised the others for doing something they weren't supposed to. Their joy, however, at the discovery of this new knowledge, was intoxicating. But it still felt like they were doing something bad.

While the admonition to behave themselves was an explicit part of the script, I felt a noticeable connection with the most cautious character. Having been raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I had been constantly reminded that disobedience was wrong and lead to death. The only thing worse than disobeying an authority figure was what happened if that figure found out. So, as this one character warned the others about the certainty of their maker's wrath, I felt a very real sense of dread.

As the play went on, the story line shifted from their impending punishment to the enlightenment they enjoyed as a result of their discovery. In time, the nay-sayer was proved wrong, but remained steadfast in his determination. I believe the maker eventually made it clear that the fashioned hearts were intended for all of them, but that they had simply discovered them before he had given them to the dolls. He wasn't angry. He, in fact, was also overjoyed.

The most obedient of the dolls wasn't exactly chastised by the maker, but was educated. While it had become apparent that the shift in group morality had turned the obedient one into an outcast, if not outright pariah, it wasn't proof that the obedience was actually correct. Quite the opposite.

The obviousness of this application to the apostate community can't be overstated. We've all learned something that obedient Witnesses insisted we leave alone. But we embraced that information, it was life changing and, however frustratingly, impossible to convey to the people that tried to hold us back.

Conservative, conscientious action is hard to undermine because it is usually a result of fear or caution. Unfortunately, excessive caution is really hard to identify, except in retrospect. So we are left with an audience that is reluctant to act because of repeated indoctrination that straying from the narrow path is inherently detrimental. No step is safe, so no steps are taken.

The bible is rife with examples of people who perished because of their pursuit of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from the tree, came to "know" sin and died for their discovery. Lot's wife turned her head to witness the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and became a pillar of salt. Anyone who looked upon the contents of the Ark of the Covenant died, struck down by God's angel. The scouts that returned and reported Canaan filled with giants, sons of Anak, contracted a mysterious plague and died.

Knowledge gets you killed in the bible. Well, that, and disagreeing with the people who speak for God. People who scrape together just a little incredulity were often put to the sword, burned alive, or had their assholes fall on the ground with disease.

One can imagine why even contemplating the slightest misstep could cause anxiety. God of the Old Testament frequently killed, or had killed, people who displeased him. The body count that God has amassed by way of executive decision far exceeds anything directly attributable to the Devil. Thusly, if you have faith in religious leaders and they tell you that you're invoking God's wrath, His well established killing streak is worth noting.

It's true that pursuing knowledge is sometimes a deadly endeavor. The best known explorers are often the ones who came back from their adventures with new understanding, while those who did not are sometimes just a footnote of history. But does that mean that knowledge is intrinsically harmful? It would be hard to make such a case.

Human evolution is guided by what we don't know. Not knowing how to avoid getting eaten by a saber-tooth tiger was a good way to die if you encountered one in the ice age. Not knowing what kinds of foods are inedible is a good way to die from poisoning. Not knowing how to effectively treat a given cancer is a good way to succumb to its growth. Survivors know something that the victims did not, and that is what "worked".

Knowledge is often accidental, and some of the most useful discoveries were made in this way. X-ray Imaging and Penicillin - both accidental discoveries, and two of the most useful medical advances in history. But because God didn't bother writing it down in the bible, it falls under the umbrella of things He didn't find important enough to tell us. But should we equate that with things-He-didn't-want-us-to-know? Psalm 147:5 claims that the knowledge of God is without limit, and as all of our modern existence is technologically extra-biblical, it is accurate to say that we've already discovered much more than He let on through scripture. So why does that not raise the dander of the Governing Body?

The obvious answer is that the only knowledge to which they object is that which exposes them for what they are - men who are guessing... Knowledge which leads you away from trust in their leadership leaves them without purpose. These are people who have no secular skills, or little marketable experience. They are advanced in age and beholden to the charity of their underlings to survive. They could not see to their daily needs without the support of the flock.

They believe. They have faith. But they don't know... Everything they purvey as fact is something they have interpreted, or has been passed down by an organizational forebear. The dolls at the beginning of this entry believed that the maker may be angry at their boldness, but they didn't know. It was not until they were told explicitly what his will had been that they knew their belief to be incorrect.

Likewise, there is a wealth of information that has already been discovered, as the heart was discovered by that one intrepid doll. No one, not even the maker, could fault the doll for her discovery or again hide what had once been unknown. It is an error to assume that just because a teacher did not impart knowledge that they meant for it to remain unknown. If anything, God (being the faithful and true sort) must have intended for us to discover and know the full wonder of creation. All that He has created must be for our discovery. If it is not, then it without purpose.

God is a God of purpose. We are but His dolls. 

The Accidental Prophet

Most of us are familiar with Charles Taze "CT" Russel, either through websites like JWFacts and JWSurvey, or through the Proclaimers publication that was studied sometime during the 90's. He was know as a charismatic figure whose sermons were refreshingly positive and popular with many Christians. The origin and soundness of his teachings is enough to leave one cross-eyed, but in the waning years of Victorian sensibilities, his ramblings took root.

He was perhaps one of the first ministers to take a pragmatic stance toward Christian beliefs. He purposefully set out to establish the origins of Christian traditions, practices, and faith. What could not be established by scripture, or was found to be non-Christian in origin, was discarded. His particular brand of faith was pared down to what could be proved scripturally.

He did, however, fall into the trap of sensationalism and a desire to predict the end of the world. Every apocalyptic religion in the world has done it at least once. Many keep trying. Russel had one of the more interesting slants on his predictions.

Pyramids.

Well, one of them anyway. The Great Pyramid of Giza. Khufu's tomb. Being entranced by the writings of Charles Smyth, Russel expounded on the idea that the pyramid itself was a representation of Bible prophecy, inspired by God Himself. With the application of an "inch for a year", Russel concluded that the prophecy of Isaiah 19:19, 20 could refer only to the pyramid itself, and therefore foretold the second coming of Christ in 1874. Due to either a mathematical error by Smyth or a publishing error by Russel, this date was later revised to 1914. The outbreak of World War I in that year thus validated Russel's prediction as correct and divinely inspired.

However, in 1928, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which Russel founded, abandoned this teaching and alternately claimed that the pyramid construction had been inspired by the Devil and not God. Inexplicably, they did not likewise abandon the notion that 1914 had been a watershed year. Having died in 1916, Russel was never aware that the movement he founded had completely abandoned his original teaching.

This begs certain questions. Primarily, was Russel correct...? 

If he was correct, why would he be guided by Holy Spirit to a correct conclusion by way of a flawed process? Would it not be sensible for God to direct His servant to a path that was biblically sound? The bible is not known for portraying God as subtle, clever, and certainly not enigmatic. He is direct. Often brutally so. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, received emissaries with an unmistakable message. The fire and sulfur that rained down after lacked finesse and did not lend itself to interpretation. Likewise, Moses' burning bush got right to to point. The Egyptian army and the Red Sea, Noah's flood, Jericho, the sun over Gibeon; direct and explicit (deadly) messages from God. 

If Russel was incorrect, why does the Society hold on so adamantly to his conclusions while dismissing his process? Consider that the flip-flop on the source of the pyramid's inspiration did not alter their belief in 1914. Even with the repeated relabeling of the meaning of 1914, it would still mean that the Devil had foreknowledge of events and when they would happen, so as to properly inspire pyramid builders to lay the path for interpreting the prophecy... 

Matthew 24:36, anyone...? Anyone at all...?

If this was a message from the Devil (a very big 'if'), why would it not have pointed to some other date? The Devil's entire purpose is to mislead mankind. Why, of all things, would he give an explicit, indisputable, prophetic date on which millions of people rightly bet their salvation? 

There are almost unlimited valid, and yet unanswerable, questions.

CT Russel would be the Forrest Gump of all prophets. He figuratively wrote books to describe the smell of the color nine and came up with 1914; a date which is so closely guarded that it is a disfellowshipping-offense to believe it is wrong. 

The book of Revelation notwithstanding, God's messages in the bible have been direct and unmistakable. He did not tell the Jews they were going to the promised land, but then give them directions to South America. No. He said, "Hey guys... it's right over there. I'm pointing right the fuck at it. Do you see it?!?"

No one under God's direction has ever had to wonder what He expected of them. No one in bible canon has revised anything they ever had inscribed. So why Russel's successors? If he was wrong, he was wrong all the way, and not under the direction of Holy Spirit. If he was right, then modern day Witnesses are working under the direction of people who have obscured the word of God and thus under the influence of Satan. I'm completely failing to see a middle ground here.

A pyramidologist and numerologist decodes the prophecy of Isaiah using a monument inspired by the Devil to identify, alternately, the end of days and the start of the end of days, AND it coincides precisely with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, IF you're willing to ignore archaeological evidence...

That can't be an accident, right...?

... And a Very Fond Farewell

To the Elders of the St. Ann Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Let me first be clear that I bear you no malice. I believe that you are acting in accordance with what you believe to be the truth. I cannot fault you for following your conscience, and ask for the same consideration. I have loved you as brothers, even long after we have ceased our acquaintance. I respect you as men; as men who are intent on being Christ-like. 

Secondly, I want to clearly state that I do not believe my baptism at the age of fifteen to have been valid. The decision to be baptized was predicated on the incorrect assertion that it was an informed decision. I have been able to determine that I was in fact woefully misinformed, and in fact coerced into forming a covenant with the Society that cannot be validated. 

I was taught the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time I could sit up on my own. I was taught that they were the actual Truth. I was taught that we were guided by God’s Holy Spirit. I was taught that we knew things that the world did not. It is no exaggeration that this is the only “truth” I was exposed to until I became an adult. This is analogous to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Reality is incomprehensible unless one is free to examine it, and there is no version of my upbringing that can be qualified as “free”.

Even so, I was pushed towards baptism by every rung of my social ladder. My parents, peers, and spiritual leaders (you, or your forebears) all aimed me toward a singular path – dedication and unwavering devotion to Jehovah and his earthly organization. It was obvious to me that I would not have a place in the social structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses unless I was first baptized. A fact evidenced by my lack of association with my contemporaries. 

Had I been fully informed as to the nature and origins of Society doctrines, I’d have chosen differently. However, as a minor, I was not granted access to life-altering information. I also entered into the aforementioned covenant ignorant of the fact that if I ever became informed, I would be shunned for disagreeing with what you regard as “truth”, irrespective of whether it was factually correct. Certainly you are aware that once you are baptized as a Witness, there is no way to cease being a Witness, even for well-founded reasons, without sacrificing ties to your family.

Jehovah’s Witnesses support only one truth, and that is the one espoused by the Governing Body. It has been established in a court of law that Witnesses uphold the practice of disfellowshipping to preserve “unity at all costs” (Walsh v Clyde; Scotland, 1954), even when doctrines may be wrong. So, regardless if I had evidence handed down by God himself, if I disagree with the Governing Body, I am to be disfellowshipped. If I disassociate myself, for any reason, I am to be treated exactly as a disfellowshipped person. Brothers, literally the only way for me to have a relationship with my blood relatives is to live and die as a Witness.

Perhaps there will be members of your body of Elders who remember the first talk I ever delivered in the Theocratic Ministry School at the age of five… I certainly do. Job 2:1-13 – I discussed the theme of integrity for three minutes and twenty-six seconds. It was not until I was grown and had faded from the organization that I began to understand what integrity really meant to me. I used to think it was doing what God wanted of me, no matter what others may say. I used to think it was upholding the Society’s teachings, no matter what apostate lies I was confronted with. 

Gentlemen, integrity is doing what is right, no matter the sacrifice. Integrity is standing against an untruth or an injustice when those around you disagree in their ignorance, even if they are ignorant by choice. It is the moral fortitude to make the hard decision when every consequence comes at great [personal] cost. 

It is to my integrity which I owe my first duty. 

I will not belabor you with details in which you have no interest. Perhaps it will be enough to say that you do not need to delve into apostate circles to determine logical errors made by the Society. You only need to exercise critical thought and validate the Society’s views against empirical evidence. The conclusions of the Society are frequently wrong, and continuing to use their publications as a reference point leads people farther astray with each iteration. 

The February 2017 Study Edition Watchtower (Who is Leading God’s People Today, para. 12) says that “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.” In fact they have erred, are continuing to err, are promulgating those errors as God’s will and occurring at His direction. But if they are not inspired, how can they perceive such things? The very definition of inspiration precludes the assistance of the Holy Spirit based upon the admission at the start of this paragraph.

Paragraph 14 of the same study article presents an inference of Angelic assistance as “evidence” of divine favor. Brothers, I implore you to examine the metrics of the world wide preaching work over the last several years. The effectiveness of your efforts has waned significantly. Every measure of success, the very “evidence” of Angelic assistance, is in decline! That is not a topic that is up for debate. It is simply the truth.

Paragraph 16 continues with a blatant plea for you, the sheep, to continue praying for men who, by their own admission, are not inspired. Should you not be praying for inspired representatives to lead Jehovah’s people instead of the Governing Body? Geoffery Jackson, of the Governing Body, testified before the Australian Royal Commission [into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse]. When questioned by Angus Stewart if they saw themselves as Jehovah God’s spokesperson(s) on earth, he replied “that I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.” 

Brothers, we all know Brother Jackson's statement to be patently false! We have held to the immutable truth of the Governing Body (and the Society) being God’s only earthly representatives for as long as there have been Witnesses. Did Brother Jackson lie to the Australian government, or have they been lying to us? In either case, critical scrutiny is the only reasonable response. But you and I both know that if you follow that rabbit hole, you’ll be chastised, at best; disfellowshipped, at worst. Silence is the only option afforded to any of us.

It is, unfortunately, incumbent upon you to do what the Society requires of you. I am an apostate, which I do not deny. I have lost faith in uninspired men, who are not God’s only mouthpiece, and are not infallible. Do they mean well? Certainly. Do I owe them any fealty? Certainly not.

When I began this letter, I did not intend to be so verbose. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks”, however (Luke 6:45). Brothers, it is with the greatest humility that I ask you to examine your faith with an objective eye. All things come from God, including actual truth. There is no sin in seeking it out. For my part, I can no longer in good conscience identify myself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. My integrity would be one sacrifice too many.