Being an apostate takes grit and determination. It's exhausting to engage with people who don't want anything to do with you. More so when considering that they have no interest in determining the validity of their beliefs, while you contest the authority of their governing documents. They are certain that they are certain, and against that kind of conviction there is little reasoning that works well.
I can't tell you how to be an apostate, or even if you should be one. Each of us has our own story to tell, and our own ledger to balance. Because of that, some of us are more intent on grinding an axe, while others are content to leave it buried. But what is constant is that the people that shun us are unified in practice. We know what buzz-words we will hear. We know what resources they will reference. Witnesses can't surprise us. Exasperate, yes, but not surprise.
I try to be dispassionate about my approach. Not because I don't feel strongly, but because inflamed tempers often lead to common logical fallacies. The list of potential fallacies is long and varied, and it can be almost taken for granted that they will be employed at some time during a heated discussion. At a glance, they make some version of sense, or at least sound plausible. But on closer examination, they reveal themselves to be a baseless dismissal of a reasoned discussion.
The title of this post is an idiomatic reference to a fallacy otherwise known as "false attribution". This a type of appeal to authority in which the advocate references "an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument." In this application, Jehovah's Witnesses will reference publications issued by Watchtower as evidence of God's spiritual direction of Watchtower.
Most of you will see the immediate flaw in this approach.
But the problem extends to every facet of Witness's reasoning. Every doctrine they adhere to is established by the publications of Watchtower, and any divergence from that practice is means for expulsion. The 1914 doctrine, for example, is their cornerstone belief. It's the thing that makes them special. When I asked my mother to prove to me the importance and historical accuracy of 607 B.C.E., she cited (repeatedly) only the publications of the Society.
The Society, in developing this doctrine, have patently misinterpreted or misapplied archaeological and historical evidence to arrive at their conclusion(s) (this is another logical fallacy known as "argument by selective observation" (cherry picking)). However, any acknowledgement that academia has a better understanding of history and scientific data would result in the immediate downfall of the Organization.
Now, this doctrine has been held to for over 100 years through one justification or another. They've changed their reasoning. They've changed its meaning. But they have never changed the date...
Every publication from 1912 onward has stuck to this doctrine. Evidently, it must be so historically significant, in that it is directly related to two watershed moments of humanity, that being wrong about it an impossibility. Thus, the deep faith of their followers.
Watershed moments are more frequent than the Society would like, however.
As we know, the 1914 doctrine requires that Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. 1914, of course, saw the outbreak of World War I. It was the "Great War". The "War to end all wars". The first of its kind in which so many nations were involved, or so many perished.
It's also not true.
If we take it from "the horse's mouth", none of what I tell you next is valid to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is also the reason I'm no longer one of them.
Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon in 587 B.C.E. This is archaeologically, astronomically, and historically proven fact. There isn't a debate to be had. However, by 'arguing selective observations', Witnesses will always arrive at 607 B.C.E. by citing only two or three dubious sources. Whereas 587 B.C.E. is documented by literally dozens of credible, vetted sources.
Well, shit... But 1914 was such a momentous year! It certainly must be the sign of Christ's invisible return to earth, at which time he appointed Jehovah's Witnesses as his earthly representatives...
About that... You see, there have been literally dozens of conflicts that qualify as "World Wars". Poly-continental wars involving three or more nations are rather common. The Romans fought the Persians for 721 years across two continents. The War of Austrian Succession occurred across four continents. The Napoleonic Wars... FIVE continents. And the kicker? None of those even qualify as the deadliest wars.
That distinction belongs almost exclusively to the Chinese. Between the Qing-Ming Conquest, War of Three Kingdoms, and Mongol Conquests the average body count was an average was twice as high as WWI. So what does The Great War have over all of the others?
*Crickets*
Mustard Gas, combat aircraft, and machine guns. That's about it. A demonstrably false prophecy should have been fulfilled twenty years later, and nothing really interesting happened in 1934. The "greatness" of The Great War was just propaganda. There was nothing about it that was measurably worse than many of the wars that preceded it. So to declare that it was the harbinger of the last days is without foundation.
The intensely frustrating part of this is that I abhor ignorance, particularly when it's voluntary. Practicing a religion that requires ignorance as the price of admission is just insane, but it's exactly what relying on the 'horse' as an authority is. Relying on the producer of unsubstantiated claims, even in the presence of overwhelming contrary evidence, as the only necessary proof of truth is without parallel in terms of frustrating potential.
But it's just what Witnesses do...