Morally Impaired

H.L. Mencken is credited with saying that "morality is doing right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." It may be a cynical view of religion, but it is a correct one. It's just rather unsympathetic in its delivery.

The basic tenet of any Abrahamic religion is that obedience is necessary for absolution and eternal reward. Muslims believe it. Jews believe it. Christians believe it. The holy books respective to each tell adherents what is expected of them, outlines the rewards for compliance, and details the consequences of non-compliance.

History is rife with what this era calls 'atrocities'. Genocide is just the most obvious among them, but there have been many versions of oppression and otherwise inhumane treatment of people who did not or could not live up to the scripture of choice. Death by torture was a very real possibility for anyone who loved their own gender, believed in a different God, taught or studied sciences, or impeded the Religious authority in any way. Barring that, one could find themselves at the business end of a mounted charge simply because a government waged war on them under the banner of religious fealty.

Short version? Holy violence was more likely to kill you than old age. But why is that?

Religion as a social convention relies heavily on unified observance to survive. It's the human equivalent of an ant colony. Everyone does their job and respects the will of the Superior Authority, and the colony thrives. Simple.

In Mencken's statement, the religious obedience clause is what probably feels most familiar to former Jehovah's Witnesses. We've all grown up or lived under the express understanding that if we didn't do exactly what we were told, it would result in our expulsion. That seems like a very straight forward and reasonable expectation within any religion. You have the same god(s), you believe the same things, and you accept the same behaviors.

It begs the question, however, is obedience right if the Superior Authority is wrong?

Many of you will be familiar with the Douglas Walsh trial held in Scotland in 1954. For those of you who are not, Walsh was a full-time pioneer for the movement who was suing for exemption from conscripted military service. The courts called upon several leaders of the Watchtower Society, notably Frederick Franz (future president of Watchtower) and Hayden Covington (legal counsel for Watchtower), to testify about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Court transcripts are very telling.

Franz was questioned as to whether acceptance of doctrine was a matter of choice or obligatory if one was to remain a member of the Watchtower Society. He stated explicitly that it was "obligatory".

Covington's testimony was more damning since he was asked about the validity of the [by then] debunked 1874 end-times prophecy. It was established under oath that disagreement with a false prophecy, which would later be retracted, would still be grounds for expulsion on the sole basis that absolute unity was necessary. Being agreeable was more critical than being right.

This begets further questions.

The practice of expelling dissenters began shortly before the Walsh trial started. Up until 1952, Witnesses did not excommunicate members. They had in fact called it 'pagan' and 'unscriptural' as recently as 1947. However, since the adoption of the practice, it has been applied to everything from blatant sin to simple disagreement over doctrine. Notably, Frederick Franz's brother Raymond, also a member of the Governing Body, developed disagreements with the organization and effectively surrendered his membership. Sensing a potential disruption in their operations with the latter Franz's departure, he was retroactively excommunicated so that existing members would be held to the mandate of shunning expelled members.

Raymond explicitly failed to do as he was told. His actions were not particularly immoral by any other standard. He simply kept company with a man who had been his employer, but had disassociated himself from Watchtower. Leaving the ranks of a club, group, or organization by choice is in no way reprehensible. However, Watchtower views this as a sin worthy of death (another interesting claim made during Covington's testimony).

As Watchtower mounts an ever growing list of failed predictions, modified doctrine, and abusive policies, it's members have been conditioned to accept every change with a smile and graciously embrace the 'new light'. They have no difficult decisions to make as all of those decisions are made for them. Compliance is their only yardstick of morality. Is Watchtower's interpretation of morality upheld? Yes/No?

If Yes, please stand by and wait for modified instructions.

If No, proceed directly to elders, do not pass Go , do not collect $200.

In any other context, this sounds nothing less than absurd. Consider the same premise in the framework of Branch Davidians under David Koresh, or The People's Temple under Jim Jones, or Heaven's Gate under Marshall Applewhite.

It's difficult to consider suicide under the direction of a spiritual leader to be any kind of morality. However, from all the reports and data that have been amassed over the years, when cults follow their leader to their demise, there's been very little evidence of any organized resistance.

No, this is not meant to be a direct comparison of Jehovah's Witnesses to suicide cults. However, there is a striking correlation between the obedience required of the adherents and its relation to the promise of salvation.

Without exception, the only way for a follower of any of these groups to gain their ultimate reward is to follow every instruction without hesitation and without question.

There are quite literally hundreds of ways to be expelled from Jehovah's Witnesses. However, there is only one way to stop being one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing, and that is to die by any means other than suicide.

Does that alone make them immoral? No. That doesn't meet the burden of calling them immoral. It does, however, place one squarely in the crosshairs of damnation if they face a moral duty that conflicts with the Governing Body and their interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Simply put, any time a moral imperative must be sacrificed for the sake of obedience, we have failed the perfect duty of righteousness and the God that is claimed to own it.

If our God requires us to violate our conscience, it's time to find a new one.

Cleansing of My Soul

To my parents:

By now, it should be no surprise that I’ve been in therapy since the end of last year [2013]. There have been a great number of things for me to get off my chest. Some belong to the therapist. Some belong to others. For my future health and happiness, there are some burdens that I have to give back to the people who first gave them to me.

Please know that what follows is not a reflection on the love that I have for both of you. It is simply a perspective of the lessons that you taught me as I grew up. Some lessons you taught explicitly. Some you taught silently, through your example. I have learned that some of these lessons are not healthy for me. They cause me to struggle to achieve the life that I desire, and so I must free myself of the sense of duty to those lessons. I must either change what I want, how I act, or both.

Mom:

The most persistent lesson I learned from you was manipulation. As I grew up, I often felt oppressed. Not physically, but emotionally. You freely expressed how hurt you were any time I chose something that didn’t honor your wishes. Too often, I would relent and give you what you wanted. I observed you, on numerous occasions, getting into a battle of wills and stomping off to sulk in your room when you couldn’t get your way. You knew that your pouting was always more effective than your yelling, and you used it. 

What was so incredibly consistent about your manipulation was that you always made yourself into the victim. I would lay money that you would turn your own anger around to make us feel ashamed. Our decisions, and even the decisions of our siblings, were used to embarrass us rather than teach us. You kept us close by keeping us afraid, which is ironic, but I’ll get that later.

I’ll even give you a good example of that. [Redacted] made an unannounced trip to North Carolina. He was, mentally and legally, an adult. He was of age and of means to make the trip. I was maybe fourteen at the time. I of course knew you would be mad at him, but you had a long history with his comparative rebellion, so it really shouldn’t have been a surprise. I made the decision to stay out of it. Of course you did find out when he didn’t return home that night, and when you found out that I knew, you woefully, and tearfully, exclaimed that your “children were conspiring against you”. I foolishly allowed myself to feel guilt for actions that had nothing to do with me. Why should I have done that? He was on the road twenty minutes after he came home. And what, in all practicality, could have been done about it? Would you call the police to report a runaway adult son? Cell phones weren’t even available yet, so there was no way to reach him. So you did the only thing you had the capacity to do… lay the blame on your younger, minor children. 

When you found out that I was dating, you couldn’t be interested with whether she made me happy. You could only concern yourself with whether I was committing fornication. You even asked me if I was, and then threatened to drag me before the elders to discuss my relationship.

The night I announced that I intended to marry, I sat on the couch, wringing my hands with fear over what you would say, because I knew it wouldn’t be positive. And when I shared what should have been happy news, you told me how foolish I was. You fretted over how it would appear to the congregation if I were to marry someone so soon after her baptism. Your concern was always focused outside of the family. The next morning, you stood at my bedroom door for twenty minutes, telling me how hurt you were by my decision, struggling with how you should tell me. Would you talk to me? Would you write me a letter? Frankly, I needed your support. Not your self-victimization.

Ultimately, in that process, I learned that my individual growth was not a priority to you, so long as I did what you asked of me. Your priority was always to teach me what to think, not how to think. Any deviation from that plan was met with bitter ridicule, using both personal and religious attacks. In so many ways, you were an emotional bully.

Rather than belabor you with examples (and I have many), I will simply say that in your disagreements with us children, you always made sure that we knew that you were the victim. As a father, I now know that my daughter cannot victimize me, just as we could not victimize you. Every tantrum, crying fit, and pouting session was a device of your own conjuring. We didn’t have any control over you to create those kinds of reactions. I no longer accept the guilt, responsibility, or false loyalty that go with them.

Dad:

What do I say to you? You’ve never looked at yourself as a good father or teacher. You were an excellent teacher by example, even if it was not always the lesson you wanted me to learn. You are a better father than you give yourself credit for. Even if you rarely acted on it, I know you saw your children through the lens of what you wanted for them. You could see what we needed; what you would have wanted if you were in our shoes, but I believe you never felt comfortable with taking a stand for that. Your faith is important to you, which I understand. You’re also statistically smarter than 98% of the population. The difference between your level of intelligence and the normal person is the same difference between a normal person and one who is legally retarded. I believe that some doctrinal things don’t make sense to you, and as a matter of faith, you have to bury those questions. I can only imagine the conflict.

The only thing I wanted from you was for you to stand up for something. You were peaceful, passive, and reflective. Sometimes reflection requires action when reaching an inescapable conclusion. Mom has problems. You have to know that she was emotionally abusive because of things that she cannot or will not say. She needs help. I didn’t realize it until I started therapy, so I don’t expect that you necessarily made the connection either. The fact remains, if there was one failing that you had as a father, it was in not stepping between your kids and a woman that did not have the emotional stability to nurture them in a healthy way. My therapist would tell me that I’m angry with you for not protecting us. I am not. I’m only sad that you were as abused as we were.

I believe, honestly, that many of your emotional struggles are tied to the conflicts you feel. Choose to speak up. Choose to be heard. It does wonders.

Faith:

This could be a book of its own…

I will begin with a premise that is hurtful, but true. You will scoff at it and call me ‘apostate’, which is also true, but not for the reason you think. My premise is that everything related to the faith I was raised to have is a lie.

Now you will both recoil at that...

Let me first address the apostasy claim that will undoubtedly come from mom. An apostate, by the Society's definition, is a person who works against God’s organization. Not just a person who has lost or given up faith, but one who actively countermands the authority of His organization. However, an apostate is simply one who “renounces a religious or political belief or principle”. I am an apostate. I do not believe that your organization is His earthly representation. I have not been shown adequate evidence to disprove some very glaring and logically sound criticisms I have of the faith. I am an apostate in every sense of the word. I will share with others why I left and why I cannot go back. I want people to ask questions of their faith. It’s the only way it can be an honest reflection of one’s beliefs. If this thinking requires me to be disfellowshipped, so be it. What am I really losing? I don’t need or want the approval of the congregation. I didn’t ask for it, and it was only by constant reinforcement that I ever believed that I was supposed to need it. That has turned out to be false. I will invest nothing into any advice, reproof, or guidance I receive from anyone representing Witnesses.

That brings me to my second point about the faith being a lie. I’m not writing this to inform you that what you believe in is a lie.  What I do want to make clear, however, is that the faith we were raised to have was not in fact faith. The faith we were raised to have was one which appeared unshakable from the outside, but had no solid foundation of practice or maintenance to validate the image.

Emphasis was placed on keeping the appearance alive. It became the responsibility of the family to make sure that no one outside of our circle of five really knew what things were like in our house. My personal favorite was mom’s occasional claim that “Dad can’t be an elder because of his kids…”

The truth was that Dad shouldn’t have been an elder because nothing about our family reflected Christian values. In a very real sense, we were super-fine apostles that Paul struggled with. We gave the appearance of righteousness, but abandoned that as soon as the we got back in the van to go home from meetings three times a week.

Consider the following:

• We lived in actual squalor. Our home did not even have the appearance of Christian cleanliness.
  
• Our home was cleaned only when someone outside of our immediate family members were going to be in it. Your children, their spouses, and your grandkids didn’t even get a reprieve.
• This is also why [Redacted] never visited your home much.
• Our family van was no different. On numerous occasions, I had to go ‘clean’ the van for impromptu Sunday field service. That is an example of maintaining the ‘lie’. No one could know except us.
• Dad’s parents were coming over so all of the mess in public areas was shoved into [Redacted]'s room. Grandpa saw this and scolded [Redacted] for it. No one else stepped up to take responsibility for that, and she didn’t tell on the rest of the family. [Redacted] maintained the lie.
• We didn’t study, either personally or as a family, but we sure pretended to. We maintained the lie.
• We struggled to make comments at the meetings on material that we’d never read. We maintained the lie.
• We didn’t do much public preaching, and even occasionally filled out time cards with false representations of time spent witnessing. We maintained the lie.
• Mom had literal mountains of novels with very graphic sexual content in them. We didn’t confront her about it, nor did we permit visitors to see them laying about. We maintained the lie.
• Dad (and mom, by implicit consent) would rent movies with the most explicit content that could be found in a Blockbuster and would hide them. We all knew. Hell, we watched most of them. We maintained the lie.

Ultimately, the only standard that we held ourselves to in the family was whether or not our secrets, indiscretions, or outright breaking of the rules ever became public knowledge. This is where my intense hatred and bitterness for “The Truth” comes from. “The Truth” is predicated on “The Lie”. “The Lie” is that we had any deep commitment to, passing interest in, or even casual respect for “The Truth”.

The only thing that is true about the faith adopted by this family is that the image of piety was more important than the healthy growth, development, or self-image of anyone in the family. Everything that was enjoyable about being is this family was expendable for the sake of what “people would think”.

Here is what I think now: Your faith, my faith of birth, the God of my youth, is nothing more than a cult. There are considerable resources written by extremely educated people who have identified signs and behaviors of cults that are dangerous and/or exert undue influence. 

Consider the following:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability
1. Every echelon of the hierarchy has no ability to question the level above it; Sheep cannot challenge elders, elders cannot challenge branches, branches cannot challenge the Society
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry
1. Anyone who questions teachings is called unfaithful, punished, and at worst expelled; See 9.e below
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement
1. Watchtower is an entity with over a billion dollars in holdings (based off of estimated values of just the Brooklyn real estate), yet has never been publicly audited, nor released financial statements to congregations; You don’t know what happens to your money and they don’t tell you; For giggles, research the Henriette M. Riley Trust fbo Watch Tower Bible and prepared to be amazed
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions
1. Not even going to bother with this; This has been the basis of every meeting I ever attended and a number of JW Broadcasts on jw.org
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil
1. Disfellowshipping, pure and simple; One may disassociate themselves, but since Governing Body Member Raymond Franz disassociated himself (and was then retroactively disfellowshipped) in the early 80’s, communication with disassociated persons is as strictly forbidden as disfellowshipped persons; Clearly, there is no legitimate way in which a person can officially stop being a Witness and not be shunned; Since the 2016 convention season, even inactive persons are now shunned
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances
1. You’d have to be willing to listen to apostates or unjustly disfellowshipped persons to know this; I will vouch for this phenomenon
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader
1. Again, you’d have to be willing to view apostate material to know the exceptionally well documented abuses carried out by the Society, which they will never openly admit to you, the congregants
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough"
1. The constant admonition to be better is as ubiquitous as song and prayer at a meeting
9. The group/leader is always right
1. Here is where things get really absurd; The Governing Body has modified doctrine incessantly since J.F. Rutherford assumed leadership in 1917; Anyone who disagrees is kicked out (see my comment about Raymond Franz), even if arguments are valid
2. The January 8, 1947 Awake magazine unequivocally calls excommunication (disfellowshipping) a pagan practice which is unbiblical, yet in 1952 the practice is ratified and in modern times is carried out approximately seventy-thousand times each year by Jehovah’s Witnesses
3. The 1914 doctrine has been modified several times
1. It originally started out as the “end” of the period of trouble, which was calculated to be 1874; proved false
1. Calculated by taking measurements of the Great Pyramid of Giza (not kidding)
2. Revised to 1914 in the 1910 edition of Thy Kingdom Come with corrected Pyramid measurements
3. Changed to the beginning of end times, Jesus’ return, when Rutherford published it in Golden Age 1930 p.503; Through 1929, it was held that Jesus returned in 1874
4. 1914 is still clung to, but now incorporates the ‘overlapping generations’ since God’s inspiration to the Anointed was apparently misinterpreted repeatedly
4. 607 BCE is historically inaccurate as the date of Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon; Archaeological records of secular and astronomical events discovered in Babylon easily identify the date of Jerusalem’s overthrow being in 587 BCE
1. Witnesses openly criticize the accuracy of historians Barosus and Ptolemy when they disagree with Witness chronology, but freely cite them when they support Witness chronology
2. Witnesses openly reject both archeological and scientific evidence that conflicts with 607 because it’s the only way to make 1914 work with the prophecy of Daniel, a conclusion that started life as the ravings of a numerologist / pyramidologist as described in 9.c.i.1,2 above
5. Watchtower Society Vice President Hayden Covington testified during the Douglas Walsh trial in Scotland (1954) that dissent was grounds for disfellowshipping, even if the doctrine was proved false; See below:
1. 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.
6. But good luck questioning any of that...
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible
1. This is pretty simple; If it didn’t come from the governing body, you’re instructed to treat it as a lie
2. Even vetted and documented court cases are called lies

Having come full circle on this issue, place everything above in a cohesive context. There is but a single theme. Your are collectively devoted to an idea that you are not willing to question, but also not willing to respect. That singular paradigm is what you believe can make a person happy, and that is incorrect. 

Pontius Pilate washed his hands of Jesus' blood, as I also wash my hands of this. What you pursue for the rest of your days will be your account settle, and yours alone. I am no longer answerable to your assertions that you are Godly and I am not. You have a form of Godliness, but continually prove false to its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

While you will find yourselves at the doctrinal crossroads of shunning me and claiming it to be love, I will love you without the need to cut ties. In this letter, I have spoken unadulterated truth and my conscience is clear. I can only hope that yours is as well.

Sincerely,

In Memoriam

Tonight will mark the celebration of Nisan 14, the traditional Jewish observation of the Passover. For the Bible literate, this was the manifestation of the tenth plague on Egypt wherein the firstborn of each family was slaughtered by an angel of Jehovah. That is, of course, unless one marked their door posts with the blood of a lamb, in which case their household was "passed over".

It's a dark tale in which the Hebrew God again murders people for his own glorification and cosmic chest beating. This time, however, the victims are largely children and cows. Ascribe whatever psychological complex makes you feel best.

As a practice, Jews kept this observation annually. Roman Catholics, upon codifying the bible and sanctioning Christianity as a state religion, turned it into a practice held with every Mass. This has traditionally been observed through the consumption of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and wine. Unless you're one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Once a year for more than twenty, I would sit and listen to a discourse on the merits of Jesus' sacrifice. Wine and bread would be passed for me to observe, but not partake of. In fact, there were very few times that I ever saw anyone eat or drink during the proceedings. Those were the special ones. The Anointed. The only ones in my faith of birth that had an actual heavenly hope, and therefore any right or responsibility to partake.

It was our only holiday. The holiest of our holies. Tonight, I will not observe it.

That may seem overly dramatic since I haven't observed it in close to fifteen years. Over that time the pang of distress has weakened. The first year I did not attend, I drove into the parking lot of a local Kingdom Hall to pray for forgiveness as I looked upon the full moon. I was almost moved to tears over my transgression. Almost.

Each year since has been marked with less and less angst. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the feeling of complete absurdity over listening to substantially the same discourse, and merely looking upon wine and bread meant to represent the blood and body of Christ. How utterly pointless...

As with many aspects of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this was a practice in conformance. If a Witness were to miss any single meeting in the year, it had best not be this one. Repetition be damned, it was the only day Christians were commanded to keep. For some Witnesses, it was the only one kept. People you might never otherwise see would appear at the Lord's Evening Meal. It was that ingrained.

The recently released Convention Program for 2016 carries a deplorable overuse of the word "loyalty" and its variants. Every symposium that Witnesses will hear, and every stand-alone talk, will deal with this theme. It is literally becoming their mantra.

As with most discussion about cults, it's important to understand that their doctrine is not open for scrutiny. Loyalty is expected and enforced with respect to that doctrine. Progressive evolution of doctrine can only originate within the top levels of the organizational structure. Opposition of that structure or their doctrine is not permitted, hence the absurd emphasis on loyalty in the coming Convention season.

Meeting attendance is down. Growth is stagnating. Financial practices are becoming extremely conservative. And those are just the tangible metrics. I would not find it surprising to see that a) memorial attendance is unremarkable, or that b) more people are recorded to partake in the bread and wine tonight.

The number of supposed Anointed left in the world was once thought to be a good barometer of our proximity to Armageddon. Since the doctrine of the Last Days and their relation to 1914 have changed in the last few years, solidarity has begun to waver, and why I find the Convention program to be comically tragic. The bleeding of this organization needs to be staunched if it's to survive very long. Tonight will be very telling in how effective their measures have been.

Those not in attendance will surely be looked upon with pity as the rest look upon wine and wafers and remember something that may not have happened as depicted. It's arguable that the gospel accounts upon which Christianity and the Gentile observation of Jewish tradition are based were even recorded in the presence of the men after whom they were named. But that's a discussion for another time.

For my part, I will keep remembrance tonight of my years in a divisive and oppressive religion. I will remember that of the ten key characteristics of dangerous cults, they meet every single one. I will remember that my family will shun me if they ever learn my true beliefs. I will remember twenty-two years of thinking that there was no way to please the God of my youth, and that my only means of measuring that was the impossible-to-attain approval of His followers.

I will not go tonight because I wish to forget.

No, it's because I remember that I will not attend.

Tolerance, a (Sometimes) Dirty Word

I am a Quality Professional in my vocation. It's not something I love, but it has its curiosities. While it's of little interest to people in the consumer world, except at the warranty level, it has a great deal to do with how they live their lives and the reliability of the accouterments they employ. 

Engineers and designers often establish manufacturing tolerances (acceptable deviations from nominal values) to dictate how much slop they can accept and still have the construct work as intended. They are generally divided into Minor, Major, and Critical categories. The higher one escalates, the greater the chance of failure being catastrophic. Keep that in mind the next time your mechanic says that your brakes need replacing. 

Tolerance has also been used to express the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, religious views, political positions, ad infinitum. This is generally considered an admirable quality and paints people who are 'tolerant' as amenable to circumstances in which they would rather not participate. Whatever context is falls into, it encompasses the quality of knowing that there is a finite and accepted value for something, that it has not been met, and is still acceptable. Keep this thought in mind for the following.

A new story is emerging from the UK about Harry Holt. This grandfatherly looking chap to the right was an elder for many years. It has recently come to public attention (I emphasize 'public' because Watchtower was quite aware for many years) that Mr. Holt had sexually molested young women from his congregation throughout his life. He appeared before a judicial committee to face the accusation from one of his victims. He admitted to his dealings and was removed as an elder. Sometime later, it appears that he was reappointed to the position.

As the years progressed, he molested more girls, but it is only recently that he has been found out and is facing secular prosecution for his actions. The charges include crimes that span four decades.

Accusations have become almost commonplace among Jehovah's Witnesses. Predictable stories of child abusers facing only the lightest of punishments are punctuated by the rather comical assertion from Watchtower that it abhors the crime and sin of child abuse and does not cover it up.

Okay, I'll play along. Let's say that Watchtower doesn't cover up child abuse. I their October, 2012 Letter to Elders, Watchtower directed all elders learning of child abuse accusations to contact the Watchtower Legal Department for advice. This advice would expressly include information on mandatory reporting requirements for their locality. It should be noted that this letter has been removed from most public sources after Watchtower cited copyright infringement. However, it is not hard to find and it is troubling. 

Additionally, congregational audits that were to be conducted by December 31, 2015 included instructions on the destruction of Elders' personal notes about 'particular individuals', except those added to the congregation file. To their marginal credit, the Elders' manual (Shepherd the Flock of God, 2010 (abbreviated ks10)) does instruct in Chapter 2, p16 that reports of child abuse, proved or not, "should be placed in congregation's confidential file and marked "Do Not Destroy" and kept indefinitely". This unfortunately loses all credibility when you reach Chapter 5, p39 where they are instructed that if the accused denies allegations (even in the presence of the accuser), or the accused or accuser declines to meet with elders and there are no other witnesses to the alleged crime, the matter is dismissed and left to Jehovah. 

I temper the following paragraph by citing ks10 Chapter 12, p19 which says that reporting child abuse to authorities is the victim's "absolute right" and it should not be suggested otherwise. However, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to establish that this advice is not always followed. 

Child abuse, however, in every measurable way, is a felony and deserving of a proper investigation by trained and legal authorities. By not reporting it to authorities, or by suggesting that "personal disputes" not be placed in front of secular authorities (ks10 12:22), they are implicitly tolerant of it. They know, without doubt, that it is a behavior that does not meet the established criteria (i.e. criminally offensive) and have explicit instructions on how to accept it.

Inasmuch as Elders are completely intolerant of multitudes of other non-criminal behaviors, their continued tolerance of crimes against children is genuinely baffling. As entire government entities begin to investigate mishandling of child abuse by Watchtower, we will begin to see more defensive behaviors. Time will tell how great the lengths they will go to to defend their corporation will be. I imagine it will be extensive and insufficiently humble. 

Previously I mentioned tolerance as necessitating and understanding of the finite and accepted value for something. There are few who would deviate from the finite and accepted value for child abuse being absolute zero. It is despicable to think that there is any community leader, religious or otherwise, who would not seek prosecution of crime against a child to its fullest extent.

This meets every conceivable definition of a "critical failure". The exceptional reach and scope of damage that child abuse does is staggering. It is destructive to individuals abused, their families, their relationships, and often their own children. When any single victim is protected with every measure afforded to those in a position to help (Elders), the protection encompasses a multitude of people. 

Jesus said that "to the extent you did it to least of these my brothers, you did it to me". Every time Watchtower fails a child, they fail their Savior. 

Every time...

I wonder how long they would tolerate that?

Family Matters

My Grandpa George "Shug" Machuga...

I feel a particular pain in even writing his name. It's partly the pain of loss because of what he meant to me. It's also partly the pain of realization that his faith would have precluded me if given the opportunity.

That uncomfortably juxtaposes certain things that I've written about him, all of which are still true of course, but they all carry the caveat that they were conditional, contingent on faith. My faith, not to put too fine a point on it.

It's genuinely difficult to even explore this topic, but the harsh reality is that being a Witness was a complete commitment to him. I have to respect that, if nothing else. However, I don't have to feel good about it, and I won't.

My cousin pointed out to me in a conversation about her shared faith that, if George were still alive, I'd already be dead to him. This is a true statement. I can say with out bias or reservation that he would certainly feel this way. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he would take my dissent and free thought as apostasy. It is, of course, and this I don't contest.

Shunning would follow, which is in part why I don't share my complete thoughts with other family members. This hallmark of cult activity is one that I've been exposed to over and over without batting an eyelash. For some reason though (and it's quite clear to me why, but too difficult to voice), I find the admission that he would turn his back on me to be impossible to stomach with quiet dignity. Even so, I cannot deny it would be absolute.

I remember the first time I was chastised for speaking, or attempting to speak, to a disfellowshipped person. His name was Bob Hauserman. He'd been disfellowshipped since before I had been born. If he's even still alive, I'm sure that he still is. He faithfully attended meetings with greater regularity than many who were in good standing. Exactly what his rift with the elders was, I'll never know.

On one Sunday, when I was about five years old, my family and I walked to the Kingdom Hall as our family car was not working and we only lived a few blocks away. We walked on one side of the street, and with no small sense of irony, Bob walked on the other. I didn't yet understand his status, but I knew his face. So I waved. He smiled back at me and said nothing. My mother explained, poorly, that I couldn't talk to him.

As I grew older, I began to understand what an abstraction that was. Nothing prevented me from actually speaking with him. There was no physical malady, magical force field, or kill-switch implant in my brain that would actually stop it from happening. It was the idea.

The lines painted on the roadway and the lights at intersections operate in the same way. They are only effective if they are observed and we respect the ideas they are meant to represent. The boundary between you and a traffic accident is imaginary. So is the divide that separates Witnesses from Apostates. Parents from children. Brother from sister. Me from my grandfather.

Unfortunately, I don't have any way to frame this except as a mental handicap. Being unable to recognize a viewpoint alone as one's proof of impossibility is called a 'intellectual scotoma'. Scotoma is a Greek word that means 'blind spot' or alteration in a area of one's field of vision. The concept of intellectual scotoma has been demonstrated by psychological experiments in which people under hypnosis receive the suggestion that common objects are impossibly heavy. Under this suggestion, they find themselves unable to move them even though there is no mechanical reason they cannot. Their brains, however, convinced of their physical inadequacy, counteract productive muscle movements to create the effect that is expected. Thus, the blind spot becomes the malady that prevents action, rather than anything tangible.

Whether this is a cognitive choice or not is something of a debate. However, the Effect cannot be overstated. I, a human being of descent from the bloodline of Machuga, am a real person. I am of the same temperament, mental acumen, and moral fabric as I have ever been. To have been blocked by the intellectual scotoma of religious indoctrination did not diminish me in any way. That I am less because of my philosophical disposition is an abstraction. A fault laden abstraction.

It cuts me to the bone that a man I love(d) so much could be so myopic as a matter of choice. But that is how he would be. Of that I have no doubt. To me, family matters in the same way it did when I was a child. I was taught to love freely and to forgive plentifully. I didn't learn that there were qualifying conditions until much later, and as such, I feel it was a bit of a bait-and-switch.

I learned to love the people I did without exception, and once I was completely comfortable that I was indispensable, as much as they were to me, I found out that I would have to keep that faith or risk losing everything I knew. I, ME, Aaron Machuga, was not the object of intrinsic value. It was my belief. My faith was the only thing to which the people that I loved would be enamored.

I was not part of the equation, except as a vehicle for that which they desired. In that respect, I am no more than a vessel. Spiritual tupperware.

I value myself more than that.

I value myself more than that.

The Cost of Ownership

"Make the truth your own," they would say.

It was a line from a song that Witnesses used to sing. It became a mantra of encouragement that was hauntingly beautiful when a stadium of brothers and sisters sang it out. In those moments, it was easy to feel zeal and passion for Jehovah's Organization. In those moments, it was almost possible to see the very thing that you were led to believe that everyone else in that room had.

Almost.

I felt closest after I was baptized in the summer of  '95. I had just turned 15 and would be a Junior in high school the following year. In Springfield, Illinois, I answered the two questions everyone gets asked while I stood beside my friend Vince. We filed out to change our clothes and I eventually made my way to the pool. In front of the four-thousand or so attendees that stayed to watch the baptism, I took a dunk. It was the closest I would ever feel to owning the truth, and it was fleeting.

I was compliant on paper. I gave talks and went in service. It was a full year, however, before my book study conductor ever asked me to offer an opening or closing prayer. Even then, it was only after I'd been called upon by another elder and had mentioned it to my conductor while out in service. Truthfully, he almost sounded surprised.

It was something I yearned for, honestly. It was a benchmark for every baptized brother, to offer prayer for the congregation. Each week, I'd stare intently at Marty hoping that he'd call on me but he never did. Sometimes he'd take a long pause as if he were considering it, but would then move on.

I started to feel a bit defeated as time went on. I'd done what I was asked and encouraged to do. I made a good showing. So what was wrong with me?

I began counting up the toll it was taking on me to reach out for the miasma of owning the Truth. I had already entered into a legally unenforceable (being a minor of course) contract to represent the Watchtower Society. I had given up my free time to pursue Kingdom interests. I had surrendered my personal growth and development to be a Witness. My dignity also seemed to be expendable as I had become a dog cowering for attention.

The attention eventually came in fits and spurts. I offered prayers. I ran the sound booth. I read for book studies. I almost had what I'd been told I wanted, but I had to admit that it was coming at the cost of every level of personal identity and cognitive objectivity.

The straw that broke the camel's back, as they say, came in the fall of 1997. I had just graduated high school and had fallen in love with a girl from my class. We were completely taken with each other and I had risked a lot of reprisal to be with her. Keeping that part of my life secret enough to avoid a Judicial Committee, yet believable enough to seem genuinely Watchtower-grade Christian, was a balancing act that had real consequences for my health. She did accept my stance of only marrying another Witness, though. A debt that I can't ever repay.

Despite enormous stress from every side but hers, she studied and was baptized. During her studies, her teachers Christina Brown and Lisa Kinealy openly questioned her as to whether she though I was spiritually strong enough to accept prison instead of military service if the Government instituted a draft. At what point did it become acceptable to question the integrity of a baptized person as part of the teaching process of another? Particularly of one for whom they had no cause for reproach or reproof?

That angered me deeply. But I kept my head up despite the intense pain of realizing that I could be compliant with every measure of success and still be inadequate.

Time passed and my future wife was baptized at the Convention the following summer. I still knew that there was little to no acceptance of the fact that I would begin dating my to-be wife, but we proceeded anyway. Again, we followed (most of) the rules and made sure no one had a legitimate reason to complain. I already knew I wanted to marry her, so I proposed and she accepted.

On a Friday night, I sat watching television with my parents and wringing my hands in anxious anticipation. I was about to tell them my plans and I didn't know how they would react. As the night drew to a close, they turned off the TV and I told them there was something I needed to discuss. I delivered the news simply and factually. No elaboration. No flare.

My mother shook her head with emphatic denial of what I'd just said and my father simply stated, "you have no rights to her body."

This is how the announcement of my engagement, which should be a happy time for parents and their children, went down. With ridicule and, effectively, spiritual reproof. My mother wailed and lamented "what will the congregation think". She wasn't even pregnant... they'll think we're getting married.

What followed was a blur, but no more encouraging or supportive. Another cost counted. The toll had become excessive by my estimation. I'd gladly pawned my dignity, had my respect undermined, and been chastised for following every rule I'd been given without so much as a clarifying question. The only thing left to do was to finish what I had started.

Wedding planning proceeded even though we asked and had been turned down by three Elders and one Ministerial Servant when looking for someone to marry us. I had never been close to anyone in the congregation, so even finding a best man was a struggle. And while I was already certain that the Watchtower held nothing for me, I trudged onward with my compliance. I smiled. I did the work. At long last, I had finally lost all of my sincerity.

With the wedding done and marital bliss well under way, we began to fade. It wasn't anything intentional or deliberate, of course. We were simply more interested in each other than the Truth. Without even a slight interest in debunking anything about Witness beliefs, we simply ceased to care. Every aspect of our courtship was tainted by some aspect of being a Witness, or the people who carried it out. There was no way for us to be a married couple AND incorporate being a Witness.

I had lost every measure of self respect. She had endured the turmoil of adopting a faith that freely questioned the character of her husband. I now had the debt of requiring that of her just for the burden of saying "I do" in front of two-hundred and forty people who were predominantly there for a free meal and Bud Light on tap.  I couldn't even love my parents the same way anymore.

Sorry, God. I'm tapped out. Wallet's dry. Nothing left to give.

I can't even live a normal life these days. When I share my past with anyone, they look at me with a measure of pity, as if I'm defective. Conversations with my parents always carry the risk of an invitation to return. Seeing a person that I once knew from the Hall may have the same risk. Twenty years are a suspect void of pain and a desire to belong to something that wouldn't have me. I'd rather forget it, truthfully.

Twenty years that are better written off and can't be relived...

What's that worth?