Appeal Committee
Meeting
of
James Caputo

My purpose
for publishing my judicial committee meetings is not to establish my innocence
or to "expose" another person's culpability. It is, however, to reveal how a
mechanistic and unquestioning mode of thinking can greatly impair one's ability
to exercise justice - causing one to resort to dishonest and irrational
argumentation.
I do not question the
general character of the elders who judged my case. I might have displayed a
similar lack of charity seven
years ago. I'm quite sure that these same men in any other circumstance would be
perfectly lucid in their reasoning and equitable in their dealings. Having been
raised as a Jehovah's Witness I understand why they made the decision they did.
I therefore harbor no r for them personally.
I am quite certain,
however, that no impartial jury in the free world would ever sustain the
verdict of this body of men. After considering the contents of this case, I
believe it will be obvious to the discerning reader why such trials are held
behind closed doors.
This particular trial
reveals how even in the face of devastating evidence, Jehovah's Witnesses are
loyal to their fundamental teaching that the Watchtower acts as a unique channel
of communication between God and mankind.
It also sheds a glaring light on the religious intolerance and ecclesiastical
tyranny that result from such a false concept.
Dialogue - Normal
Font
Bible Quotes - Indented and
Italicized
Watchtower Quotes - Indented
and Bolded
Parenthetical comments are made throughout
to
indicate
who was saying what to whom and to describe gestures or the spirit in which a
particular thought was expressed.
[OBSERVATION]
Publishing this hearing on the Internet has generated a
considerable interest in Jehovah's Witness apologetics. I have since received
countless emails from around the world requesting my comments on the Jehovah's
Witness mind-set and rationale. In response to such inquiries I have included
highlighted notes on particular patterns of false reasoning and argumentation
that I found worthy of observation. It should be noted, however, that specious
argumentation is not exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses nor is religious
intolerance. This "spirit of intolerance" has affected Christianity for two
thousand years and has resulted in the fragmentation of Christ' body into some
22,000 sects.
Some emails I received on my judicial
hearings
[IMPORTANT] In
an effort to educate those unfamiliar with Watchtower doctrine, I have explained
some key doctrines and important differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and
Evangelical Christians as they come under discussion throughout the case. In so
doing, I am not indirectly identifying myself as an Evangelical - that is, a
member of an evangelical church or party. I consider myself fiercely
non-denominational.
When
anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his
part and a humiliation.
- Proverbs 18:13 NWT

The Charge
Apostasy, Promoting a Sect
The evidence
A private conversation in Tokyo,
Japan in which I spoke critically of some Watchtower teachings and past
Watchtower leaders.
Brother "M" :
We’re going to rehear the case. So we asked Brother "C" who is from the Meriden
area and Brother "M2" to come rehear the case now. I probably should tell you at
the outset, I know these brothers have talked back and forth (with you) about
differences of opinion and so forth… and I don’t know that we want to get into a
lot of discussion along those lines. But we do want to hear your thoughts, all
right?
James: Ok.
Brother "M" :
And we do want to hear why you appealed. Well, we have your letter. You’re a…
you look like a very articulate person and I’m sure that we rather hear it from
you. But before we even get into all that…Jim uh… Brother "C" doesn’t know you.
The only thing I knew about you before was that you’re a very famous singer.
James: (Joking) Not that famous…world famous
in New Haven.
Brother "M" :
(Laughing) Brother "M2" knows you but Brother "C" and I really don’t. Could you
start out first and just tell us your background…How you got the truth, that
kind of thing so we can know you a little bit better?
James:
Actually that’s exactly how I wanted to start. I was raised as a Jehovah’s
Witness. My parents were Catholics and came into the organization in the late
fifties. So I never did much with the teachings…sort of like an inactive kid. At
the age of twenty-three I realized that I needed to change around my life and
started to read the Bible very seriously... and did so for two years... and did
change my life from (the age of) twenty-three on. I am thirty-one years old
now.
And so after two years of studying the Bible I had
gone to San Francisco for an opera internship. While I was out there I met a
very nice Brother. I was attending some meetings. I met a very nice Brother
named Brother Garrett who really befriended me. He was like a father figure. At
that time I wasn’t very close to my father. Through befriending me…he made it
very clear…he said, "you know Jim you love the Bible, you’re life is good, it’s
clean. You express an interest for spiritual things…don’t you think you should
get baptized?" I said, "well you know…I would like to get baptized, I see that
that’s in the scriptures. People believed and they were baptized." However I was
sort of between a rock and a hard place. I felt that with my profession I wasn’t
your cookie-cutter Jehovah’s Witness because I was traveling a lot. But none the
less I felt the necessity to get baptized. And was very happily baptized. I came
home from San Francisco, studied with Brother Smole from our congregation and
decided to get baptized…and was baptized seven or eight months after that.
Brother "M" :
Forgive me, I’m a little slow.
(Brother "M" says "I'm a little slow" when he
wants to take notes or gather incriminating evidence. "Help me/us to
understand" is also a favorite. He was anything but "slow!")
So you studied the Bible for a couple of years,
you went out to San Francisco. This brother said to you…well have you thought
about getting baptized? And then you came back here and for seven or eight
months studied with Brother Smole and then you got baptized?
James: Right.
Exactly. I Literally got baptized on a Saturday in Monroe and that Monday moved
to San Francisco where I would live for a year. I associated with the Burlingame
congregation, a very warm congregation. Brother Garrett was a wonderful father
figure to me. I can’t complain about the way he treated me. He was very loving.
I was very active with the Witnesses. I was very
sincere with the Witnesses. I loved being a Witness. I loved the Bible. During
the year that I was out there I had made a statement to two close friends on
separate occasions that I didn’t believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses were doing a
separating work. I felt that the scriptures showed that the nature of the
separating work is something that pierces so deeply into the kidneys…the
motivating force of someone…and that just a presentation of the magazines at the
door couldn’t really be considered a "separating"… and that Jesus would come
with his reapers at the end of the age to do that. That would be with the
angels. And they said "oh yes but the society teaches that we do a separating
work." I said, "I really don’t see that in the scriptures." But I believed
enough of the things of the Witnesses and was friends with them... so that it
wasn’t really a problem.
I moved back a year later and when the separating
doctrine changed my friend called me and said "my god you were right about
that." And I said well it’s not a big deal, I just saw it clearly in the
scriptures. My friend said "but it was in the Watchtower." I said I think
that if in your heart you see the Bible teaching one thing and the Watchtower
says something else, I would go with what the scriptures say. She said, "you
can’t go out of the channel." I said, I’m not going ahead of "the channel" I
just think those words (those of Jesus) were penned two thousand years ago and I
think that channel (Jesus Christ) communicated that truth to us.
Word started going around in San Francisco. I don’t
know if some of you have done circuit work out there but it’s very very "tight."
The Witnesses are black and white, (concerning "apostasy") in and out.
(Concerning disfellowshipping) When I came back here to Connecticut I was with
some close friends from Boston. We were going to a party in Delaware. They were
complaining about the elder arrangement and what not. Everyone was sort of "cavetching"…
(Yiddish slang for trifling) nothing serious. I mentioned that I don’t see in
the Bible that it’s scriptural that everyone should go door to door. There was a
Bible in the car and I said look at Romans 12... it says that we’re many parts
(members) in the body and every part has different gifts and different
functions. Even Ephesians said:
"some as evangelizers."
Paul shows the body…the Christian congregation
working with different functions. And my friend said to me "that’s what the
apostates say." Brother Garrett had talked a lot about "apostates." I never
knew anything about them. He (my friend from Boston) said, "well that’s what
apostates say." I said I’m quoting (The Apostle) Paul, are you calling Paul an
apostate? He asked, "do you feel strongly about that?" I said yes. That was
that. I lost my friends in Boston over that conversation.
Following that Brother Garrett called me from San
Francisco and said Jim we have to talk. Did you claim that even if the Bible
says one thing and the Watchtower is preaching something else then you
should adhere to the Scriptures? He said, "Brother you’re like a son to me and
I’ve been a witness for fifty-five years and I can tell you, between friends
like you and I, we can discuss these things...but we can’t discuss these things
with other people." I said, "but Brother Garrett it’s in the Bible." He was
really like a dad to me. I said, I don’t understand doesn’t God’s word prevail
over any uninspired man’s writings? He said, well Jim that’s just the way it is.
Then he said, "heck, Jim look, in the Bible it says: "some as evangelists"
and yet all of us have to go door to door!"
I remember a cold sweat coming over me. My mouth
was just wide open. I said, I wasn’t crazy about that. This brother who has been
in the organization for years and has a very good rapport with the governing
body…he’s sees that in the scriptures too. (That it is unscriptural to demand
all to formally evangelize)
He had mentioned to me in that conversation that
the "apostates" were going crazy over the generation change. I remember that
that was something that really bothered me too. I thought to myself: the
Witnesses have put that in the masthead of the Awake as the "Creator’s
Promise." That was the purpose of the Awake to inspire hope in the
promise of the Creator that the generation of 1914 wouldn’t pass away until all
those events had taken place. That bothered me. It pricked my conscience that he
was calling people "apostates" who had taken the same position with the things
that perturbed me. They were being called "apostates." I saw that I was
(considered) an "apostate" as well for mentioning what (the apostle) Paul said
when he (Brother Garrett) verified my words.
Right after that point I was in Sarasota Florida...
and he called me. I was singing. (At the Opera House) In all honesty I was
really struggling with my faith....not faith in God and Christ, but really
struggling with my faith in the Watchtower because of those things... but I saw
a lot of good. I think I brought that out last week to Brother "D." I see
wonderful things in the Watchtower and I love Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Getting back
to my testimony)
I met a woman in Florida, she was ninety-three
years old...a sister. She called me up and said, "I want to go to the opera and
I want to take you to the Kingdom Hall." I wasn’t really going to meetings. I
was really struggling. I said, "ok I’ll go with you." I drove with this sister
to the Kingdom Hall. I said, (to her) "how long have you been a witness?" She
said, "I was born into the organization." I said, "my god you were born into the
organization? Your father must have been a witness?" She said, "he was but he
didn’t die as a witness." And I said "why is that?" And she answered, "well,
when 1914 fell through he had sold everything, and many of the brothers around
the world had committed suicide because of the failure of 1914."
I had always gone door to door and told people that
we knew 1914 was the end of the gentile times but we weren’t sure exactly what
would happen. That’s what I preached...because colleagues that were Christians
in various opera houses where I would work would say to me, "Witness are false
prophets." I would vehemently and vigorously debate that that was not the case.
I asked the sister, "you’re telling me that we predicted the end of the world?"
"Absolutely!" She said, "you know what? The society doesn’t want anyone to know
how severe it was. That’s why my husband ended up leaving the organization. He
left with almost no faith in God whatsoever."
So I came home and at this point I was completely
a mess... and I went to my father who was good friends with a man named Steve
Suraci... in West Haven. (To Brother "M2") Do you know Steven? He’s a nice man,
a nice gentleman. He’s a Bible Student straight from 1916...Russellite. He looks
at Russell like he’s God. I met with him. I said, "Steven"…(starting another
thought) they love Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe God has used them in a
mighty way.
IMPORTANT :
While the Dawn Bible Students believe God has used the society in a mighty
way to accomplish his will, the Watchtower unblushingly refers to them as "The
Evil Slave Class." This they do despite the fact that they and the Dawn Bible
Students share virtually the same cardinal beliefs.
I said "Steve I want you to level with me. I know
you love Russell, but I’m at a crossroads in my life and I want to know, did
Russell predict the end of the world for 1914." (Responding) "Yes he did." "Did
brothers commit suicide around the world?" (Responding) "Yes they did." And when
that happened to me…(Getting emotional) I hope I’m communicating my sincerity to
you brothers. When that happened to me, my world collapsed.
And I said at that point, I want to look into this
(The Watchtower’s) history because there are things I don’t know about their
history. When I looked into the history of the Watchtower…and I bought the
volumes (from 1879 onward) and I went through all the books…and I found someone
who had the Finished Mystery… well this completely ruined what I had believed. I
don’t know what to tell you, but the prophecies that I read with these Brothers
(The Elders from the first meeting) last week... while they might see those
things as "adjustments" and "clarifications" I can’t with a good conscience see
what God says about a false Prophet and what Jesus Christ’s words say about
future false prophets who will claim that he is in a hiding place or in the
desert unbeknownst to mankind…I cannot look at those things and say my
organization is not guilty of that. (Meaning false prophecy) I have to put God
and his standards above what (The Watchtower) people claim. I expected a
Catholic to do it when I went to his door...and I expect a witness to do the
same...and if that’s "apostasy," then I’m an apostate.
Brother "M" :
Well we appreciate that. Is there something that you brothers…
Brother "C" :
Well just that the things that…you no longer believe
it’s the organization or it’s the true organization. You don’t feel that you’re
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses any more, is that it?
James: No, I
haven’t attended meetings in three years. It was at that point where I
completely discontinued my participation as a witness.
Brother "M2" : Jim if I may, I know the
brothers had, I guess showed you a letter from Brother "H" who lives out there
in California?
James: Yes.
Brother "M2" :
He lists some things that you supposedly… you talked
to him about. I guess you had an opportunity to go through that. To some (To
some of the accusations of the letter) you say, yeah this is the way I feel, to
some maybe not. There was a point in there about everyone going to heaven. How
do you feel about that? You know what the witnesses feel about a heavenly class
and an earthly class. You personally from your investigation of the scriptures,
how do you feel about that?
James: I
appreciate that. I feel that when reading the scriptures... and I don’t claim to
have any special interpretive skill in reading the Bible. But I do know that
since the age of twenty-three I would read he Bible a half hour every morning, a
half hour every night very prayerfully. I found that when I put down the
Watchtower and just read things (the Bible) contextually…letters as they were to
be read, as letters. (Epistles) I found the position of the witnesses untenable
from this point of view:
When Paul writes that there is one hope with one
calling in which all of you are called, those I believe are inspired words.
Jesus prayed that people would believe on their (the apostles) word in his last
prayer (John 17:20). I believe on that word, and I believe that that’s speaking
to me. Why I don’t believe what the witnesses believe? It’s (For) the simple
fact that the man who declared that the one hope in which all Christians were
called was no longer in function, was a man by the name of Joseph Rutherford. In
studying the body of his work…and I have studied the body of his work quite
diligently, I don’t feel that man was inspired of God nor had the authority to
change scripture… to at a certain point just arbitrarily say, well the inspired
word says this, but as an uninspired man…(Expressing another thought) and none
of the Watchtower leaders claim to be inspired…(Returning to the former thought)
but as an uninspired man, that calling is no longer in effect. Now there’s a New
Hope! And based on Paul’s words that if anyone, even an angel from heaven should
come and declare good news beyond that from what you have heard from us as good
news, let that angel be condemned.
IMPORTANT : Jehovah's
Witnesses know very little about the evolution of their theology. The entire
process of how the organization officially establishes doctrine, is at best,
very hazy to them. Putting a face and name on the particular WT leader who
introduced a unique tenet can be very helpful to a Witness in that it can reveal
that the same WT leader who formulated their cherished belief was invariably
guilty of propounding many erratic doctrines. If one can help a Witness to
identify the highly fallible leader as the source of the doctrine and not God ,
the JW will possibly reconsider the trustworthiness and validity of the
teaching.
And so my position is, Paul who is invested with
this incredible ministry, the ministry of reconciliation, and the ministry of
teaching that hope...And was revealed his message by Jesus Christ according to
Galatians 1...He didn’t go into communion with flesh over what he learned, but
it was revealed by Jesus. (That is he didn’t learn it from a human agency) What
uninspired man can claim a revelation beyond that of Jesus Christ given to Paul
about the one hope?
Brother "M2" :is there anyone going to stay
on the earth?
James:
(Chuckling) You know what Brother "M2", I don’t have all the answers.
It’s interesting, there’s a man I listen to on the radio. He’s called "the Bible
answer man."
Brother "M2" : He’s evidently not a witness
he’s just a Bible reader like yourself?
James: No he’s
not a witness, he’s a Bible scholar. People call up and ask him questions...and
they were asking him what about the heavens, what about the new earth… what
about this and what about that? Two years ago when I was listening to him he
said, "I’m not ready to answer that. I’m studying different constructs of what
people believe and certain scholars." (Believe)
Two years later, just last week he said, "I’m still
very reticent to give a comment on exactly how I feel about that." He said,
"anything we say about what is to come in the future, we will prophesy
partially about all of those things. But what we do know in the light of
scripture… anything that is substantial has to out weigh that which is someone’s
opinion (conjectural) or someone just putting the scriptures together in their
own way."
What I see in the scriptures as a body of Christian
teaching…I don’t see Paul... and I think I explained this last week, I don’t see
Paul and his associates when speaking of the Kingdom of God…(Trying to find the
right words) their expressions about the Kingdom of God were not in the sense of
"this beautiful paradise earth." (That which JW’s emphasize to their neighbors)
We (Jehovah’s Witnesses) show people pictures of people playing Volleyball and
petting animals. Paul said I seek to know nothing but Christ and him impaled...
And I feel the same way. I, from my own study have gotten to the point where
that means everything. (The sacrificial death of Christ) If you can show people
that they have fallen from a good relationship with God and that Jesus Christ
has paid the price for their sins and to put faith in that name.
Brother "M2" : I know you had mentioned
about Joseph Rutherford. You feel that he really didn’t have the right to adjust
things in the scriptures as you had mentioned. How about the other presidents of
the society or prominent ones… if we can refer to them as that in Jehovah’s
organization? That was not the only thing that there has been an adjustment on.
IMPORTANT:
Some Jehovah's Witnesses such as this elder will openly admit that prominent WT
leaders have indeed "adjusted things in the scriptures." While this might
startle a Christian, The Witnesses' belief in post-biblical revelation allows
for these "adjustments." In fact, such "adjustments" in the scriptures are seen
as God's active involvement in the organization.
James: Well
along the same lines…(To Brother "D") do they have my papers that I had last
week? (The false prophesies)
Brother "D" :
Yes
James: Along
those lines, I believe a person’s credentials and claimed authority to make such
an "adjustment" should be weighed in the balance of the evidence and the proof
that they speak for God and they act as a "channel of communication." I believe
the study that I’ve done…(referring to the False Prophesy) and that’s just
scratching the surface, that those men were not in that position.
[False Prophesies]
Also going back to Galatians chapter 1... when were
Paul’s words…I don’t understand this, and I ask a sincere question if anyone has
an answer to it... when were Paul’s words to be updated? In other words if Jude
says to make a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time
delivered to the holy ones, then why would it have to be re-scripted? Why would
new factors, new elements, new aspects of it have to be brought out? (In terms
of the nature of the Kingdom) I don’t understand that. I don’t see it in the
scriptures.
Brother "M" :
(Not answering me) Forgive me Jim I’m a little slow. Bob asked you a
question before I got the answer to the question before. I was writing. So what
your saying is you believe that all individual…their hope is heaven.
James: I
believe the Bible teaches that people who put their faith in Christ have that
hope.
OBSERVATION:
That this statement can be remotely viewed as "apostate" evidences how far
the Watchtower has deviated from the Christian New Covenant. Could you imagine a
council being formed in the first century because someone among the brothers had
asserted in a private conversation that all those who put their faith in Christ
have the hope of glory and immortality in the presence of God The Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ? Better yet, could you imagine the apostles judging one an
apostate for such a confession of faith? This, however, (as clearly seen in this
case), is exactly what the Watchtower does today . The sheer irony of it all is
that the organization claims to have restored "true Christianity" which
supposedly was contaminated after the death of the apostles. History shows,
however, that this "hope of glory" was on the lips of the Christian martyrs of
the first centuries of Christianity.
Brother "M" :
As opposed to a paradise earth?
James: Right.
And I admit that I don’t have all the answers for the end times into the
thousand-year millennium.
Brother "M" :
It was not our intent to turn this into a Bible scholar pounding-the-table-type
of discussion. (No one was pounding the table)
All 6 Elders:
(Laughing)
Brother "M" :
Um…and you…and of course you know well enough how we feel. We appreciate the
comments that you make. You know we don’t agree with them obviously. But…we’re
here to understand how you feel and why you feel injustice was made as far as
you being disfellowshipped.
Are there other…and again we ask this question not
to go into debate. But are there other matters just so that we understand that
you do not agree with as far as Jehovah’s Witnesses are concerned?
IMPORTANT :
Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that the views of former members are
dangerous and not even worthy of discussion or refutation. Hence, Brother "M"s
trepidation to discuss or "go into debate" over the issues. In fact, there is
never a point in the meeting where any of the six elders attempt to encourage me
to readopt the Watchtower's teachings. Their purpose is not to make a defense of
the faith or draw back an erring brother, but to gather incriminating evidence.
James: Well
there are many matters that I do agree with. Like I said, I’m coming from a
different perspective because I’m studying the Bible by itself. I feel that many
of the claims by (of) the Watchtower, that being "the faithful and discreet
slave" are not realistic. (I meant true) I think they are assumed. But when
questions are asked to the validity of what they claim to be, those questions
cannot be answered. This evening I just ask five questions about "the faithful
slave." And this in all seriousness…when I was having a crisis in my life I
tried to speak to certain ones and I never got an answer. No one ever said well
yeah Jim, Paul did say this, there is "one hope" however the Bible shows
this... Especially Brother Garrett he just jumped down my throat and said those
apostates…and this and that! I knew I could never talk to him.
I spoke to another brother in the Branford
congregation, a very private conversation, a friend of the family. And we spoke
for a couple of hours and I showed him those prophecies that were not fulfilled
and that really stumbled me. He was just sort of…so what?... so what? That was
hard for me. Then I asked him these questions that I made up here about "the
faithful and discreet slave."
(Handing out six copies of questions and WT
photocopies to the elders)
Brother "M" :
(Referring to the papers from the prior meeting) Was that part of your package?
James: No. I
think these are sincere questions. Yet, none the less, I feel that I can’t get
answers. In asking this question to a brother, he just stared at me. (The
Brother I just referred to) He was a close friend to me.
Brother "M" :
Jim help us understand. As you well know there is a difference between a
person who doesn’t understand something and there’s a person who already has
come to a conclusion about it and has set his pattern of life. Based on the
things you have said right up to now it doesn’t look like you’re looking for
understanding. Am I correct in that statement?
James: It’s
correct in the sense that three years after the fact…(After leaving the
organization) I think I would go insane if I stayed on the edge tottering
between world views and theologies. I mean of course I’ve had to come to certain
conclusions. I’ve been by myself for three years. So while I am set in things I
do believe based in God’s word I’m not beyond where I won’t discuss something in
an open forum and respectfully.
Brother "M" :
But if I understand correctly and help me if I’m incorrect. If I
understand correctly there are certain areas like heaven that you are convinced
that that is in fact so?
James: For
Christians, yes I believe that.
Brother "M" :
We appreciate you being honest with us.
You know we’re…as an appeal committee it’s our charge to be as fair and to offer
you as much dignity as we can.
(Keep this in mind as you read on)
James: I
appreciate that.
Brother "M" :
If you feel that there’s ways that you just differ from us and those are just
inconvertible that
that’s the way you feel, well we respect that about you…you know, that’s how
you feel.
James: You
know what I don’t understand Brother "M" ? I don’t understand how…for example
when I was using the scriptures with these Brothers…and I love these brothers. I
don’t know Brother "M" to well…
Brother "M" : …he’s
the same.
All 6 Elders:
(Laughing uproariously)
James: The
Watchtower wrote a great article once in the sixties about having loyalty to
church over loyalty to God’s word. And for me looking at the principles set
forth in the Bible, Deuteronomy 18 about a prophet speaking something in the
name of Jehovah and it not coming to pass, Jesus Christ’ words about being
careful and warning us about false prophets. To me, for a person to look at
their own organization, (Inserting an idea) and that’s a thorny issue because
that touches home...that’s our organization...the same way a Catholic has that
loyalty.
To look at the history as we did last week…of
Russell saying: In 1881 we’ll all be in heaven. In 1914 the world will end. In
1915 it will end. In 1918 we’ll be glorified. 1925 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are
coming back. The forties, seventy-five, the prophecy about the generation…and
say that those are "clarifications"…especially in the manner in which those
statements were made. Millions of people will die from Christendom. The churches
will be devastated. Speaking of Beth Sarim saying: "all of the churches are
gnashing their teeth at the testimony of Beth Sarim and the prophets who are
shortly to return."
To look at those things and sort of play a
wordsmith game almost like we see Clinton doing, (At the time President Clinton
was equivocating over what the word "is" in the Monica Lewinski scandal) and say
those are "adjustments" not false prophecies.
IMPORTANT :
The Watchtower euphemistically refers to its failed prophecy as: errors,
mistakes, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, premature expectations,
mistakes in their understanding, matters on which corrections of viewpoint have
been needed, unrealized hopes, misplaced expectations, inaccurate concepts,
views in need of refinement, serious disappointments and formerly cherished
views. BUT NEVER FALSE PROPHESIES.
To listen to the words of Christ who says there
will be false prophets, who will say I’m in a hiding place, don’t believe them.
And Mr. Russell comes on the scene and says (in)…Zion’s Watchtower and Herald
of Christ’ Presence Christ is present from 1874 and teaches that for forty
years, he "heralds" that false date. (Actually fifty)
Yet when we read in the scriptures and it’s even
under the heading of "apostasy" (Reasoning book pg.36) about certain men whose
words have passed like gangrene…have spread like gangrene and that Hymenaeus and
Philetus are of that sort deviating from the truth because they taught that the
resurrection had occurred... So Hymenaeus and Philetus are of the sort to be
considered "apostates" but Russell isn’t? That to me is biased.
IMPORTANT :
Russell taught that the resurrection of "anointed Christians" took place in
1878. The Watchtower would go on to teach this for some five decades. In the
Watchtower's official apologetics manual -Reasoning From The Scriptures-
Hymenaeus and Philetus' premature declaration that the resurrection had taken
place is used as an example of first century apostasy. This appears in the
chapter entitled APOSTASY. Yet, as seen, the Watchtower's founder was guilty of
similar offense. Currently the Watchtower teaches that all "anointed" Christians
were resurrected in between the years 1918-1919. When an "anointed" witness dies
today, it is alleged that he is immediately resurrected.
All 6 Elders:
(Pregnant pause)
Brother "C" : (Completely ignoring
everything I just said) When you were…you probably didn’t do enough looking when
you were young. I had the advantage of seeing a lot of these things early and
having the material. I had to make the choice whether this was really the truth
or not. Whether you’re going to hitch yourself…or hitch your wagon to this
organization. When you did you got baptized with the agreement to be one of us.
A lot of these thing maybe you should of sort out after and made a firm
decision. I think a lot of the friends didn’t do that until something tests
them. And when they get tested they either stay in or they stay out.
The organization has set themselves up with a
pretty good structure so that we can speak in agreement at least...and that was
Paul’s admonition as well...and although we all might not really agree with
everything the society says at all times in everything, because we don’t
understand everything. We wait, we’re patient. We call it loyalty.
James: Does
God’s word stand…?
Brother "C" : (Interrupting me) We will
eventually find out. We’ll find out whether they were right or wrong on certain
subjects. We always admit that. The difference is we don’t call them a false
slave because they don’t intend to deceive us, but they give us the best they
can at the time. Probably if you did your research you read the material. The
society gave a pretty good answer on tacking back and forth, which the answer
for a lot of the apostates charge us for us. (He meant "apostates" i.e. former
witnesses, accuse them of changing their teachings) I read the Watchtower myself
being aware of a lot of material I get in the mail and the people I talk to and
I hear...but you make decisions in your life. Where you gonna go, which way?
James: When
you say
"tacking" do you mean going back to former views?
Brother "C" : Sometimes they’ve done that.
The society has gone back to some things they thought before. They went back and
forth with the elders as well. (The elder arrangement) But it’s a struggle to
try to establish truth, to stay within Jehovah’s arrangement of things.
I think like this fellow you’re talking to on the
radio that’s pretty much a lot of what we try to do as well…to give as clear and
distinct a message as you can.
(So what's the difference between them and "the
guy" on the radio?)
Are they going to change? Sure they’re going to
change. There are adjustments from time to time. Where do you want to be when
this is finally worked out. You know you’re making your choices that this is not
the organization. That’s what you’re ultimately saying, this is the false
prophet. This is not the one.
IMPORTANT :
How does the Watchtower justify this process of continual vacillation as
"tacking?" It does so by attributing each alteration in doctrine and policy to
Jehovah God's ever "increasing light." The following doctrinal example of
"tacking" suggests otherwise:
Will the men of Sodom be resurrected? WT 7/1879, p.8-YES!...
WT6/1/52, p.338-NO!...WT 8/1/65 p.479-YES! ...WT 6/1/88, p.31-NO!...Live
forever, early editions, p.179-YES!...Live forever, later editions,
p.179-NO!...Insight, Vol. 2, p.985-YES!...Revelation, p.273-NO! Is
the light getting brighter or is it blinking?
James: Last
week one of the brothers, I won’t point him out. At the end of the discussion it
(he) ended that the Watchtower when it comes to false prophecy is above the
principles of God. Does everyone believe that’s true?
Brother "C" : I don’t understand what that
means "above the principles of God."
James: In
other words if the Bible sets forth what a false prophet is and the Watchtower
has false prophecy…
Brother "D" :
You specifically asked the Brother when you presented your information, would
you say the Watchtower is a false prophet? He said no. That’s what you’re
referring to.
James: Right.
And then I asked, is the Watchtower above the principles of false prophecy? [Quote]
Brother "C" : I think the society has
answered that. I’ll pretty much answer what the rest of us would say. We don’t
consider it a false prophet at all.
James: So what
is it when you say the world will end and it doesn’t?
Brother "C" : They make adjustments. They
don’t understand everything.
James: That
paper that I brought from the Watchtower Brother "C" said that someone who says
the world will come to an end and it doesn’t, is guilty of false prophesying.
(Awake! 10/8/68 pg.23)
Brother "C" : Yeah, I read that.
James: So, are there two measures of
weights?
Brother "C" : No you have to understand the
society’s stand. They take their best stand. They never said guaranteed in
everything. Remember Seventy-five, (1975) Everyone predicted that that
would be the end. The society felt pretty close that it could be. They didn’t
say it would.
(Remember that
statement)
I know a lot of people who left the truth because
of it. They really depended on it being the end. It had to be the end for them.
I had a lot of friends who did. And we had
some pretty good discussions on it. But the society I thought was pretty good in
the way they presented it. They even apologized at one point to say if they had
misled friends. It’s not their intention. It’s not their work; it’s not their
efforts. They’re genuine. You see I know the men too. They’re genuine. Their
interest is in us. Their interest is not in getting something.
James: But
it’s still the principles of God. In other words I can have all the interest in
the world in you. If I commit fornication, I have to say fornication is wrong.
But if I commit false prophecy, false prophecy is wrong.
Brother "C" : They thought it would be the
end, and that’s what they predicted.
James: They
were guilty of false prophecy!
Brother "C" :
They were wrong. They were wrong. But we don’t convict them as the false prophet
to death forever because they correct themselves and make changes. There’s a
difference. We can accept them for making mistakes and making changes.
James: Can you
show me that in God’s word?
Brother "C" : That you can’t make mistakes?
James: That
they could be false prophets and Jesus would forgive them?
Brother "M" :
Um…let’s see what do they do in the football games (making the time-out sign)
All Six Elders:
(Laughing)
Important:
Did you notice how he at first blamed the membership for the 1975 expectations?
Witnesses do this because the leadership has suggested several times through the
columns of the Watchtower Magazine that such was the case. Throughout its
history, Watchtower leaders have scolded the membership after each prophetic
blunder. Yet, deep down this old-time Witness (who is in his seventies) knows
better. When pushed into a corner concerning the watchtower's culpability in
nourishing false hopes in JWs for the year 1975, he actually admits that
"they thought it would be the end, and that’s what they predicted!"
Brother "M" :
We didn’t…you didn’t appeal your disfellowshipping and you didn’t ask for an
appeal committee so we can have a long discussion on doctrine. We’re not here
for that. You’ve asked…you have said to us, I want to remain as on of
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
James: No no I
did not say that. In fact my course of life has proven that that’s not the case.
Brother "M" :
At this point you’re thinking or feeling that you don’t want to be one of
Jehovah’s Witnesses?
James: I have
not wanted to be one in three years. I haven’t been to a meeting in three
years.
(that’s usually an indication)
Brother "M" :So
why are we here tonight then?
James: It begs
the question! Basically for this reason. When I found out all these things I
stopped going to meetings. I lived here another year. A year in which no
shepherding calls were made or anything like that.
Brother "M" :
It’s because you didn’t offer any coffee.
Sidebar :
Before the meeting the visiting brothers were teasing the Branford elders for
not having prepared coffee. Apparently my not having received any shepherding
calls for a years was an opportunity for some "theocratic levity."
James: (Amazed
at his cavalier manner) Is that what it was?
Brother "M" :
I don’t mean to be facetious.
James: That’s
ok.
Brother "D" : He’s ribbing me.
James: After
that year I pretty much got a clear idea that no one was going to answer those
questions. Brother "C" looked at those questions. I don’t think they can really
be answered. I moved to Philadelphia. I wanted to get away to start fresh in my
life. And did so. Moved to Philadelphia, went to The Academy of Vocal Arts. I
studied there and had a wonderful life. In (during) that year Linda kept
calling me. A former friend. "Are you going to meetings?" "No I’m not." Never
divulging my beliefs. She was relentless with me, Soliciting information. We did
one thing together. We read Romans Chapter eight.
She said, "you think they all people are going to
heaven? You sound like a "born again" when you talk about the Bible." I said
"well, will you read one chapter of the Bible with me?" (We) read Romans eight,
about those who are led by God’s spirit. And how Paul shows that those who are
led by the flesh and have enmity and have condemnation and those who are led by
the spirit have peace and joy and are "sons of God." And when we arrived at the
verse that says all those who are led by the spirit these are the sons of God,
she said, "your God is Satan the Devil and I will never speak to you again."
That’s all we did. That was it.
The next night Scott calls me - The other friend. I
hadn’t spoken to him in two years. (Imitating my "friend") "Hey how ya doin? I
just wanted to ask you a few questions." I knew I was getting set up. I said ,
"you know what Scott , it’s my business. I’m not giving any information so you
can solicit all you want I’m on my own and I’m not giving any information."
(Directing the question to the local body of elders). And he said that to
you…that I didn’t give any information.
The next night (Imitating a phone) BBBRRRING! From
nine o clock to twelve thirty in the morning. Brother Garrett was calling me.
Calling and calling and calling and calling and calling. And I know (it was) him
because he doesn’t leave messages on the machine. Finally I picked up. He said,
"this is Brother Garrett ." He’s a real old-time witness in the pejorative
sense. (Imitating the person) He said, "this is Brother Garrett and I want to
tell you that Linda and Scott are very upset.
You answered in the affirmative to the third
baptismal question which recognizes you"…You know the whole thing! I said
"Brother Garrett those people are calling me I didn’t say anything to Linda. I
wrote her a letter and said she had a closed mind. I didn’t want to discuss
anything and will never call her again! Scott I never said a word to. He said,
"well you have to
square with
headquarters." I said "square with headquarters? I’m sitting here in
Philadelphia minding my own business...why do I have to square with
headquarters." He said, "because you made a decision and you have to separate
yourself"…and this and that… and "you haven’t heard the end of me."
I said "Brother Garrett you’re like my dad why are
you doing this? Don’t you want to hear why I lost my faith in the organization?
Why I am where I am now? Do you just want to hang up in five minutes?" (He said)
"Go ahead, you have five minutes."
I related some of the things…much like the story I
told you. A much-abridged version than the one I told you. At the end of five
minutes he said, "that’s it, that’s what the apostates say!" (Imitating the
Phone) Click! And then the letter came in. I think the elder body…I don’t want
to put words in your mouth…saw kind of a conspiratorial nature to the whole
event.
Brother "D" : We had asked…as you had
mentioned that you did agree that you said certain things but then again you
made it very clear that it was not forthcoming.
James: Right.
Right. What happened after that…and this is where the story gets a little
convoluted.
Brother "M" :
And this is going in the direction as to why we’re here tonight?
Brother "D" :
Just to clarify: you had also said that you don’t talk to people
James: No. And
my sister called (The elders) and said he’s my brother and he hasn’t shared his
thoughts with me.
Brother "D" :
So again, that’s what we made clear as long as you’re not talking to anyone.
OBSERVATION:
The fact that I had not shared my religious thoughts with my own sister would be
a pretty good indication that I was not expressing my views among the friends.
Furthermore, why would there be such a fear of my expressing myself if the
Watchtower has "the truth" and is perfectly innocent with nothing to hide?
James: I get
hired to go to Japan with this Japanese brother who is also in San
Francisco...and we are in Japan together and he says, "oh what’s going on with
Brother Garrett and Linda no one says anything about you." And I recounted what
happened. "It was a tough thing for me, they went after me." I said I was living
a peaceful life in Philadelphia. And basically he said, "well you know you’re a
good brother, You have good questions. I don’t have answers to your questions
and the things you say but if you were in my congregation, I would work with
you. We would write the society together." We ended amicably.
When it came to the end of the concert run…he had
done business with the brothers there too in Japan. We had just a friendly
contract. A contract in which I was promised X amount of dollars for each
concert...and at the end of four concerts he gave me not even what one concert
was worth or what we had agreed upon... I said Brother "H" you’re cheating me.
And he said no I’m not cheating you...and I said, well I’ll tell you the truth,
if you’re not cheating me then I’m going to call the other Brothers and see what
they agreed to pay me.
He got on a plane and left me in Japan. Paid me X
amount of dollars for four concerts. They (the other Brothers) paid X dollars a
piece for those concerts! You can call the Brothers and I’ll give you the
number. Brother Honma, (former) Branch overseer of Japan. He was in the
yearbook of last year. He ( brother "H") got caught extorting money from
me...and when he went home (To San Francisco) he cavorted with Brother Garrett
and that’s why I’m here. And that’s why I say it was not my intention to start a
"sect." I wanted to live a peaceful life. My extortionist is bringing me down. I
say that before God.
SIDEBAR:
At the time, because of the flavor and general tone of the letter, I surmised
that Brother "H" and brother Garrett orchestrated their efforts in writing it.
To be fair, however, I cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that brother
Garrett was behind the second letter. However, the first letter and systematic
rounding-up of the two false witnesses was all his doing.
Brother "M" :
Those are serious charges obviously…was there something in writing that you had.
James: A
friendly agreement. From this day to that day I’ll be giving concerts with Mr.
"H." The fact of the matter is when this happened I went to Brother Honma and
Brother Saito and I said, I was just given X dollars for four concerts. And they
went " oh my God we just gave X dollars for each concert! And Brother "H" got on
a plane and I had to buy my own plane ticket home...and it was a Fiasco in
Japan! All the Brothers had saw that this man had extorted money.
Brother "C" : Have you taken it up with him?
James: No, I’m
not going to do that...and just to tell you brothers, I was to leave in three
weeks for Japan. X dollars in contracts...and it fell through last week because
I’m getting disfellowshipped. The witnesses were doing the publicity and all
that and my pianist is a witness and for that reason…
Brother "C" :
They didn’t want to be associated? (with you)
James: No.
I spoke to Mr. Homna who was the branch overseer
and he said "you’re a good man, I don’t know what to tell you. This (Brother
"H") is a dishonest man."
Brother "D" :
It was not our part that made it fall through.
James: No no
no! I honestly called and faxed Mr. Homna and said this is the situation. He was
heartsick over that.
Brother "M" :
And how long…this happened last year?
James: Last
year.
Brother "M" :
Well you know I’m sure from reading the Bible that when a situation like that
occurs it’s not tolerated in Jehovah’s organization. You basically have two
options. The first option you know is to go to the congregation. Your second
option is to forgive. But you might have done better to do the first one if you
feel you have been wronged.
James: You
know I thought of the first one but for the simple fact that I had separated
myself from the entire system (The Watchtower system) I didn’t want to use the
system on another person because I wanted to be free of punitive action on the
part of the Watchtower. So why would I go and insert myself back into that
judicial system to have someone act against a Jehovah’s Witnesses? I figured I
would cut my losses. The contract that I got this year for the four
concerts…they gave me an extra X thousand. They felt badly and they were behind
me. Well I said I got more money out of this anyway. I was vindicated.
Brother "C" :
The same group or a different group?
James: The
same group. He (The Brother "H") got exed out of the equation. I had no
correspondence with Japan he was doing all of it. Then when I went there…they
were beautiful. The Brothers and Sisters were so sweet to me, very kind.
Brother "M" :
So when you tell that story you also have to add the details you just added,
correct?
James: Oh
yeah, I don’t say that reflects Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses are by
and large good and honest people.
Observation:
One would think that in light of the dubious character of brother "H" that
these elders might want to look into the matter further to establish whether or
not brother "H" could possibly have had ulterior motives for his accusations
against me - perhaps investigate to see if my expressions in regard to the
Watchtower organization were forthcoming or systematically solicited as future
ammunition should a possible money scandal ensue. Even though at this point I
was perfectly willing to furnish the elders phone numbers of the brothers in
Japan as confirmation of the truthfulness of what I was asserting, no effort was
made on the part of these six elders in that regard. The fact that I was
re-engaged the following year by the same Japanese brothers for a larger concert
series and brother "H" was excluded all together (at their request) would also
suggest that brother "H" was less than innocent and that I was certainly not
"promoting a sect" among the friends in Japan. All these factors for some reason
are mysteriously overlooked.
AT THIS POINT SOMETHING WENT AWRY WITH MY RECORDING
DEVISE CUTTING ABOUT TEN MINUTES OUT OF THE MEETING.
Brother "M" :
You don’t consider yourself one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
James: No. I
have not for three years.
Brother "M" :
Do you consider yourself associated with any religion?
James: No I
don’t
Brother "M" :
Do you have people that you work with kind of in a study group at all?
James: My
close friends from High school…we might get together and read some chapters from
the Bible together and things like that. But in terms of formal worship I wanted
to give myself a couple of years of really studying the word. I didn't want any
kind of outside influence on me.
Brother "M" :So
again I guess we go back to that question I asked before, why are we here
tonight?
James: We’re
here tonight because I feel that I’m getting snagged in a policy. A policy,
which says, well if someone leaves quietly we won’t go near them. But if three
people can vehemently and vigorously solicit information and that Brother blurts
out some of his feelings or his viewpoints, then the machinery starts and it
eats you up. There are no extenuating circumstances. This is the way it works.
While in the congregation itself there can be many people who left the
organization who decided that they no longer want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.
They live quietly and they’re not dragged before a judicial committee.
And so I see it as somewhat arbitrary that because
these people solicited information from me…and they even admitted it. (Starting
a new thought) The charge of "starting a sect" What kind of a sect is that?
We’ll go from Japan to San Francisco? where are we going to have our first
meeting? I mean it’s silly!
(My point was that the accusation that I wanted to
"promote a sect" was obviously bogus in that all my accusers were a six hour
plane ride away from me. This geographical reality would preclude the
possibility of my promoting a sect).
It was not my desire to start a sect. I just
want to leave in peace. I don’t want labels put on me as someone who is
unfit for a sharing of a meal or a salutation. I don’t believe my crime deserves
that punishment. I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong.
Brother "C" : You understand that did join
to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and behold the organization. These things you
might have hashed out before but you didn’t you took it up later. You don’t
believe like us, You don’t believe like we believe in the organization and what
it does, how it works. You don’t believe the same things that we believe. So you
really aren’t one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in any way, so how can you stay as one
of Jehovah’s Witnesses and walk away when we know that? This is your testimony
and you ultimately repudiate how we…you’re not one of us.
James: So let
me see if I understand what you’re saying. If you leave the organization…so you
can never leave without having judicial action taken against you?
Brother "C" : All I know is you. You want to
address…
James: No no
no I’m asking in general. I’m asking in general. If even among our elder body
(certain) family members (of the elders) left the organization with impunity...
Brother "C" : I don’t know. We don’t know
their cases.
James: No I’m
saying if they leave the organization…
Brother "C" :
They just go off and we don’t see them or have contact
with them? Well you came here and talked to the Brothers and told them the story
that you don’t believe like one of us at all. So you’re testimony of yourself is
that I’m not one of them.
James: But do
you think the people who left…I have a particular Brother in mind who’s an elder
who has two daughters that left years ago…married non witnesses, one lives an
immoral life. How come she’s not disfellowshipped? She lives right around here.
Brother "C" : I don’t know. When the contact
is made if something happens maybe they will. I don’t know.
OBSERVATION:
The people I was referring to were the children of one of the active elders in
the congregation. Surely his children's beliefs would not be unknown to their
own father so as to necessitate waiting to some unspecified future point when
Jehovah would "reveal them." This kind of nepotism is commonly found in the
Watchtower system.
James: Does
that reflect Jehovah’s impartial judgment to you?
Brother "C" : You have to understand you
want to decide all of them. We’re only here to decide yours!
James: That’s
not righteous. That’s not righteous way to view it. That’s not righteous
Brother!
Brother "D" :
If you remember a year ago, up until the last three years you said you had no
contact. You did walk away. A year later we didn’t put you out of the
congregation.
James: I
appreciate that.
Brother "D" :
So it wasn’t like we were aggressively pursuing you. And we mentioned at that
point that we were not going to aggressively pursue it if things stayed quiet.
But they didn’t.
James: But you
heard the circumstances of those things...(Going to another thought) No, you’re
talking about promoting a sect.
Brother "D" :
No no no, I didn’t say anything about promoting a sect.
James: Yes you
did. We read about two weeks ago the scripture about promoting a sect.
Brother "D" : But that was among other
things.
(The disingenuousness of this brother can be seen
in that I spent a considerable amount of time defending the fact that I
was not promoting a sect in my first meeting. Something this brother seems to
forget).
James: Yes but
if the accusation is that I’m promoting a sect…
Brother "D" :
What we had asked and what we had presented to you was Brother "H"' letter. Do
you say these things about the organization and we explained it and and you gave
your opinion as to not believing what you formerly believed.
James: So what
about those witnesses who no longer believe what they formerly believe at one
time and left the organization?
(What about the Watchtower when it no longer
believes what it formerly believed?)
Brother "D" : Well as Brother "C"
mentioned, we don’t know what they believe at this point.
Brother "C" : You did let a number of
friends know. It gets to be among the friends. Now I guess the friends all
know.
(That was not a true statement. If " a number of
the friends knew," why were there no local witnesses testifying against me?)
James: Where
is the righteousness of that? That arbitrarily…we don’t know yet so it doesn’t
matter, so Jehovah doesn’t have to take action. But if we know Jehovah takes
action?
Brother "C" :
We’re not Jehovah we’re just men.
James: But
shouldn’t we reflect the way he judges things?
Brother "C" : We do in that we’re looking at
your case…
James: What
about someone else’s case?
Brother "C" :
We’ll see what happens when it comes there but you can’t decide it either.
James: That’s
not righteous. You have to show me that in the scriptures.
Brother "C" :
You want to have more than one person…
James: No I
want you to be scriptural! Jehovah’s not impartial.
Brother "C" :
You have to understand that this information that you brought forth to us now,
that you testified before these guys is your own testimony now that you don’t
really want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. You haven’t associated with them
anymore. So why shouldn’t you be put out…?
James: Well
for the simple fact that I have not tried to promote my views. So what you’re
saying is because people solicited information from me and now "the process" has
begun…now whenever I go to my sister’s house... when they have a gathering they
can’t invite me because other witnesses are there? Yet for three years I’ve had
meals with them and I haven’t shared my views with them. But I got caught in a
system, is that what you’re saying?
Brother "C" :well maybe Jehovah opened it up
for us. We don’t know.
James: That’s
not sufficient! To say "maybe" and read the mind of Jehovah God is not a
sufficient answer.
Brother "C" :
He might have revealed it. He might of made it all come out. The sins of some
men would be manifest right away… cause we view it as a sin… the sins of others
will be manifest later. It’s not in our hands. When it’s revealed.
Brother "M" :
I think that the basis for our discussion is probably second John 9. I’m sure
it’s not new to you I didn’t bring it up as being a new bit of light. I guess
Jim our focus is really verse eleven. To us this is just very clear. Verse ten:
If anyone comes to you and does
not bring this teaching, never receive him into your home or say a greeting to
him.
Now you have demonstrated to those of us
sitting at the table that you don’t feel as Jehovah’s Witnesses do. You don’t
espouse the same doctrines that we do. So I don’t know, we could talk until the
cows come home. You feel so strongly on the way you feel. The epitome of they
way we feel is in verse 10.
James:
Can I ask you something Brother "M" ? If I were right
now sitting before a Mormon council in a similar situation. And they said, "well
you know James:
"anyone that does not bring this
teaching, don’t receive him into you’re house.."
Would that be valid?
Brother "C" :
From among their organization it would be valid. You’re view is it’s not
Jehovah’s organization. You see you’re outside that
James: That’s
where I disagree. Because you’re saying "apostasy" is a denominational
affair. In other words if I put three-hundred people in this room who all
changed their (religious) organization, then, in some way they're all apostates
to someone else in how their related.
(If) I put a Catholic, I put a protestant, and I
put a Muslim, (in this room) all of which changed to a different religion, and
(they say to each other) Apostate! Apostate! He was in our religious
organization now he’s in that organization!
What about the Biblical definition of apostasy,
does that enter the equation?
Brother "C" : (Completely ignoring me) Where
we stand hasn’t changed.
James: No no. I asked you a question.
Brother "C" :
(Continuing to ignore me) Where Jehovah’s Witnesses stand has not changed. We
have our tenets we have our beliefs…
James: So
it’s a denominational affair? So then denominationally I’m an
"apostate?"
Brother "C" :
As far as we’re concerned you’re an apostate from the truth as well.
James: Well
wouldn’t you have to show that in (from) the Bible?
Brother "C" :
You don’t believe like we do.
James: Then no
one will sit down with me? Listen, I’ll tell you. I will sit down weekend after
weekend until I’m blue in the face. If you can show me, (I'm wrong) I will
absolutely change. Absolutely change. I promise you that....And I’m sincere
about that. I mean you just read me a scripture (looking at the heading in my
NIV Bible for second John)
"Beware of anti-Christ’s"
and said that I’m an anti-Christ!
Brother "C" : That’s our view remember…
James: Am I an
anti-Christ?
Brother "C" :
Ultimately to us it (you) would be an anti-Christ because you
don’t believe… we believe we’re associated with the Christ and with Jehovah God
and that we are Jehovah’s Witnesses. We have organized ourselves as a body…
James: Yeah,
I’m saying scripturally am I an anti-Christ? (Reading from the Bible) It says:
"anyone who does not confess
Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh."
Do you think That I don’t confess that? (Don't) Do
you think that was what John was talking about?
ALL 6 Elders: (Silent)
James: But that doesn’t matter? That’s
ridiculous! That’s what I meant last week, the Bible doesn’t matter! Paul’s
words don’t matter "some as evangelists!" Paul’s words don’t matter that don’t
(not to) listen to a new gospel!
Brother "M" :
Jim we appreciate what you say. Here’s the way we look at it. We look at it very
simply. You were one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When the Brother gave the
baptismal talk and asked those
two questions you said
yes, I believe those things. It’s as simple as that. We appreciate that.
Things happened in you’re life that changed your opinion.
Important:
The Society said the following in the Watchtower of 7/1/55 :
"A Christian cannot be baptized in the name of the one
actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any
organization, but in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This shows
among other things, that Christianity is not a denominational affair, that sects
have anything to do with it."
Subsequent to
this Watchtower, the baptismal formula was expressly altered to render baptism
just that ; a "denominational affair." Notice the multiple references made to
the baptismal questions? This topic resurfaces toward the end of the meeting
with an eye-opening admission.
James: You
know what happened that "changed my opinion?" I got baptized with partial
information. Brother "C" said I should have "filled myself in." Yet there
are Brothers who are elders, who are district overseer’s, who don’t know the
things that I brought out last week to these Brothers. So who’s concealing the
sin if people from the highest ranks of the society don’t know that Jesus Christ
was (presumably) reigning since 1874 and that the heavenly hope (As
joint-heirs) was cut off in 1881 (And taught) for thirty years?
Brother "M" :You’re
coming to us and saying "no I don’t want to be disfellowshipped from Jehovah’s
Witnesses."
James: I’m
saying I want to leave with dignity.
Brother "M" :
But you’re also saying that you don’t want to be disfellowshipped.
James: Yes, I
want to leave with dignity. In other words I want to go about my life. If I meet
a witness in Stop and Shop ( a local grocery store) I want to say, hey how are
you doing, nice to see you, say hi to your husband. That’s all that I’m saying.
Is that an unreasonable request?
Brother "M" :
We understand what you’re saying. But you also have to look from our
prospective. You were one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, right?
James: Yes.
Brother "M" :
When you used to read second John 9 through 11... if someone came to you with
teachings different than what you believed what would you do?
James: I would
never not say a greeting to them.
Brother "M" :
But the Bible says so.
James: But the
Bible says:
"whoever says that Jesus Christ
did not come in the flesh"
You have to say what it (The Bible) says. You can’t
pull one line out of it!
Brother "M" :
This is our focus point.
OBSERVATION:
What this brother meant by "this is our focus point" was that he much like
brother "C," didn't care that the verse before was explicitly talking
about antichrists who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. He just wanted
to "Focus" on verse 10, take what he believed was the scriptural
treatment accorded to such antichrists and then tranquilly accord that
punishment to me.
James: But
what was being discussed was the Docetists who said that Christ did not come in
the flesh. That was a group of people who said that Jesus was a supernatural
thing. I’m not that.
Brother "M" :
(Ignoring what I just said) Is there anything else that you would like to say to
us? Is there anything else that’s important and hasn’t been said?
James: I think
it merits mentioning that I do feel that the Watchtower believes it’s above the
word of God. I definitely feel that. I think I made that clear when I said that
Hymenaeus and Philetus said the resurrection began and the scriptures say they
deviated from the truth and subverted the faith of people who listened. Yet when
Russell did it. "The light got brighter."
The same thing with all the false prophesies. I
think brother M1 mentioned it last week that the principles of the Bible
concerning false prophecy…they don’t apply to the Watchtower. Even the fact that
Paul’s words (I meant John’s) are talking about an anti-Christ…well "this
teaching" means the "Watchtower’s teaching."
I feel it’s very sad to talk to people who spend
their lives in God’s word, condemning the world, (as the) "the great harlot."
What I’ve seen in Christianity does not come close to this type of
unrighteousness.
I believe this Brother "M" …and I’m directing this
to you because you’re looking at me straight in the face. I believe this Brother
"M" , if I were able the other night to sincerely have the meeting I had with
these three Brothers before a congregation of people like they did it in the New
Testament or even in the Old Testament when they went before the judges at the
gates... I believe people would leave the organization and that this is
suppressing information.
People look at a person as myself who’s truly
committed to God and truly loves God’s word... and because their aren’t
answers…(turning to Brother "C" who was examining my research on the "faithful
slave") because there are not answers to that right there on the "faithful
slave"...and you know there are not answers! You have to silence the person.
That’s what "apostates" are… because I’ve met the
"apostates." They are people who put the witnesses against the standard of the
Bible, and their (The Watchtower's) history and show that it can’t stand up.
So we must put the hermetic seal around the (the witness) community. I really
believe that. Because if you really thought I was misled you would say Brothers,
lets get three Brothers, lets work with this kid. I don’t feel you do.
Brother "M" :
(Not replying to anything I just said) Um…now lets see… there’s one area that
I’m a little disconcerted about. You say that you haven’t talked to others
unless they…sort of dug it out of you? Is there anybody that you know that you
talked to that is no longer associating with the congregation?
(The Witch-hunt begins!)
James: I don’t follow you. People who are
not associating?
Brother "M" :
Yes, that used to associate?
James: Yes
"Anonymous." (This person has not been officially ousted and so must remain
anonymous)
Brother "M" :
Do you talk to "Anonymous?"
James: Yes
Brother "M" :
"Anonymous" used to be a witness?
James: x
years.
Brother "M" :
Forgive me I don’t know "Anonymous." "Anonymous" used to come to the Kingdom
Hall? (Fishing) Would you say it’s because of… that it’s for some other
reason "Anonymous" stop coming?
James: You
know what? (Up to) At this point Brother "M" everything that has come out of my
mouth has been rehashed to me. The proverb of not betraying the confidence of
another…I have not seen that among witnesses. And I ‘m never going to speak on
"Anonymous" account. You’ll have to get "Anonymous" here and talk to "Anonymous"
because I don’t feel comfortable about that.
(Not satisfied, the inquisition continues)
Brother "M" :
Do you folks…again we’re from out of town…has "Anonymous" voiced (themselves) in
anyway that this is why "Anonymous" stopped Coming to meetings?
Brother "D" : No not to us.
James: Than
again I feel Brother "D" you guys have a responsibility to see "Anonymous."
Pasture the congregation! No one will pasture when you have these questions.
(The questions on the "slave class") No one will pasture!
Brother "C" that right in front of you (My
questions) will never be "pastured to" because there are no answers... because
it’s not true. I believe that. That’s not true! That’s why there are no answers.
So we build an organization and we become
policy-oriented... and we keep people out.
(Goading him) If there were answers to that you
would say, my poor young Brother, you’ve been deceived. But there is not. You
read the last page are there answers to those questions?
Brother "C" :
Have you paid attention to the society’s answers to a lot of these questions?
James: There
are no answers to those questions.
Brother "C" : Have you paid attention to the
society’s answers to a lot of these questions?
James: I’ve
studied the Watchtower ad nauseum ad infinitum!
Brother "C" :
Also about the "tacking" back and forth?
James: I know
about the "Tacking." (pointing to my questions) No what I said about the
"faithful slave," right there.
Brother "C" :
Well a quick one, I’ll take a quick one. (A question)
James: You’ll
take one?
IMPORTANT: An argument consists of a premise (or several premises) and a
conclusion. A premise is a reason, an explanation, or a justification. If the
premise is part of a logical argument, it provides supporting data or evidence
that leads the person to the conclusion. The conclusion of the argument is only
as compelling as is the premise from which it is derived. If the premise is
well-constructed (usually meaning well-understood and factual), and if it
logically leads to the conclusion, then the listener will have to accept the
conclusion, and the speaker will have accomplished his or her goal. As will be
clearly seen here, the Watchtower's premise of divine authority is bereft of
historic substance. It is asserted yet never proven.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are led by a divinely appointed group
known as "the faithful and discreet slave." Upon this one teaching hinges the
entire theological infrastructure of the Watchtower Organization's claimed
authority. I now set out to prove that their view of the "faithful slave"
is historically nothing more than a concocted concept.
Although I am in the presence of six elders, this is the first time in the
evening one of them will truly attempt to answer one of my questions. Notice the
following exchange.
(pointing to the Watchtower magazine)
It says that the "faithful slave" has existed for
19 centuries from Pentecost C E. And it shows that one generation of the slave
fed the succeeding generation. Not only did it feed it one after the other but
it gave progressive spiritual food. ("The light" kept on getting brighter over
the 1800 years) (Reading from the WT Magazine)
"So we see then that the method
of feeding was not of isolated independent individuals but a close-knit body."
So my question is this:
Since history is by no means silent on religious
development down through the centuries, even giving us a fairly complete picture
of a stage by stage development of a universal Catholic Church organization and
also the disagreements and separations from that system and the formation of
various movements leading up to the reformation... why is it nothing can be
found that would acceptably fit the Watchtower’s description of a single
on-going "faithful and discreet slave class"... a homogeneous close-knit
collective group functioning down through the centuries as the one and only
feeding source for generation after generation for all Christians in all places?
Brother "C" : So you want them to feed (he
meant show) from the first century until now? You want an apostolic succession…
(Freudian slip?) or a succession rather?
James: No I
want them to locate them. We have history in minutiae of the evolution of
Christianity with schisms…the Lollards and Waldenses…we know everything in
minutiae.
This is (Allegedly) God’s arrangement. He has a
body that he deals with from 33 C E, progressively teaching this "close-knit
body"... dispensing food that progresses with every generation.
Well where is there any evidence in the last 1900
years? Point to one group.
Brother "C" :
Do you want the society’s stand on it?
James: No no
I’m asking! Where was this group in the fifteen hundreds? Who was the "faithful
slave?"
Brother "C" : I don’t remember them taking a
stand on any one direct connection. They’ve always taken the stand that Jehovah
knows his people.
(That’s a little vague. Jehovah is God, he knows
everything)
James: But
this says that it was a close-knit body. Where was the close-knit body?
Brother "C" :
I can only identify it from the organization’s time on.
OBSERVATION :
This is something like saying; "Microsoft has existed for two thousand years,
but I can only identify it from Bill Gate's time on."
James: So we
have Paul in the first century, and Russell in 1879, and nothing for 1800
years?
Brother "C" :
They’ve always said that various people…
James: So
where are they?
Brother "C" :
They always said…they never said that they can guarantee who they were.
They would leave that in God’s hands.
James: So it’s
completely invisible?
Brother "C" :
No they just said they would never identify them.
(A difference without a distinction)
The Lollards they said may be…uh…that they don’t
pass judgment on them.
James:
(Showing him a photocopy of pg.41 in the Reasoning Book) So why when we
talk to Catholics about the Apostolic Succession we ask them:
Has an unbroken line of
successors been traced from Peter to modern-day popes?
Why do they have to show us a
succession?
Brother "C" :
Because they make the claim that there is a succession.
James: Don’t
we make the claim that there is a succession?
Brother "C" : Not to my knowledge.
James: Didn’t
I just read to you (from the WT magazine) that we have a succession that feeds
one generation to the next?
Brother "C" :I’m not sure that that’s the
right understanding.
James:
(Placing it in his hands for examination) Here! That’s the Watchtower! Where’s
the difference with the Catholic succession…"Apostolic Succession" and the
"faithful slave" succession?
We ask them to identify it. Will you identify
yours?
Brother "C" :
They have never identified it.
James: Oh
ok, so it’s a chain of invisible links?
Brother "C" : There are people over the
centuries that Jehovah has worked with.
James: Will
you give me one? (Example) This close-knit body can you show me one?
Brother "C" : (Defeated) No I can’t, no.
James:
(Dropping the issue) Ok.
OBSERVATION :
It is incumbent upon anyone making a truth-claim such as this to offer
positive evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Man can
make no greater claim then to speak for God. Notice, however, how his faith in
the Watchtower's divine authority is divorced from any historical evidence. His
vague argument, if applied to other historical inquiries, would destroy our
knowledge of all of ancient history - especially that of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.
Jesus'
resurrection was demonstrated by over 500 eyewitnesses over a 40 day period of
time, on 12 separate occasions. His empty tomb was observed, his reanimated
body touched. He was seen eating physical food and people listened to him teach
nearly a month and a half. This is not hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the
immediate successors of the apostles beginning in the late first and early
second century testified to the fact that the Gospel accounts and apostolic
epistles were authentic history. In A.D. 95 Clement of Rome cited the
Gospels. Around A.D. 110 Ignatius quoted Luke 24:39 (a crucial text on the
resurrection of Christ). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle cites the
synoptic gospels as authentic. The Epistle of Barnabas (135) quotes Matthew.
Papias (125 and following) speaks of Matthew, Mark, and John writing Gospels
saying three times that Mark made no errors.
Unlike the
Watchtower's "faithful and discrete slave" myth which cannot furnish one
visible body of individuals over the last 2000 years as an historical link to
it's alleged modern-day counterpart, the succession of witnesses to the
historical event of the resurrection can be traced generation after
generation to our present day.
Brother "D" :That
doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Because someone can’t prove it to you. If your
faith is based on that you have to see something…
Brother "C" : They have always said that
over the centuries there were men of faith and that Jehovah knows his people.
James: No they
said it was a close-knit body that fed itself progressively. So progressively
that when it arrived to Charles Taze Russell…(starting a new thought)...why
didn’t he contact the 1900 year-old "faithful slave?"
Brother "C" : (Ignoring me) Who do you think
they are then?
James: But I’m
asking; why didn’t Charles Taze Russell contact the 1900 year-old "faithful and
discreet slave?" As a 19-year-old boy he picked the Bible up and studied it
himself. Didn’t he act "untheocratically?"
Brother "C" :
Against who?
James: I’m
asking you! Wasn’t that untheocratic?
Brother "C" :
Did any organization…did he claim to be…he was a Methodist…
OBSERVATION:
That's my point. Who was the faithful slave
when Russell was 19 years old? Where was "God's organization?" Why did Russell
strike out on his own independent of the 1900 year-old slave class? Just imagine
if today a 19 year-old Jehovah's Witness brother struck out independently from
the Watchtower's "faithful and discreet slave."
IMPORTANT :
In reality the "faithful slave" as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses
had its beginning in the person of Charles Tazes Russell in1879.
Therefore there can be no concrete historical answers to these questions prior
to his arriving on the scene. In hopes of not appearing as just a twentieth
century sect, the120-year-old organization claims that the "faithful slave" has
existed for 2000 years. It thus paints itself as an established institution of
antiquity. This causes a problem, however, in that the Watchtower cannot link
itself with any specific group of the past-for virtually all of them
embraced doctrines the Watchtower considers apostate.
 |
? |
 |
The chain of invisible
links
James: The
"faithful slave" was 1900 years old. Charles Taze Russell is 20
years old, why didn’t he contact them... They had 1900 years of ever-shining
light?
Brother "M" :
(Arbitrating and ending the obviously lost battle) Jim…
James:
That’s my point though! That’s my point! That’s why I have to be called an
"apostate," because those are fables of men.
Brother "M" : Jim I guess…and I’ll just give
you a personal opinion and that’s all it is. It is good to have questions about
the Bible. It is good to have questions about things we read. It shows an active
mind. And many times over the years individuals in the congregation have come to
me and said, "I don’t understand this." And I always say to them well then it’s
time that you look for an answer. And I say here’s an index and this is how you
use it. You look up everything you can find and then come back to me and we’ll
talk about it. And if you still don’t understand it will talk about it some
more. But you need to make sure that you have looked in every comment the
society has made about it.
IMPORTANT:
All biblical research done by the great majority of Jehovah's Witnesses is
accomplished by referring solely to past Watchtower literature. The average
witness would not dream of entering a Christian book store much less base his
biblical research on scholarly works outside the framework of the society's
"theocratic library." This self-validating methodology ensures conformity of
thought and ultimately shields the rank and file witness from any evidence that
could undermine the organization's unique teachings. This unilateral approach to
research, however, is wholly circular. It is something like my saying; I am the
greatest singer in the world. If you doubt that, have questions about it or
don't quite understand it, "it's time you look for an answer." "Look up
everything you can find" that I have ever written about my singing "and then
come back to me and we'll talk about it." In essence, the Watchtower does the
same, for it only desires to hear its echo.
James: Brother
"M" I have exhausted my study of the Watchtower.
Brother "M" : No no no you didn’t let me
finish.
James: Sorry.
(I thought he was suggesting that I had not done
enough research on the subject, but he was recounting how he deals with
witnesses who have questions)
Brother "M" : And so generally what happens
is a person comes back and they say "I found an answer to my question," or "I
didn’t find an answer." And I kind of quiz them to see whether they really
researched it or not. You know just to make sure…maybe there are a couple of
citations that they missed. So I say, did you check this? "No I didn’t check
that." Well go back and check that. And sometimes they come back and say you
know I couldn’t find anything in the society’s publications on that subject. So
I say what are you going to do? "Well I’m just going to wait and Jehovah in time
will reveal it to me." Ok fine that’s good.
That’s one kind of person. Another kind of person
may not do that.
OBSERVATION:
Brother "M" is insinuating that my inquiries should be in abeyance until Jehovah
reveals the answers. Yet he commits a logical fallacy. One would not have
to wait for Jehovah to reveal something if the society already teaches
it? The fact that they teach the doctrine of a 2,000 year-old faithful and
discreet slave would indicate that it has already been "revealed."
Furthermore, if the Watchtower is categorically unable and unwilling to specify
a composite body of believers over the last two-thousand years who fits its
unique description of the "faithful slave," then how can they rightly claim it
ever existed - or better yet, how can they assert that the nature of its
teaching was "progressive." Based on what data can one make such qualifications
if it's impossible to concretely identify even one individual from "the slave"
at any point in history prior to 1879?
James: When you say "Jehovah" you mean the
organization don’t you?
Brother "M" :I’m sorry.
James: When you say "Jehovah will reveal
it" you mean the organization?
(Jehovah God=Watchtower Society?)
Brother "M" : I don’t want to get caught in
that discussion. It’s as simple as Jehovah will reveal it through his
organization. That’s all I’m going to say.
IMPORTANT:
Is it that "simple," as Brother "M" suggests, or isn't that the very issue
that's been questioned all evening? Does The Watchtower = Jehovah? Is not
agreeing with the Watchtower going ahead of God? Does conscientious objection to
unique Watchtower teachings constitute Biblical apostasy?
James: But are those legitimate questions
Brother "M" ?
Brother "M" :
(Refusing to reply) I’ve just expressed myself.
And I think…I know Brother "C" feels this way
because he has a few Grey hairs. You’ve come to a point in your life where you
believed Jehovah.
(I still believe Jehovah)
You know Jehovah is the God of the universe.
And there are a myriad of things that we don’t know
about Jehovah yet. Everyday we learn something about Jehovah. It may be
thousands of years before Jehovah reveals certain things to us. But we
know he’s going to do it. And we have that faith in Jehovah that that’s going to
come. And if there’s something there that maybe we don’t understand today, in
time Jehovah will reveal it to us.
I’m not trying to say that you should feel this
way.
James: No I
appreciate it. I have to respect that.
Brother "M" :
And I know that at some point I might read something in the Watchtower or I
might read something in the Bible. And I say you know I just don’t understand
that. But I can only tell you in the forty odd years I’ve been a witness,
there’s been things that maybe I haven’t understood. In time Jehovah reveals
them to us. It might be through the Bible, it might be through the
Watchtower or Awake, it might be through whatever, but it comes to us.
That’s the faith that I have as a witness. That it’s going to be taken care
of.
IMPORTANT :
The future revelations Brother "M" is so confident to receive will no doubt
come through the publications of the Watchtower. Through that literature, he
trusts, that Jehovah in time will by some mysterious process communicate his
will to faithful men in Brooklyn, New York. Ninety-nine point nine percent of
Jehovah's Witnesses, however, will never meet these "faithful men." How does
the Watchtower inspire millions of adherents to place their unyielding faith in
faceless men ? The Watchtower accomplishes this by not disclosing the names of
the people who write the articles for their publications. JWs therefore
erroneously accept the content of such "ghost writers" as if emanating from
Jehovah himself.
This
wizard-of-Oz" situation can be better understood if viewed historically. For
some years Judge Rutherford signed his name on all WT literature as did Russell.
He sternly warned that the repudiation of Russell's fanciful doctrines was
tantamount to repudiating the LORD. After the schism of Russell's devotees it
became apparent that Rutherford had to re-anchor the "divine authority" of the
Watchtower in someone or something other than pastor Russell. Hence, "The
Judge" recognizing his inability to fill the the shoes of his predecessor,
sagaciously transferred the willing loyalty and submission conferred upon Pastor
Russell to the magic word and concept of "organization." (This is similar
to how the word "church" [which originally applied to God's gathered people] in
the second century came to be understood as referring to Church leaders and
their authority).
In true
Wizard-of-Oz fashion Rutherford then slipped behind the Watchtower curtain and
continued his monarchical rule. He would go on to anonymously author virtually
all Watchtower literature throughout his presidency. Jehovah's Witnesses from
that point on would now credit Jehovah for the content found there-in.
Rutherford had effectively effectuated the Watchtower's transition from
Russell's "cult of personality" to today's "cult of anonymity."
Jehovah's
Witnesses now attribute all spiritual food to a mysterious "faithful and
discrete slave" which is no longer Russell or any one man for that matter, but a
composite group of 8,735 Christians dispersed throughout the earth. How does
this disjunctive group communicate God's new light to Brooklyn Headquarters? The
fact is, they don't. Less then one percent of these Christians have anything to
do with the literature published by the society. In fact, it is safe to say that
the preponderance of what Jehovah's Witnesses receive by way of the written word
is authored by members of the "great crowd." These men are no different than
local Jehovah's Witness elders. This concept of the "faithful slave," however,
is so deeply embedded in witnesses that they fail to come to grips with this
reality. Therefore, the publications published by the society take on a "divine
aura."
James: So what
about a person…lets say "Anonymous" had similar questions, and put these
questions to Brother "D" or whoever the body of elders were and said this is
legitimate... I want an answer for that. If this is not true and you can’t
identify any "slave" and you just have to say it was there but we don’t know
where... Well to say that this is a doctrine of necessity for salvation…that God
has always had an organization, 1900 years of which we can’t identify... That’s
a serious question. Shouldn’t Brothers be equipped to answer those questions?
Brother "M" :
Does "Anonymous" want to do that?
(Notice how he didn’t answer the question but wants
to go after "anonymous?")
James: Want to
do what?
Brother "M" :
To sit and ask these Brothers that question?
OBSERVATION:
The inquisitorial nature of this dialogue is truly chilling. Why would anonymous
want "to sit and ask these brothers that question" when as seen, "these
brothers" had no meaningful reply to "that question." Is Brother "M"'s intention
really to build the faith of "anonymous" and heal the spiritual wounds of
"anonymous?"
As seen,
Jehovah's Witnesses who have questions or doubts cannot approach the elders for
answers to their inquiries lest they run the risk of being disfellowshipped.
They cannot speak to friends or family for that would be evidence of their
"promoting a sect." If you recall, Brother "M"'s very first statement of the
evening was that he didn't want to go into a lot of discussion along doctrinal
lines. The obvious question springs to mind:
If one cannot
speak of these matters with friends, family members, elders, or even at their
own religious judicial committee meeting when they are being tried for
"apostasy," when does one discuss them?
James: I think
if the Brothers went and spoke to "Anonymous." "Anonymous" would speak to them,
absolutely. I’ve been open. I don’t hide what I believe. I’m not embarrassed.
I’m not ashamed of what I believe. I believe it’s rooted in the scriptures. I
believe the question I asked Brother "M" is a legitimate question to which I
got a fanciful answer. "It just was there but we don’t know it."
Brother "M" :
I guess what I was trying to say…well lets take one thing at a time. If you
would like to suggest to "Anonymous" that "Anonymous" invites the Brothers over,
I’m sure they would be happy to come.
James: Would
"Anonymous" do so with reprisals?
Brother "M" :
(Uncomfortably long pause) That’s an interesting question. Do you feel it’s a
possibility?
(He asks me?)
James: No I’m
asking you.
Brother "M" :
Is their mind such that they... I guess really the question is, are they looking
to understand or are they…or they already made up their mind?
James: You
know I’ll answer it with a statement. No one wakes up one day and is in the
position where I am today. I am where I am today because no one would speak to
me. I had those questions three years ago.
I started to think (about the) Apostolic
Succession. I saw it in an encyclopedia. (Discussing what I read) Witness
hierarchy is much like the Catholic Church claiming a succession of apostolic
authority...yet the witnesses don’t attempt to locate any of their apostolic
authority through out their history.
Brother "M2" : Where did you find that
information?
James:
Encyclopedia of American Religions. So my question was…at certain points I had
these questions. Three and a half years ago when my faith was wavering when I
was in Florida, I went to the two closest people I could speak to. I went to
Brother Garrett a little at a time...and he would talk about "apostates."
(Imitating the person) and that’s what "apostates" say. I went to another
brother in our congregation. (an elder) He never came back. Where do you go?
Brother "D" :
What about meetings?
James: Why
would I come to the meetings? My faith was rocked!
Brother "D" :
Where else could you build faith? You can’t build it by yourself.
James: But no
I’m asking you as shepherds of the field, don’t you go after the one that strays
from the ninety-nine?
Brother "D" :
Absolutely. We couldn’t find it. (the sheep)
James: Brother
"D" I lived here a year before I moved. (To Philadelphia)
Brother "D" :
You weren’t anywhere near our door. (Meaning the kingdom Hall door)
James: So you
can’t come to my door?
OBSERVATION :Could
you imagine a shepherd that only shepherds those sheep that come to him?
Brother "D" :
I didn’t know where you were.
James: I
wasn’t living home for one year?
(My family with whom I lived attended that
congregation during that entire year)
Brother "D" :
Jim, I don’t really want to discuss it.
James: well, I
mean, you don’t want to discuss it because you know that you didn’t come and
visit me. Don’t be silly!
Brother "D" : (Blaming the sheep) If you had
doubts about what the society is teaching did you right to them? Wouldn’t you
want to go to the source and say will you please explain this?
Brother "M" :
Because a lot of people do.
Brother "D" :
I mean if you had a question on what they wrote wouldn’t that be logical instead
of trying to get your own answers from your own thinking?
James: What
about from older Brothers?
Brother "D" :
Everybody has some kind of viewpoint on things. I come with my viewpoint you
come with yours. The society wrote that wouldn’t you want to see what is your
answer to this?
IMPORTANT:
I didn't write the society because I had read numerous testimonies confirming
the fact that when Headquarters receives such questions they dispatch elders to
the person not to answer the questions, but to ask questions
about that particular person’s loyalty, to the organization. Much like Brother
"M" was doing in regard to "Anonymous." This has been testified in case after
case from those who submitted similar questions to headquarters.
Brother "C" :
I used to write. Remember I told you…I had to make a decision. I had to make a
call. What was I going to do? Was I going to be part of Christendom and just
drift with the world the way it was going or be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? I
had some association with Jehovah’s Witnesses through my mother. But I sure
didn’t want to do it. But you had to make some choices…someplace along the line
to make some choices.
James: I could
say unhesitatingly that there are hundreds of thousands of people like me... on
the fringes of the Watchtower Society no longer associating in fear (of) asking
questions because it comes down to this. (Judicial hearings)
Brother "M" :
I guess what I was trying to say before…you brought up . I guess what I was
trying to say before Jim and I know you recognize this so I know you will take
it in the spirit in which it’s offered. Personally speaking, I’ll stay up all
night and all day and three days after with someone who’s really looking for the
answers to understand. But I think we all agree you’re kind of beyond all that
now. Am I correct in that?
James: Well I
could only say this, there were people who absolutely believed in the Trinity
and wanted to debate about the trinity with witnesses...and a witness went to
his door, showed the reason why he didn’t believe in the trinity and that
(Trinitarian) belief (of the householder) became disbelief...and if that works
at the door on someone who is absolutely convinced (of the Trinity)... If the
evidence is substantial enough anyone who believes... what they believe can be
turned around... if there are answers.
Wouldn’t you agree with that?
(I was not personally arguing for or against the
Trinity, but using it rather for the sake of argument in that Jehovah's
Witnesses have proven very successful at debating the Trinity doctrine)
Brother "M" :I
think that’s a general statement that is probably true in many situations.
However what we’re saying here…and let me just try to keep the focus…the focus
is that…you know we get…lets see how can I say it? I want to say it as
delicately as possible.
James: You
don’t have to. It’s all right. I can deal with it.
Brother "M" : I want to say it delicately
and kindly. Uh…you’re no longer looking for understanding as one of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. You’re beyond that. Maybe it would have been nice if three
years ago someone had stayed up all night and all day but that didn’t happen.
Nor did you come to meetings, which you should have. Nor did you write the
society, which you should have.
But nevertheless, today you’re beyond all that.
You’ve come to a point in your life when you say look I don’t believe it I don’t
want to be part of it. I don’t believe as they do, it’s as simple as that.
James: But
why can’t I leave quietly? I don’t get that.
The accusation has been made that Jehovah’s
Witnesses are a cult. The reasons why they say Jehovah’s Witnesses are a
cult…not theologically but sociologically, (is) because members can’t leave
with dignity.
I’ve read many books on abusive churches and cults
and it is for this very reason… that someone who in their heart...out of a good
conscience (who) can no longer hold certain tenets of an organization…(starting
another thought) that instead of leaving as a gentleman where someone says, you
know what? He’s a man of God. He differs from how we feel, but he’s a good man.
Like many of you people left your religions.
(Speaking to Brother "C" ) I’m sure you left the
Catholic Church at one point. Does your family let you eat a meal with them...
the Catholic relatives?
Brother "C" : (Nodding yes)
James: Well they’re much more tolerant than
Jehovah’s Witnesses!
Why? Why can’t witnesses dignify people? I love
God. You love God too. We all love God. We’re all trying to get knowledge of
God.
Dignify people! Dignify them! "To label…don’t say a
salutation, don’t share a meal." I don’t deserve that. I’m a man of God, I don’t
deserve that!
Brother "C" :
If you don’t believe like us and you don’t follow or work with our teachings…
James: I’m not
in your organization.
Brother "C" :
Why do you want to be viewed by them?
James: I have family, weddings, all sorts of
things. It’s intricately interwoven our lives with other lives. I'm 31 years
around these people. I mean it’s a pretty obvious reason why I feel that way.
OBSERVATION:
Brother "C" is asking why I should even care about such individuals
acknowledging me. The fact is that ex-witnesses who leave because of theological
differences are shunned by their life-long friends and are labeled as
"apostates."
I feel it’s like Jim Jones said to people (His
Followers) when they were in Guyana, "oh you can leave if you want, but we keep
your kids." It’s the same thing! It’s the same thing.
It happens to witnesses who have children whose
grandparents say we don’t want to associate anymore… (And the children say)
they’re not to see our grandchildren any more. And that’s why it’s called a
"cult," because that is not acceptable behavior, even in a democratic society,
never mind "theocratic." That’s not democratic.
OBSERVATION:
I made the parallel to Jim Jones for the following reason. Brother "M" said the
following at the start of the evening:
"You know
we’re…as an appeal committee it’s our charge to be as fair and to offer you as
much dignity as we can."
[Quote]
"If you feel that there’s ways that you just differ
from us and those are just inconvertible that that’s the way you feel, well we
respect that about you…you know, that’s how you feel" [Quote]
Brother "M" in
reality, however, did not have the decency to answer my questions or
acknowledge many of my statements. He also joked cavalierly when I expressed
dismay in not having received "shepherding calls."
Not only did
"Brother "C" call me an apostate and anti-Christ to my face, but the entire body
of Elders unanimously made a decision that led to a public announcement that
would sully my good name, causing my friends to eternally renounce me as
"spiritually dead." This is hardly "offering someone dignity," or
"respecting how one feels." Like Jim Jones, who informed his followers that
they were "free to leave" only at pain of losing their children, these men in
like manner were couching their actions in gentlemanly expressions in order to
trivialize the reality of the injustice they committed and resulting pain they
caused in my life and that of my family.
Brother "M1" :
It’s theocratic!
James: It’s
not theocratic my friend.
Brother "C" :
You have to understand that we’re different. We do recognize that we’re
different. There’s no doubt. You knew that when you joined that we do
hold a strong stance in Jehovah’s organization. That’s what we call it. I know
you don’t believe that’s what it is.
James: Well
let me ask you a question. When you changed from being a Catholic should your
former family members have viewed you as an "apostate" and never shared a meal
with you again?
Would that have been "theocratic?"
Brother "C" :
Had they been following the standard that they were to suppose to…
James: No I’m
asking you, would that have been "theocratic?" Would it have been theocratic for
them never to speak to you?
IMPORTANT:
Note in what follows how all the elders involved in this discussion are
unanimous in the belief that if non Jehovah's witnesses really
believed the Bible, they would shun their Jehovah's Witness family members in
obedience to scripture. Their unanimity proves that it is not a mere
"coincidence" that Jehovah's Witnesses hold to such convoluted ideologies, but
that the concepts are funneled down from the leadership of the organization.
Brother "M" :
Had they followed the Bible, yes.
Brother "C" : In their view, sure. In fact
it’s not that I haven’t been called an apostate from Catholicism it’s just that
they don’t care.
James:
(Speaking to Brother "D") I mean in December when I go to your family’s
house…your aunt Rose and all that…and we sit there and they have all their
Christmas stuff. You say a prayer. They dignify you. You say Jehovah’s name. You
say amen. Should you be considered "apostate" from those beautiful people?
Brother "D" :
They hold nothing to the Catholic Church in that they live immoral lives from
the viewpoint of the Catholics. If they strictly held to the Catholic view, they
would. (This brother's non-witness family are, in fact, not immoral from
anyone's viewpoint)
James:
(Horrified with their implications) They wouldn’t eat a meal with you?
Brother "M" :
Well they shouldn’t, if they were reading 2 John.
Brother "D" :
If they felt they had the true faith they certainly wouldn’t. But they don’t
feel they have the true faith.
James:
(Utterly stupefied) So you don’t think that applies to anti-Christs? I mean
there are twenty-eight thousand denominations of Protestantism. All recognize
that they believe in the essentials, that the Bible is inspired, Jesus died for
mankind’s sins and... there’s some camaraderie of just showing dignity to a
human being.
(At the breaking point) I mean I literally feel…and
it’s only in talking to people who are not witnesses that I realize that I’m not
crazy. How do you view that as a person unfit...?
I had spiritual conversations when I was in Japan.
I had spiritual conversations when I was with Stephanie and my friends in
California. Tons of spiritual conversations about being good, loving God, being
loyal to your mates, doing what’s right, showing self-control…unfit to eat a
meal? Amazing...amazing world you live in!
Brother "C" :
I told you we hold a strong standard…
James: No you
hold a biased standard!
Brother "C" :
Well it was not unknown to you when you joined.
James: Well
it’s a club, it’s a club. That’s silly, "you joined"…even the words you
use "you joined."
Brother "C" : Well that’s what you did. You
became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. You didn’t Join the Catholic Church.
James: No you
know what it is? Instead of being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, it’s the "spirit-directed organization"…because we can even
change the words of Christ if we want, can’t we? Sure why not!
Brother "C" : No we don’t do that.
James: Why is
that what he (Christ) said the "spirit-directed organization?"
Brother "C" :
That’s the term we use, sure. Every term we use is in the Bible.
James: Jesus
said "the spirit-directed organization?"
Brother "C" :
They baptize in the Father Son and the Holy Spirit…
James:
No...and the "spirit-directed organization!"
Brother "C" :
When we baptize do we say those things?
James: Yes.
Brother "C" :
No we don’t. (All the other elders looked on in horror. No one corrected him)
James: Brother
"C" per favore! (Please! Trying to appeal to our shared ethnicity)
Brother "C" :
We ask you the questions…
James: And
that do you recognize that this…
Brother "C" :
But when you were baptized in the water it was not…
James: That’s
not true. That’s the third baptismal question. You speak from ignorance.
Brother "C" : We ask you that question: Do
you recognize that you joined with us, that you’re a part of our organization?
James: So you
changed the words of Christ!
Brother "C" : Well we could eliminate that
(The words "the spirit-directed organization") if we wanted to, but we don’t.
James: Why?
Brother "C" :
Because it makes us an organization.
OBSERVATION:
This is perhaps the most telling statement of the evening in that it
encapsulates the mentality of Witnesses vis a vis the Bible and the Watchtower
organization.
If you remember,
it was Brother Garrett who when ordering me to "square with headquarters"
reminded me that I had "answered in the affirmative to the third baptismal
question." [Quote]
Brother "M" also stated that it is as "simple" as "when the Brother asked the
two baptismal questions you said yes." {Quote}
And now Brother "C" after being hard-pressed admits that the Watchtower did in
fact "alter" the baptismal formula from The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to The
Father, Son, and spirit-directed organization. He justifies this by
openly admitting that they did so for the express reason of establishing the
Watchtower organization.
James: See how
you’re above the Bible though! You’re above "false prophecy," "a different
gospel." You’re above (the biblical application of) "the anti-Christ," you’re
above the words of Jesus.
(Laughing) Amazing, amazing!
Brother "M" :
(Speaking to the Elders Brothers "D,"M1" and "G") Is there anything that you
Brothers wanted to mention?
Brother "D" :
It’s very consistent with what we heard.
James:
(Joking) It’s consistent right? The message is consistent?
Brother "D" :
Brother "M" mentioned it and I mentioned it, you were very willing to meet with
us which we appreciate. You didn’t say one thing to us, and another here…
James: I have
nothing to be ashamed of.
Brother "D" : And like I said to you, these
are your beliefs and you should hold to them.
James: I do.
But I feel I should leave with dignity. I don’t feel I’m an anti-Christ. Brother
"C" might feel I’m an anti-Christ, but I don’t believe I am.
Brother "D" :
Well I also mentioned to that you should honor the beliefs of others as well.
James: You can
believe in three classes of Christians and I would still eat a meal with you.
Isn’t that gracious of me? (Laughing)
Brother "M" :
We’re going to adjourn, we’ll go upstairs. Maybe there’s coffee upstairs.
All 6 Elders:
(Boisterous laughter over the fifth joke about coffee!)
Brother "M" :
(About to leave the room) You’re a very articulate man, it must be from all that
singing.
James:
Yes...all of my articulation has led me right out the door!
THE VERDICT
If you recall, my
judicial committee meeting ended with the
confession that when it comes to false prophecy, the Watchtower is above the
very principles of God as found in the Bible . My appeal committee meeting now
ends with an overt admission that the Watchtower has altered the express words
of Christ in reference to baptism in order to establish a religious
organization. If you have a high view of scripture, what more do you need to
hear?
As in all Jehovah's Witness closed-door trials, I
was not permitted any witnesses. The six elders not only functioned against me
as prosecuting lawyers for both my accuser and the Watchtower Society,
but acted as judge and jury as well. Even the Bible's explicit principles were
not enforced in that my accuser never approached me in the spirit of Matthew 18,
nor was he obliged to. Far from meeting the biblical standard of justice,
such a judicial arrangement would never be permitted in any enlightened
country.
When one considers the medieval tactics and
blatant disregard for holy scripture, it is little wonder that the "appeal
committee" decided to sustain the verdict of disfellowshipment.
SUBTERFUGE
I appealed by writing a letter to the society. I
was informed some three and a half months later that an announcement of
"disassociation" would be made. Not desiring to give the false impression that I
had proactively asked to be disassociated, I once again contacted the service
department. The service department kept me on hold for sometime until they
found someone who was familiar with my case. I was informed by this department
head that one could not be disassociated unless one specifically requested
to be. As you have seen, I did anything but make such a request. I was then told
to have the presiding overseer call Bethel promptly that day.
Two weeks later, unbeknownst to me, an announcement
was made at the Branford Kingdom Hall that I had "disassociated myself."
Confused, I phoned the presiding overseer to find out why he never communicated
to me the fact that such an announcement was to be made.
It turned out that, as ordered, the elder had
indeed called the service department that day only to discover that they (the
service department) claimed that I had never called and that they had never
spoken with me. Rather then clear up a possible miscommunication, the service
department issued the directive that the elder should proceed as planned with
the "disassociation" announcement.
Having read the testimony of Raymond Franz and
countless others who have had unspeakable injustices committed against them by
the duplicitous headquarters' staff, I had the presence of mind to record my
phone conversations with them as proof of their dishonesty.
AFTERMATH
Since that announcement I have lost all my friends
and associates. Those who I considered intimate acquaintances do not acknowledge
my presence when they see me in public. Those who do continue to speak to me
must do so clandestinely less they suffer the same punishment.
Even the once impregnable bond of my family has
been severed causing great strife, division and heartache. Reality has been
replaced by pernicious rumor and suspicion. Due to the Watchtower's censorship
on all literature critical of the sect, any attempt to communicate via letters
has proven fruitless.
The shunning has accomplished its intended goal; to
put a lid on any discussion of incriminating evidence against the Watchtower -
to place an hermetic seal on the Jehovah's Witness community.
Witnesses are taught to unquestioningly take the
word of elders regarding judicial hearings. Therefore, the fact that I have in
my possession a tape-recording of both committee meetings and Bethel phone
conversations is of little import. That, however, should not come as a surprise
to you if you have taken the time to read these two transcripts. For as you have
seen, evidence many times is not enough.
If I could do it all over again, I would not change
anything. Leaving the organization and losing my good name has resulted in my
drawing closer to God and His precious Son. It has given me the privilege to
share in the suffering of the Christ. It is with boldness that I echo the words
of the beloved apostle Paul:
- What is more, I consider everything a loss
compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for
whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain
Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes
from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness
that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of
his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming
like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the
dead. Philippians 3: 8-11
Email Me Your Comments
jcaputo@cshore.com
Back to Testimonies
Some emails I received on my Judicial Meetings