Do Not Stop at Asking the Question [Opposers Dismythed]

Just before he finally passed away, Jesus asked a potent question: "Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?" This translates as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" or "My God, my God, why have you left me?"

This was a profound question. One could even see it as the question a vengeful opposition member might ask to cause others to abandon God. That former member could pose the question as an accusation, then say, "It is because you did not care about me! You pretended to care! But inside, you were just using me and you used me up! And at the moment I needed you most, you turned your back on me. You should be ashamed of yourself! No one listen to God! He is deceiving you for selfish reasons! He doesn't care about you!" But, of course, anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and knows the Scriptures, knows that this is not the kind of question Jesus was asking.

Jesus' question was a quote from a Scripture that gives us a way of handling a question for which we do not have a clear answer. Yes, he was not querying God. Jesus was querying his disciples. Even with his dying breaths he was teaching us. No wonder he is called "the great teacher". Jesus was giving his disciples homework to do.

The Hebrew Scriptures are where the question was first asked. Surely, if we ignored those Scriptures, we would never have the answer to that question. That is why it is vitally important for a Christian to have an intimate knowledge of the Scriptures. Without that knowledge, we will get mislead by wayward thinking. So what was the answer to the question?

If you read Psalm 22, you will see the question asked in the first verse, then the psalmist goes on to recount that Jehovah saves his people even when it seems they have no hope. And then he relates his situation to God, how hopeless it seems. Then he makes his very specific request and proceeds to declare his faith in God, promising to make Jehovah's name known. He proceeds to recount, in general, Jehovah's history of saving his people, then he promises to recount Jehovah's saving acts to others and the purpose of doing such: so that they may repent and turn back to God. Then he recalls the hope that Jehovah has given to everyone putting faith in God's name and states that they will recount firsthand accounts of Jehovah's saving acts to all generations so that they too will have faith.

So what was the true answer to his question? What was the thing that we have no way of knowing without a knowledge of the Scriptures? Isaiah gave the answer when he prophesied about Jesus' death: "It was Jehovah’s will to crush him, and he let him become sick. If you will present his life as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and through him the delight of Jehovah will have success. Because of his anguish, he will see and be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people, and their errors he will bear."

Thus, it was not any complacency or malicious negligence on Jehovah's part that Jesus suffered and died. It was for a very specific purpose: in order that many may be saved through faith that Jesus' sacrifice carried off their sins far away so that they would not be used against us.

But more than that, Jesus' question was a personal expression of faith meant to show us how to overcome feelings of despair and anguish and to overcome questions of faith. What was Jesus trying to tell us? That when we undergo severe trials, or have been bit with opposition poison, we must not get caught up on the question and instead seek the answer in what we know about the one who seems to be the cause of our anguish, or who appears to have neglected us. By reviewing what he knew about Jehovah, Jesus was able to accept what was taking place and we can too, no matter how distressing the circumstances.

Additionally, like Jesus, in trying times we should draw closer to Jehovah through prayer and the preaching work. Helping others to have and strengthen faith will help us to have and strengthen our own faith as we look to the hope.

A Lack of Faith

Now why did I just go through that? What does that have to do with the purpose of this blog? Because our disgruntled former members are all victims of their own lack of faith. Instead of thinking about what they know of others in the faith, of the elders in their congregation, of the governing body and of Jehovah, they obsess over their circumstances or feel Jehovah's spirit go away from them.

That is why the apostle John said: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort." (1 John 2:19) What sort is that? "The sort who have faith for the preserving of our lives." (Hebrews 10:39) "For faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

A person with faith has faith, not just in Jehovah God, but also in others who serve him faithfully. They don't expect the circumstances to always be perfect. However, to think that one imperfect man, namely oneself, knows better than anyone else is arrogant and is what has led to all the various sects of Christendom. Such a person lacks both humility and insight.

The person without faith immediately goes to the negative answer. Consider, when a mother disciplines her child, does she do it because she hates the child? The child might think so, but if the child had faith in their mother, the child would reconsider its thought, knowing her mother, remembering her expressions of love, the scraped knees she mended, and how some of her discipline protected the child. So the child with faith would know that the mother loves the child and has the child's best interests at heart. So the child stops looking for the worst in their mother and accepts the discipline, then remembers next time not to look for the worst because they do not want to cause their mother undue distress or experience the discipline all over again.

Jehovah's Witnesses can have that faith, not just in Jehovah and Jesus, but also in those taking the lead among us, because we are convinced that they genuinely have our best interests at heart. No other religion can claim that. When you look around, you see priests being allowed to molest children by the thousands while our opposers lyingly compare us, and see evangelists fleecing their flocks, popes vying for political leverage for their own advantage and sending their own members off as fodder in unholy wars about greed for their own gain, or rousing their members against Jehovah's people, purposefully misleading them with doctrines they know to be false simply to fill their coffers from which they embezzle right before their eyes and betray the one whom they claim to serve.

Examine Your Own Experience Before You Make a Judgment

Now look at yourself. Do you make perfect decisions? When you make what you believe to be the right decision, do others always view your decisions as selfless, right or perfect, even when it proves to be such? Did you learn all you know about the Bible because you learned it on your own, in a vacuum? Do you go around accusing everyone of being ignorant because they don't know something you think you know? Are you always right? Is there some religion that you think has perfect knowledge? Do you think you have that perfect knowledge of the Bible? Has God commissioned you through an angel? Has his Son commissioned you?

Look at the ones who caused you to question. Have their lives improved by opposing the organization? Have they become better people? More loving? More fair? More knowledgeable about the Bible and God's will? Are they performing the house to house ministry that Christ commanded? (Luke 10:1-10) Or have they abandoned belief in God altogether? Answer those questions and you will know the truth about them and that truth will free you from their lies. It is all about recognizing fruitage as to whether it is good or bad. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Examine your own motives. Are you just looking for a way out of performing the ministry? Why? Might it be because you are tired of the disrespect by people of the world? Fearing the judgmental glances or false rumors by family and former friends? Are you seeking to be free of obligations and responsibilities? Free of being told what to do and how to live? (Really, no one tells you, do they? Is it not just your own perception that you are being told what to do? Are you not relying too much on the words of others and not making your own informed choices?)

Did someone you care deeply about get shunned? Is your anger at the circumstance not because you care more about what you want than what Jehovah wants? Do you scoff at "speaking in agreement" because you are so arrogant as to demand you not only be heard, but obeyed? Should others obey you? Should the elders obey you? Should the governing body obey you? Should Christ? Should God? Who put you in the judgment seat? Who declared your word so important? Whom do you obey? Is it not your own belly, or the opposition member who misleads you?

Don't just gloss over those questions. Answer them completely and objectively, not to conveniently fit the paradigm you have created for yourself, but to find the actual facts. Think about why you come to the answers you do and whether it is selfishly motivated or not.

"Moment of Clarity"

Some claim to have "a moment of clarity" as they like to call it, yet it is anything but clarity. If they had clarity, instead of jumping to conclusions, they would think more deeply about what they know and what they have known. Clarity comes from objective analysis, not a feeling and jumping to conclusions about that feeling.

A "moment of clarity" is the feeling that you are in an external mindset. Some might describe it as a feeling of being disembodied. Others will feel like they are being snapped back into a former mindset. It is often confused with "cognitive dissonance", which is actually something different, though may relate to it in most cases.* It is also not to be mistaken for one's "calling".** But a "moment of clarity" occurs when your entire reality experiences a massive shift to a completely different perception, as if it is the only perception you have ever known.
    * Cognitive dissonance is when a former way of thinking is trying to reassert itself through decision-making, such as when a person who normally does bad things is wanting to do good, but desiring to do bad, or inversely when someone who normally does good things turns to do bad, only to have their conscience strike them. It also occurs when one is accustomed to doing something by habit, but then tries doing it differently. The former way tries to reassert itself, making it difficult to perfectly execute the new action or think in a new way. We experience cognitive dissonance any and every time we try to change a habit or learn something new or retain conflicting viewpoints in mind. Everyone experiences it innumerable times throughout their lives. It is a normal part of learning and growing. This may precede a "moment of clarity", (see below) but is not the same.

    ** The "calling" occurs when one recognizes the truth and is inexorably drawn to it through Jehovah's holy spirit, becoming convinced that it is the truth. For some, such as myself, this can be the result of seemingly miraculous circumstances, and for others, it may simply occur as a revelation. A second calling may also occur later, whether through heavenly anointing or spiritual assignment. For example, Paul was called to the truth by Jesus himself at Acts 9:3-9, but did not receive his heavenly anointing and spiritual assignment until a few days later, shown in verses 15, 17 and 18. A "moment of clarity" can occur at any time after the calling to the truth, or anointing or spiritual assignment, but is not that experience.

In "a moment of clarity", the person perceives that they could easily walk away from the life they have been living at that moment, without any connection to it, and go off into the world as if it is what is supposed to be. To that person, it is like a fog lifting, like waking up from a dream. In reality, it is Jehovah lifting his spirit to allow them to make up their mind whether to return to the world or continue in the truth with unwavering conviction. (For some people, a similar experience may occur as a result of a dissociative experience or psychotic break. The cause is different, but the experience may be quite similar and the results can be harmless or just as devastating.)

For someone who has never been away from the truth, such "moment of clarity" would seem new and alien, and may seem seductive as they would suddenly see Jehovah's organization from a worldly perspective, as if experiencing reality for the very first time, when, in fact, it is just the opposite. They are experiencing the absence of Jehovah's spirit and guidance for the first time. For those of us who have ever spent any time in the world, whether not raised in the truth or gone inactive for any time, it is like returning to our former life before becoming involved in the truth.

I myself experienced that "moment of clarity" back when I was still studying. (Others may experience it years after baptism.) It was like waking up from a dream, but waking up in a waterless wasteland void of humidity. But the second it happened, I knew exactly what it was. It frightened me because I knew it was wrong. But instead of just assuming I had woke up from some kind of brainwashing, as some of our opposers like to call it, or that it was "evil" or from Satan, as someone lacking in objectivity might call it, I understood that it was a chemical reset in my brain that was allowing me to objectively resolve conflicting viewpoints that had been warring in my subconscious. (The cognitive dissonance that preceded it.) That moment allowed me to objectively compare what I had been taught by Jehovah's Witnesses―and how much my thinking and circumstances had improved by having that knowledge―to what I had beforehand.

I also thought about how it was I got the truth in the first place, through circumstances that in no way could be counted as coincidence, and I thought about the genuine concern my congregation showed that no other church I had visited ever showed. Thus, by knowledge, by careful examination, I was able to objectively examine why I was doing it and what it meant for me. I also thought about what my life would be like without it, and who I would be, returning to old ways. I remembered the unsavory attitudes of every single one of our disgruntled former members I had ever seen up to that point, both in person and online, and I knew I did not want to be that person, bitter and void of spirituality. So I voluntarily chose, with soundness of mind, to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and then my thinking snapped back to the reality I chose, simply by choosing it. It felt like returning to a well-watered region.

Think

So if you are a Witness, and something or someone causes you to question the organization, do not get stuck on the question, jumping to the conclusion that the answer is only bad. Instead, think about what you know about your brothers and sisters in the organization, about their intentions and about their desire, not to protect themselves, but to protect all of us. Think about what you know about Jehovah from the Scriptures. Compare your circumstances to your past or to others you preach to.

Think about who you are and your own motivations and priorities. Be objective and honest instead of jumping to conclusions that happen to be convenient and self-serving. Be brave with yourself and face who you are rather than giving in to self-pity and desire, laying blame on everyone else.

Don't be an opposer's tool. Be accountable to yourself and to Jehovah God. You decide who you are going to be. You decide what you are going to hope in. Do not be suckered into false decisions by your own desires and false justifications. But every decision has an outcome controlled only by the decision itself and you are in control. The choice is being put before you and you are the one who needs to look at what you actually know, not getting caught on the question.—De 11:26-28.

Eve got caught on the question, adopting Satan's views without question, letting him deceive her, failing to consider what she knew about Jehovah. She did not think about the fact that Jehovah created her, that he created her husband first and that she should have gone to him first. She should have sought clarifications from Jehovah about the situation. But instead, she took a disgruntled angel at his word and it cost her, her husband and their descendants their lives and happiness. The rest of their brief lives were miserable as they watched their offspring descend into madness, disease, miscarriages and violence and Eve found out just how much Jehovah had been helping her, but it was too late. She lost out on life and eternal happiness because she did not think deeply about the answer to the question, but let someone else do her thinking for her.

Are you going to stop thinking at the question and let our opposers do the thinking for you? Or are you going to look past convenient answers and think deeply about something more than your own belly?

For more on this style of critical thinking, see the video: 5 tips to improve your critical thinking


Comments

Dismythed said…
I added several paragraphs of clarification under "Moment of Clarity".
Opposers Dismythed said…
When people bring accusations, especially those that evoke a strong emotional response, those accusations are designed to illicit a knee-jerk emotional reaction in the negative instead of a reasoned reaction based on thinking.

I always believed that posts like this prepare us for those type of emotional questions, and helps us to deal with these things personally before we are ever confronted with them.

It is worth keeping in mind that apostate do not want to "help" you, they are no interested in your spiritual well-being. All they care about it trying to "get" the organization, using you as a "tool" for this end as was stated.

So it cannot be reiterated enough. Get to know the reputation of your organization.

Instead of asking "Do they do X", ask "How do they handle situation X". Those questions trigger thinking and encourages research, and during that researching process, your logic and reason wins out over anger and emotion.

Opposers Dismythed said…
Ok -- here is ONE KEY DIFFERENCE between how our organization is set up on a local level. There is not a single organization-sponsored activity that puts children under the supervision of non-related adults. During our mid-week and weekend meetings, families worship and learn TOGETHER.

Back in I recall, 2002, a reporter who addressed the false comparison between the Catholics and JWs said that there is a notable difference. Firstly, the abusers BY FAR in the RCC were the ones who were supposed to be protecting children (which encouraged the coverups, by the way). With us, those accused and found guilty were primarily rank-and-file members, and the abuse happened in the home.

Now abuse is abuse so I am not excusing anyone. But my point is that the environment in the RCC was conducive to children, particularly young boys, being abused. With us, there was no such environment, and is none today.

This difference is deliberately ignored by opposers as if unimportant. It is one thing for ordinary members to engage in crimes and sins, but its a COMPLETELY different things when those charged with protecting members engage in crimes and sins.

To illustrate, how do people feel when police officers break the law, compared to ordinary citizens?

Dismythed said…
Comparing our per capita record to the Catholics is like comparing a minor leaking faucet to a rushing river. Just one of their diocese had 600 abuse cases in 40 years involving their clergy alone.

Our opposers have been hard pressed to find 10 elders in 20 years throughout the entire organization who were found to be abusers. While the Catholic church had an average of 10 priests per year in Australia alone. The total number of abusers in the Catholic church is far more depressing.

For those not savvy with math, accounting for Catholic stagnancy and JW boon over the past 20 years, Catholics have a per capita rate of 1 pedophile priest to 27,000 laity, many of whom are allowed to remain priests after accusations are made, some having abused 10's of children, while JW's have had 1 pedophile elder to 560,000 members, all of whom were prevented from abusing more than 3 children. Where is the comparison?

Not to mention only a couple of those elders managed to perform their acts on our properties, primarily with girls, while most cases of Catholic priests occur on Catholic properties, mostly with boys. (Male pederasts have a far higher rate of resulting mental disorders and suicides.)
Opposers Dismythed said…
Yeah, and I do not see how that comparison can be made. The RCC is the standard for systemic child sex abuse for a reason.
Dismythed said…
I made a mistake. I originally counted our per capita number based on active yearly members, when I should have based it on baptisms to account for all members at a given time. Which brings our per capita rate down to "1 pedophile elder to 1.5 million baptized members", which means our per capita is 1/55th+ the per capita of the Catholic church. Or put another way, the Catholic pedophile problem is 55 times worse than ours. Or it could be said this way: that Catholics have 55 times more pedophile priests than we have pedophile elders.

But when you look at the numbers of molested children, the gap balloons wider. Even if we got conservative with just 10 Catholic victims per priest to 3 victims per elder, then the catholic problem is that much worse, being 89 timew worse than ours PER CAPITA. (Look up the term "per capita" if you do not understand it.)
Anonymous said…
Albert

This is not a defense of the Catholic Church in any sense, because abuse is abuse, and abuse of this nature against innocent children is especially egregious. And it’s only one (albeit ugly) issue within the Catholic institution that I strongly oppose (indeed, the priesthood itself shouldn’t even exist, nor the re-sacrificing of the Lamb of God, as Jesus transcended and thus made both obsolete once-for-all…but they still persist in it)

My point Corey, was that it’s hypocritical of you to villianize the Catholic church charging that priest freely molest children (this topic was a off-topic digression anyway from the intent of your post anyway), while not acknowledging the very same abuses (that continue to occur regularly) within the Society at the kingdom hall & house visit level. And considering that worldwide there are approx 1.2 billion Catholics compared to maybe 8.3 million JWs, and noting the relative average sizes of the respective congregations, your comparative statistics really doesn’t shine a favorable light on the Society’s guilty within its ranks at all. Seems you well know this judging by the thrust of your responses.

Perhaps you should remove the plank in your own eye first, or realize you’re one of the ones who ought drop the stone from your own hand rather than cast it…unless of course you (the Society you represent) are corporately without like sin of your own.

Albert
Dismythed said…
It is on-topic because it is a comment made in the article. Look up "per capita".

You are saying that because ANY molestation occurs, we are culpable, which is patently ridiculous. We have Christ's sacrifice because people are sinners.

The question is HOW EFFECTIVE WE ARE IN PREVENTING AND ADDRESSING IT, and the numbers PROVE that we are more effective in addressing it than ANYONE, let alone the Catholic church, who practically encourage child molestation among their priests by shuffling them around when accusations start to mount and retire them only when they become known in the media.

So yes, I will stand by our record, and no I do not condone molestation. Any molestation is reprehensible. But what is more reprehensible is spreading lies about a religion's molestation record.

You are claiming abuses that happen "regularly", but compared to what and what numbers are you using to make that claim? What is the norm for other churches?

Seeing as the ARC and the Charity Commission are the only ones who have studied the problem and both put us on par with the low numbers reported about groups they have not even studied, and were far lower than the other groups they did study, I'd say we have earned the right to say that there is no comparison.

There is no way we at Opposers Dismythed can be personally condemned simply beause we highlight these facts and shame those who spread lies about us.
Opposers Dismythed said…
There is no evidence that abuse happens "regularly" on the "house visit level", (whatever that means) "within the Society", and on the kingdom hall level.
Dismythed said…
By the way, Albert, I was comparing Catholic priests to JW elders. I did not compare overall numbers of victims. Those numbers would get so much uglier for the Catholic church if we had the figures.

The Catholic church doesn't even care about repentance, while repentance is probably the most important feature of our worship. So if you want to start comparing their actual over all per capita figures, you WILL lose.

Also, Albert, you implied that most of our molestations occur as a result of the house to house preaching and at kingdom halls, but such an assertion is flat out WRONG. You clearly do not know how our preaching is carried out. Two people must go on the study unless no one is available, and we do not study with children in private. That makes it awfully difficult for such things to happen unless the member purpposefully breaks the rules. There is just not a lot of opportunity in the ministry.

If you kept up with the media, you would know such is not the case. Our house to house work is almost entirely devoid of such claims, and at kingdom halls, it is far more difficult to take place in our small kingdom halls with only one bathroom for eachgender than Christendom's large churches with all their bathrooms, large closets, private offices, unused meeting spaces and nooks and crannies.

Your blanket, unsupported assertions have proved uninformed and not well thought out.
Dismythed said…
For those who may not know, Albert is not a former member, but is a religious opposer.
Dismythed said…
My numbers were actually being conservative to Catholics and hard on JW's. Our number of victems to pedophile elders is actually around 1.4 or 1.5, not 3, and when I said "55 times worse", I actually meant "55.56 times worse". Also, "10 victims per pedophile priest" is very conservative.

Then there was the fact that I was being hard on us when saying "10 pedophile elders in 20 years". Actually, I debunked several from a supposedly comprehensive list made by an opposer. The final result was that there were only 4 on that list, not 10. (6 were not elders.)
Opposers Dismythed said…
To add to the point about the ministry, the fact that it is organized before hand and primarily done in pairs, in the same location, reduces the opportunity for anything like that to happen. Everyone knows where everyone is (or at least, should be).
Dismythed said…
Albert, you also erroneously attempted to compare the number of priests to the number of elders.We have an approx. average 1 elder to 25 members, whereas ￿atholic churches have less than 1 priest to 300 parishioners. So according to your logic, we should have far more pedophiles per capita, yet we have 1/88th the problem according to the figures I worked out above. Think of it this way: priests have a much larger victim pool. They also have youth choirs, youth camps, child care and child counseling sessions conducted in private on which to prey. We do not have any of those things.

Another thing is that the prime driver behind the high number of molesters among Catholic priests is the unscriptural celebacy rule, which we do not have.
Opposers Dismythed said…
And, before anyone says that elders have private meetings with members, keep in mind that all those meetings and shepherding calls are made with at least 2 elders (or one elder and one ministerial servant). The environment for something to happen just isn't there.
Opposers Dismythed said…
I am glad these posts are here. We are educating members and other readers on why we do not have the problem the RCC has, and key fundamental difference that are often ignored or minimized which are critical to why we do not have their problems.

Something not publicly mentioned, is the moral training elders get directly, and the training we get at our meetings. The reminders keep us morally clean. So this further exonerates us and the GB from the lies that we do not care about our children.
Anonymous said…
[Since your other comments only provide unsupported hearsay and/or back up what I said, I will only reply to the last half of your message:

Albert wrote:]

And yes, you’re right, how else could such things occur unless an elder knowingly, willfully & purposefully breaks the rules in order to engage in this behavior…but isn’t that the nature of sin, to break the rules? There is plenty of blame to go around within all ‘religious’ organizations I’d bet.

It’s all a sad thing in its totality…but that’s the fallen, sin-prone carnal human nature for you (especially where porneia is concerned)…and it’s a respecter of no acceptable human behavioral etiquette, class, rank, race, religion, etc. Indeed, its chief aim is to break God’s laws. While the comparative numbers are different Corey, the Society can claim no better than the Catholic Church really. Why else would your elders need 'moral training', and reminded to keep 'morally clean'?
Dismythed said…
The fact that we get moral training is the reason the PER CAPITA numbers prove that we are not even remotely as bad as the Catholic church. There is a huge difference between an organization that cares and one that doew not. We have fewer victims PER CAPITA than anyone.
Opposers Dismythed said…
You took the words right from my mouth. The moral training is THE VERY REASON why we are a safe organization. Nice way for him to attempt to spin that.

Organizations that care organize training and education. Those that care more about holding on to their membership know that commenting on moral behavior is a no fly zone.
Dismythed said…
Also, Albert, you seem to be working very hard to avoid addressing my use of "per capita" as I have highlighted it several times, but you continue to make assertions that ignore the term. It would be rather foolish by now for anyone to believe you have simply failed to see it. It is clear that you are purposefully dodging it.
Anonymous said…
Admin,

I agree with the motivation and overall purpose of your post to educate and prepare the readers. The stakes are too high. If someone is going to lay a serious charge against a religious group,they cannot do so by speaking only in the abstract and hypothetical. They need concrete evidence. (1 Timothy 5:19)

After following your conversation with Albert I wonder if perhaps your missing a piece of the puzzle. I'm trying to understand your responses after reading them several times. Can you explain the official teaching of Jehovah's Witness or whether the comment below is a true presentation of their position?

I think Albert's point or what he is ultimately  asking or wants to know is whether sins by Jehovah's  witnesses, and especially elders, make the Organization into something that is not the true religion. And the true answer to that question if I'm not mistaken is, no. Even if the rate of untrustworthy elders were much higher, even higher than that of Catholic priest, that would not change the identity of Jehovah's Witnesses.

This is true even when the sin in question is the failure to discipline a member or elder who ought to be disciplined. Sins of failing to discipline are not qualitatively different than any other grave sins with respect to changing the identity of Jehovah's Witnesses.  The failure to discipline certain persons just means that this is a failure on the part of a leader or leaders to conform to the official teaching. Not that the Witnesses or Catholics condone such practices. Both Witnesses and Catholics moral teaching condemns all sin, including sexual sins, it has never changed.

One can look at particular incidents of failing to discipline abuse and declare that this says alot.  But as long as we use these phrases like says alot, anything can be proven with any evidence. Whether some particular event says a lot is not the question. Or one can even say that the situation is so bad that it cannot be  God's Organization. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise. In order to get the conclusion to follow, one must add another premise stipulating that some number and gravity of sins committed by elders or priest are the point at which that religion is no longer established by God, or is shown never to have been his Organization. But that added premise would be a mere stipulation out of one’s own mind.  Is like saying either that there is a certain number and gravity of sins by members of the Organization that turns Jehovah's Witnesses into something other than God's Organization and that that number and gravity of those sins has been reached in the Organization or that there is a certain number and gravity of sins by members of their community that demonstrates that this community was not established by God, and that one knows what that number and gravity are, and that it has been reached in the Jehovah's Witness or Catholic Church. But that is just doing ecclesiology by mere human reason, with one’s own standards.

The fruit of something is best determined by examining that which is most deeply united to it and lives fully and completely in it. By those who live in conformity with their religion,and who fully and devoutly embrace it, not by that which is only marginally related to it, rejects its doctrines, and lives contrary to its rules and practices. Jesus explained how much of the seed falls on rocky ground, is eaten by birds, and choked out by weeds. Those results are not a good way of judging the fruitfulness of the seed. The right way to judge the fruitfulness of the seed is to examine the cases where the seed thrives and flourishes, and then one sees the fruitfulness of the seed.

We cannot justifiably by our own human reason either add the qualifiers or stipulate by our own standards for what does and does not preserve the identity of God's Religion or its purity/holiness. To do so is to create a man made religion. That is idolatry which is an even greater sin than sexual sin.
Dismythed said…
Albert is a troublemaker whom I usually ignore. He toes his party line without faacts and never accepts any kind of correction of his viewpoint about JW's. The only reaaon I allowed his post was because it touched on points that were common lies I wanted to address. He had no "question". He only wants to assert that JW's are an evil cult that preys on children, simply because he disagrees with our doctrines.

As to your points,it is God's word, the Bible that defines how to identify true religion, and we fit that criteria to a tee. Most religions fail because they refuse to worship on Jehovah's terms.

As to whether any amount of molestation disqualifies us, such a claim would be ridiculous. There is no organization in the world free from child molestation. The question is not whether it happens,but how effective the organization is in preventing and handling it by means of God's word. No organization will be effective in that regard if they ignore God's word. We are so effective as i've shown because we do obey God's word.
Opposers Dismythed said…
Sins alone do not disqualify one from being God's organization. 1 Corinthians 5:1 speaks of unspeakable sins being carried out in the congregation:

"Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife."

Paul noted that those sins were not even found among non Christians.

Jesus noted in Revelation 2:20 about his followers:

"Nevertheless, I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit sexual immorality".

Anyone who reads the Bible should expect the congregation to have to deal with problems of many sorts. But as was mentioned, what disqualifies an organization is if they tolerate those problems and refuse to deal with them adequately.

So we have taken steps to deal with them. We do not simply remove unrepentant sinners and leave it at that. We have an extensive Bible training program, weekly, that deals with helping prevent problem. THAT is the key.

It is a fact that modern day "Christianity" is more about conformity to the world's standards and convenience, which is why "Christians" are involved in every single thing non-Christians are, even things completely contrary to scripture, and these religious leaders are advocates of it -- leading the charge. So its hard to tell who is a Christian and who is not. They do not stand out at all.

Anonymous said…
Admin,

The claim is not ridiculous or unreasonable. I'm saying that the position of Albert is neither fitting nor true.

In the Protestant world , without a governing body and official teaching, the doctrine of the Church is just the practice of its leaders.  This is their understanding and I believe Albert's too..This is precisely why for them sins are sins against the Organization's ’s holiness, rather than detractions. So the problem is that it mistakenly treats sins by members as if they are sins of the Organization rather than as sins by members of the Organization.

I'm still having trouble following you on your last response, can you restate your answer? For example,  what does "effectiveness" have to do with identifying the true religion if the number of sins dont change the identity of the true religion and if there is a distinction between persons in the Organization, and the Organization herself?

If the formal moral teaching for Witnesses and Catholics has not changed, and if dicipline or failure to dicipline( different from the Organizations holiness.)is not a mark in identifying the true religion. Then why not make a distinction that the only reason a religion is not God's organizations  its because of false teachings and not because of the  failures of its leaders, why bring up the accusations and assertions below?

"Because we are convinced that they genuinely have our best interests at heart. No other religion can claim that. When you look around, you see priests being allowed to molest children by the thousands while our apostates lyingly compare us, and see evangelists fleecing their flocks, popes vying for political leverage for their own advantage and sending their own members off as fodder in unholy wars about greed for their own gain, or rousing their members against Jehovah's people, purposefully misguiding them with doctrines they know to be false simply to fill their coffers from which they embezzle right before their eyes and betray the one whom they claim to serve."

"The Catholic church doesn't even care about repentance, while repentance is probably the most important feature of our worship. So if you want to start comparing their actual over all per capita figures, you WILL lose."

"Another thing is that the prime driver behind the high number of molesters among Catholic priests is the unscriptural celebacy rule, which we do not have."

"There is a huge difference between an organization that cares and one that does not."

"Organizations that care organize training and education. Those that care more about holding on to their membership know that commenting on moral behavior is a no fly zone. "
Anonymous said…
Admin,

What if the Christian expecting doesn't find dicipline in his denomination? Do you have  any Scriptures that tell us that, what  will disqualify an organization from being the true religion and lose its divine authorization is if at some point those taking the lead happen to tolerate sin or fail to dicipline and refuse to deal with problems adequately?

You need names, and dates and specific sins to justify your claim, merely hypothetical or abstract or vague accusations against no particular priest, bishops, pastors in no particular time, are not sufficient to substantiate your serious charge against them. Some sources claim we have 30,000  denominations in Christianity, are you including all of them in your category of modern Christianity?

Dismythed said…
There is no "one way" to identify false religion. The primary salvation doctrine is just one way of many and not very effective for the peraon looking for the true religion. What is more effective for that person is in identifying who is obedient to God and Christ. That eleminates any religion that says fornication is okay or that you can worship any way you like, or who create salvation doctrines not found in the Scriptures, like belief that God is a Trinity.

There is also the matter of obeying in the little things. If they hold fast to a doctrine they believe to be true, but they do not have faith enough to apply what they view to be minor things, then clearly they are not putting faith in the word of God and therefore cannot be the true religion.

As to numbers, numbers of sins very much matters. If they let their members and clergy sin at their liesure, then not only is the salvation message rendered meaningless, but it is condoning sin. Thus the true religion will educate its members on Jehovah's highstandards, and even though they may sin, sin is extremely reduced because they have the actual goal of seeking to overcome sin. A religion that does not have that as a goal cannot be the true religion.
Dismythed said…
The extent of the failures of the Catholic Church are a matter of public record. You are asking to enumerate all of them, which is unreasonable. The ARC and the Charity commission did thorough studies of the matter. Go to them for such proof.

As to Scriptures, look up: Acts 26:20; Romans 8:8; Ephesians 5:5; Hebrews 10:6; James 4:4 Revelation 21:8.
Opposers Dismythed said…
True, there is no one way to identify true (or false) religion as there is some overlap.

Ask yourself what did Jesus do? He preached and teached, first and foremost, and he was distinct from the world around him. He spoke about the Kingdom over 100 times in the gospel accounts, and his teachings were opposed. The apostles were not at all involved in the government of Rome. Jesus taught contentment and simplicity of life, and did not advocate seeking riches and glory among men. His disciples were hated. Christians of his day were persecuted for nothing.

While Jesus was indeed a charitable man, he never stated that his purpose was to give charity as that does not lead to salvation. Atheists are charitable, yet, they shun the existence of God and his Kingdom.

So there are a lot of factors that identify true religion (and false) religion as well.

Discipline is a factor, but organizations that disciple can also promote pagan holidays like Christmas, well knowing too that all of the Christmas traditions were borrowed from false religion, and that Jesus WAS NOT born on December 25th.
Dismythed said…
To Anonymous of December 28, 2017 at 2:26 PM:

You do not appear to know much about us. You only know the lies spread about us. You need to do your own "independent research" on what are called "spurious verses". If you should know anything about the Bible, you should know that much.
Opposers Dismythed said…
Apparently not. The reason why we know those verse are spurious verse is because they are not on the oldest copies. It doesn't take much effort to know what's been added and whats original at that point.
Anonymous said…
I miss your posts..just a comment.☺
Dismythed said…
Yeah, it's a little slow going at the moment. I have been tending to my grandmother and I am trying to get a freelance illustration carrier off the ground. My writing partner has had to fill in for the loss of a ministerial servant or two in his congregation, so has been very busy. We'll eventually post again if Jehovah wills.
Anonymous said…
I understand. Time is a precious commodity at the moment especially with family commitments and our spirituality. All the best. Agape
Opposers Dismythed said…
Yes. Thank you. In January, we lost an MS and my responsibilities immediately increased, but my partner and I at the outset said our families and congregations would be our priorities over this. But we are happy that you appreciate the content!
Anonymous said…
[Originally posted by Anonymous on July 4th]

I like your posts. I look foward to more dismythings. I would like you to do more on the child sex abuse [claims] because we are getting a lot of attacks with that one and some on the accusations that we are false prophets. ... Thank you and glad to see people exposing these lies.

[Edited for content.]
Dismythed said…
We are glad you appreciate our work. We have more planned on the alleged sexual abuse issue, but as much as we have handled the the false prophet claims is as much as we are going to handle it on this site. Though we may at some point touch on it on JW's Understood when we get back to shooting that.
Anonymous said…
This looks like an article with a lot of personal feeling in it. I appreciate the personal touch!

As it is personal, the emotions of someone facing a crisis of faith probably varies greatly depending on the person.

If you ask 10 people what drew them to a particular religious organization, you might get several answers.

Therefore, what shakes the faith of one person may be nothing to another and what inspires greater faith in one person might be insignificant to another. This is the beauty and the "curse" (for lack of a better term) of individuality that our creator gave to us.

Everything and everyone is on a spectrum, like the colors of the rainbow. I think that it is perfectly possible to have a crisis of faith in the absence of an overtly negative mindset or outlook. I think that it is also perfectly possible to suffer a crisis of faith in the absence of a self-centered or arrogant attitude.

Introspection is a must in such cases but I feel from experience that too much introspection can challenge even the most steely psyches. Some people need much more introspection and some people much, much less! (You can make yourself literally sick with self-doubt!)

Sometimes, we may view things as only being a few ways. Or we may feel that if we have experienced "A", others' experience with "A" should be the same or at least similar. In reality, it can be unrecognizably different.

I loved your honesty in this article, but maybe it would be nice for some other contributors to give experiences of their own crises of faith! Maybe people like me could find a story that is a bit more relatable.

It can be hard to talk about such things openly, but it can be such a great boost to know that you aren't the only one. As for me, the sense of community in the congregation is fantastic and difficult to find anywhere else. For now, this is what helps me to hang on tight.

Thanks for everything!
This topic is specifically focused on one of many tactics our apostates use to draw others after themselves, (Probably the primary one) as well as the tendency of some to be reactionary rather than carefully considering things.

The word "introspection" does not appear in the article because the article is not about introspection, but about reasoning and analysis. Introspection is an inward look at oneself, but this post is about looking at our environment and the history of that envirnment, and its effect on us, and the choice set before us before making a rash decision. Introspection, on the other hand, as indicated in your comment, is about our personal feelings and opinions of ourselves.

Satan and our apostates want to stop our thinking by training us in the habit of stopping at the question, but Jehovah wants us to consider our steps wisely. (Pr 3:21-23; 14:29; Ec 5:2)
Anonymous said…
Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear.

I used "introspection" not to suggest that the article in its entirety is *about* introspection but as another way to say "examining yourself". Mostly in reference to the section headed "Examine Yourself Before You Make a Judgment".

Especially the emotional and viewpoint components mentioned in that section strike me as certainly containing components of introspection. No? Maybe a better synonym would be "self-examination"?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important aspect of all life, including spiritual! Some people (like me) can go crazy. While others probably need to do it more. That's what I mean!

Thanks!


I see. After closer examination of the word, I see that "introspection" may be correct. I have always tended to see it as more relating to self-absorption than self-examination. But apparently my understanding was limited.

But the form that can drive people crazy seems more akin to rumination or depressive self-doubt. (Which is prejudging yourself without honest analysis.) But it is definity possible in examining oneself with anyone suffering depression. So I see where you are coming from.

The questions in the article seem difficult to answer with self-doubt. Apostates who don't know they are apostates, or at least pridefully resistant to acknowledging it, would probably deny the answers before even considering them, while someone with self-doubt, unless they have apostate tendencies, would not be inclined to answer affirmatively because they know the difference between beating themselves up over something minor that they think they actually did and accusing themselves over something they didn't do at all.

Jehovah always wants us to examine ourselfs honestly. And the organization promotes seeing ourselves as others see us, and especially as Jehovah sees us, which is more objective than we see ourselves, which has been helpful to myself. (I had a lifelong bout with depression until 2012.)
Anonymous said…
Thanks for looking into it! You also have dealt with depression? What were the major factors that helped you to overcome it?
Anger managenent, staying positive, seeking peace, learning to trust, hoping for the best, allowing myself to love and appreciate others, and giving myself permission to laugh and be happy.
Dismythed said…
I am reareading this to review material that could be helpful for an email and felt I should address this.

Anonymous wrote: "I loved your honesty in this article, but maybe it would be nice for some other contributors to give experiences of their own crises of faith! Maybe people like me could find a story that is a bit more relatable.

"It can be hard to talk about such things openly, but it can be such a great boost to know that you aren't the only one. As for me, the sense of community in the congregation is fantastic and difficult to find anywhere else. For now, this is what helps me to hang on tight."

I have only been contributed to by one other person and made him my writing partner. He has written many articles on this site and I indeed go to him for more perspectives whether in a post or in an email reply. I also put up a link on the Desktop site providing qualifications for submissions, but I have yet to get a contributor.

As to perspectives, the afore-mentioned heading now titled "Examine Your Own Experience Before You Make a Judgment" provides a whole slew of questions that each exhibit a different perspective. I was attempting to be exhaustive to all claims made by apostates about why they left or the self-proclaimed roles of savior they take for themselves.

Any person whose situation is addressed by one or more of those questions would do well to follow that question to a definitive answer. Because logic would then deman that tbey stop thinking so shallowly and stick close to Jehovah's organization.