A recent letter to elders in selected congregations in the United States urges them to encourage Indian nationals to return to India

The Watch Tower Society has circulated a letter, dated May 11 2013, to selected bodies of elders in the United States. The letter’s subject heading is “Request for Indian nationals to serve in India.”

The brief letter, which stresses that its contents should be kept confidential, urges elders to make “exemplary” Indian Witnesses aware of their “opportunity” to return to India due to the “potential for further growth” in that land.

Indian elders, ministerial servants and regular pioneers are to be particularly encouraged “to consider whether their circumstances may allow them to return to India to assist with the preaching work.”

India is home to one seventh of the world’s population. It is also one of a number of countries in Asia where the Society is floundering in its attempts to attract new publishers. According to the most recent report for 2012, India averages only one publisher per 33,708 people. The situation is considerably worse in Pakistan (1 in 205,540) and Bangladesh (1 in 885,071).

This website has already pointed out the enormous “black hole” in worldwide publishers, which encompasses one third of the global population. An immense zone of governmental opposition to the preaching work sweeps across 33 countries from West Africa right across to East Asia, as demonstrated in the map below…

As you can see, the zone of opposition (where the average is one Witness per 70,000 people) bypasses the Indian subcontinent. However, the disappointing figures in the Society’s own statistics for that region indicate that Witnesses are even struggling in Asian countries where their work is not currently under ban. This latest plea for Indian emigrants to return and bolster the numbers seems to represent an attempt to redress the balance.

This news should also be considered in the context of the Society’s conviction that Matthew 24:14 has already been fulfilled in readiness for Armageddon. If the “good news of the kingdom” has truly been preached “in all the inhabited earth,” then why is a third of the world’s population virtually untouched by the preaching work, and why are publishers even being asked to return to their country of origin in an effort to compensate for flagging growth?

Many thousands of Witness families have been torn apart by Watchtower’s insistence on the shunning of relatives

Over the last few weeks volunteers of the newly formed AAWA (recently renamed as Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses) have been combining their efforts with one common goal – to draw attention to the archaic shunning of family members, which continues to be encouraged by the Watch Tower Society despite their repeated denials to the media.

“Operation: e-Shunning” – due for launch on May 1st – aims to highlight the January 15 2013 Watchtower – specifically the parts where the magazine discusses the shunning of relatives. Many Witnesses who have read the study article entitled “Let Nothing Distance You From Jehovah” (which was considered back in March) will have perhaps breezed past certain instructions related to how disfellowshipped family members should be treated by those who are loyal to the organization.

However, just because most of us Witnesses have gradually become desensitized to some of the more damaging rhetoric in Watchtower literature, does not mean it is any less worthy of serious scrutiny – particularly if it can lead to families being torn apart.

The Society’s latest instructions warn Witnesses to not even email family members who are no longer in the faith, as you can see for yourself in the following quote…

“Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail.” (Jan 15 2013 Watchtower, page 16)

As has been repeatedly stressed on this website, the shunning of family members has no basis in scripture. The instructions given by Paul in 1 Cor 5:11,12 call for the shunning of “anyone called a brother” who is remorselessly engaged in wrongdoing. The context clearly shows this to be a measure intended to keep the congregation clean by ensuring that willful sinners do not intermingle freely with worshippers at Christian gatherings.

By counselling that Christians should “not even [be] eating with such a man,” the inference is given that association with wrongdoers even outside of Christian gatherings is to be avoided. There is no reason why this should also be applied to relatives. On close consideration, family members (who would eat together frequently) are clearly not the focus of these instructions.

Christ’s parable of the prodigal son contradicts Watchtower’s insistence that errant teenagers should be shunned by their parents

When further reflecting on Christ’s parable of the prodigal son, who was embraced by his father despite returning home purely because he ran out of food and money, we soon begin to see the principle of shunning in its proper context. It was never intended as a tool to break families apart. Rather, the Bible encourages those in positions of oversight to exercise mercy in the way judicial matters are handled, and underlines the importance of maintaining the family bond. (Matthew 9:13; 1 Tim 5:8)

With so many families affected by the Society’s harsh interpretation of scripture, it would be unsurprising if at least a few Witnesses were hanging on to some shred of contact with their relatives through email. However, even this meagre lifeline has now been snatched away from any Witnesses who feel compelled to prove their obedience to the organization. AAWA’s latest video demonstrates the true impact that such a cruel and heartless approach has on ordinary people…

An Ambitious Movement

AAWA is still wet behind the ears having been launched to the public only less than a month ago. However, it is heartwarming to see the number of people who are selflessly volunteering to further AAWA’s cause. So far, 198 people have volunteered to help out in AAWA’s 11 teams, each of which handle various aspects of AAWA’s work.

It remains to be seen what will become of Operation: e-Shunning. It was initially intended as something of a test run – a warning shot across the bows to see what we could achieve together. Could it become something more? Might it grab the attention of the mainstream media? Only time will tell. Even if the world fails to take notice, e-Shunning will surely succeed in highlighting to at least some individuals how unmerciful Watchtower’s shunning policies are, and why they are in desperate need of overhaul.

Superhero fan Ruben Ortiz, a former Jehovah’s Witness, developed a Facebook Forum to allow exiting Witnesses to share their experiences and find friendship and support.

Picture a small boy racing like the wind on his Spiderman BigWheel™. Notice the cape flowing behind him, or is it just an old towel tied around his neck?

It makes no difference to the boy, for he is a real life superhero. Superman, Batman, Spiderman—it makes no difference. His goal is to protect and inspire. He must save the world from harm.

As a child, Ruben Ortiz was inspired by comics. In fact, he claims to have derived many ethical and moral lessons from them.

Batman was Ruben’s Number One hero growing up and remains so to this day. Ironically, Ruben shares many similarities with the caped crusader, as his story will demonstrate.

Becoming “Bible Boy”

At the age of six, Ruben sat on the aforementioned tricycle, circling the table in his mother’s dining room. She was seated there with Jehovah’s Witnesses, attempting to learn about the Bible, and little Ruben was trying desperately to capture their attention with his variety of verbal sound effects: engines revving, sirens blaring, brakes squealing. Suddenly, his mother reached out as he wheeled past and pulled him onto a chair, saying, “You’re going to sit down here—right now—and learn about the Bible with me!”

Suited and booted: Young Ruben ready to go into action as “Bible Boy”

Ruben loved it! The Bible had all of the answers. Everything made sense to him. Especially did he appreciate the message that God is Love, because even though he’d met his father, his dad didn’t live with the family and Ruben couldn’t see him as often as he needed. Jehovah’s love effectively filled that void for the young boy. He went with his mother to the local Kingdom Hall to attend Jehovah’s Witness meetings, and soon he was joined by siblings, cousins and an aunt.

Ruben believed everything he was taught; he had no doubts whatsoever as a youngster, even when he was singled out as being different from others at school during holiday celebrations. He didn’t mind because he had the love of Jehovah, and that love was of monumental importance.

What follows is an excerpt from “Ruben’s Momentary Glimpse” a blog written the day after Christmas 2010, as he reflected on his inability to participate in holiday celebrations during his childhood:

“It was 1986 and I was in the fifth grade. The school had a holiday concert bash planned and each classroom in the school was going to perform a song. As a Jehovah’s Witness, I was not allowed to participate. Up to that point, I had never thought that I was missing out on celebrating the holidays, and unlike many other kids I knew that were in my situation, I could easily explain to you why I did not. I was the type of Jehovah’s Witness kid that would carry his Bible to school so that I could explain to my teacher why I could not salute the flag, ‘If you see here in Deuteronomy 4:15-20…’ The Christmas explanation was a breeze. I had a lot of love in my house, from my mother and my siblings. Holidays or not, I was a happy kid.” (read the blog post here)

Ruben with his mom at an assembly

Ruben developed self-esteem issues during fifth grade, not helped by his being somewhat overweight. Considered “dorky” by other kids, he began to be subjected to bullying. But he took it all in stride and persevered with his faith. As a teenager, he was meek and kind, and was even dubbed “Bible Boy” by some of the other kids.

Looking back on it all now, Ruben explains that he was struggling to find his way as an individual. He was making decisions while “trying to be me and a Jehovah’s Witness at the same time. But they rob you of your personal accountability; they blame Satan the Devil or the world in general for your own human desires, so I didn’t learn to take responsibility for my own mistakes or bad judgment. That came later, after I left.”

From fantasy to reality

What led to his decision to leave the safety of a religious group that had provided him with so much love and comfort through the years? The process was a gradual one, as Ruben recalls. Nagging misgivings emerged as he reached his late teens.

In 1995 the Watchtower changed the meaning of the expression “generation,” a word that had been used to explain the approximate 30-year age bracket of humans alive during 1914, and the key to a prophecy regarding the timing of Armageddon. “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” Matt. 24:34, NWT.

Ruben could see that the Society was masking its failed prophetic interpretations by constantly inventing new ones

Ruben had known for a certainty that they would need to do something to explain why the world hadn’t ended. But when he eventually saw the “new light” in print, he felt gripped by a strange sensation—doubt—something Jehovah’s Witnesses were repeatedly warned against. They were expected to believe unconditionally what was taught by their “Faithful and Discreet Slave Class” at Bethel in Brooklyn, New York, the World Headquarters of the Watchtower Society. Ruben blew it off, letting that first red flag slide. The following year, on his twentieth birthday, Ruben was appointed as a Ministerial Servant.

The Watchtower’s explanation of “generation” flip-flopped as, slowly but surely, other doctrinal changes crept in. Most of these were predictable for Ruben, who had always been a forward-thinker. He saw clearly where reality was headed, and it did not line up accurately with what the Watchtower Society had prophesied in black and white.

Each time the Watchtower announced that “new light” had been received, Ruben wasn’t surprised. He seemed to be one step ahead of the powers-that-be at Bethel. Little did he realize that those routine doctrinal changes were slowly eroding the foundation of his faith in the Watchtower.

Despite his misgivings, being a Witness was something Ruben felt he was good at. “Sometimes I think there were two of me,” he told me, laughing, as he explained how he managed to stuff his feelings away, to ignore warning signs with very little concern.

Losing the Witness mask

Ruben married when he was twenty-four, but the marriage didn’t last. The elders paid a visit to the couple’s home and lovingly explained to Ruben that he was at fault, “for, as the head of the household, I had allowed our spirituality to dwindle, which according to the elder was the root of our problems.” Ruben and his wife tried to improve their spirituality, but after a short while, instead of staying in a miserable marriage, his wife decided to escape a bad situation and left to live with another man.

“Once the divorce was in process,” Ruben says, “I really tried to do what I thought was the right thing. I tried becoming ‘spiritually strong’ as the Jehovah’s Witnesses put it. That didn’t last very long. In a short time I was out partying and eventually doing what I wanted to do, having sex with other single women, including single Jehovah’s Witness women. I discovered that I didn’t feel guilty. In my head I felt justified. I had spent years being ‘good’ doing my best to follow their rules. I failed every once in a while, but I did my best and it got me nowhere. This was my thought process. So I did my thing. I could always go back I thought.” No one called him “Bible Boy” after that.

The 1949 novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” written by George Orwell (above) describes a totalitarian regime headed by the mysterious Big Brother who controls people’s thoughts and actions

Eventually, Ruben’s double life caught up with his conscience. He decided to talk to the elders, make a full confession of everything he’d done wrong and attend the meetings like before.

“I told a close friend about my desire to go back and make things right with the congregation. My friend said two words that forever changed my life. She compared the Watchtower with ‘Big Brother’ from the book, 1984. Those words hit me like a ton of bricks. At that moment, I woke up. I KNEW! All the doubts I ever had rushed back to me at that moment.”

Not one to charge into, or out of, anything that he might regret later, Ruben decided to do as much research as necessary to prove what he already knew in his heart.

“I proceeded to look up information on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I found Crisis of Conscience at a book store and read what former Governing Body member Raymond Franz wrote in regards to the Witnesses. With the evidence this book presented and other information I researched, I came to the conclusion that the Watchtower organization was as fraudulent as any other religious organization that claims ultimate truth.”

A few weeks later, Ruben sent a Letter of Disassociation to the congregation, instructing them to no longer consider him a Jehovah’s Witness. With that significant part of his life now in the past, Ruben says, “I’m glad I realized that much of what I believed and disbelieved was based on interpretations of ancient writings dictated by men whose sole concern was for the continuation of their corporation. (Italics added) I decided that I would come to my own conclusions based on the evidence presented, reason, and common sense. This led me to where I am today. HAPPY! At times that route may leave you with your occasional ‘I don’t know.’ I am okay with that. I’d rather say ‘I don’t know’ to certain questions than to claim I have all the answers. I have facts, explanations, and a couple of great ideas. I’m happy with that.”

A superhero emerges

Ruben today with his wife, Emily, and their little boy

Since April 2006, Ruben has spent a considerable amount of time helping persons who have left the Jehovah’s Witness organization to find support. It began with a group on MySpace called “Ex-Jehovah’s Witness Recovery Group.” Many of his closest friends today he met through that group, including Emily, who became his wife in 2010. He also hosts a YouTube page called “Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses Speak Out.” When Facebook took over the social media arena, Ruben moved out of MySpace. A group that had started with 200 people now has over 1,500 members, with more being added daily. He is joined by five co-administrators: Steph Gardener, Lisa Cook Osborne, Christopher K. Young, Raven Pence and Betsy Jael.

The group has “rules, or whatever you want to call them,” Ruben says, and while he’s not a fan of trying to police a group, (or run a cult as he’s been accused by some) he asserts there must be some form of etiquette for a collection of people as diverse as this one. A “New Member Notice” is pinned to the top of the page, and it is edited occasionally as necessary. The notice points to an external web page as a guideline on forum etiquette.

Ruben admits he’s been criticized and has received comments such as, “Who gives a damn?” and “Why don’t you just let it go? Why bother?” So, why does he spend so much time helping others with their transition out of this high control group? Ruben and his co-admins believe in the value of opening their hearts to people who genuinely need a friend. They know how helpful it is to be able to confide in someone who has been in a similar position.

A member will post their concern on the forum, and within minutes others continue the thread regarding that topic. The topics vary from day-to-day; routinely posts are made from new ones who have been disfellowshipped or disassociated and are suffering from depression from the shunning received by their parents, siblings and even their own children.

Shunning and sexual abuse are the top two discussions, and there are questions ranging from how to handle a child custody case; how to find new friends one can trust; and how to talk to JWs who come to your door. Recently one mother posted that she heard the doorbell ring, heard her young son talking to someone, but when she went to the door and told the woman she was the boy’s mother, the woman responded by saying, “Oh, YOU’RE the boy’s mother? Good bye.” She then turned on her heel and walked away. Experiencing extreme rudeness from current Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to your door only to realize you are disfellowshipped is something that no one should have to tolerate in their own home.

Dwelling on the positives

Many posts do not address concerns; rather, they elaborate on the contentment, successes and freedoms many have experienced now that they are no longer imprisoned by Watchtower’s mental cage. Such ones post about the simple happiness of holiday celebrations, making new friends with the help of exJW forums, finally learning to use their own thinking abilities, going to college and graduating with a degree which assists them in pursuing a rewarding career.

Rather than dwell on the negative consequences of leaving, Ruben encourages Ex-JWs to focus on the positives

They post pictures of weddings, their newborns and subsequent birthday parties. One woman uploaded a picture of herself receiving her PhD, after having marched with her graduating class procession accompanied by the familiar Pomp and Circumstance music.

She had a moment of serendipity when she realized she’d been at this exact same venue when she’d attended district conventions as a youth where it had been reinforced that she should never go to college. Her graduation day was even more of an accomplishment for her due to its location.

On March 13, 2013 Ruben posted the following message:

“As many of you know I created a support group for Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses seven years ago. With the help of a great group of friends we have been able to keep it going for so long. Not only via online, but we have had meet-ups, made friends we have met in person, and attended invitations to a yearly BBQ hosted by a loving couple. Some of us have actually created our own families from this. This kind of work is not always an easy thing to do. Once in a while you have people that do not appreciate one being outspoken, especially on a subject as sensitive as religion. Sometimes you lose friends and even create enemies. It comes with the territory. It can be overwhelming at times, and you even think to yourself, why continue? Maybe it’s time I hang my hat. Then you get a message like the one I received today: ‘I’m not a very sentimental person (if you couldn’t tell). But my ramblings in [another private Facebook group] got me thinking about how lost I was before I found your group. I was a gigantic mess, and I would probably still be a mess if it weren’t for you. So from the very bottom of my heart – thank you, thank you, thank you!!! The community that YOU created on Facebook saved my life!’ I found myself without words when I read it. How many people get these kinds of messages? How wonderful is it that someone feels their lives were saved because of work you and others like you are doing? Very wonderful. Is it worth it then? I’d rather make 100 enemies if it means helping one person find happiness. And the best part is that when looking at it objectively, more good actually comes from what we do than negative. To this person, thank you from the bottom of my heart. People like you have helped me along the way as well. We’ve all helped one another. I am a kinder and more loving person because of the reciprocal kindness we have shown one another over the years. Thank you for the motivation and the love.” ~ Ruben Ortiz

This post was followed by a flood of responses. Here are a few selected samples:

“I actually thought to myself this week, ‘Interacting with other exJWs can be so emotionally draining. I wonder how people like Ruben can keep it up?’ Now I know, and I had to share that thought with you. Much love.”

“Ruben, it is very comforting to know that there are others who have experienced and made it through the mental and emotional circus that one goes through when dealing with or leaving a mindset known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

“I must say, Ruben Ortiz, before I found this group I was so lost, didn’t know what to do. Finding others whose experiences I could read, and vent to, literally saved my life. You saved my life. Please never give up.”

“It’s wonderful that you’ve been such a rock, a lighthouse and created such a safe harbor for exJWs.”

Ruben replied: “Wow. Thank you all!”

The Memorial-Free Day Challenge

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013, when Jehovah’s Witnesses the world over were preparing to attend the annual Memorial of Christ’s Death at their local kingdom halls, Ruben noticed a post by a new person. She was distraught, felt totally alone, only recently having come out of the organization. She wondered if there would ever be life for her on the outside. Ruben thought about what he could say or do to help prove to her that it only gets better from here on out. He finally settled on making the following post:

Memorial-Free Day Challenge!
“Let’s celebrate ourselves by showing how far we can go and what good we can do after leaving the Jehovah’s Witness organization. Post a picture of yourself doing something amazing or accomplishing a goal, etc. Win a race? Graduate from college? Volunteer? Let’s celebrate our accomplishments. When you post the picture place ‘Memorial Free Day challenge!’ in the description and explain what we’re seeing.”

The response was immediate!

People happily commented that they had run marathons; voted in political elections; played in bands. One became a curator in an art museum; another had won an Emmy. One posted a picture of himself after winning the BEST OF award for his DJ/Karaoke show. One opened a coffee shop and posted a picture of it, another pursued a legal career, some authored and published books. One graduated from nursing school and another appeared on a television interview with a hospital CEO.

One person’s comment summed it all up:

“I am soooo diggin’ all the pictures! I didn’t realize how many talented, intelligent, motivated people I am surrounded by here! And, the best part? WE’RE ALL SMILING! Quite a difference from the old days, isn’t it folks?”

At the end of that day, Ruben posted a video of the surprise wedding cake party, a celebration of his and Emily’s marriage.

Ruben reports that some have left the group because they were ready to move on with their lives without it. Others have remained, not necessarily for themselves, but to offer help to new ones and to maintain the camaraderie they’ve developed with others.

An uncanny resemblance

So do you see how Ruben Ortiz’ story compares to his favorite superhero? Batman witnessed the murder of his parents as a child and swore vengeance on criminals, an oath tempered with the greater ideal of justice. Ruben strongly believes that the treatment the Watchtower gives to its members is life-threatening, emotionally and physically. He strives to bring justice and relief to victims in his own way.

Batman operates in the fictional American Gotham City, assisted by various supporting characters including his crime-fighting partner, his butler, and the police commissioner; compared to Ruben and his co-admins in their fight against mental and spiritual villains.

Unlike most superheroes, Batman does not possess any superpowers; he makes use of intellect, detective skills, science and technology, wealth, physical prowess, martial arts skills, an indomitable will, fear, and intimidation in his continuous war on crime. Ruben may not share all of those attributes, but he’s using what he has to help others find happiness as they find their way out of Watchtower’s mental prison.

Joanna is the author of, “The Know-It-All Girl” ~ Memoir of a Former Jehovah’s Witness

• Buy Joanna’s book on Amazon
• Visit Joanna’s website

Activists like Bo Jensen (left), Barbara Anderson (center), and Paul Grundy (right) are joining forces to raise more awareness about Watchtower’s damaging practices.

Everything has a beginning. And for me, the first glimpse of AAWA, albeit without a name, occurred during a phone conversation. I was writing a story about Bo Juel Jensen for jwsurvey.org back in January 2013.

After being interviewed, Bo remarked, “So Richard, why don’t we use a business model to get the Tower’s full attention? Let’s form a not-for-profit corporation to rally and unite the worldwide ex-JW community. A well organized and focused business could force the Tower to change many of its harmful policies.”

Having been a successful businessman for thirty-three years, what Bo said made perfect sense. Even so, I thought it couldn’t hurt to get a second opinion. So I phoned my friend John Cedars, and asked if he’d ever thought about using a business model—a business plan—to get Watchtower to rethink its damaging policies.

At first, Cedars seemed strangely irritated. It seemed the word business was a sticking point for him. He couldn’t associate such a word with activism against the Watchtower. I persevered, and figured out that it was all just semantics. After all, it does sometimes take a while for a Brit and a Yank to reconcile their English.

When it finally dawned on Cedars that Bo and I were suggesting we apply a business model to the development of an activist organization, he said, “Ooooh! About a month ago I sent John Hoyle an email pitching him that very idea. Would you like to see a copy of it?”

Bingo! Cedars had already drafted a preliminary business plan for a “Council” of Anti-Watchtower activists. It was a great place to start, so we began tweaking Cedars’ original email into a workable business document. We needed a Mission Statement, at least that’s what I called it. Cedars preferred calling it a “Charter.” Again, it was semantics.

An organization takes shape

I suggested that we needed to clearly define the culture of our company—our personal and business values. Amazingly, it didn’t take long to come up with a workable solution. Soon it was time to get advice from critical-thinking ex-JWs who we could rely on to challenge us on our plan, and recommend improvements. So we approached an international panel, bringing in Barbara Anderson, Bo, Paul Grundy, Danmera (Mickey Hudson) and John Hoyle for their input. What it would take to get their buy-in? What should we add, delete or change? And so, gradually, the “light got brighter and brighter” on our idea! The seven of us became founders, making decisions collectively. An organization began to take shape.

After much deliberation, we reached consensus on a name for our brainchild, The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA). The purpose for our business would be to to raise awareness and help people escape a damaging cult. No person in our organization would be allowed to rise to prominence, or use his or her efforts to further any personal agenda.

AAWA would be religiously neutral. Our gripe was not so much with JW beliefs. We all believe that most JWs are good people; all of us having JW family members that we love. AAWA will focus its efforts on five of Watchtower’s most harmful policies, which the Governing Body in their Ivory Tower needs to urgently address. We will extend an offer to meet with them in person to discuss these if they so wish. If they choose to listen and respond wisely, we close up shop. The five policies are:

1. The shunning of family members.
2. The mishandling of child abuse cases.
3. The mishandling of domestic abuse cases.
4. The ban on certain medical treatments involving blood.
5. The stigmatizing of higher education (college) as the pursuit of materialism and a waste of time.

AAWA was incorporated as a non-profit company on March 7, 2013 and is in the process of being organized into specific teams. Lee Marsh, who has qualifications and experience in the field of support work, joined as an Advisory Board member on March 31, 2013 – bringing the total number of board members to eight. Lee will lead the Support Team, and we are grateful to be adding her skills and experience to our project.

More information about AAWA can be found on our new website at jwactivists.org.

Standing on the shoulders of giants

AAWA aims to build on the legacy of visionaries such as Ray Franz and Randall Watters, who were among the first to take meaningful steps to free the minds of Witnesses

AAWA would not have been possible without the hard work and visionary minds of Ray Franz, Randy Watters, Barbara Anderson, Simon Green and his wife, Angharad – real heroes, who in my mind will take centre stage in the history books as those who bravely stood up to the Watchtower. All of them are critical-thinking people who have helped thousands of people escape the Watchtower’s mental chains. And the number of modern-day internet vigilantes continues to expand.

Marvin Shilmer‘s research and writing skills related to the blood issue are second to none. Ruben Ortiz has created a social networking model on Facebook that has helped hundreds of people, a model that can be used all over the world by ex-JWs. Brenda Lee continues to reach out to young women who have been disfellowshipped, offering them a safe community of friends.

Translators like Roberto di Stefano have already pledged their support for AAWA

And now an international army of AAWA supporters is emerging. Nestor & Toni Kuilan (former missionaries and a District Overseer from Spain) and Roberto di Stefano (former Watchtower translator in Europe and an ex-JW activist) have already committed themselves to help make AAWA’s vision a reality.

My guess is that the Bullies in Brooklyn have underestimated the growing army of passionate people who are saying, “Enough is enough!” We will not remain silent. The leaders of the Watch Tower Society must be held accountable for the harm they inflict daily on current and former JWs alike.

Richard E. Kelly is the author of Growing Up In Mama’s Club, and The Ghosts From Mama’s Club, which are available on Amazon.com

Visit AAWA’s official web page at jwactivists.org

AAWA’s inaugural video…

The July 15 2013 Watchtower, which has been leaked weeks in advance of its scheduled release, offers more questions than answers regarding the Governing Body’s “new light”

Three weeks ahead of its expected release date in mid-April, a scanned copy of the July 15 2013 “Study Edition” of the Watchtower was leaked to the office of JWsurvey by a conscientious active Witness within the organization. I have spent the last two days analyzing its contents.

The magazine in question details the “new light” unveiled at the October 5th 2012 Annual Meeting, at which it was announced that the Governing Body is now considered the “faithful and discreet slave” – the spiritual overlords of the nearly 8 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.

By the time the magazine is finally released, ordinary Witnesses will have waited six months since the Annual Meeting for a written explanation of the new understanding. However, such ones will be disappointed to discover that this key Watchtower (which Bethelites have been instructed by their superiors to study in detail) offers more questions than answers. As many expected, the magazine writers give explanations for key doctrinal understandings that are unsupported and speculative at best.

Here follows a brief overview of the four main study articles…

• Tell Us, When Will These Things Be? (September 2-8) – This article first whets the appetite of the reader by discussing bible prophecy related to the “Great Tribulation,” which will commence with an attack on religion by the “disgusting thing” (the United Nations) and climax with Armageddon. The article then provides a re-cap of the understanding, held since 1995, that the separation of the sheep and the goats will happen during the Great Tribulation. The writers expand on this to provide “new light” on Christ’s “arrival” as bridegroom. Whereas this was once thought to have occurred in 1918, the arrival of Christ as “master” or “bridegroom” is now scheduled to happen at some point during the Great Tribulation.
• Look! I Am With You All the Days (September 9-15) – Christ’s parable of the “wheat and the weeds” is applied directly to the long period between 33 CE and Armageddon. The separating work is said to have commenced in 1914, when Christ undertook a period of “inspection and cleansing” of the organization that lasted until 1919, when the Bible Students were approved as being “true Christian wheat.”
• Feeding Many Through the Hands of a Few (September 16-22) – Christ’s miracle of the loaves and fishes is held aloft as a foregleam of his intentions to appoint only a small group of men over the spiritual feeding work. The article discusses the “apostles and older men” as being forerunners to the Governing Body arrangement. Russell and his associates (pre-1914) are precluded from representing the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep.
• “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” (September 23-29) – The article begins by sweeping aside the previous understanding that the faithful slave was appointed in 33 CE, and goes on to explain how the words of the “prophecy” began to be fulfilled only after 1914. The faithful slave is identified specifically as being “a small group of anointed brothers” currently comprising the Governing Body as a “composite slave.” The article concludes by boldly insisting that Christ WILL appoint the Governing Body, along with other anointed Christians, “over all his belongings” when he comes in judgment during the Great Tribulation.

The “disgusting” United Nations – a former partner

The UN has come under fire from Watchtower publications repeatedly over the decades, but rarely has the denunciation been so forthright as in this latest magazine. On page 4 in the first study article, Witnesses are reminded that the United Nations, which is declared to be the modern-day “disgusting thing,” WILL attack Christendom and the rest of “false religion” to signal the outbreak of the Great Tribulation.

Witnesses will be familiar with Watchtower labelling the UN as the “disgusting thing” of Matthew 24:15, but rarely has the assertion been made with such forthrightness that the UN (and not merely its “members”) will be solely responsible for an attack on all religion. Over the last few decades, Watchtower publications have described the UN’s involvement as executioner of false religion in a variety of ways, some more obscure than others…

Question: Who will destroy Babylon The Great?

Answer…

• 1975 – “the United Nations” (w75 5/1 pp. 274-275 par. 11)
• 1976 – “beastlike radical powers from within the United Nations” (gh chap. 16 p. 147 par. 12)
• 1977 – “The members of the U.N. and other nations not members of it…” (go chap. 11 p. 177 par. 7)
• 1980 – “the political backers of the United Nations” (w80 7/1 p. 17 par. 23)
• 1982 – “The ‘ten horns’ of the United Nations ‘beast’” (w82 5/1 p. 18 par. 9)
• 1985 – “political elements, represented in the United Nations” (g85 4/8 p. 13)
• 1985 – “antireligious elements within the United Nations” (w85 6/15 p. 18 par. 19)
• 1987 – “The ten horns [governmental powers within the United Nations organization] that you saw, and the wild beast [United Nations]…” (w87 11/1 p. 28)
• 1988 – “the nations will use the scarlet-colored wild beast, the United Nations…” (re chap. 35 p. 258 par. 21)
• 1989 – “the political powers associated with the United Nations” (w89 5/15 p. 6)
• 1993 – “political elements, including the United Nations” (g93 1/8 p. 12)
• 1994 – “militarized members of the United Nations” (w94 3/1 p. 20 par. 11)
• 1994 – “members of the United Nations” (w94 11/1 p. 17 par. 5)
• 1997 – “the United Nations… will have a principal role” (w97 9/15 p. 19 par. 14)
• 2005 – “militarized powers within the United Nations” (w05 9/15 p. 19 par. 13)
• 2013 – “the United Nations” (w13 7/15 p.4 par. 6)

And so the declaration last heard with such conviction in the 70s and 80s is now voiced again in 2013 – namely that the United Nations organization directly (and not necessarily its “members”) WILL attack and destroy false religion.

The Watchtower has once again labelled the UN a “disgusting thing” despite being affiliated with it for nine years as an NGO

This should raise eyebrows among personnel within the UN, whose own Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the “freedom of religion” – a fact noted by the Society in past publications. (g86 10/22 p. 31)

It will also be a source of unending bewilderment to those within the Ex-JW community that Watchtower continues to slam the UN as being a “disgusting thing” despite having enjoyed a formal relationship with it as an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) between 1992 and 2001. Watchtower only ended its illicit association when it received unwanted exposure from the UK’s Guardian newspaper. (For more information, click here.)

This latest brief foray into attacking the United Nations in the first few pages of the July magazine sets the stage for what is to follow, as the reader is dragged deeper into the murky madness of the doctrinal maze that Watchtower has created, along with its heavily revised organizational history.

An overview of the changes

Before I begin my rundown of the “new light” regarding the faithful slave, I feel it’s important to avoid potential confusion by clarifying elements of the verse in Matthew 24:45-47 and summarizing what the Society claims to be its fulfilment. Here is what the scripture in question says in the New World Translation:

“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.”

As you can see, the above verse effectively has two elements to it. First, Christ appoints his faithful slave to watch over his “domestics.” Then, only later, does Christ “arrive” and appoint the slave over all his “belongings.” Clearly, both of these things cannot happen at the same time. One part of the verse is described in the present tense, and the other in the future tense. Therefore, a period of time is implied between these two events. The question, at least as far as Watchtower is concerned, is “when was this time period?”

In an effort to make all of this as simple as possible, I have produced the following table. It shows the new understanding of the “faithful slave” teaching side-by-side with the old one. Feel free to refer to it when reading this article if things get a little too complicated to take in.

Please bear in mind that if you are expecting explanations in this article that do not appear, this is not my fault. Any such frustration should be directed at the Watchtower writers, who have ignored a number of key questions arising from this “new light.” I will do my best to highlight all pertinent parts of the Watchtower that I feel are of interest using selected quotes. However, for reasons of copyright and personal trust, I cannot and will not reproduce the entire article. Readers are reminded that the full article will be available online in PDF format on (or around) April 15th. (Update: the article is now available for download on this link.)

Christ’s “arrival” in 1918 scrapped

It has long been proclaimed by the Society that the references to Christ’s “arriving” as “master” and “bridegroom” in Matthew 24 and 25 occurred in 1918 when he came to inspect his faithful and discreet slave. It was said that the following year, 1919, Christ completed his inspection and decided to appoint the early Bible Students as his faithful slave over all of this belongings.

Under this new understanding, however, 1914 is now earmarked as being the year that Christ began to inspect and cleanse the organization – with this “inspection period” ending in 1919 when Christ supposedly approved the directors of the Watch Tower Society as his faithful slave by appointing them over his domestics.

1918 has therefore fallen by the wayside and lost any real significance – at least as far as the “end time” prophecies in Matthew are concerned. This is made clear on pages 7 and 8 of the new magazine, where we are informed that all eight references to Christ’s “coming” or “arrival” between Matthew 24:29 and the end of chapter 25 refer to the “future time of judgment during the great tribulation.”

An eventful “inspection and cleansing” period

In the minds of many, one of the most intriguing aspects of this new understanding is the fact that Charles Taze Russell, once considered part of the Slave Class, has been effectively written out of having any real biblical significance in Witness history. This is confirmed on page 19, where it says:

“Were the Bible Students in the years that lead up to 1914 the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep? No. They were still in the growing season, and the arrangement for a channel to provide spiritual food was taking shape. The time had not yet come for the weedlike imitation Christians to be separated from the true Christian wheat.” (w13 7/15 p.19)

Christ’s parable of the wheat and weeds (Matt 13:24-30, 37-43) forms the basis of the second study article, entitled “Look! I Am With You All the Days,” and is referenced throughout the magazine, as above. The scripture and its “fulfilment” is explained by means of an illustrative timeline that stretches from pages 10 to 11. Key elements of the timeline are as follows:

• 33CE – Sowing begins
• Sower: Jesus
• Fine seed is sown: Anointing with holy spirit
• The field: The world of mankind
• Enemy: The devil
• Men were sleeping: death of the apostles
• Wheat: Anointed Christians
• Weeds: Imitation Christians
• 1914 – Harvest begins
• Slaves/reapers: Angels
• Weedlike Christians are separated from the anointed “sons of the kingdom”
• 1919 – Gathering into the storehouse, Anointed Christians are gathered into the restored congregation
• Shining brightly: Shortly before Armageddon, the remaining faithful anointed ones are gathered to the heavens
• Armageddon: At Armageddon, the weeds are pitched into the fire

It seems the Society is using the wheat and the weeds parable in this magazine as a useful replacement to fill the vacuum left by the previous understanding of the faithful slave “prophecy.” The illustration has been drafted in to build a makeshift scriptural bridge between the organization’s history and the outset of the Christian congregation in 33CE.

Another scripture that is referenced is Malachi 3:1-4, already associated in the minds of Witnesses as discussing Christ’s visit to his “spiritual temple” at the end of the First World War. The second study article adjusts this understanding by explaining that Christ visited the organization (invisibly, of course) in 1914 after the weeds (imitation Christians) had been allowed to grow for centuries among the wheat (anointed Christians). So, what position, if any, did Russell occupy when Christ visited in 1914?

“During the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer. That vital work involved restoring Bible truths. The Bible Students taught the true meaning of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, exposed the hellfire lie, and proclaimed the coming end of the Gentile Times.” (w13 7/15 p.11)

Having been stripped of any meaningful role in God’s purpose, C.T. Russell has received the consolation of being likened to John the Baptizer

Thus, Russell is awarded the peculiar role of “John the Baptizer” in Watchtower’s new convoluted melodrama – forging the path ahead of Christ’s inspection of the organization in 1914. However, Russell and his early organization is stripped of having any meaningful role in God’s purpose. One is left wondering, if Russell’s death in 1916 happened during the “cleansing” period, does this mean that his demise was all part of God’s plan?! Regardless, only after the 1914-1919 “inspection and cleansing period” was the organization recognized as God’s organized channel, as explained on page 19…

“From 1914 to the early part of 1919, Jesus accompanied his Father to the spiritual temple to do a much-needed inspection and cleansing work. (Mal. 3:1-4) Then, starting in 1919, it was time to begin gathering the wheat. Was it finally the time for Christ to appoint one organized channel to dispense spiritual food? Yes, indeed!” (w13 7/15 p.19)

The tumultuous period in the organization’s history between 1914 and 1919 thus becomes the focus of doctrine perhaps more than ever before. There is no longer a “seamless” transition from the time of the apostles through to today. Prior to 1914, there was NO “organized channel” on the Earth. By 1919, one had been suddenly and miraculously formed – by none other than Christ himself.

A Questionable Character

There is just one small problem with hanging so much doctrinally on this murky period in Watchtower’s history. The more we delve into historical documents, the more we realise that Watchtower cannot be proud of its activities during that time – not to mention the literature that was produced. To compensate for this, the Society must reach for its eraser and smudge out some of the less savoury details of its past. This it does with reckless abandon on page 12…

“In late 1914, some Bible Students were disheartened because they had not gone to heaven. During 1915 and 1916, opposition from outside the organization slowed down the preaching work. Worse, after Russell’s death in October 1916, opposition arose from inside the organization. Four of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead. They tried to cause division among the brothers, but in August 1917, they left bethel – a cleansing indeed! Also, some Bible Students gave in to fear of man. Still, as a whole they willingly responded to Jesus’ cleansing work and made the needed changes. Hence, Jesus judged them to be true Christian wheat, but he rejected all imitation Christians, including all those found within the churches of Christendom. (Mal. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19)” (w13 7/15 p.12 par.8)

To those who are even remotely familiar with organizational events between 1914 and 1919, the above depiction of the Society’s exploits during that period is flattering at best and heavily revisionist at worst. For example, there is more to the story of the “four directors” than is told above. Note the following words from page 9 of the booklet “Light After Darkness” published by opponents of Brother Rutherford in September 1917…

The account of the four directors concerning their ousting from Bethel in 1917, from page 9 of the booklet “Light After Darkness”

As you can see, simply saying that the four directors left bethel does not tell the full story of what happened. The directors were threatened with forcible ejection by Rutherford, and finally left after it was negotiated for them to receive $300 dollars each rather than be turned out onto the street without a dime to their name. What crime had led to four directors of the Watch Tower Society being treated in this way? They had dared to object to Rutherford effectively tearing up C.T. Russell’s will, which stipulated that power should be shared evenly between Watchtower’s board of directors.

Writer and Watchtower historian, Rud Persson

In a spectacular grab for power following Russell’s death in late 1916, Rutherford used his legal knowledge to enact bylaws in early 1917 that would give him total control over the Society, and render the role of Society director all but meaningless. This was what the “four directors” spoke out against, and they were effectively evicted from their home, Brooklyn Bethel, for their troubles. You can read more about what really happened during those dark days in the above-quoted booklet “Light After Darkness,” which is available in PDF form by clicking here.

Rud Persson is a Swedish Watchtower historian who has copiously analyzed all available documents from this very episode in the organization’s history, and is compiling a book to summarize his research. I approached him by email with the above paragraph from this new Watchtower, and he made this comment…

“It is certainly true that four Directors opposed ‘the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead.’ They should do that, for it meant a complete departure from the way Russell, the then recognized ‘faithful and wise servant’, had arranged for matters after his death. It is not true that they ‘tried to cause division among the brothers’. That was not their purpose which was to rectify what was wrong. If spreading information was necessary to do this, then of course they felt that wisdom from above is first of all clean, thereafter peaceful. It was Rutherford with the aid of his yes-men who went public first, publicly blackening the four Directors and then Paul S.L. Johnson. It is true that the four directors left Bethel in August 1917, on August 8 to be specific, but that was not the end of the story.” – Rud Persson

I for one cannot wait for Rud’s book to come out, because I am sure it will shed much light on these events, and further undermine Watchtower’s astonishingly misplaced trust and confidence in the character of “Judge” Rutherford, not to mention this highly questionable and well-documented period in the organization’s early history.

Documented evidence shows Rutherford to have been a ruthless bigoted bully rather than a clean-cut figurehead for the fledgling Watch Tower Society

As previously mentioned on this website, during his presidency Rutherford distinguished himself as a bully and a tyrant. He allowed an atmosphere of alcoholism to permeate Bethel, and used abusive and demeaning language to intimidate and belittle any who fell short of his standards. He also lived in luxury at a time of national austerity, while many of his co-workers at Bethel lived in squalid conditions.

All of this was documented during the Olin Moyle libel lawsuit in the early 1940s, which Rutherford lost. A copy of Moyle’s resignation letter which sparked the lawsuit is available to read on this link. It gives an astonishing glimpse into what life was like in Bethel under Rutherford’s presidency, and casts serious doubt over whether Christ could really have supported such a man as custodian over his organization.

It may be that you, the reader, are so determined to think of Rutherford as a good man that you will not accept information unless it is within the Society’s own literature – even if it is documented information from a lawsuit. If that is the case, I would urge you to read my article on racism in Watchtower literature during both Russell and Rutherford’s presidency. Some of the bigoted statements made by Rutherford and his writers in the Society’s own publications defy belief, and should leave you beyond any doubt of Rutherford’s questionable character.

Despite all this, the Watch Tower Society of the 21st Century insists on ascribing Rutherford with a prominent role in the fulfilment of bible prophecy – one of the very first members of the faithful and discreet slave! Even so, it is perhaps noteworthy that Rutherford’s name is only mentioned once in all of the four study articles – and that is in the quote reproduced above. I feel this may be telling. Watchtower wants you, the reader, to focus on the date, 1919, rather than the bigoted bully behind it.

A tenuous link

Witnesses will be familiar with the Governing Body‘s constant attempts to draw parallels between themselves and Christ’s First Century apostles. The third study article, “Feeding Many Through the Hands of a Few” represents yet another example of this.

The magazine suggests that Christ’s miraculous feeding of the five thousand supports the Governing Body arrangement

The opening paragraphs remind the reader of Christ’s miracle where he fed the five thousand using just a few loaves and fishes, with his disciples distributing the miraculously produced food. (Matt 14:14-21) The writer then expands on this by explaining that spiritual feeding was of more importance to Christ than providing physical food, and it was for this reason that Christ chose his apostles.

We are then reminded in paragraph 9 of an incident in the book of Acts where a physical food shortage arose among the early Christians. The apostles sprung into action to appoint responsible brothers to ensure that food was being distributed evenly. So far the reader is thinking “Yes, but these were Christ’s apostles. There is no mention in Acts of a Governing Body.” But it doesn’t take long (paragraph 10, in fact) for the writer to make the connection…

“By 49 CE, the surviving apostles had been joined by certain other qualified elders. (Read Acts 15:1,2.) ‘The apostles and older men in Jerusalem’ served as a governing body. As the Head of the congregation, Christ used this small group of qualified men to settle doctrinal issues and to oversee and direct the preaching and teaching of the Kingdom good news.-Acts 15:6-29; 21:17-19; Col. 1:18.” (w13 7/15 p.17)

The above statement makes an unfounded assumption. It implies that, once the circumcision issue arose, the apostles were permanently “joined” by the “older men” in the making of any and all subsequent decisions related to the early congregation. There is absolutely no evidence of this. In the entire Bible, the phrase “apostles and older men” appears only six times – and all six times are in chapters 15 and 16 of Acts. It therefore seems that the involvement of the “older men” in this matter was a one-off “ad hoc” event that was borne from necessity and the uniqueness of the situation. To suggest that the apostles were unable to reach decisions without the older men from that point onwards is making an assertion that simply isn’t contained in the scriptures.

Once again the Governing Body holds aloft the account of the “apostles and older men” in Acts 15 and 16 as their mandate to rule unopposed

The next paragraph goes on to imply that, from this point onwards, the Apostle Paul was tasked with carrying out the orders of this newly formed “governing body.” It cites Acts 16:4,5 where Paul is described as delivering “for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.”

Only when the reader looks up the scripture and notes its proximity to the circumcision issue in the previous chapter does he realise that, rather than being a permanent arrangement, Paul was merely passing on the instructions related to this particular matter. But the way the Society quotes the scriptures suggests to the reader that this was an ongoing permanent “arrangement,” and that Paul was subservient to the “apostles and older men” from then on – which, again, is asserting something that is simply not supported by scripture. Paragraph 11 then draws the reader to the following conclusion…

“Notice that those congregations prospered as a result of their loyal cooperation with the governing body in Jerusalem. Is that not proof of Jehovah’s blessing on the arrangement by means of which his Son fed the congregations? Let us remember that spiritual prosperity is possible only with Jehovah’s rich blessing.-Prov. 10:22; 1 Cro. 3:6,7.” (w13 7/15 p.18 par.11)

And so, like an accomplished magician, the writer succeeds in duping the reader into drawing two false assumptions: (1) that there was a first century governing body, which there wasn’t (and bible writers were perfectly capable of coming up with their own term in Greek to describe such an arrangement if it existed without the Watchtower adding to the scriptures), and (2) that it was a permanent ongoing arrangement rather than a one-off way of dealing with a particular problem that arose, namely circumcision.

The next paragraph is one of the most intriguing in the magazine, but it serves a very deliberate purpose. It states…

“Thus far we have seen that Jesus followed a pattern when feeding his followers: He fed many through the hands of a few. The channel he used for spiritual feeding was clearly recognizable. After all, the apostles – the original members of the governing body – could provide visible proof of heavenly backing. ‘Through the hands of the apostles many signs and portents continued to occur among the people,’ states Acts 5:12. Hence, there was no reason for those who became Christian to wonder, ‘Who really are the ones through whom Christ is feeding his sheep?’ But by the end of the first century, the situation changed.” (w13 7/15 p.18 par.12)

The paragraphs that follow go on to describe Christianity’s slide into apostasy following the death of the apostles, but rather than allowing ourselves to be swept along by the rhetoric, the true purpose of the above paragraph must be fully recognized. The Society is now trying to make the point, which it repeats more clearly on page 21, that the faithful slave scripture COULD NOT have applied to the apostles because their authority was unmistakable due to their “signs and portents.”

The magazine twice tries to argue that the “faithful slave” could not have applied to the apostles because it was mentioned in the form of a question

Simply put, the Society now argues that, because Matthew 24:45 is written in the form of a question (i.e. “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave…?”), Jesus could not have been referring to his apostles. They say that, because it was so obvious that the apostles were in charge, such a question would be irrelevant. However, as I will argue later in this article, this reasoning is so flawed it is almost laughable.

In reality, all the Society achieves with the above paragraph is to inadvertently remind thinking Witnesses that the Governing Body really has no “visible proof” of their appointment by Christ. Sure, they have an organization that is expanding at an underwhelming annual growth rate of 1.9% (as of 2012), but it is also an organization that imposes the torturous shunning of family members and is increasingly making itself the subject of legal pressure on account of its damaging child abuse policies. The idea that the individual Governing Body members are somehow invisibly hand-picked by Christ is therefore unthinkable – so unthinkable that even the Society evades articulating this idea in print. So where does the Governing Body get its mandate from?

I wish I could answer that question by quoting a series of paragraphs in this magazine through which the Society coherently justifies the Governing Body’s new Pope-like status. Sadly, however, there is no such material to draw from. Nowhere in these study articles is it described how Governing Body members are selected, or how it can be proven that Christ has any role in this process whatsoever. Rather, the mandate for the Governing Body to rule unquestioned over nearly 8 million people apparently hinges on three scriptures:

1. Christ’s miracle of the loaves and the fishes in Matthew 14
2. Two chapters in Acts, namely chapters 15 and 16 (a historical narrative about the handling of the circumcision issue by the “apostles and older men”)
3. The verses in Matthew 24 about the faithful slave – which many argue were intended purely as a parable.

Having established such a shaky foundation for justifying the present Governing Body arrangement in the first three articles, the fourth and final article is left to drive home the message that the Governing Body is to be loyally obeyed without question, because its future approval by Christ is already set in stone. This is underlined by the final words of the second paragraph, which states:

“It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this channel.” – Matthew 4:4; John 17:3.

I looked up both scriptures. As you would expect, neither was remotely connected with the faithful and discreet slave.

Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?

It doesn’t take long for the final article to answer the above question, which forms its title. A box is provided at the top of page 22 that spells out the answer succinctly, as follows:

“‘The faithful and discreet slave’: A small group of brothers who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food during Christ’s presence. Today, these anointed brothers make up the Governing Body.” (w13 7/15 p.22 box)

This answer is elaborated on in the text beneath, in paragraph 10…

“Who then is the faithful and discreet slave? In keeping with Jesus’ pattern of feeding many through the hands of a few, that slave is made up of a small group of anointed brothers who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food during Christ’s presence. Throughout the last days, the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave have served together at headquarters. In recent decades, that slave has been closely associated with the Governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note, however, that the word “slave” in Jesus’ illustration is singular, indicating that this is a composite slave. The decisions of the Governing Body are thus made collectively.” (w13 7/15 p.22, par.10)

Having unequivocally assumed such a lofty title, the Governing Body members probably felt that they needed to make some token show of humility. It was noted during the Annual Meeting that, in his talk, David Splane went to great lengths to “sell” the new teaching to the audience by pushing the new understanding of the domestics – now considered to be both anointed christians, and those of the great crowd.

David Splane extols the teaching of the domestics during the Annual Meeting

“And brothers, we LOVE this teaching.” Splane enthused, adding, “We LOVE this idea, because it really truly does dignify the members of the Great Crowd.” Many of us who watched those words being spoken on the slick JW.org promotional video have been left unconvinced. It seems obvious that the “faithful slave” has far more to “love” about this new teaching than the domestics do.

The issue of the domestics is given similar prominence in a section entitled “Who are the domestics?” on pages 22 and 23. A picture is shown at the top of page 23 in which Gerrit Lösch and his wife are seated at a congregation meeting. Gerrit glances inquisitively as a young child answers into the outstretched microphone. The message is unmistakeable. “We are normal, everyday brothers – just like anyone else!” Not everyone will be buying it.

A selection that has already been made

A key reason why the previous teaching regarding the faithful and discreet slave almost served its purpose (to some extent) was that it referred to events in the murky past that nobody could remember, and made assertions that few could authoritatively argue with unless they were prepared to do some research. For example, the Society argued that Jesus selected a Slave in 1919 that had already existed for centuries, and appointed it over all his “belongings.” Therefore, no matter what flaws the organization may now have, the argument could be made that the Slave Class had ALREADY received final approval from Christ – so any perceived flaws were irrelevant.

But now, the teaching is that Christ has YET to finally approve the Governing Body in its role as the composite slave. With this in mind, you would expect the Governing Body members to exercise a bit of humility, and not try to second guess the decision that Christ is due to make in the future during the Great Tribulation when he finally arrives to inspect his slave class. Instead, the Governing Body boldly makes Christ’s decision for him in advance. Note what is said on page 25…

“In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? When Jesus comes for judgment during the great tribulation, he will find that the faithful slave has been loyally dispensing timely spiritual food to the domestics. Jesus will then delight in making the second appointment – over all his belongings.” (w13 7/15 p.25 par.18, bold mine)

I was amazed at the arrogance when reading the above words. One would think that, if they have any true Christ-like humility about them, the Governing Body would say words to the effect of “we will do our best to provide spiritual food, and if Christ is pleased with our efforts when he comes, he promises to appoint us over all his belongings.” Instead, as mentioned, the decision has evidently already been made by the Governing Body on Christ’s behalf that he WILL choose them when he comes.

The scriptures themselves indicate that the appointment over the belongings is not to be considered a foregone conclusion. One is reminded of the very next words in Matthew 24:48-51 (New World Translation)…

“But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.”

Ironically, the Society addresses this scripture by means of a box on page 24, on the page just before it makes the bold assertion that it WILL be selected. The box begins by discussing the “evil slave” and makes the following statement…

“Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the “great crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class. Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave.” (w13 7/15 p.24 box)

And so a warning directed at the faithful and discreet slave is cunningly turned into an opportunity to lampoon apostates for “beating their fellow slaves.” Even though the box acknowledges that apostates are not the evil slave, it still leaps on the opportunity to misrepresent and stigmatize those who are guilty of nothing more than disagreeing with the teachings and practices of the Governing Body.

Meanwhile, the Governing Body neatly sidesteps Christ’s warning about the “evil slave.” An unnamed “scholar” makes a brief cameo, and is quoted as saying: “for all practical purposes [the evil slave warning] is a hypothetical condition.” (bold and brackets mine) The writer thus dismisses the entire portion of scripture, declaring further on in the box that the Governing Body “has continued to keep on the watch and to provide nourishing spiritual food.” This part of the discussion is summed up as follows…

“The anointed brothers who together serve as the faithful slave recognize that they are accountable to the Master for the way they care for his domestics. The hearfelt desire of these anointed brothers is to fulfill their responsibility loyally so that they might hear a ‘well done’ from the Master when he finally arrives.” (w13 7/15 p.24 box)

Whatever the Governing Body may profess their “heartfelt desire” to be, they cannot escape the fact that their actions and decisions have caused misery and heartache to countless thousands through their cruel insistence on unscriptural policies such as the shunning of family members.

Jesus said that his followers would be identified by the love they have among themselves (John 13:35), and yet the breaking up of families purely because somebody decides to leave his or her former religion is anything but loving. Those labelled “apostates” and slandered with hate speech merely for daring to disagree with the Governing Body have every reason to think of these men as an “evil slave,” whether such ones still consider themselves Christians or not. It is therefore difficult to fathom how the Governing Body can boldly consider Christ’s approval of their methods to be a foregone conclusion. (Matt. 7:21-23)

The 2013 Governing Body, as they appear on page 26 of the July 15th Watchtower

More questions than answers

In total there are 23 pages in the four study articles combined. And yet, for all the sleek illustrations, carefully worded paragraphs and prophetic timelines, the magazine leaves key questions regarding the organization’s new doctrines unanswered. Here are just a few…

• What scripture supports the fact that the “inspection and cleansing work” would take Christ four and a half years (from late 1914 to early 1919)?” (p.11) – Repeatedly the magazine insists that the four and a half years between late 1914 and early 1919 was a period of “inspection and cleansing” by Christ. However, nowhere is any scripture provided to explain why Christ would need this specific length of time to achieve this purpose. Rather, it seems that events in the organization’s history have been taken as the “evidence” – and the scriptures just have to fit around them.
• 

  The early Bible Students were said to commit an “organizational sin” by ripping out fiercely political pages of this book

  What were the circumstances under which the early Bible Students “gave in to the fear of man?” (p.12) – This statement is found on page 12, but not elaborated on. If you have the time, I would encourage you to do research on this if you haven’t already done so. In a previous article, I explored the events surrounding the publication of the Finished Mystery, and how the Bible Students were ordered by the authorities to tear out pages 247 to 253 of the book – pages that were fiercly political and critical of America’s war effort. This compromise was deemed an “organizational sin.” However, the more you research the ludicrous statements contained in the Finished Mystery, the more you reach the conclusion that Christ would actually have praised the Bible Students for ripping out its pages rather than chastising them for it.

• If Russell and his associates were not part of God’s channel (or even the “slave class”) then why did Christ choose only to inspect them in 1914 and not any other Christian denominations? (p.19) – To put this question another way – why would Christ “inspect” one Christian denomination rather than several, or even all of them? If there was nothing special about Russell or his associates, then why did Christ effectively set up camp at Watchtower HQ for four and a half years and “inspect” them over this period? “Cleansing” is one thing, but “inspection” is something altogether different. Inspection is something you do BEFORE you are satisfied of the nature of something. Would it not have made more sense to “inspect” multiple denominations first, choose one of them, and then “cleanse” it accordingly?
• 

  There is no scriptural support for the notion that authority can somehow be passed on from one generation to the next

  If all of the original 1919 members of the slave chosen by Christ are now dead, how can it be said that subsequent members of the slave were chosen? – As mentioned in a previous article, a key problem with the “new light” is the question of succession. Previously, the Governing Body claimed that they were merely the representatives of a cloud-like mass of “anointed” ones that has always existed since the time of the apostles. Now, however, they have effectively evaporated this “cloud” and insisted that their appointment came directly from Christ in 1919. But all of the 1919 board of directors are now dead and buried, so how can it be assumed that their position as “faithful slave” was passed on to their successors? The Society has roundly condemned the catholic principle of apostolic succession in their literature – including the Reasoning Book. It is one thing to suggest that Christ came and selected Rutherford and his associates in 1919 (despite the connotations of this, once you look at Rutherford’s character and what they were printing at the time). It is another thing entirely to assume that this status of “the faithful and discreet slave” was somehow passed like a baton to successive generations down through the decades since 1919 based purely on the necessity caused by people dying. No explanation is given as to how this was achieved, other than the suggestion that it “just did” – which is essentially Watchtower’s version of apostolic succession. With this new teaching, Watchtower has become more like the catholic church than it would care to admit.

• Why can it be said with certainty that Christ’s original apostles were not at least part of the faithful and discreet slave? (p.21) – This question is posed on page 21 of the magazine, but nowhere is it satisfactorily answered. The only explanation offered is that the “faithful and discreet slave” statement by Jesus was posed in the form of a question, and therefore it couldn’t possibly have applied to the apostles since there was no doubt at all that these ones had Christ’s authority. However, the asking of a question does not necessarily imply doubt. For example, what about “rhetorical questions” where the answer is known before the question is asked? And if it was such a foregone conclusion that the apostles would live up to Christ’s expectations, then why did Jesus go to such lengths to tell Peter to “feed my little sheep” after his resurrection? (John 21:15-19) The article insists that there was “hardly a reason to ask such a question” regarding the apostles, yet recognizing the authority of the apostles as the “faithful slave” was as much a choice for early Christians as it is for Witnesses regarding the Governing Body today. This is highlighted by the fact that some early Christians deviated from the apostles’ leadership. (2 Tim 2:16-18) The Society’s reasoning is thus SO flawed that the question is effectively left unanswered.
• 

  It seems that working at World Headquarters in New York is a key criterion for being considered part of the Faithful Slave, even though there is no scriptural basis for this assertion

  Just what is so special about headquarters? (p.22) – According to the new explanation of the faithful slave, it seems that a key identifying feature of a composite slave member is not WHO he is, or even whether he has a heavenly hope or not. What apparently matters is WHERE he happens to work. Nowhere in Christ’s discussion of the slave does it hint that “location, location, location” would be at all important in identifying who the faithful slave is, so how can the organization be so dogmatic in insisting that “headquarters” in New York carries such relevance in making this biblical determination?

• How can the Governing Body justify insisting that they WILL be appointed by Christ over “all of this belongings” in advance of this event? (p.25) – As discussed above, many sincere Witnesses will be left scratching their heads at the brazenness of the Governing Body in insisting they WILL be appointed by Christ over his belongings before he has even come in judgment. The decision has been effectively snatched out of Christ’s hands, and made for him.

An organization as porous as its teachings

By now you have probably reached the conclusion that most of what is discussed in the four articles of this new magazine either makes no sense at all, or was already covered at the Annual Meeting nearly six months ago – an event at which some 15,000 privileged Witnesses were treated to a glimpse of the “new light” before millions of their brothers around the world.

The Governing Body preferred to receive applause and fanfare at their Annual Meeting than go to any efforts to make sure their “new light” reached the global brotherhood simultaneously

As discussed in a previous article, it took more than a month following the Annual Meeting for news of the “new light” to be finally confirmed on the Society’s official web pages, and nearly two months for this information to be made available in languages other than English. Finally, six months after the information was divulged from a New Jersey platform, the worldwide brotherhood are finally getting to hear about this doctrine in print – a doctrine that carries profound implications regarding the authority of the Governing Body.

No longer are the Governing Body self-appointed representatives of a some obscure cloud of anointed Witnesses that has always existed in some form stretching back to the time of the apostles. They are now self-appointed representatives, not of heaven-bound Christians, but of Christ himself. They answer to no one, not even Christ whom they represent! After all, they have made his decision to appoint them over “all his belongings” for him in advance. Any meaningful evidence to support their claims is deemed irrelevant.

True, it may be that even before this announcement a good number of Witnesses considered the Governing Body to be the faithful and discreet slave, but this would only realistically have been for one (or both) of two reasons: (1) ignorance on the part of individuals regarding Watchtower doctrine, or (2) confusion as a result of the way in which the Governing Body increasingly presented themselves over many years as being synonymous with the Slave Class. The fact that the rhetoric coming down from the Society led many to predict the announcement in advance does not lessen the fact that the new teaching carries profound implications. It consolidates the authority of the Governing Body, and effectively elevates them to Pope-like status.

The leaking of this magazine and other documents proves that more thinking Witnesses are finding the courage to take action

With all this considered, perhaps we learn more from the fact that this magazine has been leaked weeks ahead of its release than from anything contained in its pages. The Watch Tower Society now seems unable to hold water both in terms of its doctrines and in keeping information confidential, as more and more information is leaked by conscientious individuals within the growing ranks of thinking Witnesses.

It is exhilarating to think that so many within the organization are waking from their indoctrination and finding the courage to take risks by getting information like this article into the hands of those who will make use of it. I only hope that this pattern continues, so that more and more true light can shine down on this quirky organization with its dubious history, shady practices and tangled teachings.

The Society’s cruel insistence on shunning family members is bringing it increasing notoriety in the outside world

Watchtower is increasingly coming under fire “down under,” with the Director of Cult Counselling Australia branding Jehovah’s Witnesses a “cruel cult,” according to Fairfax Media.

Psychologist Raphael Aron, author of the book “Cults: Too Good To Be True,” has joined Australian senator Nick Xenophon in placing religious organizations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientology firmly under the spotlight. For his part, Xenophon wants to see a national cult-busting agency set up to police such organizations.

Aron, who has lambasted the Watchtower’s practice of shunning as “draconian, cruel and callous” has expressed his dismay at its psychological effects on young ones. He gave the Australian newspaper The Age one such example, saying, “I am still waiting for a justification for someone to be able to rip away a five or six year old child from their extended family because Mum or Dad have decided to leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Senator Nick Xenophon (top) and Psychologist Aron Raphael (bottom) are placing the Watchtower organization under scrutiny

Watchtower is already facing almost relentless legal pressure in Australia on account of its poor track record in complying with working with children regulations. Indeed, only a few weeks ago a Witness man appeared in a Victoria court after admitting to child molestation on facebook. Only after being charged in the wake of his surprise confession to his now-adult victim did he stand down as an elder. A wide-ranging Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has also been set up to investigate various organizations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding their child protection policies.

It’s difficult to say what the end result of this intense political and judicial pressure will be. Senator Xenophon has already acknowledged that “at the moment groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientology are subsidised by the taxpayer.” It could conceivably be that the Watchtower in Australia ends up losing its charitable status entirely if things don’t go their way, which would be a serious financial blow for the organization. Certainly Watchtower’s case cannot be helped by more details of their cult-like practices and policies, such as shunning, coming under the glare of the media and political spotlight.

A policy of denial

One of the more shocking aspects of Watchtower’s approach to shunning is that, when faced with media questioning on the subject, Society representatives will routinely deny that there is any such practice. According to this latest article in The Age, the Sydney lawyer Vincent Toole (who represents the Watchtower) has dismissed the idea of shunning among Witnesses as a “myth.”

When questioned about shunning by a major UK newspaper in 2011, a Watchtower representative dismissed it as a “personal matter”

This follows the media storm in 2011 when, in the wake of the publication of shocking “mentally diseased” comments in a Watchtower study article, Society representative Rick Fenton responded to questions from Independent reporter Jerome Taylor by declaring shunning to be “a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself.” (a downloadable copy of the newspaper article is available on this link)

All of this is a world away from what is stated in the April 15th 2012 Watchtower where, after relating an experience (reproduced below) of a man who is shunned returning to the organization, the paragraph concludes: “Think of that if you are ever tempted to violate God’s command not to associate with your disfellowshipped relatives.” (underlining mine)

And so, what is clearly expressed as a command in the publications is shrugged off as being a “personal matter” by a Watchtower spokesman at London Bethel, and even as a “myth” by a lawyer representing the organization in Australia. It seems that, when trying to evade the media and political spotlight, lying and deception is an excusable strategy of theocratic warfare that Watchtower feels entitled to utilize – even though “a false tongue” is listed as one of the seven things Jehovah hates. – Proverbs 6:16-19

Repetition for emphasis

The truth is that shunning is not just conveyed as “Jehovah’s decree” and “God’s command” for Witnesses – it is repeatedly rammed home in the Society’s literature as a test of loyalty to the organization. This is remarkably evident in the latest June 15th Watchtower article, which has recycled the exact same shunning experience it used only 14 months earlier to drive its damaging message home.

It is remarkable to think that Watchtower’s writing department is so desperate to reinforce the organization’s cruel shunning policy that it must resort to re-using material already printed just over a year ago. This takes the principle of “Jehovah’s reminders” (Psalm 119:119), so often used to excuse the repetitive nature of Watchtower literature, to a whole new level!

The experience itself, whether true or not, merely confirms that the predominant motivation for a disfellowshipped one to return to the organization is the renewal of family contact rather than repentance. Such emotional blackmail hardly befits an organization that claims to be identified by the love that is shown between its followers. (John 13:35)

However distressing the Society’s propaganda warfare may be, it is at least comforting to note that Watchtower’s cult credentials are increasingly coming to the attention of outsiders, including the media. This latest article in The Age proves that, even though the Society may brazenly deny its shunning policy when pushed on the subject, politicians and journalists will not be fooled. The more the Society ramps up its hateful shunning rhetoric, the more it shows its true colors.

• To read the newspaper article in The Age, please click here.
• The read the The Border Mail’s article “Slamming the door on Jehovah,” click here.
• To read the above article in Hungarian, please click here.