End of the Loving Time

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to share with you the recent turn of events, which have caused some very significant changes in certain viewpoints that I hold to, and in my life altogether. I truly believe that I have always been a zealous person for Jehovah throughout my entire life in the truth. I have been baptized for over 15 years now, since June of 1990, with another three years of studying before baptism. My family and I have always been regular at the meetings (as you all well know), regular and active in service, always present at our assemblies and conventions. We’ve always participated in our Kingdom Hall cleaning and maintenance assignments. We auxiliary pioneered often. I have served as an Elder for many years. I served as a magazine assistant and then servant years ago, did the literature for a while, handled the territory for years, as well as a couple years doing the accounts. I never refused a privilege (that I can recall) and like many of you have given more talks than I can remember. I conducted book studies as well as the Theocratic Ministry School during my years as an elder. My life in, and appreciation for the truth has always been something I valued tremendously. I’ve also made it a point to have a regular family-study with my wife and kids. I always tried to make the studies enjoyable and somewhat entertaining. Whenever they did make mistakes or developed less-spiritual attitudes, I always counseled, encouraged and tried to help them. When they made serious mistakes, in addition to my own corrective and helpful measures, I helped them to see the need to also go forward by going to the elders and getting the necessary discipline and counsel. Nothing was ever to be hidden. We all regularly participated in the meetings as well. I always invited my family to try to share at least one comment at each meeting if at all possible. I almost always kept up with the day’s text and weekly bible reading schedule too. We socialized extensively, with more sleepovers and get-togethers than can be remembered. We were often one of the last ones to leave the Kingdom Hall after meetings. There have never been any doubts about my love for Jehovah. He has always been very real to me. My relationship with him is now and has always been very special to me!

Recently however, I’ve had some issues come up into my life that have challenged these convictions, my core beliefs and even my explicit trust in the organization itself. I have always simply “trusted” what the faithful slave teaches us even if I did not necessarily understand particular viewpoints. Back in early 1990 for example, when I was going over my baptism questions, I remember not being fully convinced of the society’s position regarding no blood transfusions. During that second set of questions at my house, the elder suggested that I just try to trust the Society’s direction for now (since this was the only serious doubt that I had) and perhaps later on down the road I would begin to see our position on this issue more clearly. Well, I did just what he suggested. If the organization can be right about a paradise earth, condition of the dead, rejection of the Trinity etc etc, I figured it must be right about this issue as well. After all, we do believe this is the only organization Jehovah is truly using today. Trusting it was always easy for me. No questions asked!

Well, while keeping up with the news one day back in November, I noticed there was a very flattering article on the MSNBC News Website front page; the title of the article was “Jehovah’s Roofing Service”. It was about Jehovah’s Witnesses volunteering to put on a new roof for a Hurricane Katrina victim. The article was so encouraging that I e-mailed it to many friends in the truth; something I rarely do if at all. At the bottom of that article however, I noticed people were publicly commenting about the article itself. After the first day there were perhaps some 30 comments. The next day there was over 100. After a few more days they finally capped the comments off with almost three hundred altogether. Some were critical, (mostly “the Witnesses only help their own” variety) a few were casual and nice, but most were from other Witnesses like us, defending the truth against these so-called “critics”. In fact I too at one point sent in a comment defending the truth, though it was never posted since there were many others similar to it. There was one comment near the end however, that stopped to make me think several times throughout the next few weeks. It actually shook my faith a bit you might say. It presented negative comments about the truth that I had never heard of before. So much so, that I had to look up Watchtower and Awake articles to verify if these statements were in fact true. Well, after a little research, I found out that these comments were indeed true. One of the claims had to do with the Golden Age magazine (now the Awake) years ago saying that vaccinations were not allowed for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The article said that accepting a vaccine was: “a crime, an outrage, and a delusion”. It also said that the smallpox vaccination itself would: “cause syphilis, cancers, leprosy and many other loathsome diseases”. For 21 years the Society did not allow vaccinations for Jehovah’s Witnesses. I had never heard of this before. Even more of an issue for me from this same comment, was that I learned from 1967 to 1980, the Society also forbid Jehovah’s Witnesses from accepting organ transplants. Going so far as calling it “cannibalism”. The consequences for those accepting an organ transplant was disfellowshipping; complete shunning for those that did not follow this decree. After over 12 years, the society did finally reverse this, instead making it a “conscience matter”. My immediate thoughts after learning about these two facts were; I wonder how many people died from following the Society’s direction regarding these two medical procedures? This information bothered me quite a bit.

Since 1945 blood transfusions have been completely unacceptable for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since 1961, disfellowshipping was the consequence. This
position against blood transfusions has been well publicized with numerous articles throughout the years in many of the Society’s publications. Transfusing certain “fractions of blood” has just recently become a “conscience matter”, rather than forbidden. Storing our own blood for an operation, as well as donating our own to the world’s blood supply have always been condemned as well. As I have already mentioned here, I have always been uneasy with this particular position by the society that blood transfusions (even as a last resort) are not allowed. However, like I also mentioned above, I have always simply taken the position to “trust the Society” with issues like this that I may not have agreed with nor fully understood. Realizing now however, from this newer information to me that the society has made incorrect stands in the past regarding vaccinations and organ transplants (and since reversed these), has caused an even greater sense of concern in my mind over this issue regarding blood transfusions today. After coming to learn about these things I have since dedicated enormous amounts of time and efforts to come to a better understanding of this position both in the eyes of the Society, as well as from the medical community during the last few months. I have researched and studied and compared notes from too many articles to list here. I have extensively compared scriptures from several bible translations to try to gain the fullest understanding possible. Because of the fact that people have died, and will continue to do so, it is imperative to me that I fully understand the reasons for our position. Though my children are now fully grown up and can make their own educated decisions, I still actively participate in the door-to-door ministry encouraging others to join us in worshiping Jehovah as his Witnesses. This position of abstaining from blood transfusions could very well affect those that I might happen to bring into the organization or their children. After many months now of continuous soul-searching, prayer, exhaustive research and meditation/reflection of this research, I have come to the firm conclusion that the society’s position to abstain from blood transfusions is in error. Just like it was on vaccinations and organ transplants prior, which have since been reversed. I base this conclusion on many factors, which include:

*** A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: “If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins…” illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die. A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.

*** The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: “blood must be drained out” and to, “abstain from… blood” were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be “poured out” rather than eaten or drank. This token act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement. By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application. In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A “living” donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another “living” individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what Jehovah wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?

*** We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life? In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: “And he said to them: “Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?” 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things.” The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: “So they (Pharisees) asked him “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal’s life despite this “work” being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, “All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!”. Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal’s life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious. Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper “respect” for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of “our own” to die due to such a strict stand by the society.

*** I’ve also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same “principle” of Jesus’ valuing a person’s life over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her “unclean”, and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: “Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness….” Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed letter of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.

*** Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society’s position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society’s view-) reads: 28 “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute, eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from “things sacrificed to idols” Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there says that the “eating of food sacrificed to idols” was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer “Gentile” Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these ones, this decree was given. This is also how bible scholars today understand these verses. Paul’s words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 verify this since again, he there states that eating foods sacrificed to idols is a personal decision. The command to abstain from fornication is an absolute, eternal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures.

*** If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul’s men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)

*** I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.

*** Another thing that now clouds the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood “fractions” are now permissible. Many of these are now considered a “conscience matter”. Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these “fractions” take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes. Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common “fractions” still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a “concentrated” form of blood. These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah’s Witnesses “abstain from blood”, since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world’s blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah’s Witnesses today? And two, if then, we as Jehovah’s Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are we then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that we now are allowed to tap into? And, why are we still not allowed to store our own blood? The pouring of blood “back to the ground” was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence we are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws. It sure appears to me then, that we no longer abstain from blood, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet we are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can we store our own blood.

Another problem with “fractions” (for me) is that certain fractions such as “Albumin” ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not. “Albumin” for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This “authorized” fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society. Another fraction, Blood “Platelets” are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That’s not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society. I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this “approved” and “disapproved” list with no explanations anywhere. It’s also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 97 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions. It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they’re kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. “Hemopure” is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow’s Blood. How can we as humans be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use our own blood, or that of another living human donor?

So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here; that blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the “eating or drinking” of animal blood that is forbidden (not transfusions). How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose. That Saul’s men were not killed after eating blood. How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions. That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the “animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath” illustration he used, and the “Woman with a flow of blood” real-life example. How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need. That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands. And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say “fractions” of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though we can use cow’s blood. It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society’s position on blood transfusions today. In fact I believe it was an erroneous decision from the beginning, and has only been made even more confusing and unstable with the latest “fractions” adjustments.

So, what does one do then? I do love the truth, and certainly the friends in the truth. I have no problems at all with any people in the truth and have spent almost half of my life now in the organization. I believe I get along with about everybody. No exaggerating. This is solely a personal position, a conscience matter regarding organizational policies that I can no longer agree with and accept. If a person I brought into the truth allowed one of their own to die because of this stand, that I helped them to take, I would have a difficult time living with myself. Not only can I no longer support this blood position with a clear conscience, but after thoroughly investigating, I believe it is truly wrong. I can also no longer with a clear conscience bring other people into the organization, since blood is a very integral and well-known position of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I cannot see a way around this. Even if the Society were to reverse itself entirely, how would anybody feel about losing a loved one during the last 60 years this has been in force, only to have the policy changed altogether? And what took them so long would be monumental issues in the eyes of many. Imagine how much work would be involved in overhauling all of the literature if this position were reversed. The Bible Topics for Discussion sections for example in the new world translation bibles would have to be changed, and many other things… too many to list here. So I cannot quite see this reversal happening anytime soon if at all. Though others feel a reversal is imminent.

What complicates this entire issue even further for me now, and adds another problem with the organization in my mind, is another entirely separate issue (which I also find greatly disturbing) that will follow my change of position here now. IF I cannot support this doctrine on blood any longer, and if I cannot with a clear conscience have my blood card signed to refuse blood transfusions, I would then be considered as having “disassociated” myself from the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses by this particular stand in and of itself. If another brother or sister were to ask me “why are you no longer going out in the ministry”, or “what has happened to you spiritually”, or things appear to have changed with you etc. etc.; if I were to reply to them by sharing my honest opinions about the organization’s past mistakes, and my opinions disagreeing with the Watchtower Society, I would then be disfellowshipped for Apostasy. This fact in itself does not sit too well with me since I have done nothing wrong here. I still love Jehovah; I love my wife and family. I do not drink, nor practice anything the bible tells me not to. I pay my taxes, try to live honestly and remain a good influence for my family and others. I have not changed as a person at all here. Yet because of a “conscience” issue, and because I can no longer support the society on what I truly believe is a flawed issue, I will be cut-off from my all of my brothers and sisters throughout the organization. This policy too, is just wrong! The Watchtower Society has stated in print several times that it is not infallible; that they DO make mistakes. Yet even though it admits mistakes have been made, it still insists that we as publishers accept whatever it teaches as if it were coming from God himself. Those that do not agree with these teachings and share those opinions (even though nothing else bad or unscriptural has been done) are subsequently disfellowshipped. Your life, as you know it, is ripped apart. To disfellowship another simply because that person might disagree with a particular interpretation of a teaching is not right, just or fair. Past history fully supports the idea that the society has been wrong before and can be wrong now. Organ transplants, vaccinations, end of the world predictions and other doctrinal errors to name just a few. Clearly they were wrong about these issues. Lives have been and are now involved with the current policy on blood transfusions. To be expected to fully support this policy or be expelled is just unreasonable and not in harmony with what we know about Jehovah. To encourage other people we meet in the ministry to “examine their religion”, yet at the same time to forbid us to do the same is nothing short of hypocritical. We are told that we can examine our faith, though this must be done “In-house”. In other words, only through the society’s publications can we examine our religion. Any other sources that are critical are considered apostate and dangerous. I consider this position by the organization to be very similar to my wanting to buy a new Nikon camera for example. Imagine if Nikon told me that I could ONLY use their-own reference material to gain information? Consumer Reports, Popular Photography or any other “Non-Partisan” publication would be completely off limits. And, if I did go to these “outside” sources, and shared any critical opinions/reviews with others, I would no longer be allowed to even buy their camera, plus other people who like Nikon cameras would have to now shun me altogether. How reasonable is this? This is exactly what the society is doing. Those that know me will tell you that whenever I make any type of serious purchase, I do my homework and extensive research. We just recently purchased a high-end scanner; I spent perhaps two months or more comparing scanners, reading reviews, learning as much as I possibly could about this piece of equipment before purchasing. If it is reasonable then to carefully “examine” the purchase of a piece of equipment, and it is reasonable to ask others in our ministry to carefully “examine” their own religion, why is it unreasonable then to carefully “examine” our own religion and means of worshiping God? And, if one does examine his faith and does find problems and then expresses these concerns about what he has learned, how can the “complete removal” of that person be considered anything but completely unfair?

This position also has nothing to do with my own son being disfellowshipped, though some I am sure will choose to believe otherwise. I will however add this information about this personal ordeal that brings to light another problem; After receiving a very emotional phone call from my disfellowshipped son thousands of miles away in September 2004, I was told by one of our elders that it was, “wrong for me to have accepted that phone call”. Instead he said I should have told him to “locate the elders in his territory” and that “we need to tighten up things around here in our congregation”. This was the most insensitive counsel that I have ever heard in my years in the truth. His mother had recently committed suicide just a couple of years before, he had just turned 18, was own his own for the first time in his life, disfellowshipped, was 5000 miles from home and felt extremely lonely, sad and despondent. Sure, I could have “turned down” that call all right. Who in his right frame of mind though would have done such a thing to their own son or daughter, in such a time of need? Then, nine months later, after discussing it with the rest of my family, we agreed to allow him to return to living in our house, from Maui. (This decision was due to his very deep depression, suicidal tendencies, a drug dependency problem, and having the ACL torn out in his knee…all at the same time). We agreed to allow him back home to get the help needed to get back on his feet, under very strict circumstances I might add (as the watchtower allows) which included his going to meetings, bringing no leaven into the home, turning his life back around by serving Jehovah, (which he did for six months by the way). I was then told by this same elder that my decision to allow him home was “cutting the hand of Jehovah short, and another big mistake”, and because of this erroneous decision on my part, I as his father “might be the one destroyed at Armageddon”. This same elder then took me off the watchtower reader’s list for the first time in my eight years living on this island. (I had no problem with this, but felt I should at least be told about it) When I inquired as to whether it was just a coincidence or by design that I was missing from that list, he told me that it was by “choice” and that there would be “more where that came from”. While this “list” of unreasonable responses about my helping my own son after his being disfellowshipped may seem completely unfair and far less than loving, the brother himself truly believed what he was doing was the correct thing. I will also add that there was very little personal resentment on either of our parts. He sincerely believed he was just doing what the society wanted. One of the things I cannot understand then, is how we as Jehovah’s Witnesses can spend enormous amounts of time assisting other people in our ministry –people that are often depressed, fighting addictions, language issues, living at times as we know very ungodly lives–, to do better and we ultimately give these ones the help and assistance needed so they can serve God in an acceptable manner. However, if one of our very OWN people or family members has been disfellowshipped, and happens to fall into a similar dangerous pattern (one that often begs for loving assistance now more than ever) we have minimal provisions at all to help these ones of our own to get back onto their feet. They in fact must be “cut off” and completely shunned by all at a time when many will actually need help the most. The example of my son above illustrates this well. For someone to lose their mother at such a young age (15) via a gun in her mouth, and then spiral into a course of rebellion is not that uncommon. But to completely have to cut that person off, without any assistance whatsoever from the congregation, when help is MOST needed at this time, is contrary to what the scriptures teach us about Jehovah. He continued to ask the Israelites to come back to him over and over. Even assisting these former rebels to gain his favor once again. Now, because this same individual (my son) now moves out of my home, I too, as his father, am expected to cut off all ties and association with him. Even keeping business dealings to a minimum. There are downtimes in our lives when we need help and support and love, rather than just blindly cutting these ones off indefinitely. Where is the balance, the love and the help in such a policy as this today? Even if these disfellowshipped ones did turn their course of life around, and did become married, faithful, honest etc. By not agreeing to go back to the meetings for six months (minimum) or sometimes much longer in this shunned state, and then to go back in front of a judicial committee for judging whether they have truly repented, these people would remain disfellowshipped for the rest of their lives.

This letter here and my changes in position toward the organization itself are not based on this situation with my son, or any other “personal” problems. It is solely because of my making a reasonable, logical and careful examination about certain policies that we as Jehovah’s Witnesses often blindly accept without questions. This change is not based on any personal problems or, my wanting to leave the organization. In fact leaving is the LAST thing I have even wanted to do. I have always valued the organization. After an exhaustive examination, that has taken many months to go through. And after coming to learn many things I did not know before when I was younger and much more naïve than now. There are four specific issues that have changed my opinions about and support for the Watchtower Society today.

1- For the many reasons clearly stated above, I am thoroughly convinced the position to abstain from blood transfusions is wrong. Lives, in my honest opinion, are needlessly lost because of this dangerously flawed doctrine. Allowing certain blood “fractions” since the year 2000 only complicates and muddies this position even further. Being allowed to USE some fractions from the world blood supply, but not being able to donate towards this same supply, nor store my own blood for medical use, only adds the additional element of hypocrisy to this stand that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known the world over for taking. The lack of reasons why some fractions are allowed and other (though smaller) fractions are not allowed adds further to the quandary the society has found itself in today. This stand usually does not give a good witness nor leave a positive impression on people’s minds at all.

2- The Society has a lengthy history of other doctrinal mistakes and medical blunders such as not allowing vaccinations and organ transplants in the not so distant past. These mandates were wrong when they first came off the presses and they were wrong many years later when finally reversed. To attribute these flip-flops to “the light getting brighter” is just irresponsible. Jehovah does not change his mind like this. He is a “God of truth”… “Who cannot lie”. Imperfect men in positions of oversight have made these doctrinal decisions, which have caused lives to be cut short without justifiable reasons. There were no apologies made either. This poor historical record of mistakes only makes the current blood transfusion policy even more suspect. Implicit trust in an organization that has a track record of mistakes and errors like this is simply foolish, dangerous and irresponsible. Especially when we must force these policies on younger, inexperienced, helpless ones. To be forced into “practice sessions” with our young people so they can make a better stand against blood transfusions does not sound right either.

3- The number of times the Society has predicted the “end of the world” is surprisingly large. I never knew just how often this was the case. The end of the system was predicted, in writing, in these years: 1874, 1875, 1881, 1888, 1914, 1915, 1918, (could occur in 1920), 1925, (”resurrection of Princes” in 1929), 1932, 1940, (”any day now” in 1942), (”why not now” in 1951), 1975, and before the generation that was born in 1914 dies, which was dropped in 1996 after it was clearly another false prediction. Every one of these predictions, in writing, has proved false. People sold homes, gave up opportunities to start families, secure employment, gave up opportunities for an education and instead spread a message of doom that was simply untrue with each prediction made. All of these failed. We really are known the world over for these continuous false “end of the world” prophecies. When looking up information from secular (non-apostate, such as encyclopedia) sources, each authority said basically the same thing; that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known the world over for our “many end of the world proclamations”, that did not come true. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 pointedly states this: “However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’”

4- Despite the numerous errors in doctrine, medical mistakes, end of the world false predictions and unscriptural blood transfusion bans that fill its pages of history, the society still demands full support of its policies and doctrines today. Notice this comment from a 5/1/72 WT (page 272): “That they [Jehovah's Witness] must adhere absolutely to the decisions and scriptural understandings of the Society because God has given it this authority over his people.” If this is God’s true and only channel, how then can they be so wrong, so often, on doctrine, medical issues, end of the world predictions, and yet still demand complete obedience from its members or face risk of complete shunning? If any baptized Witness *expresses* his thoughts (even if only as opinions) that are contrary to what is taught in the Society’s publications right now, they will be disfellowshipped for disrupting unity. Squashed like a bug. This “squelching mechanism” that I like to call it keeps an unhealthy fear in its rank and file members to stay in line. Losing all contact with friends and family is just too much to bear for many. Life as you know it is gone. In addition, we are also told time and again not to even consider looking at outside sources. All of this “outside material” is called “apostate literature.” The term “Apostate” applies based on one simple criterion; is it critical of the organization? Most sources critical of the organization are not apostate. They are secular; and they are often simply stating the facts about this organization. Facts, that the society does not want its members to know anything about. Our examining the society can ONLY be done, we are told, if it is done within the organization. So, by not being allowed to examine our own faith through outside sources, and by having the ever-present threat of disfellowshipping hovering over us if we were to speak critically of the organization, most Jehovah’s Witnesses do not even know about these many issues that I have just posted above. As a nearly 20 year member, I too never knew many of these things (because we are told not to) until I finally decided to examine based on the unusual circumstances mentioned above about seeing an article on a national news website that allowed critical comments about the organization after the article. Comments that shook my faith so much I decided to investigate things further. Comments that I was not supposed to look at not even think about because they are called “Apostate”.

Additionally, I have other (though perhaps less serious) issues that raise doubts in my mind as well. For example, many of the brothers are far more concerned about their “positions” than they are with the genuine well being of the PEOPLE in the congregations. Over and over I have seen this clearly demonstrated. It is sad to watch. Nowhere is it more obvious that when the circuit overseer visits twice each year. The manner in which many people change for these visits regarding their comments, showing up for service, finally arriving on time and being friendlier is remarkably transparent at times. Also, having to count our time each month and then turn in that time to the headquarters just seems to take away from the value of really wanting to talk to others. Service can at times just be about getting in our double-digit numbers rather than about truly helping people. The real meaning of witnessing can be lost. I know of many others that feel this way as well. There just seems at times to be so many rules if one wants to remain in good standing. Brothers cannot grow any type of beards. Cannot even work on military or church buildings if self-employed. We’re not talking about worshiping there, but even performing a service in these places is forbidden. We cannot even go into another church for a funeral or wedding of another friend, family member or relative. Our children are not allowed to play any organized sports or join other clubs in or out of school. We are “not encouraged” to get pschycological help for those that really need it. Sisters have to wear dresses at all meetings, service, assemblies etc. I realize many of these are minor to some, but they just illustrate the point that we are governed, as an organization by a set of many rules and regulations that are not all scriptural. This list can just go on and on.

Any ONE of these many issues that are listed above could raise serious doubts in my mind about whether this religion is in fact the one and only truth. However, when I add up ALL these issues together (and many more things not even listed here), I cannot help but come to the inescapable conclusion in my mind, that this is not the sole truth on the earth today. That this is not the one single organization used by God that I had always believed it to be. This has been and will continue to be one of the most difficult things I have ever had to realize and accept. I do love the friends and have no ill feelings or animosity towards a single one. Not even one. This decision is not about people in this organization. I have many friends and have enjoyed my associations with all of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is instead about the “policies”, the doctrinal policies that my conscience will no longer allow me to be a part of. Yes, I still see positive things being accomplished by this organization and have tried to balance it all out before making any definitive decisions. So I am not one-sided when it comes to evaluating the organization and my own subsequent position on what to do. I might compare this quandary I am in to something like driving a fancy sports car; there might be some truly “good” things it can do. Lots of power, great handling, maybe even a real beauty on the outside. But if you also knew it had these so-called “problems”; perhaps the brakes are known to just go out, or the gas tank explodes when hit from behind or has a lousy track record in terms of reliability, it would still be irresponsible in my sincere opinion to just disregard or “look the other way” when it comes to the apparent flaws that are obvious here… even though there is a measure of good too. The vehicle that I have chosen to use to worship God (this organization) is very flawed in my honest opinion. So much so, that I no longer find it acceptable to use to worship God. I am not trying to use some type of magnifying glass to intensify the negatives with the society in general or with regards to the blood transfusion position in particular. I am also not influenced by any so-called “apostate” propaganda. What I have written above here is entirely my own. How I personally feel, from my own evaluations, as carefully as I know how. These issues are real, and in my mind they are all very significant problems.

Because I am willing to share this research and information with those that may wish to ask why I no longer can support the organization today (as I’d hope others would do for me), I would soon be disfellowshipped from the organization by my local congregation. Disfellowshipped for simply sharing information that the organization does not want its members to find out on their own. Disfellowshipped for offering unbiased, reasonable, logical and well-researched opinions that are not supported by the Watchtower Society. I am therefore left with no other alternative that I can think of, but to disassociate myself from the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It would hopefully be fair and reasonable to expect to be able to just go out into my own new direction while respecting each other’s beliefs along the way. But instead, I will have to be treated as an outcast. Considered as one in the same light now as an unrepentant thief, murderer, drunkard, adulterer etc. Completely shunned, simply for disagreeing with the Watchtower Society’s doctrine. Doctrine that has been proven to be wrong many times before. If anyone has another suggestion or idea that I have not already mentioned, or that might help, I am still open and willing to consider these as well. But I have already looked at all things as conscientiously and thoroughly as I am capable of doing for several months now. I sincerely appreciate those of you taking the time to of read all of this. At least you will know why I will no longer be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I wish everybody in the organization only good things. I have very fond memories too.

My very best to each and every one of you,

VKT

My Letter to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses (c. 1976)
Note: This letter was written long ago and does not represent my current beliefs (especially in regards to the Bible and Russell.) Its value lies primarily in its critique of the Watchtower’s mindset, showing how it can subvert love.

from: Steve McRoberts
to: Teaching Committee at Bethel headquarters, 124 Columbia Hts, Brooklyn, NY

Dear brothers:

I must first of all apologize for the length of this letter, I feel, however, that the complexities of the subject herein presented necessitates this length.

The purpose of my writing is to hopefully accomplish some good. It was stated at the breakfast table one morning that this committee desired to hear such observations from the brothers as; ‘We are not benefiting too much from the Monday night Watchtower study.’ Acting under this premise, I wish to here set forth my observations regarding the society in the manner of constructive criticism. In doing this my sole purpose is to be helpful, I am not here attempting to tear down the society; I would say nothing at all if I though it would not be in some way beneficial.

I have felt a definite lack of love in the various congregations I have attended. There is some love there, but it is insufficient. The love there should be such that outsiders will (without being told) recognize it as Christ-like love, and hence will recognize us as true disciples. My own experience with Bible studies I have brought to meetings, is that they fail to see this love, and so go to another church where love is more important than knowledge. But I do not speak from just my own experience. It appears that I speak for a growing number who feel something is wrong in the congregations–in the society, and who feel more upbuilt by staying home than by attending the meetings.

Now my suggestion (leading towards a rectification of this situation) is that the relationship and teachings of the society towards the members of the congregations is what is largely responsible far this situation. I now wish to elaborate on this suggestion. Please bear with me.

The closer we come to exercising the Christ-like qualities that the Bible teaches us, the more we will have the identifying mark of love. The question presents itself, then: ‘Is there something in the society’s relationship to the members of the congregation which hinders some quality that a Christian should exercise?’ I believe that there is, I believe that quality is found in these words of C.T. Russell:

“The liberty or privilege of choosing, exercising our wills, is one of the grandest blessings accorded to humanity, and it is an important element in man’s likeness to his creator … the human will … includes, especially, decision in respect to the higher moralities, taking hold of questions of justice and love which affect and influence all of life’s affairs.” ¹

Especially in matters of faith we individually must choose to believe each point. Only in this way are we exercising our likeness to our Creator. If we believe a point of doctrine merely because someone else tells us it is right, and they have been right before, we are not; fully using our Christian qualities, and therefore all out Christian qualities suffer, including love. Now this is exactly where the society can hinder one. In the days of Russell the society really lived out in practice his words quoted above. Notice, please, how the food was served to the household of faith:

“Let each fellow servant and each member of the household of faith use his consecrated judgement in accepting or rejecting this exposition, or any other exposition we nay ever offer, according to his ability or inability to recognize in it the voice of out great shepherd.” ²

This attitude was also manifest in Russell’s encouraging the re-reading several times of any tract before distributing it. And in his saying that no one should ever distribute something that he wasn’t convinced of. Russell, therefore, was not dogmatic, and for this reason his interpretations were more readily accepted in a spirit of love, for that is the spirit in which he sent them out. He did not think it proper for someone to term himself a “prophet” whom all must listen to or perish:

“No system of theology should be presented, or accepted, which overlooks or omits the most prominent features of Scripture teaching. We trust, however, that a wide distinction will be recognized between the earnest, sober, and reverent study of prophecy and other Scriptures, in the light of accomplished historic facts, to obtain conclusions which sanctified common sense can approve, and a too common practice of general speculation, which, when applied to Divine prophecy, is too apt to give loose rein to wild theory and vague fancy, Those who fall into this dangerous habit generally develop into prophets (?) instead or prophetic students.” ³

Such an attitude (a ’soft sell’ of the truth) worked very very well. No one felt ‘penned up’ or as if they were being made merchandise out of. ⁴ God was held up as the one to join one’s self to, not men:

“Must I not join some organization on earth, assent to some creed, and have my name written on earth? No, Gal. 5:1; ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.’”⁵

“The test of membership in this New Creation will not be membership in any earthly organization.” ⁶

“You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men.” (I Cor, 7:23)

When Russell died in 1916 the truth did not stop advancing. But very pertinent to our discussion are these words of Rutherford in 1923:

“[Eph. 4:14 is quoted from the Diaglott on "systematic deception"] Some with too much confidence in their own ability seek exhilaration out of taking a chance rather than abide in the truth as it has been Scripturally explained by God’s instruments. And now with the death of [Russell] the tendency of some self-reliant ones is to fly off at a tangent and abandon the general outline of the Divine Plan of the Ages. These, harping on Pr. 4:18 get into a frame of mind where they think they are the individual channels for the advancing light. They advance into a supposed light which contradicts revealed proven truth … To claim, then, that brother Russell misdrew God’s plan is to argue in effect that the vision did lie, that it did tarry, and that brother Russell got ahead of the light instead of following its gradual revealment. Do, then, those who thus argue imagine that the vision tarried for them as the specially chosen ones of the Lord? Such an attitude spells a high degree of pride and egotism, in all the above instances can be noted 1, A growing disregard or neglect of what [Russell] wrote, 2, A denial or reversal of formerly held truths is naturally suggested to those having a morbid desire for novelty. Instead of dispelling the doubt by a reexamination of brother Russell’s writings, an endeavor is made to prove the new views and ideas to be Scripturally correct. 3, Strong inclination to believe the error is created by the seeming truthfulness of the new views. This is due to the outward appearance of the channel of the new ideas … Shall we accept the teachings of these latter day teachers as being gifts of the Lord Jesus to the church? How could we? … The society’s policy is not to reverse the work begun by its founder, nor to toss the Lord’s people about by pretending to explode the truth as brought forth before 1916. Its true course is to follow the same path of the just which its organizer walked.” ⁷

We know, of course, that this “systematic deception” describes Rutherford’s work perfectly. He soon was dogmatic. He fell into the habit of becoming a “prophet” whom everyone must listen to. And most sadly of all, he soon had an earthly organization which everyone must join to be saved. This organization, of course, abandoned the general outline of the Divine plan of the ages in favor of the seeming truthfulness of the respected “channel’s” (Rutherford’s) new views. This led to a consequent loss of Christian-quality to all members. In support of the above I quote:

“Such persons should remember that the Watchtower sets out the words of God’s prophet.” ⁸

“Many may find fault with the society, its officers and organization, but in their hearts generally it is the Lord that they are rejecting.” ⁹

(Here rejecting the Lord is paralleled with finding fault with an earthly organization!)

“Jehovah had a prophet to warn them. This prophet was not one man but was a body of men and women … known as the International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses.” ¹⁰

“It is solely in brotherly association with the New World Society that we can possibly survive when this old world passes away.” ¹¹

The majority of Bible students accepted these views. This is evident from some letters printed in the Watchtower shortly after the book “Light” was released. Several expressed the thought that no man could have written the book, it was divine, sublime, “a gift from God to the Church” (in spite of it being a reversal of what Russell wrote and an explosion of the truth as held before 1916). One enjoyed the book because; “It makes hilarious the certainty of the dissolution of the old hag.” One even commented that Rutherford would be immortal until his work was completed! One said he was overjoyed to learn that “the sect of the Nicolaitans” were “bossy elders”, for he had hated these for so long, and now he was glad to hear that Jehovah hated them too.

Rutherford’s new “light” in this book on the verse “left the love you had at first” (Rev. 2:4), was not the “love of God” as Russell taught, but was love for the organization! ¹² Now if the light was really getting brighter through Rutherford, why does the society today teach that love of God is meant in this verse, as Russell taught, and not as love for the organization, as Rutherford taught? Is it not true in this instance that the light on that Scripture was on in Russell’s day and went off in Rutherford’s, and now it is back on again? It is true in this and many other instances. The reason for it? Rutherford’s motive (which is so clearly seen) was not love, but hate; hate for “bossy elders” and those leaving his organization. He wanted to make a clear distinction between those who would unquestioningly follow him, and those who instead reexamined and proved Russell to be correct. And what did this do to his followers? It gave them an excuse for hate: love suffered.

For these, and additional reasons, I feel it is a detriment to the love among the brothers, and to their love for the world, to hold to the principle Rutherford introduced, namely, that we should accept unquestioningly whatever the society says, and that if we don’t, and separate from it for that reason, we will be destroyed. This is nothing else than a principle borrowed from the Roman Catholic Hierarchy! Therefore, I feel that the following quotation, which is a reiteration of this very principle, is a hurtful and unscriptural one:

“Now some may ask, should we accept from the Lord and true the food provided through the faithful and discreet slave, or should we withhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves? If we have gained our present understanding of the Bible from the faithful and discreet slave … then we should have some confidence in the slave’s provisions … Do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the guidance of the organization that mothered us? “Forsake not the law of your mother,” (Pr. 6:20-23) … Are we to be doubtful about each new provision? [no] … after receiving these food supplies we prove them to ourselves in a spirit of meekness and trustfulness and not combativeness,” ¹³

If we really examine what the society has taught since Russell’s death we are left with no confidence in its provisions. To say this is not to claim superior intelligence, or a rejection of our mother, it is merely to face the facts honestly. The society has proven itself unworthy of the type of trust it mentions. We don’t have to be combative to say this, we merely have to be honest and reasonable. The Bible encourages us not to believe everything the society says, but to examine what it says to determine whether it is true or not:

“Beloved ones do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone forth into the world,” (1 John 4:1)

“Carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

It is therefore the Christian’s responsibility not to follow advice which would have him blindly follow whatever the society says. In practice this advice results in a mental attitude like the credulity of the average Catholic. It does not put one sufficiently on guard against false light which admittedly flows through this “channel” at least sometimes. It works against the principle of “Make sure of all things” (1 Th. 5:17). Those following the advice to ‘follow unquestioningly’ have been subjected to the channel’s deceptions (such as 1925) and therefore the advice is dangerous to spiritual safety.

The Bible nowhere teaches me that I must trust my faith to an earthly organization which has so often been wrong and shown an unloving spirit. As soon as an organization tells me that only by joining it will God save me, it is at that time that I feel most inclined to leave that organization for having so degraded the God of no partiality. Now if this advice to ‘follow unquestioningly’ causes such a natural reaction in a person (i.e. leads him away in disgust of such an organization), it cannot be true.

It was just this type of thinking and reasoning that Russell came out against. All the churches were claiming that the only way to be saved was to join their church and follow their teachings. Russell realized that such could not be the way of a loving and just God. He taught that no earthly organization whatsoever had any say at all in anyone’s salvation. He taught that right now it is only the anointed “little flock” destined for heavenly life that are being tried for life. All others: the ‘world’, would have their trial for life in the millennium. This is because right now they are blinded by the god of this system, and Jehovah in all justice cannot judge a man for not seeing something when that man is blind. Therefore he must bring that man into the new system, the millennium, wherein Satan (the one who blinds then) will be restrained.

“At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped”, (Isa. 35:5)

Then they will know and see things in their true light. They will come to perfection then, and as perfect men, with full awareness of the truth and ability to do right as well as wrong, then, and only then will they be given a fully fair trial for life. (Jer. 31:34, Acts 17:31) Russell had a totally logical presentation of this view which harmonized all the Scriptures together to magnify Jehovah’s great love in all this. But Russell was misrepresented by Rutherford as the latter worked his “systematic deception” away from the Divine plan of the ages right back to the doctrine of the churches: “join my organization or perish”. This was done gradually it seems. Point by point Rutherford replaced the teaching of the Divine plan (systematically) until nothing was left of it.

He started out with “tentative justification”, something Russell taught as being applied to the unconsecrated. To start the ball rolling (away from the Divine plan) he stated:

“Pastor Russell at first thought there was a tentative justification; but after studying into the matter more closely changed his mind,” ¹⁴

This appears to be an out and out Lie. Russell had never changed his mind about tentative justification. Shortly before his death (a matter of weeks) he wrote:

“We describe the person who has taken this course as being tentatively justified,” ¹⁵

A question appears on this at an even latter date in the book “What Pastor Russell Said”:

“Comparing articles on justification in Vol. 6, Tabernacle Shadows, and Sept. 15, 1916 Tower: Do these harmonize? Has brother Russell changed his views on justification? Answer: Brother Russell has not: changed his views on justification,” ¹⁶

In order to help this lie be believed, Rutherford had to resort to some cover up work. Anyone can go to the Bethel library and look in the reprint volume under date of Sept. 15, 1916 for the above quote, Yet look in the index of the last reprint volume (the same) under “Justification, tentative” the latest date given there is 1913, Why? Because Rutherford wants us to believe that Russell changed his mind on this point, and can proceed from there to pull the entire Divine plan away from us. But if his new views were built on a foundation that had to resort to misrepresentation, are his new views worthy of our trust?

In 1921 Rutherford wrote “The Harp of God” which gradually, together with his later books, replaced the masterly 6 volumes of Russell which defended the Divine plan. One merely has to read the first volume and then the “Harp” to see the society going into darkness rather than light in this amateurish book. For instance; page 16 tells us that Isa. 60:8 foretold airships and wireless telegraphy! Page 90 tells us that Mary bore Jesus “without pain and without suffering”! As Russell had warned, Rutherford had gone into the practice of general speculation, wild theory, and vague fancy.

But Rutherford went much further: he ignored another warning from Russell:

“We cannot help it that many of our dear friends continue to tell what the Watchtower believes and to misrepresent its teachings. Our kindest thought is that they must not be giving much heed to its teachings. Otherwise they would know from its columns that we are not looking forward to 1925, nor to any other date.” ¹⁷

Rutherford should have paid more heed. He fell into the 1925 snare, and many left the organization after 1925 because he did not keep his pet theories to himself but announced them as dogma:

“We may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets or old … 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of the reconstruction…” ¹⁸

“We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925.” ¹⁹

Do you see what was accomplished by stating this wild speculation as dogma? Many left the society, believing that Jehovah would not let “his prophet” prophesy falsehoods. Can we honestly blame them? Those who stayed suffered ridicule, not for Christianity, but for what is opposed to Christianity, namely, error. Those who stayed viewed those who left as being of the second death class, evil slave class, and this bred more hate. These bad results would not have occurred if Rutherford had stated his 1925 ideas as an interesting possibility. But due to his dogmatically stating it, and due to his “channel doctrine” it had these bad effects.

Brothers, let’s learn from these mistakes. It disturbs me greatly (as it would anyone who knew the facts) that instead of offering some apology for teaching error as truth, the society has passed the buck of responsibility to its “meek and trusting” followers. I refer to the following statements:

“The end of 1925 is about here. Some had expected to see the work of the church in the flesh completed this year. Probably this expectation has been induced somewhat by the desire to end earth’s journey of toil and to sit at ease in glory. If so, then is there not a measure of selfishness in such a desire and expectation?” ²⁰

“1925 was a sad year for many brothers, some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ancient worthies resurrected. Instead of its being a ‘probability’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty’.” ²¹

Who were included in the “some” who expected these things in 1925? The main one that comes to my mind is J.F. Rutherford. He is the one who told everyone else that they could “confidently expect” these things. The way brothers read 1925 into a certainty was by reading it in the Watchtower in black and white as written by Rutherford. But when these things weren’t fulfilled what did he do? He charged those believing the doctrine he taught them with being selfish, instead of apologizing to them for teaching falsehoods dogmatically. What kind of a prophet refuses to admit his mistakes? What kind of prophet, instead, accuses God’s people of selfishness?

“Jehovah, the God of the true prophets, will put all false prophets to shame either by not fulfilling the false prediction of such self-assuming prophets or by having his own prophecies fulfilled in a way opposite to that predicted by the false prophets.” ²²

“True, there have been those in times past who predicted an end to the world, even announcing a specific date … the end did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying … missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.” ²³

“When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it, You must not get frightened at him,” (De. 18:20-22; Jer. 29:8-9)

Speaking in all honesty, do not all the words above fittingly apply to Rutherford? My purpose is not to downgrade him, but rather to illustrate by past example the kind of activity the society should avoid. And that hurtful activity is sticking to Rutherford’s wild doctrines (including especially the “channel” doctrine) as opposed to Russell’s sound reasonings.

As time went on Rutherford replaced more light with darkness. As Christian character is linked with knowledge of the truth (Heb. 5:l3,14), so both of these suffered together. Under Russell’s correct interpretations of Jehovah’s great love and justice towards his creatures, characters were built up to Christ-like qualities. But Rutherford’s ‘get in line or perish’ doctrine was not one from the God of love, and hence, the characters of his followers suffered. In 1926 he came out with an article which set character building in opposition to service ²⁴. Soon the term “character building” was held in the same disesteem as “evil slave”. The Bible, in contrast with such a view, admonishes us to build our characters (please see 2 Peter 1:5-10). This new view of Rutherford’s was extremely detrimental to all. From then on, as never before, knowledge was put way ahead in importance of love. Ascribing to the society’s interpretations and selling its literature was paralleled with salvation, instead of following the Scripture:

“If I am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, … and if I give all my belongings to feed others [even with spiritual food], and if I hand over my body that I may boast [by saying "I am a pioneer"], but do not have love, I am not profited at all.” (1 Cor. 13:2)

But instead of becoming more knowledgeable, the neglect of developing Christ-like qualities resulted in more darkness. For if we don’t develop the fruitages of the spirit, the spirit is not going to guide us to advancing light; we will be left to our own human imaginings. By comparing Russell and Rutherford, this is clearly what happened. And so, Rutherford was soon teaching that the image of Daniel chapter 2 was not a succession of world powers, as Russell taught, but was instead Satan’s organization; the head of gold being Satan, and the other parts being the governmental, religious, and commercial systems. ²⁵ I am glad to see that the light is back on again regarding this Scripture. I wish the society would return to much more of the light Russell had, but which Rutherford turned off because of not being led by the spirit.

Rutherford’s not being led by the spirit caused him to do worldly things under the pretext of religion. This is the very thing he often condemned the clergy for doing–hiding under religion as a cover. Yet he himself built a mansion in San Diego where he lived for many years while the rest of the Bethel family scraped along in small rooms which they had to share. The purpose of the mansion was supposedly for the resurrected ancient worthies. It was thought that these ones would be either resurrected on the acres of the mansion, or would be directed there by Jehovah to set up their headquarters. ²⁶ But in actual fact Rutherford was the one who lived there, and sometime after his death it was sold. This proves that:

“The purpose of constructing a house in San Diego” was expressly “for Brother Rutherford’s use.” ²⁷

Was Rutherford therefore hypocritical in this matter? It would appear so. The question then comes to mind, ‘Can we trust such a man’s interpretations which differ so radically from what his honest predecessor taught?’ We must admit that it raises some doubt, especially when both Russell and an earlier Rutherford warned us against such an occurrence, I: wish now to present an easily seen fallacy of Rutherford’s:

The one who wrote, “There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914″ ²⁸, in spite of Russell’s stating the reverse, also changed the understanding of the prophetic times of Daniel and Revelation.

Daniel 12:7 mentions a period of 3 1/2 times. Rutherford applied this to October 1, 1914 till April 1, 1918. This latter date was supposed to fulfill “the last scattering of the holy people”. But in actual fact, 37 days later the 8 members of the society were arrested.

Another objection to his view is clearly seen: from Oct 1, 1914 till April 1, 1918 there are 1,278 days, whereas the prophecy speaks of 3 1/2 times which equal only 1,260 days, so Rutherford’s days were too long.

So his interpretation could not be right because:

1). The events do not fit the prophetic conditions.

2). The time period is off by 18 days.

Daniel 12:11 mentions a time period of 1,290 days, He applied these to Jan. 1919 till Sept, 1922; a period at least 1,309 days long. He could not have been right, for the Bible says 1,290, whereas he says 1,309. Could there be a clearer contradiction of Scripture?

Daniel 12:12 speaks of 1,335 days. He applies this to a period beginning the same time as the above one ended (I figured Sept 1 above in order to grant him all leniency, but he seems to favor the 5th through the 13th during the convention) till mid-May 1926 (he seems to prefer the 25th, but to give all leniency, I’ll figure from the 15th). This time period is 1,356 days long, not 1,335. I cannot believe that God would be 3 weeks late in fulfilling his prophecies. He declares; “It will not be late” (Hab. 2:3). Yet, through his interpretation, Rutherford tells us it was late.

Daniel 8:14 speaks of a tine period 2,300 days long. He applies this to May 25, 1926 to Oct. 15, 1932. At this latter date the sanctuary was supposedly brought into its right condition by action taken against “elective elders” (a term which came to rank along with “evil slave” and “character builders”). But it wasn’t, because latter there were additional modifications of the elder system. The time period here is off by 35 days too many.

Rev. 11:3 speaks of 2 witnesses prophesying in sackcloth for forty-two months. This of course is the same as 3 ½ times, or 1,260 days. He applied this to Nov, 7, 1914 till May 7, 1918, a period of 1,277 days.

Rev. 12:6 is the one period of time which he has a corresponding amount of time for. It is a period of 1,260 days which he applies to March 27, 1919 till. Sept. 8, 1922, which is a period of 1,260 days. On the former date he was released from prison, on the latter began one of the numerous “drives” to sell his books.

It has always been very hard for me to accept such dates. I don’t know how he came up with them. Nor can I say that the society’s new interpretations of these are much more satisfactory. For instance, today we are taught that the 1,260 days of Rev. 12:6 are 1,270 days from April 13/14, 1919 till Oct 4/5, 1922. ²⁹ This is worse than Rutherford’s! The society has improved slightly on the others, now we are told that:

The 42 months of Rev. 11:3 are 1,269 days long (Oct, 4/5, 1914 till March 26/27, 191 this is 8 days closer than Rutherford was, but it is still 9 too many, and Jehovah is more accurate than that. ³⁰

The 2,300 days of Dan. 8:14 are 2,321 days long (from June 1 or 15, 1938 till Oct. 8 or 22, 1944) this is 2 weeks closer than Rutherford was, but it is still 3 weeks off. Jehovah is not that sloppy of a timekeeper, therefore I cannot believe these dates were fulfillment of His prophecy. ³¹

The 1,335 days of Dan, 12:12 are 1,353 days long (from the first half of Sept. 1922 till May 25,1926) this is 3 days closer than Rutherford, but it is still 18 days too many. ³²

The other times of Daniel seem to be ambiguous from the 1970 Watchtower pages 686-689. It seems to confound the 1,260 and the 1,290 days. The article is very confusing. I think perhaps its purpose was to show that these time periods are very vague and approximate.

Brothers, there is a solution to this confusion. There is an accurate interpretation of these times which fits world history (not just a convention in Ohio, but world shaking events) and the time periods perfectly. The society taught this interpretation for over 50 years till Rutherford changed it for his own. Russell’s interpretation took “a day for a year”. Was that proper? According to what the society wrote as recently as 1963 it was proper:

“But in a symbolic or prophetic year, the number of days is fixed at the unchanging number of 360, and each day thereof stands for a whole year, “A day for a year, a day for a year.”-Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6…Accordingly, a symbolic or prophetic “time” would Scripturally equal 360 years…three and a half “times” amounted to 1,260 symbolic days, that is to say, 1,260 gears.” ³³

In agreement with that, Russell taught that the 3 ½ times of Dan. ran from 539 CE when all was subjected to papal authority, till 1799 when the office of the pope was publicly humiliated before the world by Napoleon.

The 1,290 “days” were 30 years longer than the 1,260, and so ended 30 years latter, namely, in 1829 when ‘the ones having insight began to understand the prophecy of Daniel’ (such as W. Miller who started the Second Adventists in this year with this same understanding of the 3 ½ times.)

The 1,335 “days” extended to 1874 when Bible students understood the presence of the Lord to have begun for the purpose of a forty year “harvest” (paralleling the Jew’s harvest of forty years from its beginning till the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE) which would run till 1914, the end of the Gentile times.

The 1,260 days of Rev. 11:3 and 12:6,14 both ran from 539 CE till 1799 (the same period as the 3 ½ times of Daniel). During this time God’s two witnesses; the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures were prophesying in sackcloth; the Latin tongue, and kept from the people.

Russell can defend these prophecies much better than I can, and I encourage you to read his Studies in the Scriptures, because he had a much better “system of theology” that the society presents today. The society has, in recent years, rejected some of Rutherford’s “light” and gone back to Russell’s teachings on some matters. I think this to be an excellent trend, and the society should continue and greatly expand this method. Because, in the main, the society has a “system of theology” which overlooks the most prominent features of Scripture teachings, namely, love and justice. I make this statement because the society teaches that; only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive into the millennium. Whereas the Scriptures teach that God’s love has provided the gift of a ransom for all. What does this mean? It does not mean that everyone will live forever, or that nothing is required on our part to live forever. It does mean that everyone is ransomed from Adamic condemnation:

“For just as in Adam all are dying so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)

I have always used the expression “just as” in John 17:21 to mean “in exactly the same way”, being consistent I use the same phrase “just as” in the above verse to mean “in exactly the same way”. How do we all die in Adam? Is it our choice to do so? No, we are born into Adamic death, it is a result of what the “first Adam” did before we were born.

The results of what –the “second Adam” did apply to us in exactly the same way; it relieves us of the death we had from that “first Adam”. What we do has no effect in the matter, everyone is now ransomed from Adamic death, we only await Jehovah’s due time to apply this to us practically, in the millennium.

Everyone, therefore, must make it into the millennium to have the results of the ransom applied to them fully. There they will not die for Adam’s sin (and their consequent imperfection, i.e. sin) but for their own:

‘”As I am alive,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘it will no more continue to be yours to express this proverbial saying in Israel [namely, "Fathers are the ones that eat the unripe grapes, but it is the teeth of the sons that get set on edge"], Look! All the souls, to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son–to me they belong. The soul that is sinning–it itself will die…and you people will certainly say: ‘Why is it that the son does not have to bear anything because of the error of the father?’ The soul that is sinning–it itself will die, A son himself will bear nothing for the error of the father…upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be.’” (Ez. 1832,4,19,20)

This will be the state of affairs in the millennium. It is not of course the state of affairs now. Now we die because of father Adam’s eating “the unripe grape”, Over 99% of earth’s sin is due to their “teeth being set on edge”: their inherited imperfection from Adam. The remaining sin is unforgivable sin, because only sin inherited from Adam has been atoned for. The society therefore holds that everyone who is not a witness will commit the unforgivable sin; the sin against the spirit, before they are destroyed everlastingly at Armageddon, and that this, in fact, is the reason why they will all be destroyed. But is this reasonable? We generally hold that those who are not Witnesses who die now, before Armageddon, will be resurrected into the new order, but if they should live up till the great tribulation they will be destroyed forever with no hope of resurrection. If this is true, then the greatest kindness we could show all those who aren’t witnesses is to kill them all before Armageddon so they’ll be resurrected! Something is obviously wrong with this reasoning. There are many right hearted people in Christendom who are so deceived and so sure that their church is right, that they will never come out of Babylon the great in this system. As mentioned before, this is due to Satan’s blinding their eyes. Will Jehovah destroy them for this, or will he bring them into the new system and there open their eyes? I answer that even my imperfect love for my fellow man is such that I would not have a blind man destroyed forever for not seeing something.

It is true that the majority of people (perhaps all) are in Babylon the great (i.e. false religion), and Babylon is going to be destroyed. But this does not mean that these people are going to be destroyed. Babylon the great is a system, an institution: the world empire of false religion. That is what Babylon is. It is not people. This is manifest by Rev. 18:4 contrasting Babylon with people:

“And he cried with a loud voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the great has fallen…get out of her my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.”

Babylon the great is therefore not people because no one has ever been inside people so that the angel saying, “get out of her” meant “get out of people.” It was not people that fell down when Babylon had fallen; it was respect for that institution that fell. Those who remain in that institution will suffer “part” of its plagues. Babylon (false beliefs) will be totally destroyed, but the Scriptures do not say that those who held those beliefs would share that same fate. No, they will receive “part” by bearing much reproach and ridicule from the world in general for having relied on those institutions. It will create some hardships on them when they realize that they put all their belief in something false. They will feel like what Paul expressed: “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied,” (I Cor. 15:19)

I think perhaps the New World Translation has covered up the doctrine of a ransom for all. I refer to such Scriptures as Rom, 5:18:

“So then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life.”

Now my question is this: where did those words “of all sorts” come from? I know where the word “all” came from,; it is in the Greek text. But what about the words “of sorts”? It is very important to know their source, because they obviously change the whole meaning of the verse. Without those words “of sorts” we have the doctrine of a ransom for all. But with them, we have an entirely different statement. The words are not to be found in the Greek, therefore they don’t belong there, and therefore the verse should read:

“It follows then, that as the issue of one misdeed was condemnation for all men, so the issue of one just act is acquittal and life for all men.” (New English Bible)

Christ’s death does more than atone for just the sins of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It frees all men from sins they’ve committed due to Adam:

“Jesus Christ is himself the remedy for the defilement of our sins, not our sins only but the sins of all the world.” (1 JN 2:2)

“Christ Jesus who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all. Christ Jesus…sacrificed himself to win freedom for all mankind, so providing, at the fitting time, proof of the Divine purpose.” (1 Tim, 2:5,6 NW, NEB)

Yes, the Divine purpose, or “plan” (see Eph. 7:11 Diaglott) of the ages is to bless all on earth by means of Christ Jesus (Gen. 22:18). It therefore bothers me, brothers, when I an told that all Christians will rejoice at the mass destruction of all who did not respond to us or our message. I would not rejoice at such an event. I love them all and would hate to see them destroyed just for not joining our organization. It disturbs me so much that it has completely hindered my growth in love and Christ-like character. It disturbs me so much that I cannot go out in service knowing that this is part of our message. I think this is what is the matter in the congregations; I am not unique in my feelings. Now if a doctrine about God’s purposes causes such a reaction-—namely a suffering of love in the congregations–what can we conclude about such a doctrine? The truth moves one to love. The truth presents God as all just and all love, and this moves His worshipers to become like him. But a God who is presented as destroying all but his worshipers in this system, causes those imitating this concept of God to become hardened. I have felt both sides of this. When I believed that everyone who wasn’t a Witness was going to be destroyed, I came to loath worldly people and privately ridicule all who weren’t in the organization (like-most witnesses do). But when I realized I was no better than them, and in fact, the majority were better than me, then I began thinking soberly. I became so unhappy at this thought of them being destroyed that I came to desire death; I just didn’t want to live anymore if that was the situation.

But on the other side of the issue now, I feel love. Even riding the subway and seeing people of all sorts who are in the world, I sometimes just sit there and glow within myself to know that Jehovah loves them all and understands, and will soon give them the answer to all their problems in the millennium. I already feel that superlative quality of love. Yes, Love brothers, LOVE! It’s wrapped up in and inseparable from the “ransom for ALL”! Now I see why I always found myself turning to Russell’s writings to learn about love. The society today could teach me all about the Greek words for “love”, but it took someone who had the “ransom for all” type of love in his heart to teach me the real lesson of love. This lesson: “love is greater than knowledge,” is one all in the organization need to learn in order for many to see us as Christ’s disciples. We need to learn this, not in theory, not in definitions of words, but in principle and practice. We need to see the society offer apologies for wrong teachings of the past and misrepresentations of others. We need to see more especially the re-adoption of the ransom for all.

Now some may object that Rev. 7:9-14 proves that only worshipers of Jehovah will survive the tribulation. But it doesn’t actually say that, nor does the society actually interpret it in that way. The society has taught, to my mind, that there will be survivors of the tribulation who will be destroyed latter in Armageddon, So even looking at it in that way shows that the great crowd will not be the only ones who will survive the tribulation. Looking closer we find that not only doesn’t it say that they will be the only survivors, it also doesn’t say when it is that they acknowledge Jehovah and Jesus as their saviors. Logically, though, this would be after the tribulation, and even after Armageddon. At that time all the world will know that it was Jehovah who brought on Armageddon, and so they will all be able to ascribe salvation to him and his son at this time. I tend to favor Russell’s interpretation of the great crowd as being survivors who will serve God day and night in heaven. The verses here don’t really say one way or the other. I do feel, however, that the Bible seems to indicate a secondary spiritual class in Psalm 45:14,15 entering into the palace of the king (heaven) along with the Lamb’s wife or bride. Also, it is indicated to my mind in 2 Tim. 2:20-22 as the wood and earthenware vessels; and as the one’s having their works burned up, but being saved in I Cor. 3:10-15. I think they are the ones invited to the Lamb’s marriage in Rev, 19:9. And I think that the “great crowd in heaven” mentioned in Rev. 19:1 is perhaps a case of the Bible interpreting itself. I also think that since the great crowd are pictured as serving in the temple, they were pre-figured by the Levites who served in that temple which represented heaven (Heb. 9:23,24) and who had no inheritance in the land (Joshua 14:4; 18:7).

In either case, I can see that both sides of the issue have certain advantages. Therefore I would never be dogmatic and say that anyone who didn’t see it my way would be destroyed by Jehovah as an “evil slave”. I refuse to call those who left the society by that name because:

1. It would seem as if I, instead of Jehovah, were judging them.
2. The spirit which accompanies such a remark is usually un-Christian and against the principle of “love and pray for your enemy”.
3. They generally hold to the “ransom for all” which the society rejected for its “channel doctrine”.
4. The society has misrepresented them. On this last point allow me to elaborate slightly:

The society presents the story that P.S.L. Johnson came to the ridiculous conclusion that the mantle of Pastor Russell fell upon him just as Elijah’s cloak (official garment) fell upon Elisha 2 Kings 2:11-14. ³⁴

There appears to be no truth to this statement. I have at hand a book called “Elijah and Elisha” dated 1938 but probably written earlier, by P.S.L. Johnson. He gives a complex and interesting antitype of Elijah which starts in 539 CE. He states:

“All of us accept the Scriptural thought expounded by [Russell] in re the typical character of Elijah to the effect that he types the Christ class…we will present a number of reasons against the thought that antitypical Elijah first put in his appearance in 1874…Spirit-begotten ones who allowed these or other conditions to demonstrate them to lack zeal…demonstrated that they were not of Elijah built of Elisha…the Elisha class represents the majority, and the Elijah the minority, of the truth people.” ³⁵

Further, P.S.L. Johnson wrote: “We and the movement with which we are connected never have opposed the Societyites’ real mission–its privilege to reprove the world for sin…the kingdom testimony. We believe they got this as their special service in 1917 at the time the mantle went over from antitypical Elijah to antitypical Elisha. In so far as they do this work we pray for them in that work. We have never before the public criticized the many false teachings with which J.F.R. has more or less vitiated that work, our purpose for such a course being our desire not in the least to injure with the public the influence of the Society friends in their ministry to the public.” ³⁶

In 1918 a letter was printed in the Watchtower which proves that from that time Johnson taught that the society, not he himself, was Elisha. ³⁷

In addition to that I have a letter here from R. Jolly, the successor of Johnson as president of Layman’s Home Missionary Movement, he says:

“We do not believe that Bro. Paul S.L. Johnson was prefigured by Elisha, and neither Bro. Johnson nor we have ever taught this. ³⁸

What is this but out and out misrepresentation by the society? It certainly doesn’t accord well with the Bible’s admonition not to bear false testimony against any man. This is just another sad result of putting knowledge ahead of love, observing the intricacies of the law, but disregarding the weightier matters, of straining the gnat but swallowing the camel.

Brothers, I trust you will do something to rectify these matters. I hope you will use these criticisms constructively so that those in the congregations can experience real love and joy through a better relationship with the organization (a free relationship, not a slave relationship), and by being taught about the marvelous ransom for all.

References

¹ Pastor Russell’s Sermons p. 755

² WT 1896 p. 47

³ Divine Plan of the Ages p. 13

⁴ WT Reprints pp. 2673, 2845, 458

⁵ WT Reprints p. 295

⁶ The New Creation p. 78

⁷ WT 1923 pp. 259-263

⁸ WT 1936 p. 182 par. 18

⁹ WT 1935 p. 95

¹⁰ WT 1972 p. 197

¹¹ New Heavens and a New Earth p. 363

¹² WT 1931 pp. 47, 63, 111, 190, 191; Light p. 19

¹³ WT 1952 p. 80

¹⁴ The New Era Enterprise March 23, 1920

¹⁵ WT 1916 p.281

¹⁶ What Pastor Russell Said p. 418, see also 412

¹⁷ WT reprints p. 5858

¹⁸ Millions Now Living May Never Die pp. 89, 90, 97

¹⁹ WT 1922 p. 147; see also GA 1921 pp. 367, 381

²⁰ WT 1925 p. 259

²¹ 1975 Yearbook p. 146

²² Paradise Restored to Mankind–by Theocracy! P. 353-354

²³ Awake! Oct. 8, 1968 p. 23

²⁴ WT 1926 pp. 131-136