The Long Goodbye -- Watchtower Appeal Committee

"You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power -- he's free again"  Alexander Solzhenitsyn
===================

Some people have been asking me what happened at my Appeal Committee meeting on August 6th., 1999. The following is a report of that meeting from notes that I took as it happened. I wrote this account as soon as I arrived home. It is not a transcript, but I have made an effort to produce a true and accurate account.

On 6th. August, at 7.30 p.m., I attended the Waverley Kingdom Hall for the Appeal. In keeping with my time-wasting strategy, I had requested an Appeal after the debacle of the previous "judicial" committees. On 25th. June, the day after I returned from holiday, I was phoned by Chris Taylor. He asked me to attend a meeting on June 27th. I said this was unreasonable and far too soon after my holiday since I had postponed business to do. I finally agreed tentatively to July 9th. Then, a few days before that, I cancelled that meeting, explaining that I was still too busy to see the elders. This postponed the Appeal meeting until after the JW annual district convention at Perth. Toward the end of July, I was told by an answering machine message from Chris Taylor that the Appeal Committee would meet on 6th. August. There was no room for negotiation in the date of this meeting which was supposed to be for my benefit. I was informed that the meeting would take place and if I wanted to participate, I would have to be there on that evening.

My intention had been to attend long enough to read a very blunt statement and then to leave immediately afterwards. However, as things turned out, I decided to stay as I was interested to hear the Appeal Committee’s comments since they appeared to be taking a reasonable and different approach and appeared also to be interested in correcting preceding injustices.

I took a small tape-recorder, but decided I would probably not use it since the meeting would be brief.

When I arrived at the Broughton Street Kingdom Hall, six elders were in the room - the original committee and the three members of the Appeal Committee i.e. the three Waverley elders; Taylor, R.Maxwell and Graham and David Ritchie (Edinburgh Morningside), Peter McKinney (Edinburgh Clermiston) and Chairman Ron MacKenzie (Haddington).

I was aquainted with the elders and had been given a profile of each by my source. In fact, the profiles proved remarkably accurate and each man matched the forecast very closely.
The tone of the meeting was fairly amicable, even with some humour - mostly from me. The fact is, I was speaking to these elders as an equal. At no time have I believed myself inferior to them either spiritually, physically or intellectually. When fear of man and respect by intimidation are taken away, one realises that JW elders are of no more significance than a tramp (bum) in the street. I give them respect because they are people - fellow humans - and only for that reason. This is something that you, the reader might remember if you are ever called before a JW committee. You attend under your terms because you have something to tell them and you are doing them a favour by attending. They have no power or authority over you unless you submit to them. Any authority that they think they have is imagined, since the Watchtower Society has no authority from God.

Many of the things discussed were repetitions of the discussions I had had with the “Judicial” Committee. I was quite surprised that the Appeal Committee appeared to be unfamiliar with the details of the earlier events. I thought they would have been briefed thoroughly even to the extent of having foregone conclusions.

As soon I had sat down and brief introductions had been made, but before even a prayer was said, Ron asked me if I had a tape-recorder. I told him that I always carry a tape-recorder when I meet JW elders. He asked me if I would take it from my pocket and I obliged. I knew I had the option of leaving at any time and if things were tough, it would only reflect badly on the Appeal Committee. Again I asked them why they were afraid of recordings and they gave the stock answer i.e. “rules are rules” - “No tape-recording devices are permitted”.

In this case, it is unfortunate that the Appeal Committee was bound again by the Watchtower Society's rigid rules so that the meeting was not recorded because they came across as much more reasonable and flexible - and in some cases, intelligent - than the ”Judicial” Committee. Was this the "good cop" strategy, after coaching by London headquarters?
I sat opposite the Appeal Committee and Chris Taylor was in front of me and slightly to my right, facing across the room. The other two were over to my left facing Chris.

Robin Maxwell was invited to ask a prayer (another!) and I sat quietly during it.

During the first part of the meeting. I had the impression that the “Judicial” Committee were rather like naughty boys under inspection. While the Appeal elders were sitting quite relaxed, the others appeared less comfortable and were sitting with arms folded and heads down a little, listening. I was quite relaxed and comfortable and dressed casually as before.
Before anything else could be said, I asked Ron about his relationship with John Maxwell. Had they ever been business partners or co-workers? After saying no to several variations of the question, he eventually admitted that, “Yes” they had done some trade or business together. I asked him how his friendship or business contact with a chief witness could qualify him to be impartial. Peter interrupted and said it was unfair to assume that they would be anything less than just or impartial and that, as I knew, Jehovah's Witnesses work together all of the time in assembly preparations etc. I said that working by choice for cash and being flung together in assembly preparations were not quite the same thing and that if they had known my experiences, they would fully understand why I should be concerned.
David, the youngest man, assured me that they were not out to hang me, but were truly interested in seeing justice done and finding the truth of what had happened during the other Committee meetings.

I also asked Ron why the (now infamous) two witnesses were not present, but he said the Appeal Committee were doing things their way. Ron assured me that things were being done in the Correct and Most Appropriate Way. It was quite obvious that Ron was In Charge.

First, Chairman Ron read a couple of biblical texts which I reproduce below:

Psalm 11:4-5: Jehovah is in his holy temple. Jehovah— in the heavens is his throne. His own eyes behold, his own beaming eyes examine the sons of men. Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, And anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.

Proverbs 15:3: The eyes of Jehovah are in every place, keeping watch upon the bad ones and the good ones.

(A more cyncial person might view the reading of these texts as mild threats..........)
Next, Ron referred to my letter of Appeal which follows:

                                                                                                     2 June 1999
Dear Sirs, [not "brothers". That is Watchtower-speak!]
On Friday 28th. May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham came to my home to inform me of your decision to disfellowship me. 
I am writng to appeal against that decision on the basis that the whole process was a complete farce and a miscarriage of justice e.g. the witnesses you produced used entrapment and deceit to gain “evidence”; the original “very concerned” witnesses were never called; my right to a fair trial was continually violated, making Chris Taylor appear a liar; I was forbidden to examine witnesses properly to show that one was telling half-truths throughout his evidence; there were breaches of confidentiality - an elder’s wife outside Waverley knew I was “being dealt with” before the first meeting and that the committee had had to correspond with London Bethel after that. These are just some of the matters I wish to discuss. 
I shall be on holiday during June for at least two weeks so I suggest a meeting toward the end of the month or after July 1st. 
Yours sincerely, 
Anthony Roberts

(By the above letter, I had kept the “judicial” process going for over five months when the Waverley elders had been very keen to end the mattter and announce my disfellowshipping!! Is this a record?)

Ron said that they would consider each of the points raised in the letter. I pointed out that those were only some of the issues I wished to raise and he said we could discuss those later, but that we should look at these first.

When asked, I explained why I believed the trials had been a farce, how the two elders had come to my home as agents provocateurs, how the real witnesses had never been produced , how I had been railroaded when we met the second time and I explained how I knew that my sources were accurate regarding the elder’s wife who has a mouth almost as big as her husband’s. I expressed concern that there is an elder with a big mouth in Waverley too and David asked me how I knew this without actually asking me to give my source. I explained that I had discovered that the original Committee had been in touch with London Bethel after the first meeting with me and that this had been confirmed when I asked Chris Taylor about it and saw his reaction the day after he and Dennis Graham had come to my home to tell me the “scriptural reasons” (!) why I had been disfellowshipped.

We spent some time discussing the wiitnesses. Ron said that they only needed two witnesses , but I explained the circumstances that had led to those two elders being used as witnesses and I asked them why the original “very concerned people” had never been produced contrary to their own Elders’ Manual’s instructions? Their apparent confusion and questions to the other elders about how this had happened made me think that the Appeal elders had not been briefed before-hand about this matter.

I told them that their verdict would have no effect on me and that I would continue to exercise my freedom of speech as a British citizen to whomsoever I wished and about whatsoever I wanted.

I told the Committee that we were meeting for their benefit - I was allowing them an opportunity to prevent a great injustice being done to five million people who would be forbidden to enjoy my fellowship on the basis of what three men had agreed - and why? Because I had chosen to exercise my freedom of speech and opinion and to leave the JW religion.

This turns the whole disfellowshipping process upside down. Jehovah's Witnesses think that they are shunning the individual to shame him into returning, but I was saying that I was giving them an opportunity to correct a wrong. Ron did not agree and said, “it was you who asked for the Appeal” waving my letter. I told him I had my own reasons for doing so. David and Peter smiled..........

The Committee expressed interest that there had been more than one “judicial” event and I explained why. Chris Taylor confirmed this when asked. Ron asked me how Chris had been made to appear a liar and I told them that he had consistently promised me a fair trial and that he either would not, or could not deliver his promise because of the circumstances which may have been put upon him. I told them how the rules had been changed and that I was not allowed to question the witnesses. When asked about this, Chris told them that I had been informed “at the outset” that I must relay questions through the Chairman (him), but I interrupted and said that that was untrue because I was told that only at the beginning of the second meeting. Robin Maxwell agreed with me when he commented “that is how I recall it too”.

After about 45 minutes, they asked me if I would leave the room so that they could talk to the “Judicial” Committee. I was reluctant to do so as I realised time was passing and my intention to read my statement was being forgotten. I was also afraid that they would bring me back into the room to have the satisfaction of pronouncing sentence on me and also, I was playing their game under their rules. I suggested that this might be an appropriate time for me to read my statement, “but you won’t like it”. David asked me to please not read it, but to trust them and go along with the proceedings. We haggled a little over how long I would have to sit out, but finally I decided to take a chance to see how things would be done as I was not overly concerned about the outcome which I believed was inevitable anyway.
After about 15 minutes, the three stooges came out and I was asked in again and some interesting exchanges took place for the next 90 minutes during which I gave them some information which would help them if they were really interested in finding the truth about the Watchtower Society.

Quite early on, David Ritchie asked me “did I want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” I immediately replied, “Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” David and Peter laughed because they saw the point immediately (unlike Chris Taylor when I had said the same during a telephone conversation before the trial). I explained why I had consistently refused to answer the question and reminded them of the Elders’ Manual, Unit 5, which makes it plain that to answer “No” is equivalent to a letter of disassociation and when they disagreed, I quoted it virtually word-for-word i.e. that anyone expressing a desire to leave Jehovah's Witnesses should be encouraged to put that in writing and if they would not do so, the witnesses to the statement should put it in writing and sign it. I further illustrated this as the revolver on the table in the study saying, “Why don’t you go into the study and think about your future?”. To say “No” is equivalent to a convenient suicide which avoids a trial and disgrace.

They also asked me if I viewed myself as a Jehovah's Witness and again I explained why I would not answer that question. I told them that it was not so much a question of how I viewed myself, but how I was viewed by the elders who, during over three years, had consistently shown that they did not view me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, since I had not received documentation or benefits of membership. Then, I confirmed that I am a Christian and that I accept the biblical teachings of Christianity.

I explained that it is wrong that one cannot leave the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses without dishonour. If a person leaves after a private statement to the elders, an announcement is always made which has the sole purpose of disgracing the person in the eyes of their former colleagues and is equivalent to the shame of disfellowshipping for wicked acts. No distinction is made between the person who comes to new conclusions and the person who may have committed the most heinous acts. That is wrong, I said.

I said that the disfellowshipping process is wrong and that Jesus Christ did not give such instructions to shun people, but rather, the person who did not listen to reason should be treated kindly and as one of the nations ( I was referring to Matt. 18:15-17). They said that this did not prevent someone being treated kindly in an accident etc (a typical repetition of a set-piece Watchtower illustration given by the other elders. This reminds me of the simplistic, formula thinking in Animal Farm - “Two legs bad. Four legs good”). I asked if it seemed appropriate to help people survive an accident physically while one is destroying them spiritually, emotionally and socially by shunning them. I also said that Jesus Christ did not tell us to shun people at funerals or forbid a disfellowshipped mother to attend her daughter’s wedding, these being examples of experiences all too common among Jehovah's Witnesses to-day.

David  said that the apostle John instructed Christians not to say a greeting to a disfellowshipped person. I disagreed and corrected him saying, “No. John told us not to say a greeting to someone who denied Christ and that Christ had come in the flesh. He was not talking about people leaving a denomination or disagreeing with an opinion” I told them that John Maxwell too had misquoted scripture in the same way because they had been taught that meaning, but a simple reading of the context shows that their interpretation is never the intention of the Bible writer.

Then David asked, “But would you agree that we should avoid someone if they did deny Christ?” I agreed and said that we all choose our company and avoid the companionship of certain people whom we may personally view as bad associates, but that is for the individual to decide, not a Committee who decides on behalf of five million people. I also mentioned the inappropriateness of holding secret meetings to determine that and mentioned Deuteronomy and trials at the city gates in Israel.

We also discussed the right of a Witness to leave without sanctions being taken against them. I mentioned violations of Human Rights and civil liberties and said again that the Watchtower Society leaders are giving standards of justice which they themselves would not have to tolerate in a “worldly” court.

I asked why such a fuss had to be made when a person leaves? Why shouldn’t a person leave and be free to live his life without interference? If I choose to go to church or vote, how can it be their business to interfere or make statements which disgrace me and prevent others enjoying my company - without sanctions against them - if they wish? Why is it necessary to write a formal letter which is then used as a basis for disgracing the person? The answer given indicates the elitist view of the Witnesses, who are taught that they are special and a select group with high (unattainable) standards.

Ron said that Jehovah's Witnesses have to take an interest in those who leave because, “for example, the person might begin a practice of homosexuality and bring disgrace on Jehovah’s name”. I asked how it could be anyone’s business to investigate a leaver years later and in one English case, disfellowship someone eighteen (18) years after the man had left the religion? And in my own case, people in the community do not know me as a Witness and I am not living badly anway..

I raised the issue of the right to hold an opinion and I explained John Stuart Mill’s view (On Liberty) that having a false opinion corrected could only be beneficial and to have a correct view challenged by a wrong opinion could also benefit us since the correct opinion would be reinforced by the comparison with the false. In that case, why should Jehovah's Witnesses fear my opinions and those of others? And for that matter, what is an apostate, but someone who doesn’t happen to have the same opnion as us? They concurred with this but whether it was agreement with the views expressed or simple affirmation of understanding, I am not sure. Is it too much to hope that I sparked a thinking process?

There was another repetition in their use of the “golf club illustration” regarding the right to leave or expel a member, so I mentioned my own chess club experience. Peter said, “but you don’t speak badly about them, do you?” and I said, “On the contrary, I run down the game something awful and tell everyone I can’t be bothered with it and it’s a waste of time and gives me a headache! But no-one shuns me for saying so!” (actually I’ve started playing chess again recently and have been welcomed and invited to join several clubs as a team player).

They asked me if I had actually tried to turn anyone away from the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought for a moment and reminded them that I had always upheld the principles of biblical Christianity and promoted the Bible to any Jehovah's Witnesses I had met, but if I had ever said anything to subvert faith in the Watchtower Society, I was only doing what they themselves do when they go from door-to-door, subverting the faith of Christians in their respective organisations.

Ron disagreed and said, “No. We build faith”. I disagreed and said that it is essential that Jehovah's Witnesses destroy the faith of people in the religious organisations to which they belong before they can possibly build faith, not in Christ or the worldwide Christian church, but in the Watchtower organisation and its so-called "faithful and discreet slave". So, if I was ever guilty of destroying faith in the Watchtower Society and the "faithful and discreet slave" (a false Christ), how could they criticise me without being hypocrites?

I also pointed out that my real crime is not in telling people to leave the Witness religion, but to admit to them that I am happy that I have done so. I do not fit the profile of the typical leaving Witness, who expresses shame or remorse because of having (apparently) given up on his dedication vows and says how he will really try to return and how much he misses the meetings. On the contrary, I tell enquiring Witnesses who meet me in the street that I have a happy Christian life, that I am “delightedly happy” to have left and wild horses couldn’t drag me back to the Witness meetings now that I have been informed of the truth about the Watchtower Society and its false teachings. I encourage them to read the Bible and follow Jesus Christ. In fact, because I mention the name “Jesus” or “Christ” several times in a conversation, people say to me, “You sound like a “born-again” Christian”. Then I ask them why it should be so unusual for a Christian to mention Christ?

David said that he viewed me as an inactive Witness who had made a dedication to God. “Yes indeed. I made a dedication to God, not men”, I said. 
“But you also agreed to serve the organisation in your baptism vows”, he said. 
“Oh, no I didn’t! When were you baptised?” I asked him. 
“1969” 

“Right. Well you - and probably you two also - answered the same questions that I did and they are found, I think, in the1956 Watchtower and the second question is clearly based on Christian precepts which do not mention the Governing Body or "faithful and discreet slave". The second baptism question was changed in 1985. Check it in the Watchtower yourself. It was at that time that the idea of following a "faithful and discreet slave" and duty to an organisation was added to the baptism questions”. 

“Ah”, Ron said, “but we repeat those questions every time we hear a baptism talk” 
“I don’t” said I. “I stick by the original deal between me and God. I made no contract with the Watchtower organisation”.

Ron asked what was wrong with putting our faith in The Watchtower? “The Watchtower gives us this, The Watchtower tells us that, The Watchtower helps us, The Watchtower is wonderful”. I interrupted saying, “Wait a minute! Wait a minute! You sound like.........” (and I laughed - see below for explanation) Then, “What happened to the Bible here, eh?” Peter and David both laughed too and Ron said, “But you know what I mean“ and I said, still laughing, “Oh yeah! I know what you mean! The Watchtower is more important to you guys than the Bible! The Watchtower is a latter-day revelation that replaces - or adds to - the Bible! Even the Elders’ Manual comes before the Bible!”

“Oh, no. That’s not really true” they said. But I think I had made the point.
Further on this point of baptism, I suggested that the Watchtower religion had baptised me under false pretences because I doubted if even I would have been fooled at 17 had I been properly informed of past Watchtower teachings and been able to check the evidence. The fact is, when people study with Jehovah's Witnesses, the uncomfortable facts of the past are conveniently forgotten, that is IF the teacher actually knows those things herself! It is only because of freedom of information through the uncensored internet that people are being more easily informed about such past embarrassments.

(I had laughed because I was going to say to Ron that he “sounded like a Mormon” when he was going on about “The Watchtower this, The Watchtower that” like a Mormon might enthuse over latter-day revelations given in their Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon. I explained that others had used the same thinking as I was doing then in saying to Ron, “you sound like....". (In fact, on a visit to my home, it was Chris Taylor’s wife who had said that I “sounded like a Born-Again Christian” because I used Jesus’ name several times in a conversation with her and her Witness companion). I realised I was guilty of the same prejudice and saw the humour in it.

So, I was saying that my real crime was to leave the religion and be happy. David asked me, “Are you happy now?” to which I replied “Yes. If I die to-night, I’d be quite at peace with God. I’m not afraid of Armageddon. I don’t fear Him or have anything but a healthy respect and confidence that He will give me a fair deal”. Perhaps surprisingly for a Jehovah's Witness, David then said, “I’m really happy for you and I’m not just saying that. I’m really glad that you can feel that way”.

I mentioned my own behaviour since leaving and told them I was leading a quiet and moral Christian life. Why should I be pursued when others could leave, commit moral misdemeanours and be welcomed back without any sanctions against them? I asked Peter if he remembered a Witness who had taken illegal drugs while also living immorally after leaving the congregation for several years? Peter said he could not remember. I told him the man’s first name and he guessed the surname immediately, but insisted he could not remember such an incident although he was an elder in that man’s congregation. I checked my source later and he was quite certain that Peter would have been familiar with the case which appears to be well-known, but conveniently forgotten.

Later, David also asked the Big Question for Jehovah's Witnesses: “but where is there to go? Every other religion is bloodguilty” I said that I thought (or some people might think) that the Watchtower organisation was also bloodguilty because of the number of lives that had been lost or wasted because of interference in medical procedures and treatment by the Watchtower Society and I mentioned the specific cases of transplants and recently, vasectomies (June 1999 Watchtower) asking how anyone could have the right to make rulings for others on such private and intimate matters?

I said that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with Christ and each individual must answer to His judgement as they follow Him. It is not a difficult thing which must prey on our minds every hour of the day, but is a fairly simple faith in Christ and a natural desire to want to please and follow Him thereafter. Christian works of charity and goodness naturally follow according to our abilities. Out of love and respect for Christ, we are led along toward righteousness even though we will sin because we are not an elite with extraordinary standards, but we are sinners who recognise our need for redemption.

We also discussed some of the early teachings of the Watchtower Society because they asked about what I had said to the two elders who came to my home. I asked them if they had read “The Finished Mystery” and some of the crazy things in it (leviathan = steam locomotive; 1260 furlongs of Revelation = the distance to Watchtower Headquarters at Columbia Heights, NY from Pennsylvannia etc). David said “yes, he had read it”. Peter said, he thought he had read it and Ron said, "I have a copy in my library at home".

I also mentioned the official hstory book and asked how reliable can any official history ever be? Ron said how his mother (or aunt?) had been a Witness for many years and had met Rutherford and that she loved the “Proclaimers” book until her dying day and thought it was wonderful. David said he knew that Russell had believed in pyramidology and other crazy things, but I asked him why the “Proclaimers” book did not tell the whole story?
The fact is, although “Proclaimers” appears to candidly admit that “for some 35 years, Pastor Russell thought that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was God’s stone witness corroborating biblical time periods” (p.201) at no time does the book mention that Rutherford continued to teach that fallacy for a further 14 years after Russell’s death in 1916. In other words, as I told them, the Watchtower Society is telling its members only part of the truth in this and many other matters.

Then I asked them a question: "What was Russell expecting in 1914?" They claimed not to understand the question (I was reminded of Matt.21:27). Although I rephrased it and asked additional questions, they still said that they didn't see what I was trying to say and Peter asked me what point was I making? So, I explained that the Watchtower Society tells us to-day that Russell and his colleagues were looking forward to Christ's Return in 1914, but the facts of Watchtower history, recorded in Watchtower literature of that period, plainly show otherwise because in 1879, Russell had begun publishing a magazine called The Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence. In fact, Russell believed and taught that Christ had returned already in 1874 and was looking forward to the Battle of Armageddon in 1914. (N.B. this is not an example of "new light", but of plainly changing the facts of Watchtower history to suit the current teaching).

It should be clear to you, the reader, that I had been giving damning evidence against myself to the Appeal Committee. If they wanted to uphold the disfellowshipping, they had all the confirmation they needed that I did not agree with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower organisation!! However, what actually had I been saying? I had upheld the teachings of Christianity resolutely and all I had done was quote Watchtower literature and reason on its sense and propriety with them.

I repeated what I had said earlier about their verdict having no effect on me and that I would continue to exercise my freedom of speech to whomsoever I wished and about whatsoever I wanted. I reminded them that we were meeting for their benefit. Time was passing and Chairman Ron, who was watching the clock, said, “Well if it doesn’t make any difference to you, we’ll just disfellowship you and we can all go home”. True, it was said with a smile, but I'm glad there were no stones available........

After this lengthy discussion, they again asked me to leave the room and again we haggled and I offered to read my statement, “but you still won’t like it”.

“No, no! Don’t read it!” said David. “Just give us a little more time. You can read it later if you wish”.

I went outside into the main hall where the three stooges had been sitting for over an hour chatting. I decided that, in view of the apparent reasonableness of the Appeal Committee, that I must amend my statement to be less brutal (but still pretty firm!) so I made a few rapid alterations and scorings-out!

After a further ten minutes, all four of us were asked to come in again and I heard something very interesting - the Appeal Committee could not make up their minds and asked me if I would allow them to ponder their decision over the weekend and meet me again on Monday or Tuesday, but definitely before the following Friday when Peter McKinney would be going on holiday. This was too good an opportunity to let pass, so I said I would have to charge them for my time for another appearance. Ron immediately said they would charge me too! We all laughed.

They asked me to leave and told me they would contact me. I made a bit of a fuss (just to wind them up a little) and said, “Oh, so you keep me waiting five months for a decision and now you let the sword of Damocles hang over my head all weekend! I thought you guys had the authority to make a decision? Or are you going to have to report back to the Bosses to hear their decision?” Peter said, “Ah, but you said you had kept this going five months (!) and we can assure you that this will be our decision. No-one is influencing us and we will let you know as soon as possible. So I’m sure you can suffer a sword of Damocles overhead for just another few days”. We both laughed..

Once more, I reminded them that there would be no "deals” -.whatever their verdict. It would make no difference to me and I would continue to speak to other people freely about any topic I wished. I also repeated that if I returned it would be for their benefit to allow them to correct a potential injustice against my family and Witness friends and their own worldwide membership who would be forbidden to speak to me on the basis of their decision.
After two-and-a-half hours, as I left the room, I paused and said, “I only came for ten minutes to read my statement you know. (then -- big smile) But you were all so charming I just had to stay and talk to you. (and to the other Committee) You could learn from that”
I let myself out of the Hall - which is interesting because on previous occasions, I was escorted (but not actually handcuffed!!) to and from the main door.

Later, another point struck me: the six elders remained seated and seemed set to have another lengthy discussion as they were making no preparations to gather their things together before leaving with me or very shortly after me.

The above meeting took place a four months ago (I wrote this account in 1999). If I had been disfellowshipped, I would have heard by now. So what is happening? I don’t know! And I don’t care too much because it’s time to start rebuilding a life. 

A friend and former elder of considerable experience has given this comment:
"You probably already realize this, but in case not, I will tell you exactly why you haven't heard from the appeal committee. They did not make a decision, nor were they instructed to make a decision. 
They have submitted their 'findings' to the Society and are awaiting a reply which will (indirectly at least) tell them what their decision 'was'. Then, after hearing from the Society (possibly more than once if they are unclear on the first trade of correspondence), they will advise you of 'their' decision. That's how it works in high profile or damage-control situations. 
You could be in for a long wait. One committee I served on waited nearly a year for the Legal Department to finally tell us what 'our' decision was".

Anyway, I have made my point and I have frustrated the Watchtower organisation with all its supposed power and “portions of Jehovah’s holy spirit”. I hope I have shown other people that they need not fear this organisation or its representatives who are often themselves ignorant and misinformed and weak and cowardly men.

A happy life after Jehovah's Witnesses is possible although sometimes difficult initially - recovery takes time - whether that be a Christian life or otherwise. (I do not think only Christians have the monopoly on morality).

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands worldwide are leaving the Watchtower religion and like the tobacco companies, it is only in Third World countries that the Watchtower Society is still making gains among poorly informed and uneducated populations. However, as more and more people have access to free information on the internet and elsewhere, they are able to find out the truth about the Lie.

May the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! (Heb.1:1-4; John 14:6-7) 
Anthony Roberts 
Edinburgh,Scotland

Copyright (c) Witness Aid UK 1999 & 2015