This is quite long. It's a one pot of tea/coffee job!
====================================
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that..... if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose..... the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error".
John Stuart Mill -- On Liberty
On 26 February 1999, I was interviewed by the Edinburgh Evening News about Witness Aid UK and my former life in the Watchtower religion (Jehovah's Witnesses). To allow fair comment by both parties, during his investigation, the reporter contacted local Witnesses for an opinion. The interview was never published.
On Saturday, 27 February at about 1030, a local Witness elder, John Maxwell, well-known to me as a witchhunter, telephoned and invited me to have “a chat about how you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now” and asked me to hold the line while he linked with a second elder, Roddie Darroch, in a three-way telephone conference. (The Elders' Manual allows an informal statement in front of two witnesses to be accepted as a declaration of disassociation which is equivalent to disfellowshipping oneself. Fortunately, I knew this -- see below).
Darroch's connection was cut off, so Maxwell arranged a meeting with me for the very next day, Sunday 28 February. Before saying goodbye, I asked him again what we would be talking about and he repeated, word-for-word, that it would be “a chat about how you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now”. During the next 18 hours, he phoned me three times to re-arrange or confirm the timing of the meeting. He was keen! So keen, in fact, that he arranged his Sunday around it. But his trap for me proved to be double-edged, for I was preparing for them to “come into my parlour”.
I agreed to the meeting so that I could obtain evidence of the methods used in informal meetings with elders to make Jehovah's Witnesses incriminate themselves even when it is obvious that they have left the Witness religion quietly and wish to be left alone. Since I had already resigned by means of my declaration in the newspaper article, which I believed was to be published imminently, I had nothing to fear or lose. Anyway, I had stopped attending JW meetings three years earlier and had decided never to return to the religion, although I had not made a public statement because of the effect it would have upon my JW mother and sister (they would be instructed to shun me).
During the last three years, neither Maxwell nor Darroch had bothered to call me to enquire about my health nor had they visited me during my two weeks in hospital in February 1998, so I knew it was hardly likely that they were calling for my benefit now.
As it was obvious that the elders wanted two witnesses to the event, but I would have no independent witness, I taped the conversation secretly for my own protection, since I knew that the Watchtower Society's Elders' Manual forbids the recording of judicial matters. Although these men were coming for “just a chat”, from past experience, I knew that this was a lie -- this would be a precursor to a judicial hearing -- as you will see.
Some of you will consider my action to record secretly as unethical, but I must remind the reader that this conversation would not have taken place in front of my own witness(es). Private (i.e. secret) hearings are common practice among JWs. Elders think they have authority over JWs to demand such closed hearings under their terms. Also, if these men were coming to my home without malice, then recording the conversation could only leave them in a good light, but if they intended harm to me, that harm would return to them.
Although the following conversation appears civilised on the surface, the meeting was a chess game of slowly spoken, carefully phrased sentences. Only one man spoke. The other was there as a witness and said not a word to contribute to the conversation. When I offered to take his coat, he barely said a word.
I was nervous. I had great respect for my opponent's ability -- John Maxwell is very practised in such conversations. I am not, but this made my opponent overly confident. After all, he is an elder acting for the Watchtower Society which claims to be God's one and only channel of truth on earth.
The transcript shows quite clearly why the men were there: to make me incriminate myself or to persuade me to disassociate myself from Jehovah's Witnesses, either of which would disgrace me and my family with the subsequent shunning of me by all Jehovah's Witnesses. I knew this and enjoyed some sport before giving them what they wanted -- while I was obtaining what I wanted. While our “concerned elder” thought he was playing cat and mouse to stitch me up, he didn’t know that I was offering myself as bait............
Note: Comments in square brackets are mine. [..........]
Quotes from the Elders' Manual as written at that time (there may have been an update since this meeting: {EM: .........}
Declaration by Anthony Roberts:
The following transcript is a true and accurate record of my meeting with two elders on February 28th., 1999. (The fact that Watchtower lawyers later had my three transcripts banned, speaks for their authenticity).
=================================
After the initial preamble and greetings:
John: Essentially, the reason for giving you a call was just to see how things are with you and to see how your feelings are. One or two have met up with you over the last little while and some have been a little worried that your thoughts are not necessarily in line with being a dedicated brother essentially, and......eeh.....so I thought we'd come along and have a chat to you, just to see how you are, what you currently feel....... [so this is an investigation]
Ant: Well I’m very happy and......emm........ I’m just very happy, you know. I’ve not really got anything that I could add to that. Ehh..... I’m quite happy -- my life's going fine, living it the way I want to, so....... what more can I add, you know?
John: Ehh....essentially, what concerns us is that some have expressed concern that the way of life that you are now currently following from a spiritual viewpoint does seem to include beliefs and explanations of beliefs to others which are not in harmony with the dedication that..... ehh... you made..... that you undertook at your baptism.
Ant: You’d have to give me some examples for that........
John: Well, all I’m doing..... I don't want to get into great harangues about it..... all I’m saying is that some have expressed that Tony, and we thought we’d say well, how do you feel about that? I mean how do you currently feel about things? Do you feel that......eeh........you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses ? [the question is asked for the first time] That you still agree with...... ehh....... you know....... that course that you took back then when you dedicated your life?
{Elders' Manual: If a baptized person insists that he does not want to be part of the congregation and requests that his name be removed from all our records, we should comply with his request. Since he takes such an adamant position, encourage him to put his request in writing. If he refuses to do this but states resolutely before witnesses his decision to disassociate himself and not be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, the witnesses to his statement would be asked to put this in writing and sign it.}
Ant: Well I dedicated my life in 1970, and at the time I seem to remember dedicating my life to Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ which I think you would have probably done [John] and no doubt you too, Roddie, at that time and ehh...... over the years as you know, there has been more and more emphasis on an organisation and less on Christ. I think that’s indisputable when you examine the Watchtower literature
John: And what’s your conclusions of the matter?
Ant: Well are we serving Jesus? Or are we serving an organisation ? Which do you think?
John :I’m just inviting you for your conclusions. You know what our conclusions are and really......you know you obviously are not attending our meetings at this stage in the game and haven't for quite a period of time and we recognise that.......ehh.....different reasons there could be for that, but..... we are a wee bit concerned when we find that some of our brothers have been disturbed by conversations and.........
Ant: Well could you give me an example? Who are these people who are so concerned?
John: Well, I think that’s something we would be happy to discuss with you in another setting because at this.....we’re not wanting to get into a.....we're not wanting to get into a great argument with you about it. All I’m saying is, this is the situation that has arisen and in another setting [a judicial committee!] we’d be happy for those who feel these concerns to express them directly to you. So I think that’s the better way rather than.... ahh..... their being recounted third hand...... something else was second hand...... ehh.... in these situations. It would be better if we could let........ the individuals could speak directly.
[but notice, the "disturbed brothers" were never produced as witnesses]
Ant: Well I mean, I would have to deny that I have ever said anything which is contrary to scripture or which is contrary to the following of Christ as the king and as a Christian. I would have to make that perfectly clear....
John: What we would ask though is........
Ant: I would have to also ask - sorry to interrupt you - I would have to also ask why people would want to make such statements of.... of, presumably, a nature that would call what I’ve just said into question?
John :[unclear on tape] ......and that's the area where there is a concern and I think your expressions already indicate that you..... ahh..... don’t feel entirely happy with the....ehh....... as you would view things or interpret it...... the way the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses has gone in the years since you dedicated your life in 1970
Ant: This is nothing to do with my opinion though -- this is to do with what is in the Watchtower literature
John: However I think what we have to do...... I think what we have to look at is, the conclusion of the matter as to what your own current beliefs are and the beliefs that you're putting forward. I mean are you wholeheartedly in support of the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Ant: Well, how can I be when I don’t know what it is, because I don't actually know what it is because, as you know, The Watchtower changes doctrines from time to time, so what I might tell you now may have been changed yesterday and I would appear to be wrong -- even though yesterday I was right.
John: So....... you’re effectively saying “No" on that?
[ever hopeful, he casts his line again.......]
Ant: No, I’m not saying that. What I'm saying is, The Watchtower stands as its own witness, is what I’m saying.
John: Do you desire to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses then, now?
Ant: “Should I want to be?” is another question I’d have to ask you. You know, if something.... if I don’t know........emm......if I don't know what.... ehh.... the standard is because the standard is changing, then how can I say Yes or No to such a question?
John: Because by your actions you are speaking one way and it would appear, by your words at instances which we’re happy to bring before you in detail if necessary, that these are speaking in the same direction and ehh.... therefore, what we're asking essentially is, “Is your conclusion that you wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organisation?”
[last phrase said quickly -- it is a sound-byte phrase of JWs]
Ant: Well its a loaded question isn’t it? Because if I answer "Yes" then I should go to the meetings and do all the things that Jehovah's Witnesses do and if I answer "No" I am conveniently putting my head in a noose....ehh.... as you know. So I have to wonder, what is the purpose of this conversation? Is it an investigation?
[“a chat about how you feel about JWs now”? This was important later]
{EM: Some matters may be investigated and handled by two elders assigned by the body of elders.}
John: In one sense, yes.....ahh.....but essentially it is to try and open up a situation......to discussion and communication which is giving cause for concern to some of our brothers and sisters
Ant: But why should my opinion give cause for concern to anyone since I haven’t been to meetings for three years and......emm...I don’t try to prevent Jehovah's Witnesses from fulfilling their freedom of worship. So should I not be allowed to leave and follow freedom of worship in my own way, whatever that way is?
John: Yeah... yeah.....I would accept that that is fair enough. However when we have a situation where you espouse another teaching, then we have a scriptural responsibility to look at that and the considered implications of it.
Ant: But what is this teaching though because.......
John: That's why I’m asking you, you see.....
Ant: .......because I don’t recall any teaching which I have ever “espoused” to be contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I can remember.....so you’ve got me there.....and you’ll have to give me an example [I smile broadly] and........ because I really cannot think of an instance where I have gone against the scriptures for example..... or indeed I don’t think I’ve even gone against The Watchtower for that matter - as far as I can recall - but again if we’re only talking about hypotheses or...ehh...... anecdotal cases, then you surely don’t want me to say "Yes" or "No" to anecdotal cases?
[The foregoing was said by me in strict reference to the local conversations he suggested had occurred]
John: This is why I don’t want to get into things which are anecdotal because I don't think that's a good way forward.....and well......our normal procedure would be to allow those who have been concerned to raise these concerns directly. and probably we would do that with other elders present [threatening a judicial committee] and that's the best way of doing that....emm... but we felt that it was good to meet up with you privately before starting.........by arranging a kind of meeting [official proceedings!] whereby we bring together those who have had these feelings and concerns with yourself, but it was a kinder way [!!] of going about it, was to speak to you in private first
Ant: Well yes, it's appreciated, but as I say, I think you have to think about the ethical point of.... how right it is for anyone to impose their own beliefs on another or to...... feel that they must report another person because that person has differing views.
John: Well,1 Corinthians 1 says that we should be united in the same mind and the same line of thought.......
Ant: “In Christ” - yes.
[I'm right on the ball - I've been reading the Bible!]
John: ......and when that unity [actually conformity] is not evident, then....difficulties can arise......and scripturally, there has been.... obviously a line drawn in difference. Jesus Christ made it clear that the Pharisees for instance, although quoting from the Scriptures......ahh..... were understanding things very differently than what he was teaching, but that was something which..... led to separation and the only way the Pharisees could really gain his approval was by adjusting their thinking. Now we recognise that there are lots of different religious views and opinions around, but that those who are Jehovah's Witnesses are those who are happy to be united together in the same mind and the same line of thought [again unifomity - not unity] and.....ehh.....by bearing that name we accept that that is the way we are working forward and operating through the "faithful and discreet slave" Now that really is part of the undertaking that we take on at the time of our baptism. Now what you’re saying at the moment seems to suggest that you would prefer to have a greater independence and freedom than that, that you took on at your baptism and effectively,..... fair enough......if you wish to do that, then that is your prerogative. However it does..... it does.......it is action out of harmony with the declaration and undertaking that you took on at the time of your baptism
Ant: I wouldn’t say so because the declaration that I took on at the time of my baptism was to be a Christian and I still follow Jehovah and Jesus Christ: and I still pray - 2 or 3 times a day - or if I have the urge,[smiles] 3 or 4 times a day, to Jehovah and Jesus Christ and I read the scriptures. You know while you might be at a meeting [studying Watchtower literature] I’m reading maybe a whole chapter of the Bible.......a whole book of the Bible perhaps so.... the question is, who has the authority to interpret the scriptures? What do you think?
John: Well what you accepted as being the authority at the time of your baptism was the "faithful and discreet slave"
Ant: At that time, yes.
John: Do you still do so?
Ant: Well, in view of the evidence in The Watchtower, I would have to come to an opposite conclusions because of what The Watchtower itself shows......because of the evidence I’ve found by studying the Watchtower literature
John: So who would you say does have the authority?
Ant: To do what?
John: Interpret the scriptures
Ant: The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interprets scripture for Christians - and Jesus said he would send the Helper to do that.
John: So how is that being accomplished to-day then?
[A key question for Jehovah's Witnesses who look to an organisation to lead them]
Ant: Well I’m not absolutely sure of everything because I haven’t worked everything out, but when we read the scriptures the Holy Spirit will reveal what we need to know and the basic, fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Christ is our Saviour and he alone is our Saviour and he alone is our Lord and he alone is our King. Whereas, the "faithful and discreet slave" says that we can only have salvation if we are attached to Jehovah's Witnesses and the "faithful and discreet slave" and The Watchtower says that -- that’s not my words -- that’s what The Watchtower says -- and “we cannot understand the Bible unless we do so using Watchtower literature” and I would think that that appears to be contrary to what the scriptures say, to what the Bible says, and that is evidenced by the number of contradictions which are in the Watchtower literature and by the shifting sands of doctrine which appear from time to time in The Watchtower. I can give you many examples and quotes. I’ve been researching it for three years
John: So what you are essentially saying by that then is that you no longer have that conviction that you had at your baptism that that channel is the right one.
Ant: Well I would have to ask myself, on what basis that channel claims authority and where does the "faithful slave" get its authority from?
John: Because essentially when you use the expression “Watchtower literature”, I mean clearly, we understand that as being...... information via a scripturally and holy spirit-appointed.......
[I use lower case here because the Watchtower teaches JWs that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but "an active force, like electricity"]
Ant: Sorry? Say that again.
John: We would recognise the faithful and discreet slave class as a holy spirit-appointed arrangement for spiritual feeding and that the Watchtower literature, if we may use that expression, is a means used by that channel.....
Ant: It’s their writings...... [nothing more]
John: ....and yes, we would accept that interpretation that you’re putting forward. That’s where we are getting our information from. You would seem to be saying that you would no longer have faith in that channel?
Ant: Well, should I, on the basis of the evidence?
John: But essentially, you’re saying you don’t have faith in the channel?
[he keeps digging, digging, always hopeful......]
Ant: No! I’m asking you, “Should I have faith on the basis of the evidence?” For example, when was the "faithful and discreet slave" appointed?
[Looo-ooong pause. Meanwhile, Darroch is sitting back, eyes closed, on the couch beside Maxwell.]
Ant: I’m not asking a trick question by the way [smiles] It was 1918 or 1919 wasn’t it?
John: Not according to my understanding.....
Ant: Well what would you say then?
John: 33 CE
Ant: The year 33 CE? Alright. Would you say that Jesus came back to kingdom power in 1914?
John: He took kingdom power in 1914
Ant: I think you’re correct actually - I stand corrected on that point that you make..... [according to Watchtower teaching], but three and a half years later, or about four years later after 1914 when Christ came to Kingdom power then, he made an examination of the religions of the world and selected the International Bible Students as the.... as his appointed representatives. Is that a true Witness belief?
John:They were already being used, but yes -- they were being used from then.
Ant: But he particularly appointed them from that time?
John: Yes
Ant: 1917 or 1918 -- I’m not exactly sure which it is, but I know it was either 17, 18, or 19
John: Yes
Ant: Now when you look at what The Watchtower was teaching at that time, does that sound like the teaching..... that Jesus would approve? I think that’s the question we've got to ask because in the Society’s literature they clearly show that the other religions were rejected -- the Catholic church and all the other religions were rejected because they held beliefs such as the Trinity, hell-fire, immortality of the soul etc. So what were Jehovah's Witnesses teaching at the time when Jesus selected them -- or selected the International Bible Students -- as his appointed representatives? Are you actually familiar with them?
John: A reasonable understanding. I don’t claim to be totally exhaustive........
Ant: Well I mean, ... basically, if you look at the Proclaimers book [official history of JWs] The Finished Mystery was the latest publication, so that would be a fair guide to the..... doctrines of Jehovah's...... the doctrines of the IBS at that time and when you look at The Finished Mystery, which was published by Russell in his Seven Studies in the Scriptures [actually published posthumously] some of the teachings in there are quite weird.to say the least and yet Jesus, on the basis of the doctrines of the International Bible Students selected these people as his representatives on earth as a continuation of the "faithful slave" which as you say was appointed in 33 CE, I think correctly [according to JW teaching].
So for example, the teaching about Leviathan in Job was compared with a steam engine and the various parts of a steam engine [locomotive] were shown to be fulfilled..... or fulfillment of the creature described in Job. That's in The Finished Mystery. The 1260 days of Revelation -- 1260 furlongs of Revelation -- I can’t remember the exact verse, but I’m sure you’re reasonably familiar with it -- are the distance between, I think it was Allegheny, Pennsylvania and Columbia Heights in NY, if you go by way of the Hoboken Ferry and listed in that book are actually distances of the blocks in yards and inches from Allegheny to the Hoboken Ferry and from the ferry along the streets of NY and that is what the Watchtower Society was teaching in 1917 or 1918 when Jesus selected them out of all the religions in the world to represent him.
In addition to that, they were also celebrating Xmas and birthdays and using the cross on their literature. So I would have to wonder why Jesus would select a group of people who believed things like that and that is in The Finished Mystery - I’ve actually seen copies of it - and I would also have to ask why in 1919, or 1920 or 1921, all that was not scrapped under the influence of Jesus’direction and control and the truth was presented? So what do you have to say about that?
John: Who would you say then is the correct channel?
Ant: I’m not really sure. I really don't know. And I really don’t know if there needs to be a particular channel or denomination because I think that Christ will control his body, the Christian church in all the world, by the Holy Spirit.
John: Its fairly clear....you know....that what you’re saying is that you're...... the body of teaching that you espoused at the time of your baptism is certainly not the same as the way you feel now [neither is John’s -- if he has been faithfully accepting “new light” from the "faithful and discreet slave"]
Ant: But I didn’t even know that at that time, as well, because I had never been told. Its only after doing research recently that I’ve actually been able to find out that those were the teachings at that time and I think that you two should be worried that that is the basis on which Jesus selected the "faithful and discreet slave" in modern times. You know, I think that is really something you should be concerned about..... and I'm speaking the truth.
John: If I may just backtrack a little. What you’re saying just now is essentially the type of conversation that has caused concern to other brothers and sisters.....
Ant: Is it causing you concern?
John: In the sense that,...as a brother dedicated and taking on the acceptance of the channel and operating with that..... em..... viewpoint of being dedicated to Jehovah through Christ Jesus, but working in harmony with the "faithful and discreet slave" as being the basis for being Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, because the teaching that you’re currently espousing and sharing with others.... ehh.......... is different
Ant: But I have just quoted Watchtower teaching to you. That was Watchtower teaching.
John: What you're..... yeah, but the conclusion you are drawing from it is such that......ehh.... brings you to..... the conclusion you have drawn from it is that the foundation of....... on which your baptism was based was......ehh....... insecure -- shall we put it that way?
Ant: Well don’t you think I should feel a wee bit insecure in view of what I’ve just told you?
John: If that's what you desire, fine. Go ahead. We're not trying to stop you.
Ant: Do you not feel even remotely insecure as a result of what I’ve just told you?
John: No, no.
Ant: No?
John: What we’re saying is, if you want to go your way, that's your prerogative. However you are someone who has, in the past, publicly declared yourself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and have been known as such over the years, and the contacts that our brothers and sisters are having with you at the present time....... ehh...... obviously in conversations such as the kind of conversation we've had just now have made them feel concerned because you’re looking at different teaching and essentially.......
Ant: No. Excuse me, I’m not looking at different teaching, I'm looking at Watchtower teaching. Please remember that.
John: We appreciate that, but the conclusion you’re drawing is different. [Even to quote The Watchtower is insufficient -- one must also fully agree with it -- "And if the Party says that it is not four, but five -- then how many?". George Orwell, 1984]
Ant: But I have to ask, Should I have any other conclusion? And what is the explanation? Can you give me an explanation for that?
John: I feel that to start into a debate at this stage on.... giving .....ahh...... an explanation for it, is fairly unnecessary because the explanations are there within the Watchtower Society’s publications as to the explanations that we have........
Ant: “New light” perhaps?
John: ........as to why things have changed and why the light has got brighter, yes. What we are saying, is, is that if you desire to follow another course that’s your prerogative, thats fine and essentially, are you saying that, you....... as a result of this, you no longer wish to be part of the organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses? [perhaps the fish will bite this time....?]
Ant: Well.... well ..... it doesn't..... I’m sure there’s an expression for this, but doesn’t the fact that I’m not there [for three years!] indicate that I don’t want to be at the meetings? [I smiled - “voting with your feet” came to mind]
John: Not entirely because there are many who are not at the meetings who.....for other....... well desire to be at the meetings, but for other reasons are not at the meetings. The......we know.... without drawing conclusions from material in the past or whatever, or material from the scriptures. But essentially, what you’re expressing is the reason for not being at the meetings is not because of these kind of circumstances, but because of a measured and reasoned look at material and coming to a different conclusion and because of that, explaining things in another way.
Ant: Yes and no. I’m not actually explaining things in a different way -- all I'm saying is, I’m looking for satisfactory answers to the contradictions which are appearing in the form of “new light”. For example, Russell himself said that “new light never contradicts old light. It gets brighter and brighter. It never cancels out the old light or makes it null”. But The Watchtower has at various times, changed its opinions back and forth on two or three occasions -- for example, throughout the years the understanding of the resurrection of the men of Sodom, for example, has changed back and forward five times, I think.....emm....... and [laughs] I can’t remember..... I actually can't remember what the current teaching is! I know it was 1967 or 1980, but......
John: I’ll tell you a story........
[a diversion tactic -- he relates a lengthy story about a moonlight experience in his childhood and how vision was confused by shadows and concludes with.....]
......and essentially, I think if we think of that example in a spiritual sense, that as light gets brighter, it sometimes takes a little while before it reaches its full brightness and colour and there is the need to allow that to occur. Now that, I put forward just as a kind of experience from my own personal life, which I have found helpful over the years in looking at this. But essentially what we're talking about with yourself seems to be more of a...... a crystalised coming-to-a-decision and.......following a path different from what has gone before.
Ant: In what respect am I following a different path?
John: Well, you are not actually working in harmony with the organisation in the sense of attending the meetings, going out in the ministry, generally following what we might call the life-style of ..... one of Jehovah's Witnesses. [precisely -- because I am not a JW -- I voted with my feet three years ago as 1000s of others are doing]
Ant: But then again........
John: .......but we expect......
Ant: [talks over] Isn’t that to be expected because by virtue of the fact that I’m not actually going to meetings, then that almost instantly makes you [one] different from one of Jehovah's Witnesses because that’s one of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses do?.....
John: So what you’re saying is.....
Ant: [talks over] No. It’s what Jehovah's Witnesses do.
John: So what you’re saying is, you’re different from Jehovah's Witnesses
Ant: No. It's one of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses do. If I don’t go to meetings three times a week, then people might draw conclusions that I’m not a Jehovah's Witness, but that doesn’t mean to say that I am not a Christian and as you’ve said yourself, I have the right and the freedom of worship to believe what I wish and do what I wish........
John: However, looking at it from.......
Ant: .......not to come under the authority of Jehovah's Witnesses -- if I wish to do so.
John: So, essentially what you’re looking at is the situation described in 2 John in v 9.
Ant: Which is......?
[He draws a Bible from his back pocket and reads NWT -- now the gloves are off and the veiled threats are coming! The following isolated verses are often quoted out of context by JWs and applied to those who no longer adhere to WTS teachings. However, as a Christian, I should apply this text to John and Roddie, since they clearly have come to me with a contrary message i.e. that salvation can only be found in the teachings of the "faithful and discreet slave"]
John: [reads] 9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.
Ant: Right! But I am “in the teaching of the Christ”... [my confession of faith]
John: Well, that.....would....be ... according.. to.... your view, but according to what..........
Ant: Yes. In your opinion!
John: .....but according to what you espoused at the time of your baptism [28 years earlier!!] that is different...... and the expressions you've made about the "faithful and discreet slave" would be different and essentially what we're saying is that, there is an area here that..... really...... ahh....... as a congregation, we are interested in looking at...... and that essentially, if you wish to follow a different course, then as I've said that's your prerogative. You are a free will individual [so why is he here, in my home?] you can do so -- that's why I asked, "Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?" Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses as a member of the organisation, it means that we....... we do work in harmony with the teaching of the organisation and if you wish to take a different course, then.......and you wish to sever your connection with Jehovah's Witnesses....... fine, but if you, on the other hand, do not wish to sever the connection, then we as a congregation have to look at the matter. [and sever it for you -- another threat]
Ant: Why do you have to look at the matter three years after the event?
John: Because of the contacts.......aahh........ concerning our brothers and sisters
Ant: So are you saying that they are not free to make up their own minds about this matter? And to reject what I say or accept what I say -- if I did say such a thing?
John: They are free.[This is incredible!]. However we are still looking at the matter as a congregation [of free individuals?] We do feel that it is necessary, yes. So, essentially that’s why I asked, Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not?
Ant; Well you tell me the consequences of my saying "Yes" or "No" because I know -- or I think I know -- what the consequences are and I have to ask.....
John: Well quite simply, if you say.....you do not wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses , we're willing to accept that as being....
[he wants me to disassociate myself and has asked me the same question in different forms a dozen times]
Ant: And what is the consequence of that?
John: As allowing you to sever your connection with Jehovah's Witnesses.... ["allowing me"?? A half-truth at best!]
{EM: It will not be necessary for a committee to continue the investigation into alleged wrongdoing if the accused person makes known his decision to disassociate himself..........Those who disassociate themselves should be viewed and treated the same as disfellowshipped persons.}
Ant: And what is the consequence of that?
John: As a disassociated person which would be in the words of Second John, not saying a greeting to you.
Ant: Well that's to anyone who does not have the Christ, “who does not continue in the teaching of the Christ” and I do have both the Father and the Son [another confession of my faith]
John: Alternatively we can constitute a committee of elders, [more threats] You can meet with them, and discuss the matter with the committee who will then make a decision
Ant: And what would be the consequences of that John?
John: It depends what the outcome of the meeting is.
Ant: I think we know the consequences of disfellowshipping. That I wouldn’t be allowed...... or you wouldn’t be free to speak to me, rather. I would be free to speak to you, but you would not be free to speak to me on the word of their decision. Is that true? And similarly, my mother and my sister, who are both Witnesses, would not be allowed to speak to me on the basis of their decision, even though I am confessing belief in the Father and the Son according to the Scriptures.
John: [shrugs] Yes, but.... you know that’s the case
Ant Oh I know - I know, but what I have to ask you is, “By what authority do you teach these things?” Because if the "faithful and discreet slave" has no authority, then you have no authority either and such a constituted "judicial" court would also have no authority
John: However, in the confidence that we have that the "faithful and discreet slave" does have authority and that Christ Jesus is the authority, we take action. Quite simple......
Ant: And do you think that's correct?
John: Yes
Ant: And do you think the consequences would be Christian?
John: Yes
Ant: Because I don’t think that to do that to a person who......
John: As we’ve already said, you’re quite entitled to your opinion......
Ant: You're interrupting me John....... you're interrupting me John!
John: We also expect that you will acknowledge that we have the right to our opinion
Ant: Oh yes, I acknowledge that you have the right to your opinion, but what I‘m saying is, Do you have the right to have authority over me and the answer, with respect, is "No". You have no authority over me and there is...... it’s even questionable whether you have authority over the people in the congregations -- except the authority that they themselves give you -- and not an authority that Jesus Christ gives you and thats very, very important.
John: Well, I think our discussion tonight though has....... clarified the matter
Ant: In your mind yes, but the question is .....but I’m quite confident of the fact that I’m a Christian and that I have both the Father and the Son and indeed while Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually have the Son in some respects, ehh........I can say that as a Christian, I have......
John: Well that's your opinion
Ant :Well I could show you scriptures if we had time to go into it, but .... am I not entitled to my opinion?
John: Yes
Ant And am I not entitled to hold those opinions without sanctions being taken against me?
John: In our understanding of the scriptures, "No".[!!!!]
Ant: Well I’d have to disagree with you because I don't think you've got the authority to.....
John: However..... however, that's where our.... loyalty to the scriptures..... and our understanding of it...... we take particular actions and you know we do -- and that's it
Ant: But you don't have authority from the Scriptures! These are authorities that come from the Watchtower literature.
John: We will follow the course which we are......would normally be inclined to follow by the authority that we recognise in the Scriptures and the fact that you see things differently.......ehh.... then that's up to you, but that doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with it just because you say.....
Ant: Oh no! I’m not sayng that you’re not entitled to your opinion and that your evaluation is not alright for you, but what I’m saying is you don't have authority either from God or Jesus Christ to have authority over me and nor does the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don’t think.....
John: Essentially ....... essentially .....
Ant: John, you're interrupting me. Don't interrupt me when I’m speaking in my own home! What I’m saying is, Jesus Christ did not give authority to the group that you call the “faithful and discreet slave" to mess peoples' lives about by teaching them one thing one day and one thing the next day by refusing blood transfusions, transplants and such-like things. The Scriptures do not give the authority to the "faithful and discreet slave" to make such....... such regulations nor do they give rules or regulations or the authority to say what you may do with your wife in bed, or what kind of clothing you may wear and so on and many, many other things that we're familiar with, and I would really ask you both and other Jehovah's Witnesses as well, to examine what The Watchtower is teaching you and ask if it really concurs with what the Scriptures say because The Watchtower claims that it has more authority than the Scriptures -- it actually claims that it has more authority than the Scriptures -- "if you read the Bible by itself you will go off into darkness within two years" as Russell said and in 1980 or 1984, as The Watchtower again said the same thing -- "those people who read the Bible by itself will go off into darkness unless they use The Watchtower to have it explained it to them" and yet we’ve already seen during our conversation -- and you can check the references yourself -- that The Watchtower is not consistent -- and the Holy Spirit is consistent. The apostle Paul was consistent and the apostles who wrote the Scriptures were consistent in their teachings and they didn’t have winds of change according to the whims of men. And that's really what this is about - your life -- your everlasting life -- is endangered as a result of that and your relationship with God -- if you can have a relationship with God at all unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour. I mean, that's how serious it is. [Wow! I have become a Christian!!]
John: I think that what I’ve said is sufficient and that........... our visit has explained the purpose of what we were concerned about.
Ant: So what happens next John? [smiles]
John: That’s up to you.
Ant: Oh right! So have I got to make a decision of some sort then? [more smiles]
John: Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not?
[this has been asked 14 times now]
Ant: Oh right! [Laughs] Now I'm not going to answer that question because that's a loaded question. Its not a fair question.....because it's a "no-win situation".
[it is entrapment actually because he knows that, according to the Elders' Manual, to answer "No" in front of two witnesses is equivalent to a letter of disassociation]
John: OK.....we shall leave it at that point.
Ant: You know yourself John that.....that I can’t say that. I can't say "Yes" or "No" to that because as I’ve said the consequences of such a statement would bring harm to other people. It would bring harm to my mother and my sister because they would be forbidden to speak to their son and brother. Do you not worry about that? Do you not care about that?
John: I do care. I'm going to care about you too. [IN-credible!]
Ant; OK. And my wife and I were split up because of things that happened to us in Jehovah's Witnesses’ organisation [John is embarrassed -- he contributed to that also]. We became divorced and suffered severe trauma and this all came about as a result of the things that happened in "Jehovah's organisation", as it’s called and we never received an explanation or an apology or anything to explain.........
John: I’ve mentioned the bottom line
Ant: Well I can't answer the question
John: Well, we’ll leave it there for tonight [rises, laughs]
[at this point, Darroch opens his eyes and rises too]
Ant: OK, well I appreciate you coming round and that our discussion was conducted in a spirit of peace and....even..... well I don't know if it's friendship, but certainly a spirit of peace which is what I'm happy to hear, you know. [well OK -- we didn’t actually come to blows, but there was plenty of sparring under the surface!] I really would ask you to think about the things I’ve said and to check..... check the Watchtower literature. It's all there. And examine your heart. May I say also.......
John: Can I just say, that I reciprocate that to you - you examine your heart too.
Ant: I’ve to examine my heart as well? [smiles] I think I’ve been doing that for three years since I stopped going to meetings..... but if you ever need help.......
John: Why not do so again?
Ant: Oh I will! I’m continually doing so. But if you ever need help, come and see me and I will give you help -- I honestly will -- and I can show you certain things that will maybe help you to see what The Watchtower says compared to what the Bible says and I will give you that help unconditionally.
[They came fishing for evidence to hang me. I offer them unconditional help and love]
John: Well you know what the question is........ [Exits]
A few weeks after this meeting, the elders of Edinburgh Waverley congregation asked me to attend a "judicial" committee -- a secret church court of Jehovah's Witnesses -- based, not on the "evidence" of the "concerned brothers and sisters" mentioned above by John, but on the "evidence" gained by entrapment by these two agents provocateurs who had come into my home under false pretences.
I attended it -- and recorded it against their rules. You can read the transcript of that meeting -- The Three Stooges.
Copyright (c) 1999 & 2015 Witness Aid UK
No comments:
Post a Comment