Posted by ros [ros] on April 07, 1999 at 06:07:44 {HTWDI6pmYgdmhhsMJ.h27/SY5I9NtE}:
Question for reform-minded Jehovah's Witnesses
I have been of the impression, perhaps wrongly, that among the foremost things that reform-minded Jehovah's Witnesses were seeking, waiting on Jehovah for, was reform on the gross
shunning and authoritarianism. Was I wrong? Tell me, if the Watchtower organization would not reform on their extremist shunning policy, then what other worthy reforms do you anticipate (other than, as was stated, blood transfusion)?
If it cannot be expected that they will soften on the shunning--this being the key to their authoritarian stronghold over members--then it would follow that they would will not yield on unfair disfellowshipping, and banning freedom to think, disagree, choose, or leave the religion with Christian dignity. In other words, no reform on shunning would mean no reform on authoritarian control. In my opinion, if you cannot hope they will relinquish their iron grip on shunning and authoritarianism, then I see little reason to beat around the bush; my advise would be to "get out of her my people."
In thinking about it, another point occurs to me about waiting for Jehovah to reform the religion. It has to do with trying to reconcile this with the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Babylon the Great as being "the world empire of false religion." As anyone acquainted with Watchtower doctrine knows, they believe that the drunken harlot riding the beast in Revelation is all the world's religions--in particular Christendom--except Jehovah's Witnesses. Citing numerous examples, they contend that the adultery of this prophetic wanton harlot, Babylon, is Religions compromising with the political nations of the world in greedy exchange for her power over them, and riches. So consider a few Watchtower "reforms" in recent years and what motivated it:
Free literature
Was this changed from the previous
practice of asking for a suggested "donation to cover the cost," and the selling of subscriptions for a price, reformed by Jehovah? Is it just a coincidence that it followed a court ruling in California wherein the Watchtower Society
joined forces with Jimmy Swaggart to defend their right to sell religious literature without taxation-and lost? If so, then why isn't it the same for all countries; Australia and African countries for example?
Is the Watchtower
Society a religious organization?
For decades Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico did not have prayers or songs in their meetings or assemblies, and would not carry a Bible with them in the "field ministry" going door-to-door? They denied
being a religious organization, instead calling themselves a "cultural organization." Congregations were called "companies"? They did not get "baptized," they performed a "symbol." Now prayer and singing have always been an integral part
of Christian worship-even in the first century. When the kingdom of Persia banned prayer to anyone but the king for 30 days, the prophet Daniel risked position, possessions and life to oppose the decree. But Mexico did not forbid any of
these things.
When this all changed in 1989 after half a century, when Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico once again began to have songs and prayer in their worship, and Bibles in their ministry, was it Jehovah who reformed the situation in
Mexico? Was it just another coincidence that this freedom of worship followed in the wake of the Mexican government changing its laws to allow religious organizations to own real estate in Mexico?
Abstaining from whole blood
transfusion
Last year in Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society decreed before the European Commission of Human Rights that Jehovah's Witnesses should have freedom to chose blood transfusions for themselves and for their children without
control or sanctions from the organization, in exchange for status as a religious organization in that country. Was this by Jehovah's guidance? Why is it so important to be classed as a religious organization? Tax exemption.
In view of such changes, the question might rightfully be asked: Could such things be construed as a reflecting compromise (adultery) with political rulers?
In the "Revelation" book, page 265 para.22, the text at Revelation 18:4 is
considered:
"And I heard another voice out of heaven say: 'Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.'"
Paragraph 23 goes on to say: "Is it really so urgent to flee out of Babylon the Great,
withdrawing from membership in the world's religions and making a complete separation? It is, for we need to take God's view of this age-old religious monstrosity, Babylon the Great.
And in paragraph 24: God's people need to separate
themselves from false religion if they themselves do not want to suffer these plagues and ultimately die with her. Besides, remaining within that organization would make them share in her sins. They would be as guilty as she is of
spiritual adultery . . ."
I have heard numerous individuals who left Jehovah's Witnesses say that if the Watchtower would soften its shunning policy and authoritarian control over members, allowing for Christian freedom of thought and opinion in doctrinal matters (as other religions do), then they would not mind reassociating with them. But if they would not reform in this, and judging Christians who leave, slandering them as "apostates," then what reforms are you "waiting on Jehovah" for?
Ros