Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ex-Jehovah’s Witness criticize the policy of shunning
I just finished reading “The Reluctant Apostate: Leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses Comes at a Price” by Lloyd Evans. It provides a detailed look at the history of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and how Evans’ mother ended up joining the faith after a series of failed relationships. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) are born into the faith and find it very difficult to leave the faith even if they want to.
Why? Lloyd Evans explains his reluctance to leave the JWs in his book and much of it is due to the JW policy of “shunning.” Once a member of JWs are disfellowshipped or disassociated, no one within JW is allowed to speak to the former member, not even immediate family members. In the case of Lloyd Evans, once Lloyd left the JWs and was disassociated, his father disowned him immediately and, thus, never met Lloyd’s newborn daughter.
Many ex-JWs describe intense feelings of guilt once they leave JWs for having shunned family members who left before they did. For example, one ex-JW mentions that even though he now has a good relationship with his brother, who is also an ex-JW, he feels awful for having shunned his brother for the ten years prior to when he left the faith and had a chance to restart his relationship with his brother.
Here is another ex-JW explaining why she left the faith.
She never felt as though she fit in with the rigid doctrines of JW. She always felt more artistic and creative than JW would allow and eventually left. She also criticizes the policy of shunning, believing this causes tremendous psychological damage that can last a lifetime.
ADDED: Here is Lloyd Evans (formerly known as John Cedars when he was trying to keep his identity secret from Jehovah’s Witnesses) interviewing Imtiaz Shams. Imtiaz Shams is an ex-Muslim who runs a group that assists ex-Muslims and exiles from other religions. Lloyd Evans is an ex-Jehovah Witness activist.
I think you’ll enjoy this interview.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
In reference to the second video, the Koran does call for the killing of apostates. There is a very big difference between the shunning that is practiced by Jews and Christian sects and the killing of apostates called for by Islam.
But there are versus in the Bible that sanction extreme cruelty.
I guess the difference between the actions of the ancient Jews and those of the modern Muslims is that Jews, essentially, stopped doing those things when they developed the Temple culture about 2500 years ago. The Muslims still practice the most brutal of their customs to this day, at least in countries where they are the majority or ruling culture.
Here is an interview featuring two ex-JWs.
.
At the risk of seeming to trivialize matters of religious doctrine by comparing them to modern politics, or vice versa, it seems to me that the Christian/Muslim difference is rather similar to the Republican/Democrat difference in this respect: in each case, the first group tends to marginalize extremism, while the second tends to mainstream it.
Often times it comes down to whether one takes Holy Texts written in the distant past literally and seriously or reads them as a window into the views of a bygone culture.
Modern Christianity reads the Bible and silently discards the “bad” verses.
Islam hasn’t been modernized for the most part.
Incidentally, and in the for what it’s worth Dept.: I read years ago in a book on biblical textual criticism and translation that the two popular Bibles that most faithfully represented the original Greek meanings were the Jehovah’s Witness translation and the Catholic translation. The author speculated that it was the lack of concern about conforming to popular beliefs characterized by both Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Catholic authorities that might have led to the more faithful translations.
There is some irony here, in that I think both denominations are doctrinally challenged.
I agree… but I think the differences between the faith are deep and significant — and fundamental.
I think one advantage Christianity has had over Islam, in terms of its capability of becoming modernized is that Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 appeared to teach pacifism and was killed by the state while Mohammed was a warrior and a head of state.
Now, Christianity took its own sweet time in modernizing. But it happened. Islam still has a long way to go.
Maybe become a bird?
Several years ago a kindergarten teacher I know was talking about a girl who had cancer and who was from a Witness family and mentioned “the other JW kids.” Which was curious, their are several JWs in your class? This is because she taught Hispanic (and probably some black) students (Compton, CA) and JW has become common among them.
It was virtually impossible for there to have been more than one JW kid in one of my elementary school classes, and I don’t know if I knew even one.
Christianity was begun by a man who was at his roots a pacifist. Islam was started by a warrior who never evolved into anything else. Jesus would deliberately tell those he healed to not speak of who had done it. He sought no fame, in fact, presented himself more as a conduit for God than a healer himself. The person’s faith healed them. Mohammed took credit for everything. I find him much more of a Joseph Smith character, write the book and then claim its devine origins. Beyond that, Islam’s goals have always been world conquest. Where Jesus told his disciples essentially not to argue, but to leave, take your peace with you, and dust off your shoes when can’t convert someone (Matthew 9 and 10), Mohammed offered the option of convert or die. That never changed. Where later Christians corrupted the teachings and used them to justify the Crusades and other abominations, there was no corruption of Mohammed’s teachings in the endless Jihads over the last 1300 years. They are prescribed.
That’s a pretty profound difference.
When we speak of Christianity “modernizing,” I think what we’re really referring to is the change from a regime of authoritarian rule by an elite that is in control of the religion, to a more correctly understood Christianity the doctrine of which is available to the masses. Christianity is, both by original teaching and by early historical practice (as we understand them) a pacifistic, spiritual, personal, and tolerant faith. It wasn’t so much a “modernization” as it was the end of authoritarian misuse of the faith as a tool for concentrating power.
In contrast, no similar process is possible for Islam, because Islam, as originally taught and practiced (again, per our understanding) was authoritarian, militant, and intolerant. Even if the Koran were to be translated into modern text relatively accessible to modern readers, it would not effect the transformation Christianity experienced, both because the validity of a translated Koran would always be subject to challenge (per Islamic doctrine) and because the text itself and the hadith relate a founder and faith that is, again, authoritarian, militant, and intolerant.
Put differently, Christianity, correctly understood, is not authoritarian and plays well with others. Islam, correctly understood, is the opposite.
In the gospel of Mark/Matthew, this is true.
In the gospel of John, Jesus uses “signs” (miracles) as a means of convincing people to believe.
Nope, that still puts me back on this planet.
Once Constantine converted to Christianity, resulting in the 1st Christian emperor of the Roman Empire, Christianity became authoritarian. But as you mentioned, this wasn’t the case in the “early church.”
Kay, my first marriage was to a Jewish woman. We had a son, and because his mother was Jewish and I was an atheist, I felt my son should be raised as a Jew. I spent a great deal of time studying with a Rabbi, Reformed, so that I would be able to participate in my son’s growth and development. I studied a book by Mordecai Kaplan. A Greater Judaism in the Making. Kaplan is a existentialist. His concept is a fascinating approach to Judaism which you might find satisfying. Your “next transition” sounds to me more like Buddhism than Judaism. I played around in that arena for a while as well. But, I do believe that Kaplan has something very valuable to say. The book is available on Amazon.
You forget that I am not going to transition again except to die.
The very first book I read before I began to study was, Where Judaism Differed, by Abba Hillel Silver. My mother was an ordained Christian Minister, graduate of Colgate Rochester Divinity School. She was given a scholarship to study Hebrew and ancient Greek, in Israel. She became very impresses with Judaism, and brought the book back from Israel to me. Rabbi Silver doesn’t try to convert to Judaism, but explains the difference in the Torah and other religions. The main phrase that caught me was his statement, “And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord” Dt. 6:18) As time goes on, I become more and more moving towards Orthodoxy.
I will check it out.
Excellent write up on Kaplan:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/mordecai-kaplan-accepting-darwinism/
This is a breathtaking statement. It raises the question of the credentials of the person making the claim. Before addressing the accuracy of either one, the two are so radically different that they cannot possibly both be faithful to the original “meanings.”
I have limited time. Not sure how far I can get right now. “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures” (NWT) claims to be a translation into English of the Emphatic Diaglot. That is actually itself a translation into Greek from the original languages. True Bible scholars are fully aware of it, but consider it of little value or interest, itself being a translation. Second, especially now, we have the texts in their original languages, much closer in time to the actual events and the original writings. So why rely on a lower – quality, second – hand (at best) source for anything?
But the NWT is not a translation. It was “translated” by a group of men, none of whom were scholars of the Biblical languages. The Watchtower kept their identity secret for years, but others figured out who most of them were, and the JW organization has now admitted their names. I have asked, and am yet to find a JW of any rank who claimed to have ever studied Greek or Hebrew. I don’t remember asking about Aramaic. More later on this I hope.
Of all the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox denominations, large and small, of which I have knowledge, every one classifies the JW religion as a non-Christian cult.
God Didn’t Say That
People who say things like this man did just have no knowledge or understanding of G-d. Moses was told that the face of G-d was for ever hidden but the he could learn much about “all the goodness” of G-d (Ex. 33:18-23. “Let him who wishes to glory, glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who practices kindness, justice and righteousness in the earth, for in these things do I delight, say the Lord” (Jer. 9:23).
With all due respect to @Quietpi and his scholarship, I found his final statement to be prejudicial and bigoted. In the 60 some years since I left the Catholic Church I have striven to find a place in which I could rest peacefully. Inevitably, the people with whom I communed displayed some behavior or ideas which caused me to pull back and to feel somehow uneasy. That statement is a prime example of the kind of which I speak. It is typical of those who feel that they have the exclusive ear of God, and no one else will achieve salvation unless they accept those teachings. Unfortunately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are guilty of the same belief. I have found this to be completely contrary to my understandings of the teachings of Jesus.
On the other hand, this:
“Of all the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox denominations, large and small, of which I have knowledge, every one classifies the JW religion as a non-Christian cult.”
Reminds me of a joke I heard as a kid about a man riding an elevator up in heaven. Every time they approached a particular floor the operator would tell everyone on the elevator to be quiet. Finally, when asked why by one of the passengers, the operator replied, Because that is where the Catholics are, and they think that they are the only ones up here.
The same can be said for every denomination, and the idea disgusts me. As I have said, I have done Bible study with JWs for about two years. They are very strong believers in Jesus Christ. Their software used on their tablets allows them to access every available translation of the Bible so that those translations can be compared side by side. Their documentation and cross referencing is remarkably thorough. I would ask @quietpi, if you have made any personal study of the works and writings and beliefs, or are you merely quoting the works of others?
As I have said, I am not, nor am I likely ever to be a Jehovah’s Witness, but I respect them. I respect the sincerity of their beliefs and the commitment they make to following the teachings of Jesus Christ. As to their status as a cult, to me all religions are cults, and like most cults they see themselves as having some kind of exclusivity as to their validity. I much prefer to grant each person respect if their belief has integrity and not question its value as Christian so long as they live in a way congruent with Jesus’ teachings which the JWs definitely do.
@eugenekriegsmann, I’m sorry you feel that way. It is the product of both personal experience and study. I know many Catholics, Jews, Protestants of every stripe, and a few Orthodox. Every one, with whom I have discussed JW’s, hold this position. Given that it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, I stand by my statement (which, note, was necessarily equivocal). I invite you to present any evidence to the contrary, and I will acknowledge it.
Perhaps the best – known example of mis-translation is John 1:1, and their addition of “a,” rendering the acknowledged reference to Jesus as “a god.” They make reference to “Colwell’s Principle” of translation, but actually only use the first part of the principle. And in fact they themselves violate this first half at John 1: 6, 12, 13, 18 & 23. This mis-translation is critical to their belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel, a created being, rather than a true member of the Godhead. @dougwatt made reference to this, and it was stated plainly to me by JW’s themselves. In that regard, I refer you to Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, and perhaps most significantly, John 20: 28 & 29. Feel free to dispute the use of my phrase, “mis-translation,” as opinion. The rest stands as well – documented fact.
In fact, nothing I said in my previous post was opinion, with the possible exception of challenging the scholarship of the person who claimed that the Catholic Bible and the NWT were the most true to the original texts. At the same time, my statement is indeed based on my study of the NWT and many normal translations and interpretations.
Actually, my own experience has indicated that JW’s generally have very little knowledge of actual scripture, even including their own NWT. They have studied, and do know, Watchtower literature. Their door – to – door proselytizing is focused on the literature, not the NWT.
However, even with all the above, I have little interest in attacking another’s beliefs. And I don’t attack their beliefs, at least as long as they don’t attack mine. I have no interest in winning arguments, only in saving souls (if you’ll allow this Lutheran to dabble in Calvinistic terminology).
By the way, I do indeed respect and admire their sincerity and commitment. Oh, that others would hold the same degree of those qualities, and really study and develop an understanding of what they believe and why, and be prepared to offer a defense of what they believe.
This I would have to challenge. I don’t want to get into an argument about dogma or faith. However, I do believe that you have opinions which you call fact based upon the Lutheran interpretation of Scriptures. I have no desire to challenge any of those beliefs, however, there is a difference between what you take on faith and what is fact. I have found those members of the JW who I have had contact with to be very informed and extremely well read in Scripture. They do not allow menber to go out to do their door-to-door who are not fully informed and well versed, unless they are with a more senior member who is. Again, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been “bad-mouthed” from their early beginnings. They were thrown in jail at one point in the early 1900s around the time of WWI. The established Protestant sects have done everything they could to undermine the group. I have no doubt that they would have burned them at the stake at an earlier time.
To be quite frank, Very little, in my opinion, which is contained in the Holy Bible is provable fact. How it is interpreted, therefore, is really an individual thing. What you believe, you take on faith. Those who you use as source have no more ultimate authority than their own faith and study with that faith and its dogma. I have no argument with that. I am glad people have found things to believe in which are inherently good. I just wish they would allow others the same respect and rights and not denigrate those who disagree on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the archeology going on in Israel. Or studied the findings of the evacuations at Ur. Or visited The Tomb of the Patriarch in Hebron.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tomb-of-the-patriarchs-ma-arat-hamachpelah
I have, and none of it is unquestionably proving anything. There are decidedly differing opinions on what each of the sites represent. There are those to claim that the various finds confirm the biblical interpretation, and just as many with equal credibility who say the opposite. I have no desire to take either view. Faith is faith, and shouldn’t be undermined. All I am saying is that the word “fact” is not one that can be used when discussing matters of faith. Better to just say “belief” and leave it at that.
I urge you to be open to the possibility that what your college friend said was not the teaching of Christianity, and was quite a dreadful thing to say. I hope that your friend has come around to a different view.
On the larger issue of salvation, you’ve probably heard this before. I don’t think that you’re looking at things correctly. I think that the key parable is the Prodigal Son. We all run away from God, to do things our own way. It ends up in a disaster. We are all welcome to come home, but you can’t be home unless you go home.
God doesn’t have to send anyone to Hell. Wherever we go, without God, we create Hell on our own. There is some fire imagery in the New Testament, but more often in the parables of Jesus, He describes it as being shut out in the dark.
So I don’t think that it’s God who punishes anyone. God gives everyone the option to choose Him, or not. Everyone gets exactly what they choose, and then has to live with that choice, forever.
I fear that you will end up getting exactly what you say that you want in your last sentence above. I very much hope that this does not happen.