This letter is to inform you that I no longer wish to maintain my affiliation with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. As you know, I have not attended meetings or participated in the field ministry in several years. After a careful and prayerful examination of the organization, I have determined that I cannot, in good conscience, remain a member. To do so would make me a sharer in the deeds of the Society which I have found to be, at times, less than forthright. I am firm in my decision, and ask that no one contact me concerning this matter.
An organization which claims to be God's only true channel on earth must remain above reproach. Certainly, the leaders of that organization should always attain to the highest levels of integrity. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with those in leadership positions within the Society.
The Society maintains it is, and always has been, neutral concerning the affairs of worldly governments. However, in 1933, Joseph Rutherford, then Society President, wrote in a Declaration of Facts to Adolf Hitler, in part, Such is exactly our position:...Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles... In my view, support of the "principles advocated" by the Third Reich can hardly be considered political neutrality.
Another neutrality issue concerns the brothers in Mexico and Malawi. The brothers in Mexico "purchased" from government officials a military card which falsely stated they had fulfilled their military service obligations. At the same time, brothers in Malawi were forbidden from purchasing a "party" card, which in actuality was a simple government identification card. As a result, those brothers in Malawi suffered terrible persecution. Many were imprisoned, beaten, and killed due to this dichotomy. Why did the Society allow this?
Another issue that is troublesome is the literature arrangement. When the voluntary contribution system was announced, it was presented to the congregations as being a simplification of the arrangement. However, it has come to my attention that this arrangement is not world-wide. Most persons around the world continue to pay for literature. Secondly, it has been brought to light that in a court case in California involving Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, the Society filed a 'Friend of the Court' brief on behalf of Swaggart. The State of California ruled against Swaggart and determined that the revenues obtained through the selling of religious items, books, tapes, etc would no longer be tax exempt. After this ruling, the Society introduced the new literature arrangement.
Another area where I feel the Society is culpable involves medical issues, specifically organ transplants and blood. The fact that the Society vacillates and is inconsistent on these matters is of grave importance, since real lives have been jeopardized and even lost.
Concerning the transplantation of human organs, the Society has changed it's viewpoint several times. The August 1, 1961 Watchtower maintained that organ transplants were a matter of personal conscience and decision, since there is no Scriptural principle or law involved. However, in 1967, the November 15 issue of the Watchtower stated that organ transplants were forbidden to Christians, likening receiving a transplant to cannibalism. In the Watchtower of September 1975, the Society issued a warning that some persons receiving transplants had, in effect, also received a "personality transplant", taking on the characteristics of the donor. Finally, in Watchtower of March 15, 1980, the Society reverted back to it's stance of 1961 and stated that organ transplants are a matter of conscience, making the point that it can be argued that transplants are different from cannibalism since the donor is not killed in order to procure the needed organs. Insight on the Scriptures says the following concerning bloodguilt, "The Christian Greek Scriptures outline three distinct ways in which a Christian could become bloodguilty before God: (1) by bloodshed, murder -this would include those actively or tacitly supporting the activities of a bloodguilty organization (such as Babylon the Great [Re 17:6&59; 18:2, 4] *or other organizations that have shed much innocent blood* [Re 16:5, 6; compare Isa 26:20, 21])(italics mine) . How many of our brothers and sisters died needlessly between 1967 and 1980 due to the faith and trust they placed in the Society to guide them in their decisions?
Concerning the blood issue, it is not so much the Society's ban on such that is troublesome, but its inconsistencies. While forbidding whole blood, packed cells, platelets, plasma, and other blood components, the Society allows blood fractions such as can be found in immune globulins, albumin, and factors XIII and IX, which are used in the treatment of hemophilia. It should be noted that many hundreds of units of blood are needed in order to extract these blood fragments. In defending it's position, the Society has used the following analogy, from the Live Forever book, page 216, "If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that simply mean that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, 'abstaining from blood' means* not taking it into your body at all* (italics mine). In the same vein, if one is an alcoholic, he must abstain from all alcohol, even to the point of avoiding the use of certain cough syrups, mouthwashes, etc, that may contain only a minute amount of alcohol. Can Jehovah's Witnesses truly say they abstain from blood? Is accepting a blood fraction considered abstinance?
On numerous occaisions, the Society has altered it's interpretation of scripture. This is often explained by quoting Proverbs 4:18, "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." This scripture alludes to a progression, a path that increases in clarity. It does not talk of a light that brightens, then dims, then again brightens. Hence, one would expect an expanded knowledge and understanding of scripture, not understanding that is ever changing, frequently reverting back to "old light." Our taking in knowledge of Jehovah and Christ Jesus leads to everlasting life (John 17:3). Is it reasonable to expect that Jehovah would continually change what He reveals to be truth? Jehovah is a God "not of disorder, but of peace."
Just recently a significant change has occurred. The eighty years (maximum length of a generation) from 1914 to 1994 has expired. So, now there is "new light" on what Jesus meant by the word generation at Matthew 24:34. It no longer refers to the generation of 1914, as has been taught to millions of Jehovah's Witnesses. It now refers to those people who "see the sign of Christ's presence but fail to mend their ways" (Watchtower 11/1/95). Obviously, this new understanding nullifies previous teaching that the time period from Christ's enthronement as king in 1914 to the tribulation would see its culmination in our lifetime. This generation could theoretically go on and on for many years to come. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that Jehovah's purpose or timetable for these events has changed. I point it out only to show the folly of restricting Jehovah to our limited understanding of His word.
In keeping with this, the masthead, or statement of purpose on page 4 of Awake! has been changed. It previously read:
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."(Notice it implicitly states 'the Creator's promise')
As of the November 8, 1995 issue, it reads:
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things. "Has the Creator's promise changed? I'm sure you would answer, 'no.' Is it possible, then, that the problem lies, not with the message, but with the messanger?
"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This `prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses ... Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it."
To claim to be a 'prophet' and to speak in the name of Jehovah carries with it serious implications. One must be careful never to mislead or to give the impression that one's own beliefs, feelings, or sayings are coming from Jehovah. If, in His examination, Jehovah finds the one claiming to be a prophet to be false, serious judgement will befall that one. However,* the prophet who presumes to speak in my name* a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken? 22 *when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak*. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.'--Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (italics mine).
Sincerely,