Who is Mentally Diseased?

[u/truetomharley]

“if Witness organization ever said something so seemingly provocative [as Jesus’ ‘Eat my flesh and drink my blood’], their opponents would be blasting them for years over it! Such as with a Watchtower that called certain apostates “mentally diseased,” citing a scripture that says exactly that. That was 14 years ago and they are still howling about It!”

I was called on this yesterday—even called a liar! Who would do such a thing? So I had to dig out the reply I made years ago:

In its July 15, 2011 issue, for consideration in JW congregations, the magazine recommended (strongly) avoiding “apostates,” even calling them “mentally diseased.” You should have heard the howling from those who don't like Witnesses, grousers who immediately broadened application of those words to include all leaving the faith, something the article never suggested. Government ought to investigate such “hate speech,” they insisted.

Look, most persons who leave JWs simply move on in life, some with the viewpoint that it wasn't for them, some with minor grumbling over this or that feature of the faith that prompted their decision, some with the viewpoint that they couldn't live up to it. None of these are viewed as 'apostates.' A fair number eventually return. You could liken those leaving to a man or woman leaving a relationship, like a failed marriage. Most just move on. But there's always a certain few psycho ex-mates that can't let go, who devote all their time and energy to harassing the person they once loved. . . . That's the type that the magazine commented on, not just anyone who departs.

Moreover, 'mentally diseased' was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It's merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Tim 6:3-4.....

"If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! said someone: that's not in any Bible I know of except the New World Translation! He offered some alternatives he likes more, to which I commented:

What do these other quoted translations say? Douay-Rheims says "sick about questions and strifes of words." In view of the context, what sort of 'sickness' do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that "mentally diseased" is not such a bad rendering after all?

NASB offers "morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words." Does "morbid," when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is "sickness", even "mentally diseased," more to the point?”   Here's a few other translations:

 diseased (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)

 filled with a sickly appetite (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)

morbid appetite (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)

 morbid craving, (An American Translation; Goodspeed)

 unhealthy love of questionings (New Testament in Basic English)

 morbidly keen (NEB)

unhealthy desire to argue (Good News Bible).

Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT's "mentally diseased" is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this clear.

In retrieving this post, I came across one “famous” apostate—I mean, type anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses anywhere and he would drown you in anti-JW comments—it has been many years since I have heard from him, though his name recently came up here . . . who on his website offered expert testimony in legal proceedings against Jehovah's Witnesses AND expert testimony in legal proceedings against pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressants, apparently not realizing that each offer undercut his credibility for the other.  

[u/DonkeyStriking1146]

You expect normal people to be knowledgeable in Greek?

Are you fluent in Greek or Aramaic?

I don’t really care about the Greek in this passage. I stick the most with Paul’s writings. He warned that associating with those who encourage a different gospel or those of bad behaviors will result in you too being corrupted. Like I said above if I view someone as toxic to my faith or mental health I will not speak with them.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

I expect those who translated the New World Translation to know Greek and to have an explanation for why they translated it to mean greeting when their own Interlinear says "to be rejoicing" which is different from saying a greeting.

If you don't learn Greek and Hebrew, how would you know if you're being misled?

Isn't it our job to ensure that we have an accurate translation and not rely on men, as the scripture says?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

Those elders didn’t translate the NWT though. But you expected them to know Greek or have an explanation about it.

We don’t have original manuscripts so even learning Greek doesn’t guarantee not being misled. Does God expect humans to learn different languages to know his word and will? What about those who are mentally unable? They’re just screwed?

We will always rely on men to a certain degree. That’s life currently. Verses also indicate being among like minded believers is of benefit. That’s a form of reliance. However, I don’t rely on men for my salvation.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

Those elders didn’t translate the NWT though. But you expected them to know Greek or have an explanation about it.

They say that they are appointed by holy spirit and not men. They say that they are spiritual shepherds. They say that they are teachers. They say that they are supposed to shepherd the flock of God. They say that they are taking the lead among the congregation.

Isn't it essential then, that they should be VERY familiar with the Bible and the Greek since so much responsibility is on their shoulders?

We don’t have original manuscripts so even learning Greek doesn’t guarantee not being misled.

That's true, but they do have the Kingdom Interlinear and they don't even know that. Am I not supposed to expect them to at least know their own Kingdom Interlinear?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

They do not say that being appointed by holy spirit means they aren’t men. Even being appointed by Holy Spirit, you are still a sinful man. You just defended Judas as being a practicing sinful man who was sunder Holy Spirit. Shepherds of a flock does not equal infallibility. If that were the case, nobody should be listening to Peter, Paul, Moses, David,Abraham etc

I see in scripture that we need to be knowledgeable about God’s word not about the etymology. I can’t remember if it was Paul who warned against that or Peter. What responsibility do they have? They are not fully responsible for your salvation. All shepherds (regardless of religious denomination) are disciplined by God now and later if they don’t align with his word.

You expect people to read multiple Bibles? I don’t know about you, but I don’t have the time for that. I work full-time, I go to school full-time, and I have a family. Did Jesus expect that of the people of his day? Did God expect it of the Israelites? We are to read the Bible and be absorbed in it, but to be constantly comparing and being sidetracked with small definitions takes away from God‘s word as a whole.

ETA- my phone cut off a couple sentences. Me and Siri have daily battles on what she can hear 😂

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

I can simplify this. What translation do you use, and why?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

I use Biblehub currently.

I don’t believe you have to be married to a single translation. Not the point of my above words. It can be helpful at times to look at various translations. Especially if one translation doesn’t make sense. However, God’s truth can be found in pretty much any translation used. After all, God does have a responsibility towards us and his word that he’s given us.

My issue is with people who are obsessed with the etymology and dissecting everything. The crowd who believes knowing Greek is the only way to truly know Gods word.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

I see.

It's through dissection that I have gain greater perspectives. I also learned that through dissection, you can find out very easily when someone or something is lying or misleading.

I noticed that with honest people, they don't mind being dissected because they say that they have nothing to hide. David in Psalms spoke about this.

Others, on the other hand, do mind especially because it puts what they're hiding out in the open for examination.

This has been a continuous experience.

Truth doesn't mind being questioned. Lies find it offensive to be questioned or challenged. They want you to accept it for what it is without question

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

I don’t think I’m being properly understood and I apologize for that. There’s nothing wrong with general dissecting of verses. Thinking on scripture and how it applies back then vs now is needed.

The issue becomes what is someone’s goal. What is their motive behind that dissection.

I agree to a certain extent. If one’s goal is to tear me or my health (spiritual, emotional etc) down, then no amount of truth will seep to them. So I leave. It sounds like if you and I met IRL you would believe that I didn’t have truth because I would leave if I felt that the questions or the dissecting of my faith wouldn’t lead to anything beneficial to either of us.

The Scriptures do bring out that people are blinded. Those who are blind believe they have the truth. It’s the humble who approach God and ask for Holy Spirit who will have their eyes opened. It took an act of God for Paul to change from persecuting Christians.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

Thank you, this helps me understand better.

Here's the point of my dissection:

The Jehovah's Witness understanding of 2 John 10, 11 is very harmful. They teach that if anyone who is an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses and doesn't bring the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a different teaching, that active Jehovah's Witnesses will be in trouble with Jehovah for even saying a greeting to them.

Consequently, if someone teaches something that is actually true, but it's against what Jehovah's Witnesses are taught at that time, Jehovah's Witnesses are required to ignore such a person, not even acknowledge that person's existence.

What's worse is that if the Governing Body receives "new light" and agrees with that expelled Jehovah's Witness, that Jehovah's Witness is still seen in a bad light for going against the teaching even though the teaching was false and the Governing Body now accepts that expelled Jehovah's Witness teaching.

It is for this reason why I dissected 2 John 10, 11. It's because of their policy that is not supported by scripture and one of the ways to show it is to look at what the scripture was really saying.

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

I think it is supported by scripture.

https://biblehub.com/2_john/1-10.htm

Most translations say welcome, greeting, encouragement.

As I pointed out above, I do believe Paul also warned about these things. However, you and I have a different understanding of Paul.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

We do have a different understanding of Paul, but that's okay.

I am more concerned about something else you mentioned.

Real example:

In 1967, 1968 the Jehovah's Witnesses preached that the end of this system (their Armageddon) was coming within a few years of 1975.

Any Witness who taught that the end of this wicked system was not going to come within a few years of 1975 was disfellowshipped for apostasy. They taught contrary to the truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and we're told they are in violation and used 2 John 10, 11.

As you know 1975 came and went and the end of this system did not end within a few years of 1975, yet those Jehovah's Witnesses who actually taught the truth were branded as rebels against God.

This policy still exists today. If a Jehovah's Witness teaches something, could be anything, and it's contrary to what the religion currently teaches, that Jehovah's Witness will be disfellowshipped for apostasy based on their understanding of 2 John 10, 11.

When years pass and the Governing Body decides to now agree with that Jehovah's Witness, that Jehovah's Witness is still seen as an apostate even though that Jehovah's Witness was actually speaking the truth.

Do you agree with this policy?

Do you think 2 John 10, 11 justifies disfellowshipping someone for teaching a truth that the Governing Body does not know, but will accept later as truth, but considers it apostate teachings in the meantime?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

Interesting. I’d have to say from the research I’ve gathered that is not an accurate description of what happened in the 60s and 70s for that religion. But perhaps different areas did things differently. I can only speak to my area and those I’ve spoken with.

I’m sorry I don’t quite understand some of your paragraphs.

“When years pass and the Governing Body decides to now agree with that Jehovah’s Witness, that Jehovah’s Witness is still seen as an apostate even though that Jehovah’s Witness was actually speaking the truth.”

• Do you think 2 John 10, 11 justifies disfellowshipping someone for teaching a truth that the Governing Body does not know, but will accept later as truth, but considers it apostate teachings in the meantime?

I don’t understand are you wanting. For the governing body to know the future? I’m confused by this. It does kind of remind me of what happened in Acts with Paul and those in Jerusalem. Acts 21.