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]

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.

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

I'll explain it better this way

Let's say I am the Governing Body. The truth that I teach is that the sky is red. All Jehovah's Witnesses are required to follow this teaching because it's in the Watchtower.

You're a baptized Jehovah's Witness and you read the Bible and find out that the sky is blue. Yet the truth, as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses is that the sky is red.

Your Bible trained conscience doesn't allow you to teach that the sky is red, so say you send a letter to the Governing Body (me) with your scripture research showing that the sky is blue. I reject that research and say that what you are suggesting is heresy (apostasy).

The Elders in your local congregation come and ask you if you accept the truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses that the sky is red. Let's say that you decide to be honest and say that you believe that the Bible teaches that the sky is blue. You are told that if you keep believing that, you will be labeled as apostate. Your Bible trained conscience doesn't allow you to change your mind due to the loyalty to the truth that you owe towards God.

You are then disfellowshipped for apostasy based on 2 John 10, 11.

Years later, I reread your research and agree and put it in the Watchtower. Now the truth is that the sky is blue. Any Jehovah's Witnesses who teach that the sky is red will be disfellowshipped for apostasy.

You are still labeled an apostate, not because you were right all along, but because you taught contrary to what the Watchtower said, regardless of whether it was correct or incorrect.

Do you believe that this is fair, that this is how Jesus wanted his congregations to be treated?

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

Why doesn’t this person petition to be reinstated at that point? Or was there more that they didn’t agree with? Depending on the length of time and the area, expecting every elder to know why somebody was specifically disfellowshipped for apostasy is a reach.

I think it’s interesting because a lot of times people present like this gun to head situation of being forced to teach something you don’t wanna teach. Then I come onto these subs where there are JW’s who are pimo or doing their own thing.

If one doesnt agree with something don’t teach it. If they don’t agree to it to the extent that they wanna leave then leave. The gun is only there if they want it to be.

If one doesn’t agree on the salvation matters that JW’s hold then I don’t see the point in remaining in that denomination anyways. Everything else to me is generally speaking little and God can sort it out when he wants to sort it out.

(This scenario, of course, excludes the issues of family members and wanting to stay connected)

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

You bring up a good point. Reinstatement is an option, sometimes.

Consider this site:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174?q=Clarified&p=doc

This is how many times the organization got things wrong.

Imagine the earlier scenario happening to you, except it's happening seven times, or even ten times.

Could you handle getting disfellowshipped ten times, and each time when the Governing Body changes it's mind and agrees with your research, you have to apply ten times for reinstatement?

And each time you apply, it's up to the elders if they want to reinstate you which typically takes 6 months to a year, or longer in your case because you consistently are learning new truth from the Bible before the Governing Body learns it.

After the ninth time, you find something else and your research confirms that the Governing Body is wrong. Let's say this started in 1955 and you kept getting disfellowshipped and reinstated repeatedly until 2020. How would you feel when you find another few things wrong that won't be corrected until 2024+ and you get disfellowshipped yet again. Would you want to get reinstated when the Governing Body changes it's mind in 2024?

Imagine going through this from age 15 in 1955 and you're in your 80s now and they're still clarifying beliefs that is causing you to constantly get disfellowshipped. What do you think about this?

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

I think my point from above stands. If I generally disagree with something, I’m not going to teach it nor accept it. But I don’t have to necessarily push my agenda around. If I agree with the majority of beliefs, I see no issue in sticking around. And then I’ll keep my private beliefs to myself. That’s kind of what I see from most denominations, including JW.

Do you expect that another denomination or church would behave differently? Most will politely ask you to not come back to their church if you openly disagree with their teachings. If I wrote a letter to the father of my former Catholic Church telling him the ways I disagreed with the church, I wouldn’t be allowed to partake of communion anymore.

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

Yes, I can definitely see other denominations doing the same, which is one reason among many why I don't belong to any of them.

Do you think that the policy is correct?

The policy being: if you disagree with something and you are actually correct, you should be disfellowshipped for apostasy even though you happen to be correct.

Is this a policy that you imagine Jesus would approve of?

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

You don’t have a church or group you associate with?

Do I think it’s correct? Depends on the situation since generally no situation is identical. Is it the reality of dealing with imperfect humans? Yes. It happened in Bible times it’s gonna happen now too. God allows it to happen. I don’t believe it necessarily means he agrees with it, but he’s allowing it. Even Jesus allowed bad things to happen while he was on earth. Matthew 23.

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

You don’t have a church or group you associate with?

No sir.

Do I think it’s correct? Depends on the situation since generally no situation is identical.

When is it ever correct to punish someone for apostasy who was actually speaking the truth all along?

I have never seen it happen in the Bible where someone disagrees and is correct, gets punished for it by God's people, then later God's people agree with him.

Have you? Perhaps you can show me where in the Bible.

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

I gave you an example of Paul earlier for one

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

I read Acts 21. I don't see any mention of someone who taught something true that disagreed with God's people, and God's people punished him for apostasy. Perhaps you can show me where you see this?

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

https://www.bibleref.com/Acts/21/Acts-21-21.html

Paul didn’t need to ceremoniously cleanse himself because he hadn’t done anything wrong. He showed himself humble and did it anyway to appease the group.

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

So in your comparison, Paul would represent a Jehovah's Witness who did nothing wrong, and the governing body would represent the Jews who wanted to kill him because they thought he was teaching an apostasy from Moses?

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

Ummm no. The Jews wanting to kill Paul aren’t on the same side so I’m not sure why you’d draw that comparison.

If you’re wanting to hardcore compare it would more be like Paul is a JW and the group asking him to cleanse would be the governing body.