Truth vs. Fury
Navigating Jehovah’s Witness Outrage Without Losing Integrity
I found it helpful to attend meetups of former Jehovah’s Witnesses in the first several years after I left. Connecting with others who’d awakened as I had — sharing experiences and swapping hard-won realizations — was cathartic.
That said, just as I had eventually come to reject many of the Watchtower Society’s claims, I found myself similarly at odds with some ex-JW perspectives.
I know some had it much worse than I did, and I feel for them. But I couldn’t help noticing that, at times, the collective anger snowballed into something… off. The feeding frenzy effect. Accusations flying beyond what was true — or at least, stretching reality to a point I found hard to accept.
What do I do in those moments? Stay silent? Nod along so as not to seem uncaring — or worse, a Watchtower shill?
I didn’t want to completely disavow these voices, but at times, I felt compelled to challenge certain claims when they just didn’t align with reality. Not my personal reality, mind you — I fully acknowledge others experienced things I didn’t. Let me give you some examples of what I mean.
The Two-Witness Rule: An Oversimplified Truth
The Watchtower Society’s history on handling pedophilia is indefensible. No argument there. But I often heard the claim that without two witnesses to the same instance of abuse, no judicial action could be taken. And that simply wasn’t true.
Cases were often buried, yes. And most abuse happens without a second witness. But as an elder, I knew for a fact that the Shepherding the Flock elders’ manual allowed for judicial action based on multiple testimonies to separate events of the same nature. I chaired a committee where we disfellowshipped a JW elder on precisely those grounds.
Most ex-JWs weren’t aware of this, which is understandable. But what troubled me was when, even after presenting the facts, some just didn’t want to accept them — clinging to the more sensationalized version of the claim. As if the truth wasn’t damning enough, they felt compelled to stretch it. But when you exaggerate, you give the other side ammunition. And when your distortions come to light, you become a liar too.
Dissidence Among Dissidents
Dissidence among dissidents is nothing new. Lenin vs. Trotsky. MLK vs. Malcolm X. Even J.F. Rutherford vs. the governing body members who opposed his Watchtower takeover after Russell’s death.
There’s a natural push for unity among protestors. I get it. But when that unity demands exaggeration — or outright misrepresentation — some of us just can’t sign on. And we’re not being goody-two-shoes here; this is pure pragmatism.
If we’re not making an honest attempt to be rigorous with the truth, we’re no better than the organization we’re condemning, are we?
Were Elders in on a Scam?
On an ex-JW message board I frequented, I noticed a recurring theme: elders were sometimes portrayed as conspirators in a massive deception. That they knew it was all a lie and went along with it anyway.
Having been an elder myself, and coming from a family full of them, I can tell you — this wasn’t the case. We were just as indoctrinated as any publisher.
But although I can bring to mind a collection of elders who had that Pharisaical air, that only meant they liked being in control; not that they believed the JW religion was an actual fraud.
In honesty I can’t claim these bossy types were even in the majority. A large share of elders in my experience were just guys who got guilted into it. Guys who weren’t whatsoever comfortable giving talks, nor in taking the lead, nor in rendering harsh judgments in judicial committees. They had families, thought the JW life was good for them — and kept getting told, “We need brothers to “reach out” for positions of service!” So they accepted the appointment.
Maybe they shouldn’t have. And maybe you and I shouldn’t have gotten baptized, auxiliary pioneered, regular pioneered, conducted bible studies, urged people to come to the meetings, brought our children up to believe in the whole circus, joined the Theocratic Ministry School, condemned other religions, etc. Hell, I actually signed a medical directive stating that I would not allow my toddler daughter to accept a blood transfusion EVEN IF IT MEANT HER LIFE! 🫣
I did that! And well before I was an elder.
The truth is if I’d been a woman, if I hadn’t been born into a particularly zealous JW family or if I didn’t have some aptitude for public speaking — likely I wouldn’t have been an elder. But I still would probably have done all the previously mentioned JW duties for the same reason I performed my elder duties:
I thought I was doing the right thing…just like you probably did.
Most folks on the message board readily acknowledged all this, but there’d occasionally be someone who’d invoke the “with great power comes great responsibility” line. What does that really mean though?
What it seems to mean? That no matter what you may regret personally, if you can find someone else who was any further up the hierarchy, your guilt may be blotted out — and shifted onto them.
Yes, I noticed an inclination many had to breezily dismiss the behavior of the congregation rank and file with, “Well you didn’t know any better,” while savagely excoriating elders. It’s a classic case of “in-group bias” in which one applies leniency to those with whom one identifies, while imposing harsher judgments on perceived outsiders such as authority figures.
Get Jonathan Lockwood’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In getting granular with this, I can see how it might be appropriate for one who was an elder — once awakening — to say, “Damn. I seriously regret giving all those public talks to all those people. And to having all those so-called “bible studies” with so many people, to sitting in judgment of individuals in judicial committees and just doing whatever the WTS dictated I do in my position as elder. And I can see how, in my somewhat higher position, I have a lot to be sorry for.”
Sure.
But because someone else was never in that somewhat higher position, they can’t just casually dismiss all they did — while feeling justified in vilifying former elders, can they? We were all bamboozled by a belief system: elders as well as publishers. It was what Ray Franz called “captives of a concept” in his book, “In Search of Christian Freedom.”
“Based on my own [60 years] experience among them I believe that they are, in effect, the captives of a concept. The concept or mental image they have of “the organization” seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them, or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgments…The …concept of “the organization” becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force.”
I’ll own every rotten thing I did as an elder — just like I’ll own all the things I did as a typical jaydub that you likely did also.
I’m certainly not suggesting we coolly excuse every authority figure in this group. But painting elders as knowing frauds is inaccurate. And again — when people realize the claims against them don’t hold up, it hurts our credibility more than theirs.
The Anthony Morris Whiskey “Scandal”
In September 2021, Anthony Morris was removed from the Governing Body. But a couple of years before that, a different scandal had ex-JWs in a frenzy: he was spotted buying a case of Macallan Scotch.
Cue the outrage.
Yes, it was amusing. And yes, it does give us an opportunity to discuss what we’ve known for years: there’s a culture of drinking and heavy drinking within the organization — and perhaps especially at Bethel. Maybe there shouldn’t be. Maybe the organization should consider being more firm about their position that drunkenness is a gross sin.
But the fact is…in my experience, generally they’re not.
It was something I noticed as a young elder. On those fairly rare occasions when we met with someone about their alcohol consumption — one of whom was my then wife — the brothers were fairly cautious and pretty non-judgmental. (I know there are examples to the contrary, but this was typical during my years in the organization.) It stood in stark contrast from anything that even had a whiff of fornication. Quick, decisive action was always taken on that charge.
So this level of indignation over Tony Morris? Way out of proportion. It’s just one more situation in which a spark is lit, and before anyone can put it into perspective, a fire begins to rage.
I could certainly understand it if the organization did not have such a long history of drinking and looking the other way. Why then it would certainly be something about which we could accuse them of hypocrisy.
But for me, considering the prevalence of boozing among them, this outrage amounts to the following…
“Can you believe it?! One of the governing body of an organization that’s well known for tolerating the heavy use of alcohol was found…buying a lot of alcohol! (GASP!)”
Some insisted buying a case of whiskey meant he was an alcoholic. (By that logic, buying food in bulk makes you a glutton.) Others called it indulgent. (Maybe, but buying in bulk is also economical.) One person argued he wasn’t being “discreet.” (Would they have preferred he wore a disguise?)
I noticed one person attempting to balance all these accusations, and a certain reply told me all I needed to know. It was to the effect, ‘Yeah, I know you’re right about that. It’s not like JWs are a bunch of teetotalers. But…eff Tony Morris!’ 🤦♂️
What?! I mean, sure: eff Tony Morris. But eff him only for all the legitimate reasons, right? Not for stupid, bogus stuff kids shout at each other during recess, right? Are you going to call him a meth addict now? A child trafficker? Every possible crack is fair game?
You think someone who points out the fallaciousness of an accusation is somehow rescuing Tony Morris? In reality they’re trying to come to the rescue of the real truth. And, again, all the BS that feels delicious to say — but isn’t actually true — doesn’t help. It hurts.
Truth Matters — Even Against Authoritarians
I still check out the ex-JW subreddit a few times a week. There’s value there — tragic stories, insightful discussions, important warnings. But there’s this ever present chorus of cranks, using innuendo to make comments that seem to help them feel vindicated in their disgust over the organization.
I want to tell them: the organization’s actions vindicated you a long time ago. You really are right, and they really are wrong. Does the mountain of not-quite-right remarks, sometimes perfectly untrue accusations and purposefully bitchy comments you add really seem helpful to you?
I’ll put it this way: that organization applied the term “The Truth” to their cult, so that it was repeated — by me and thousands of others — perhaps millions of times over decades of our lives. So the primary position I take with them:
No, you do NOT represent “The Truth.” You are an authoritarian structure that threatens and intimidates people into accepting that claim. Honoring the real truth means standing up to things that are untrue. I have the right to express myself honestly and openly regarding my opinion that you definitely aren’t “The Truth.” If you really are such, you wouldn’t need all the dictatorial tactics and threats, would you?
And in the same way, if I really do believe they are NOT “The Truth,” I find it neither satisfying nor helpful just to release a stream of nasty jeers that aren’t fully “true” in themselves.
Look — the Watchtower Society deserves every ounce of legitimate criticism. But they don’t need us to lie about them to make them look bad. The truth already does that.
So if we really do believe in the truth — shouldn’t we be the ones at least trying to uphold it?
