Laying to Rest the "Mentally Diseased" Nonsense

It has come to the attention of the Editor of this site that a new hot-button issue has been circulating around the internet, and has ever made its way into some British newspapers. That controversy revolves around the July 15, 2011 Study Edition of the Watchtower Magazine, which is quoted from and screen captured below. The Editor of this blog will attempt to lay out a complete analysis all of the issues surrounding this Watchtower article in the following post.

The Editor would also like to extend many thanks to the user “NotTheLastWord” for his large contributions to this post, especially in sections 3, 5 and 6.

1.0 DEFINING THE ISSUES AND ACCUSATIONS

1.1 Text Version of the Article in Question

“6 How can we protect ourselves against false teachers? The Bible’s counsel regarding how to deal with them is clear. (Read Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.) “Avoid them,” says God’s Word. Other translations render that phrase “turn away from them,” “keep away from them,” and “stay away from them!” There is nothing ambiguous about that inspired counsel. Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease. You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4) Jehovah, the Great Physician, tells us to avoid contact with them. We know what he means, but are we determined to heed his warning in all respects?”—Watchtower SE July 15, 2011 p. 15 par. 6

Scriptures for Paragraph:

(Romans 6:17 NWT) But thanks to God that YOU were the slaves of sin but YOU became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which YOU were handed over.

(2 John 9-11 NWT) Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

(1 Timothy 6:3-4 NWT) 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, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions,

Question for Paragraph:

“6. The Bible gives us what clear counsel regarding false teachers?”

1.2 Screen Cap of Article

1.3 Accusations from Opposers

The accusations of opposers regarding this article have been as follows:

1.      The Witnesses’ use of the phrase “mentally diseased” in reference to apostates constitutes unacceptable hate speech (against who specifically varies from opposer to opposer—some say against the mentally handicapped, others say against the apostates themselves).

2.      No other Bible translates 1 Tim. 6:4 even remotely close to the way the Witnesses’ translate it, therefore it is not the fault of the Bible.

1.4 Who Stirred the Pot?

The fact is, that literally the entire controversy was stirred up by a single anti-Witness internet forum, and in all likelihood nobody would be caring one little iota about this issue if that small minority group of disgruntled ex-Witnesses hadn’t yelled and raised such a huge fuss about it (and no, not even people with real mental disorders cared one bit—it was entirely on this small group of ex-Witnesses). Even the newspapers that ran the story were contacted and lobbied directly by members of this anti-Witness internet forum. Here is just one example of many from that activity:

“The correspondent [of a major UK newspaper] has been told about this forum, and he is particularly interested in hearing from those INSIDE the organization…Would anybody like to be used as a source, either anonymously or otherwise? If so, it might be worthwhile saying a few words on this thread. Obviously, he will no doubt reserve the right to decide for himself which remarks or experiences are the most relevant, so nobody (including me) can be guaranteed that his or her experience will be used, but I thought it would be worthwhile to give everybody the opportunity to come forward if you feel you have something to say.”--forum poster under the alias of "Cedars"

In addition to the coordination on lobbying newspapers, this forum has also repeatedly encouraged members to hassle police officers about the matter and to just generally stir up as much trouble as they possibly can in an attempt to keep drawing artificial attention to the story.

2.0 SEEING THROUGH THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Sensationalist stories like this are rarely told honestly and clearly; and so, the purpose of this section is to first clear away some of the smoke and slight of hand that has been going on in the presentation. Once we see through the illusion, then we can address the actual issues instead of the phantom issues.

Specifically, be very cautious of this trick when collecting information on the subject:

"Well, apostates are 'mentally diseased', and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings...Jehovah, the Great Physician" –quote you’ll usually find on the internet

"Well, apostates are 'mentally diseased', and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings."--quote from the Independent magazine itself!

"Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4) Jehovah, the Great Physician..." --full and unedited quote

The first two quotes are the one being proliferated extensively on the web and on forum posts, while the second is the actual quote from the magazine. Did you note the differences? They are major.

You will often see ellipses arbitrarily inserted into the passage; and yet, those ellipses only remove a single term (or even worse, the Independent magazine cuts the quote off before the actual end of the sentence at the Scriptural reference). They are put there (or the sentence is cut off early) for the sole purpose of removing the Bible link, so that it appears that the Watchtower and the Watchtower alone is making that statement out of thin air and with no context.

The anti-Witness group behind this ‘story’ don’t want it to be a Bible issue, because many of them profess to be followers of the Bible themselves. They would look foolish and hypocritical attacking their own holy book. That is why they deliberately alter the quotations and form their arguments in such a way that all of the blame and responsibility shifts to the Watchtower and away from the source that the Watchtower directly quoted from: the Bible.

So don’t let people fool you and lead you into thinking that this is a Watchtower issue, because it isn’t. As we will see soon, it is an undeniably Biblical issue at heart; therefore, one should always strive to keep the focus on the Bible end of it when in discussions.

3.0 RESPONSE TO THE TRANSLATION ACCUSATIONS

What is the proper translation of 1 Tim. 6:4, and is the NWT translation justified on linguistic grounds? Those are very important questions in this issue that deserve answers. The full NWT verse is as follows:

“4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions,” (1 Tim. 6:4 NWT emphasis mine)

3.1 Lexicon Analysis

The phrase in question derives from a single Greek term: noseō, which only occurs a single time in the Christian Greek Scriptures (at 1 Tim. 6:4). The full Strong’s entry and Vine’s entry are as follows:

Strong’s G3552

Transliteration: noseō

Part of Speech: verb

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1) to be sick

2) metaph. of any ailment of the mind

a) to be taken with such an interest in a thing as amounts to a disease, to have a morbid fondness for

Vines Entry

Dote - signifies "to be ill, to be ailing," whether in body or mind; hence, "to be taken with such a morbid interest in a thing as is tantamount to a disease, to dote," 1Ti 6:4 (marg., "sick"). The primary meaning of "dote" is to be foolish (cp. Jer 50:36, the evident meaning of noseo, in this respect, is "to be unsound."

3.2 The Verse in Other Translations

Here are a number of different Bibles which all translate 1 Tim 6:4 in the sense of having an “ailment of the mind,” i.e., a “disease” of the mind. There are probably far more than are highlighted in this brief list, but the point is made nevertheless: the NWT is not alone in its translation decision.

1 Timothy 6:4 Common English Bible

"They don’t understand anything but have a sick obsession with debates and arguments."

Contemporary English Version

"...they don't really know a thing. Their minds are sick, and they like to argue over words."

Darby Translation

"...he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and disputes of words,"

English Standard Version

"He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words,"

New American Standard Bible

"...has a [a]morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words,"

Footnote [a]: is sick about

New Century Version

"...but is sick with a love for arguing and fighting about words."

The Translators New Testament

"He is a sick man."

The New Testament in Modern English by Phillips

"His mind is a morbid jumble of disputation and arguments ..."

The Modern Speech New Testament by Weymouth

"is crazy over discussions and controversies”

NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall

"being diseased"

"...but wasteth his brains about questions and strife of words." -- Tyndale's New Testament (a modern-spelling edition of the 1534 translation; original spelling "wasteth his braynes").

The Cranmer translation of 1539 and Geneva Bible of 1557 also use the same expression ("wasteth his braynes"; "wasteth his braines," respectively)

3.3 Commentary Bibles

noson: morbidly busy (Liddon) ... His disease is intellectual curiosity about trifles.  Both doting and mad after (Alf.) as translations of noson, err by excess of vigour.  The idea is a simple one of sickness as opposed to health. -- The Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 4, Ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll

He is morbidly keen, literally 'he is diseased concerning'.  The idiom is found in contemporary literature: we read of one who is 'mad on expensive jewels' and of another who is 'mad for publicity.' -- The Cambridge Bible Commentary on The New English Bible: The Pastoral Letters, by Anthony T. Hanson

doting about questions] 'Diseased' or 'mad' on points of subtle disputation. The word in other writers has both meanings, and the opposition to 'sound' would hold equally good with both; but the moral responsibility for this state is clearly implied, and points rather to the former: 'full of a diseased disputatiousness.' -- Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Timothy and Titus, ed. The Rev. A.E. Humphreys

3.4 Theological commentaries

The use of noseo in 1Tim 6:4 corresponds to the Hellenistic use of the vb. Craving for controversy and disputes about words point to a sick condition in the inner man (cf. Plato, Philo ...).  The comparison of the spreading nature of false teaching with the progress of a cancerous tumour (2Tim 2:17) likewise belongs to the realm of Hellenistic thought." -- Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Vol 3, p. 998-999.

... the figurative use of noseo in 1Tim 6:4 is Hellenistic in context.  This is supported by the construction, the popular philosophical character of the list of vices which follows in v.4 f., and the strong emphasis on ignorance as the source of aberration.  Here, as in Plato and Philo, being sick is a metaphor to indicate the abnormal state of the inward man.  In keeping is the fact that in 2Tm. 2:17 the growth of error is compared with that of a cancer.  Though the guilt of error is not disputed, neither this nor the penal consequences are emphasized.  The accent in the comparison is on the abnormality and common threat. -- Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, ed. Kittel, trans by. Bromiley, vol. IV, p. 1095.

4. Doting.  "Doting" is the present participle of noseo (only here in the NT).  Literally the verb means "to be sick."  In classical Greek it was used metaphorically for mental illness.  Thayer says that here it means "to be taken with such an interest in a thing as amounts to a disease, to have a morbid fondness for" (p.429).  Arndt and Gingrich suggest the translation "have a morbid craving for" (cf. Goodspeed).  White says of the person described here: "His disease is intellectual curiosity about trifles" (EGT, 4:141). -- Word Meanings in the New Testament, by Ralph Earle.

3.5 Counter Counter Points

I also thought that it would be good to make the reader aware of a few extra fallacies floating around regarding the different translations, which might be used as counter points to the arguments already made here.

You will often see opposers yelling, “Well I have 12 different Bibles that don’t translate with the sense of a mental sickness! Therefore your claim is wrong!” But that is a red herring, and is not at all related to the real burden of proof. As an illustration:

Man A owns a brown cow and makes the claim “brown cows are not unique—there are certainly other brown cows out there.” Thus to support his position, man A goes and finds other brown cows. But man B walks in later with 10 white cows and makes the claim “Well your claim that your brown cow isn’t unique is bogus, because I have 10 white cows right here!”

So what do man B’s 10 white cows have to do with man A’s claim that brown cows are not unique? Nothing at all. The white cows don’t matter one bit, because all man A needed to do to support his claim was find at least 1 brown cow.

Similarly, opposer B’s 10 Bibles that translate 1 Tim 6:4 ‘softly’ have nothing to do with the claim that “multiple reputable translations support the NWT rendering.” The soft translations don’t matter one bit, because all JW A needed to do to support his side was find just a handful of reputable translations that did render the verse harshly and in the sense of being “sick in the mind.”

And if the opposers refuse to attack the other reputable translations that also render the verse in a harsh sense, then that simply proves bigotry, hypocrisy and preferential condemnation on their part.

The reader may also run into those who make the claim: “But there is not even one translation out there that uses the exact phrase “mentally diseased!” That may be technically true if we look at it from a very exacting point of view. But that fact doesn’t make the opposers argument valid either, nor does it make the argument of the JW invalid, because

1.      It is rare for two different groups of translators to render a passage exactly the same, because translation is not as much an exact science with only one solution per problem as it is an art with many solutions to the same problem. What you have to look for is relative agreement in tone and sense, which all the Bibles listed above have.

2.      As we have already seen, the translation “mentally diseased” is in perfect agreement with the lexicon definitions, and thus correct from a technical point of view.

3.      Another factor impacting the translation decisions is the overall style of translation. Some Bible’s lean more towards the looser, paraphrasing side of translation (where the ‘softer’ versions of 1 Tim 6:4 will be) while others (like the NWT and several of the Bible’s in the above list), will lean more towards the literal side and thus a possibly harsher rendering.

4.0 WHAT IS THE REAL CONTEXT OF THE VERSE?

In a further desperate attempt to avoid inadvertently attacking the Bible itself, many opposers have also adopted the following line of reasoning:

“The interpretation of JW's of those scriptures is very much out of context and is far different (and far more extremist) than the interpretations of most scholars and even the historical first century Christians."

Does this claim hold water, or is it just plain denying reality? The only way to find out is to examine Paul’s letters for ourselves.

4.1 A Brief Discussion of 1 Timothy

Keep on teaching these things and giving these exhortations. 3 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, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, 5 violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain. 6 To be sure, it is a means of great gain, [this] godly devotion along with self-sufficiency. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. 8 So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things. — 1 Tim. 6:1-8 NWT

Who was Paul referring to specifically in chapter six of 1st Timothy? The very first lines state explicitly that he was speaking to those who

1.      Taught different doctrine, i.e., doctrine other than that handed down by Paul and Jesus through the apostles.

2.      Did not assent to “healthful words,” i.e., didn’t listen to counsel from either Paul, the apostles or the congregation.

3.      Did not assent to the teachings of godly devotion, i.e., did not listen to Paul’s teachings, the teachings of the Apostles or the teachings of the appointed older men.

And what does Paul say about such men in the very next few lines? Such men were

·         prideful

·         ignorant

·         sick in the head, i.e., mentally diseased

·         envious

·         strife causers

·         abusive in speech

·         wicked

·         violent

·         corrupt

·         despoiled of truth

As you can see, this was an extremely harsh passage overall, and with good reason! It was referring to the same people that the Witnesses dedicated their controversial phrase to: men who apostatized from the Christian congregation by fighting against Paul, the apostles and probably quite a few others with authority, and who intentionally taught “different doctrine” for the purpose of creating division and strife in the congregations.

Whether the anti-Witness crowd likes it or not, Paul’s attitude is perfectly clear. He did not tolerate people in his congregations apostatizing from the faith and teaching different doctrine, period. He says that repeatedly and explicitly, and even mentioned throwing several people out of the congregation because of it. They can deny those simple facts all they want, but it won’t change reality.

"Just as I encouraged you to stay in Eph′e·sus when I was about to go my way into Mac·e·do′ni·a, so I do now, that you might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine," (1 Tim. 1:3)

"If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words…(1 Tim. 6:3)

"But shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·nae′us and Phi·le′tus are of that number. 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Tim 2:16-18)

“This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; 19 holding faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside and have experienced shipwreck concerning [their] faith. 20 Hy·me·nae′us and Alexander belong to these, and I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim 1:18-20)

The full citation from the Watchtower article and a close examination of the Bible prove that the Watchtower was quoting and then applying the Apostle Paul's very trenchant comment to those who are behaving exactly as the Biblical passage described.  The apostates are actually proving that Paul's words apply to them, as they have a) distorted the words of the Watchtower article by misapplying them and b) started a 'quarrel about words' (Wuest's translation), which is the very thing Paul was commenting on and warning first century Christians to protect themselves against.

A few other interesting points to keep in mind also, are the facts that

1.      It could easily be argued that the verses in 1 Timothy are actually even harsher than what was printed in the Watchtower, and yet it gets no mention.

2.      The anti-Witness crowd cherry picks a single insult from Paul in a list of about ten or more, and then chooses to stir up a controversy solely on it alone while ignoring everything else Paul said and the context that he said it in.

3.      Paul also uses “gangrene” in a negative sense in the book of 2^nd Timothy. But why aren’t all of the compassionate Knights of Political Correctness jumping on that phrase as well for insulting people who suffer from real gangrene? At least gangrene is an actual, diagnosable medical condition, unlike “mental disease” which doesn’t really refer to anything from a medical or technical standpoint.

5.0 WHAT THAT WATCHTOWER REALLY TEACHES ABOUT 'EX-JWS'

5.1 Apostates

The media not only omits the citation of 1Tim 6:3,4, but also omits the very next sentence, and then the point in the next paragraph:

(par 6) "Jehovah, the Great Physician, tells us to avoid them.

(par 7) What is involved in avoiding false teachers?  We do not receive them into our homes, or great them.  We also refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs the feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs."

The Watchtower isn't teaching JWs to promote hatred of ex-JWs who become apostate; rather, it is simply conveying the Biblical advise that Witnesses leave them alone, and NOT engage them in fights as they spread their hatred of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Although the use of Paul's rhetoric is strong, the current anti-Witness 'complaint’ is essentially that it is now illegal for the Watchtower to recommend to JWs that they leave hostile ex-JWs alone.

5.2 Ex-JWs in general

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower have always taught that the Bible's counsel on disfellowshipping includes the hope that disfellowshipped persons will repent and return.

The last article in that same issue has this paragraph:

18 Many who were once disfellowshipped now freely admit that the firm stand taken by their friends and family members [to not associate with them] help them come to their senses.  In recommending the reinstatement of one young woman [that is, the return of one who became an ex-member], the elders wrote that she cleaned up her life "partly because her fleshly brother's respect for the disfellowshipping arrangement."  She said that "his faithful adherence to Scriptural guidelines helped her to want to return"

Clearly the Watchtower in one article isn't promoting hatred of ex-members while in the very same issue teaching that members should hold out hope for the return of those who leave or are disfellowshipped. That simply makes no sense.

On the other hand, apostates frequently label JWs with the pejorative and hateful term "cult", and similarly use the hatred-inducing term "mind control" with respect to Watchtower influence over its members. It is hypocritical for apostates to 'dish out' all manner of hate-filled invective by using such insulting terms about the mental state of Witnesses, but then complain when the Witnesses apply critical wording from the Bible against them that questions their mental state (which is really a spiritual criticism, not literally a claim that they have a physical mental illness).

Of course, the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest, trial, and death, indicate that those tactics have been around a long time.  Religious opposers who couldn't compete with the power of Jesus' teachings used Roman law to frame Jesus and have him executed, and then used the same tactics against Jesus' disciples.  It appears that today apostate ex-JWs are using the British authorities as their 'Pilate' or 'Caesar' because they can't compete successfully with the Watchtower in the 'marketplace of ideas'.

They certainly aren't following the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught his followers to 'turn the other cheek' when 'slapped' with mere insults.

5.3 Turnabout is Fair Play?

If this case is viewed with any merit in the eyes of the law, apostates are potentially cutting off their own noses to spite their face, since the Watchtower could surely raise its own complaint that apostate ex-JWs are spreading religious hatred about their former religion.  Since apostates don't seem to advocate FOR their new beliefs and ideals, but only rail AGAINST the religion they left (or which ejected them), their legal complaint against the Watchtower really undermines the legality of their own anti-JW activities.  How can they exist if they cannot spread their religious hatred of the Watchtower?

6.0 DAMAGES? WHAT DAMAGES?

The anti-Witness crowd complains continuously about "bringing the Witnesses to court" and "suing for hate speech." But the question this Editor’s mind is: who was actually "legally damaged" by the words in the Watchtower article?

Did it damage those with real mental disorders? Apparently they did not, because 1) this Editor has never heard a peep from them on all this, and 2) the article wasn't referring to literal mental disorders anyways. This was stirred up entirely by ex-Witnesses, not those with mental disorders.

Were the apostate Witnesses damaged by it? The Editor’s gut feeling would tell him no. The apostate Witnesses who started all this (those who take an active stand against their former affiliation and seek to destroy it) were already angry and resentful towards the Witnesses. They have been that way since the Witnesses came into being over 100 years ago, and they would have continued in that same state even if the September study article had never never been written (and they probably would have just found something else to complain anyways). So what is the damage here?? Can they say that they are now more hurt, angry and spiteful than they were before the article came out? It is silly to think so.

What about just ex-Witnesses in general though, including non-apostate former Witnesses? Were they damaged? I don't see how, considering that the study article was specifically referring to ex-Witnesses who seek to undermine and destroy the faith and teachings of current Witnesses, i.e., “apostates” in the sociological sense. And by all statistical measures, these true apostate types only represent a small minority of former Witnesses (less than 20%).

And so without any real, demonstratable damages caused to anybody, how can legal action against the Witnesses for damaging speech possibly succeed in a theoretical sense?

7.0 SOME COMMENTS ON THE HATE SPEECH LAW ITSELF

The late, great economist Milton Friedman once advised his listeners to ignore the high and compassionate sounding title of laws, and instead focus solely on the practical effects of the laws, because oftentimes the practical effect of a law will be the exact opposite of its stated purpose, e.g., the disastrous minimum wage laws which hurt poor and minority classes more than it helps them. In a similar vein, the ‘religious hatred’ laws actually encourage hatred and suppress free speech.

When one googles the “religious hatred” law in Britain that is being used against the Watchtower, one thing that pops up is the concern that the law will be used to suppress the Bible itself, because the Bible contains some unpopular messages. Of course, assurances were given that that wouldn't happen.  Yet, really, that is what is happening here, and what has already happened in places like California, where preachers can no longer condemn homosexuality without fear of legal reprisal.

Cases like this seem to prove that the religious hatred laws really do not protect religious views, but rather, they allow intolerant groups to use the power of the law to suppress and punish any group that they don’t particularly like, or that dare criticize their own intolerance and hatred. And in the wake of that forced suppression and free publicity, their will tend to sprout even more hatred and intolerance, but now on the part of the general public as well.

Russia would be a very good example of these kinds of ‘tolerance’ laws gone wild (and Britain herself could very well end up at that point too). The laws that the Russian government and many of her people tout as promoting peace and tolerance, in reality allow for the brutal suppression and bullying of minority religious groups by larger and more established Orthodox groups with political clout.

Forced tolerance is not tolerance at all. It is merely a form of intolerance disguised as tolerance, where inevitably the powerful and large groups get to define the “boundaries” of that ‘tolerance’ for us.

7.0 CLOSING STATEMENTS

If the people who stirred up this controversy in the first place want to attack the Bible itself for calling dissenters and apostates of the congregation “mentally diseased” along with all kinds of other things, then that is fine! By all means blame the Bible then, because the Watchtower is simply echoing what it said! The battle will simply be fought on those grounds then, as it has been in the past. But to knowingly attempt to cover up the fact that the Watchtower article took its message directly from the Bible, and that the message was in harmony with what Paul said as was shown in this blog post, is in the Editor’s opinion bigoted and hypocritical.

The ones who are stirring this controversy aren’t doing it because they actually care about the plight of the mentally handicapped (who themselves couldn’t care less and who really weren’t even being referred to), and they aren’t doing it because they believe the phrase itself actually morally unacceptable and damaging (or else they would have been attacking the Bible itself with just as much ferocity in addition to every other denomination that teaches on the book of Timothy). No, they are stirring up controversy over this article simply because they just plain hate Jehovah’s Witnesses. The ones behind this are all disgruntled ex-Witnesses, e.g., apostates—hating current Witnesses is by definition just what they do. They turn mountains into molehills, distort facts if it will make the current Witnesses look bad, try to cause trouble wherever they can and just generally grind axes. And now, in this case, they are attempting to use publicity from gullible newspapers and the national law for their own vengeful ends.

And no, that is not just this Editor saying so because he is sympathetic to the Witnesses in this case—the disgruntled ex-member mindset (of any group or NRM) has been written on extensively by many academics over the years. You can even see for yourself over at my other article: Brainwashing and Apostasy Quotes:

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/10/brainwashing-and-apostasy-quotations.html

And so, for a major British newspaper to willingly pander to this small but vocal online community of grudge holding ex-Witnesses and aid them in their smear campaigns is, in the Editor’s opinion, quite shameful.