by ozziepost 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Many are the accounts we read of abuse suffered at the hands of JWs. We only have to read the Personal Experiences Forum to realise that, with the experiences of emotional and mental abuse, the bullying by elders, and so on..
Still, it begs the question, are the perpetrators abusers or an abusive organisation?
The dictionary defines abuse as "an evil or corrupt practice: deceit: hurt: taking undue advantage: betrayal of confidence: violation: reviling"
I think all of those terms could correctly be applied to the wts. They are indded an abusive organisation
Still, it begs the question, are the perpetrators abusers or an abusive organisation?
I believe it's an abusive Organisation......full of loving and caring good hearted people that's had their hearts and minds messesd with by the WTBTS.
So much of the Organisation teaches positive good things such as to give, to speak kindly, not to gossip, not to backbite, to be forgiving, to love one another, to be hospitable.
All the above work as long as you tow the rope and stay in the clique. If your a loser type dub ( no spiritual advancement)...it can be an abusive group because cults have little room for tolerance of sinners. Since they are a "works" for salvation group.......if you don't work, you don't eat.
Gumby.......who saved Ozmeisters dying thread. S'ok Ozzie....Satanus saved my dying thread last night
I think there are some individual abusers within (and without) the abusive organisation.
Kind, psychologically balanced people, do what they can to make the organisational policies more humane and bearable.
On the other hand, the abusive organisational policies are used as an excuse and a rationale by tyrannical individuals who in turn make them worse.
I left a very abusive JW home at the age of 18 (the exact day when I was legally free to do so). By comparison, being a JW outside of this family was incredible freedom to me.
ozzie that is quite the question
While we know the direction and rules come from on high the elders are the ones that have to carry them out even if they think it is unfair.
I mentioned the Milgard experiment on a thread that Barbara posted the other day. The Milgard experiment was testing people on how they would shock people when the orders came from an authority figure. From the experiment people seemed to disregard their own conscience and continued to give the shocks to the "subjects" even when the "subjects" were screaming in pain.
The conclusion of the stury was that if people believed that they were not going to be held responsible for the infliction of pain they would continue regardless of how much the person screamed in pain.
I have to wonder if this experiment fits the situation of the elders. Since they are just following orders they may feel that the responsiblity of hurting people is not on their shoulders but rather on the shoulders of those who give the orders - the WTS.
And weren't we all in that spot. If the WTS said "shun them", we did.
As for your question, I suspect a bit of both. In the Milgard experiment there were people who followed their own conscience and decided to stop inflicting the shocks. They ignored the orders given adn terminated the experiment. We do know that at least some people will obey their conscience over authority. We lnow that some JWs do ignore the shunning policy and continue to have contact with their relatives who they have been told they must shun.
Doing the right thing is always harder to do than follow orders. I shunned. And yes I was following orders. And I was responsible. Even though I hated doing it, I was obedient even after I left.
I believe that I was abused by the WTS. But I also chose to follow the orders making me an abuser. Not something I am proud of. And I don't think saying "I was just following the rules" makes me any less responsible for what I did.
When I was DFed I really believe one of the elders was over-ruled by the other two regarding my DFing. This one was compassionate and caring. It was in his voice and in the manner he treated me. But the other two were very uncaring and hurtful. I hold thethese two responsible.
If they were going to follow the rules the least they could have done was find a way to be caring about it. And I think when it comes down to the issue of abuser/victim I consider these two abusive and the one caring elders a victim.
Probably splitting hairs but that's how I feel
Both. I do believe its an abusive organization and that there are good people in it. But it also enables abusive behavior by its male membership by way of their power structure. Not only with regards to the male superiority teaching along with its headship model, but also in the judicial structure wherein the male is believed to be the more worthy believable source of information. If the male says he did not do something, beit spousal abuse, child abuse, etc., they are believed unless the two witnesses come forward. I've just seen it too many times over too wide an area.
Sherry
Sherry,
I for one think abusive behaviour is not to be linked exclusively with male domination. I have firsthand experience of the opposite situation: a JW stepmother who constantly pushed abusive behaviour, including on her own children.
Sometimes you have to look for the abusive wife (and her ambition by proxy) behind the abusive elder.
are the perpetrators abusers or an abusive organisation?
Both. The organization itself is abusive, and it also gives individual abusers a safe haven in which they can flourish.
W
Consider the Nazis during WWII.
Were the SS officers simply victims of Nazi philosophy?
Not according to the courts.
Psychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 60s proved that people are willing to be cruel if they are instructed to.
Nathan posted my response first!
