"Privileges"

by Joe Grundy 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Joe Grundy

  Yet another question (two actually), I'm afraid (but I am learning from all this, honestly!).

  I've seen the term 'privileges' on here many times, and I think I now understand that it means 'being allowed to carry out tasks in the congregation' - which includes walking round with the microphone, operating the PA system, etc. in the services. Presumably it also includes tasks like opening up the hall, arranging chairs etc.

  First question: am I correct in understanding that there is no financial or other incentive in this other than a) such service may increase the odds of surviving the JW armageddon, and b) it gives the person some sort of status among the congregation?

  I've also seen on here references to 'being allowed to comment'. I've only attended two JW services and one memorial thingy (quite enough, thanks) but at the two ordinary services they had the sermon thing and then their study. It didn't seem much of a study to me, because it was only reading the magazine out loud and answering the provided questions with what were plainly the expected answers. At one point I did want to point out something where I was aware of a contradictary quote from another part of the bible. Unfortunately I was distracted - my friends child and I were fighting off the boredom by drawing pictures of animals and sharing my polo mints.

  My second question is: if I as a visitor had raised a question (based on the topic) what would have happened? Are only JWs allowed to 'comment'?
• 

  Highlander

  
  
  My second question is: if I as a visitor had raised a question (based on the topic) what would have happened? Are only JWs allowed to 'comment'?

  They will allow you to comment. However: if you deviate from the scripted comments, you can pretty much guarantee never to be called on again.

  If you ask a question,, the typical answer will be for you to wait until after the meeting upon which a couple elders will gang bang your mind into jw submission.

  As you said,, it's not much of a discussion.
• 

  DHL

  First question: am I correct in understanding that there is no financial or other incentive in this other than a) such service may increase the odds of surviving the JW armageddon, and b) it gives the person some sort of status among the congregation?

  You absolutely got it!

  My second question is: if I as a visitor had raised a question (based on the topic) what would have happened? Are only JWs allowed to 'comment'?

  As far as I remember you would have been ignored. Non-JW or JW who are not in good standing are not allowed to raise their hands to ask a question or make a comment. They are generally overseen. If you had a question or wanted to make a comment you would have been expected to speak to someone on a personal level (before or after the official part). At least I can't remember a situation in which an "interested person" was allowed to speak in public. I suppose they are too scared of what such a person could say.
• 

  Scully

  if I as a visitor had raised a question (based on the topic) what would have happened? Are only JWs allowed to 'comment'?

  Comments™ are generally expected to take the accepted format of a close facsimile to the study question for the particular paragraph under consideration. For an audience member to raise their hand and ask a question would be unusual. As a visitor, they might humor you, but you could expect to be spoken to about the expected decorum after the meeting.

  Commenting Privileges™ are generally reserved for Approved Associates™, JWs In Good Standing™, and Unbaptized Publishers™. And occasionally children who raise their hand to say "Jehovah" or "Jesus". (aaaaawwwww soooo cuuuutttteeee!! ) People who are Disfellowshipped™ cannot offer comments, while recently Reinstated™ people or those on either Private Reproof™ or Public Reproof™ are sometimes required to abstain from commenting during a probationary period.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  Thanks for the information. I hope I won't offend anyone if I say it all seems a bit pathetic. It reminds me of when I was a small boy and we were forever forming 'clubs' - which did nothing else other than draw up membership cards and allocate 'ranks' and titles.

  Is one of the reasons they use microphones (the hall I was in was fairly small and didn't really need them) so that they can choose who gets to speak? (The sessions I went to were made a lot worse, BTW, because it was so obvious that a lot of the people attending had very poor command of English).
• 

  Scully

  Thanks for the information. I hope I won't offend anyone if I say it all seems a bit pathetic. It reminds me of when I was a small boy and we were forever forming 'clubs' - which did nothing else other than draw up membership cards and allocate 'ranks' and titles.

  No offense taken. It is pathetic!

  Is one of the reasons they use microphones (the hall I was in was fairly small and didn't really need them) so that they can choose who gets to speak? (The sessions I went to were made a lot worse, BTW, because it was so obvious that a lot of the people attending had very poor command of English).

  No, it isn't the Microphone Handler™ who chooses who gets to speak. That is up to the Chairman (who introduces the Speaker™ for the Public Talk™ and directs when to play the song, etc) or the Watchtower Study Conductor™. The job of the Microphone Handler™ is merely to pass the microphone to the person who has been chosen to give a Comment™. The position is often viewed as a kind of entry-level position for younger men in the male heirarchy of the Congregation™. Another similar entry-level position (although a step up from Microphone Handler™) would be controlling the sound equipment and playing the pre-selected music.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  I hope I won't offend anyone if I say it all seems a bit pathetic

  No offence taken here, Joe. It is rather pathetic, although I didn't see it that way when I was a loyal dub, of course. I have known many visitors be ignored during my time as a jw. It seems the elders didn't really trust them to make an acceptable comment, from the wts point of view anyway.

  And as for "privileges of service", you ought to ask my bf about that. He was a ministerial servant, and thus had the wonderful job of being an attendant on fairly regular occasions. He also got the mike job a fair few times, as well as magazine servant and, later, accounts servant. He didn't love any of them. He is very happy he doesn't have any of those "privileges" now.
• 

  Good Girl or Bad Girl?

  I've often reflected on the term "privileges" in the past few months and how ludicrous it really is. It's just part of the mindf*ck for them to brainwash you into believing that boring chores and meaningless comments are privileges.

  Good Girl/Bad Girl
• 

  under_believer

  It is, as you suspected, mainly a status thing. I don't think increasing their own survivability really enters into it, other than the idea that the "stronger you are in the truth" the more likely you are to survive.
  Every now and then you will run across a genuine "servant" who really, really wants to be self-sacrificing and help others, and is doing it because it is altruistic. This species of JW is very rare. Probably about as rare as the equivalent secular politician.
  And yes, labelling it "priveleges" is clearly newspeak. It's one of those stop-words that ends discussion and rational thought.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Joe Grundy said,

  I hope I won't offend anyone if I say. . .

  You must learn to let go of this fear. Until you do there will be no opportunities for further priviledges!