... sometimes.
As distasteful as that truth is, it is one that may not go down easily for some who have nauseous memories of the WTS. What does one do if an obvious truth is found in a hated source? Is the truth's power diminished somehow? Is the truth less truthful? On the other hand, if an esteemed and cherished source that is normally reliable is found to be untruthful, will that make a difference to the truth-seeker? Will we find 'truth' in untruth?
The posters on JW.com comprise a unique demographic. It's makeup is so narrow and limited in scope that it does not come close to reflecting any subculture of any group of people anywhere. Imo, we don't even faithfully provide a glimpse into the mind of an average exJW -- only that an exJW can be almost any sort of person. Still, since we are human beings (by and large) certain behaviors that are on display here can be used to gain insight into human thinking and behavior on a wider scale.
In doing research for this post, I revisited three threads on JW.com: COMF's Colored Afro-American Black Negro People, my the "racism" of Emyrose?, and Farkel's Matthew 25. I will not rehash old threads or conjure up old, bitter feelings. I only used these three since I'm very familiar with the first two and the third is one of Farkel's most recent. Any number of other threads could be used to make my point. My thesis is worthy of consideration because it applies to more than just these three threads. More than that, the phenomenon I'm about to highlight happens, not just here on JW.com but in real life, and not just in real life, but all the time.
In Colored, Emmy and Shelby carried on a very spirited, respectful, and more importantly, useful discussion since they were at opposite ends of an issue that is significant to many Americans. Since I'd been a participant in real life discussions that centered on some of the exact same themes they covered, I enjoyed the back and forth between them but was confident that at its conclusion, two things would be found true:
1. They would both make solid points, ably defending their respective positions, and,
2. They would NOT come to an agreement--there would be no happy meeting-in-the-middle conclusion.
Holders of their opposing views could engage in the same dialog today, and the result would be the same. It's like the Arabs and the Jews--eternally at odds.
In spite of the fact that both spoke equal amounts of truth, the board generally lauded Shelby's views; Emmy's were generally condemned. Separating their personal view of either Emmy or Shelby became impossible for some, as many readers' perception of the individual participant tinged their view of what the participant said. Simply put, WHO said it became more important than WHAT was said.
That was why I started racism. I wanted to help some see past what came to be Emmy's emotional outbursts, hoping to focus attention on the important truths laying clearly on the surface of her words, to listen to WHAT she said. Simply put, before things got ugly, much of what Emmy said was unadulterated truth, but since it came from a source deemed objectionable, the powerful truths she voiced were mostly ignored--not given a first thought, much less a second.
As far as I'm concerned, that is the greatest tragedy. Events conspired to place JW.com board members at the feet of a rare opportunity--to discover a couple of important keys to deciphering race relations in America. The diamond ring of high value offered for free was rejected, however, due to the way in which the diamond was set. True, grown folk should be able to see beyond the surface, but that is my point here; some can't, and it's everybody's loss.
Yet the question persists: Were the truths she spoke less true since SHE was the one who spoke them? If one is held in low esteem, whether an Emmy, a Bigboi, or a teejay, is it reasaonble to conclude that nothing good can ever come from them? Is EVERYTHING coming from one held in low esteem 'drivel'?
At the other end of the spectrum in terms of prestige on JW.com, few enjoy a higher position than Farkel. After scanning over his recent commentary on Matthew 25 thread, I posted a concise analysis to Englishman. It was not meant to be a slight although Farkel may have taken it as one. My interpretation and accompanying question was offered seriously.
All of Farkel's commentaries that I've read are quite good; they are just very hard for me to read since they focus their attention on the Watchtower, a magazine for which I've come to have almost no respect. I never got an answer from Englishman. I am left to assume that my 'take' on Farkel's commentary was accurate, though in a nutshell.
My point is: Should the opinions and expressed thoughts of those deemed at the upper end of any collection of people (whether at JW.com, the WTS, the Republican Party, et al.) be given more weight than the opinions and viewpoints coming from those considered at the other end of the scale?
Isn't there a third, and preferred alternative for genuine truth seekers? Shouldn't each comment, viewpoint, and opinion be made to stand on it's own merits, regardless of its source? I'm fairly certain that I know how loyal JWs would answer if you posed the question to them relative to the Governing Body's public views as published in the Watchtower. I wonder if YOU would answer the same relative to your own station in life. Do YOU question everything you read, or do you accept some things if it comes from the 'right' source?