Reflections

by Frenchy 92 Replies latest jw friends

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    Okay, I guess everyone’s replied who intends to. I’ve read and re-read all the posts and I have seen some comments that I think are representative of a large number of witnesses who are, shall we say, uneasy at the present.
    All of this has to be considered in the context of that most profound statement made by waiting: “Too much caffine on Saturday morning is dangerous - makes the mind lively, doesn't it?” It’s only on such a Saturday morning that any given witness is likely to devote much time to any of these issues. Then, he’d better get up real early so that he can go out in service later!
    Waiting’s statement:

    I was emotionally unstable (no one could tell on the outside, btw, - really). I was looking for security for my mind and heart. I was looking for escape from my father & mother, and a replacement - even though I didn't recognize this for what it was. I wasn't, however, looking for answers to the questions of life.


    I have taken issue with this (the idea that the emotionally unstable are drawn to the witnesses) before but now I have to re-think it. As witnesses we did relinquish free will and thinking to a large extent. We allowed ourselves to come under the influence of others and willfully become their ‘slaves’. We worked for them tirelessly for nothing. What’s that? (With Amway it’s close to that but we do it in expectation of big bucks at the end!). Waiting case was one of the more severe ones and thus more easily discernible. I’m not saying that all witnesses are emotionally unstable but I am not discounting that a large percentage of them are. I’m not discounting (anymore) that many such like ones are drawn to it. However Jesus once said:

    Come to me, all YOU who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh YOU. Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment for YOUR souls. For my yoke is kindly and my load is light.” –Matt 11:29-30 NWT

    Quite an invitation. Why wouldn’t such people be drawn to a society that boasts of unparalleled love among an international brotherhood? And then there is Paul’s comment:

    but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, ---1 Cor 1:27,28 NWT


    “…God's Organization. The Truth. The Hope of Life Everlasting. I mean, we really did think we had the answers to almost - if not all - Biblical (life's) questions, didn't we? –waiting Absolutely. How were we so easily sold on this? Why did we not investigate more closely? Would we have so easily invested all of our life’s savings on such unsubstantiated claims? Why our lives, then?
    What makes that organization any different than any other religion organization? –waiting The anger of those that leave or are cast out. I think that this is significant.
    -----
    Why is that? Are those the actions of normal, adults? What made us so gullible? Why could you not see then what you see now? Why do you now feel differently than you did then?
    Notsure: You have listed some very specific things here in answering the question of why all the anger: “” We put our whole faith and trust in the J.W.'s. We believed everything we were fed and if we did not believe we were afraid to speak out for fear of committee action… Our privacy and dignity was taken from us, whether it was how we "performed" in the privacy of our own bedroom or what we watched on television” –Notsure. The list goes on: lost friends, alienation from family members, lost opportunities for meaningful careers, pursuit of monotonous, menial jobs in order to do a work we now understand to be merely the peddling of the literature of a publishing corporation. I might add that once you realize that you not only did this to yourself but also to your children the frustration goes up to a new level.
    For me, personally, I am angrier with myself than I am at them.

    There is no other organization that claims you like the Witnesses do. There is no other organization that tortures you mentally, physically and emotionally. We let them be in complete control until we to understand that something wasn't right. How do you explain away so much change, so much hypocrisy, so much conditional love? –Notsure

    How in the hell did we let them do this to us?
    -------

    These organizations obviously provide (or at least promise to provide) something which some feel is valuable enough to surrender their friends, their own families, their children and parents, an enormous amount of their time, a willingness to die before compromising their dictated beliefs, yes they surrender their very lives. Followers are willing to accept without question that God speaks to their religious leaders even though God does not speak to them.

    Frightening. ” I would add that many are lazy and do not want to research and examine and analyze and think for themselves. It is easier to let others do it for them (but what a high price they pay for their laziness” –AhHah Yes, it was very costly.
    ” I get the feeling when I read your questions that you have not personally been through this process. Is that the case? –AhHah I’m free of it now but it was very painful. I’ve never been on drugs but I can’t imagine withdrawal from chemical being anymore difficult.
    ” There is also the massive feeling of being cheated and of having part of your life wasted – Simon Very true.
    Waiting, I appreciated your analogy of our relationship to the organization to that of lovers and the woman scorned. That is very accurate.

    They took my childhood, they turned my adolescence into a drab parody of life, they took a bright future of learning and discovery that might have been and turned it into a bleak period of drudgery and failure. Then I was discarded like an old shoe....of no consequence. I was left with no social skills, no education, no idea of what to do with my life. –Red

    …and I did it to my children as well.
    ” Being deceived and having the proof of such is the main reason for my anger toward the WTS” –Tom That is a common denominator.
    Frenchy your questions above indicate to me that many of us who are at the edge have these perplexing, nagging after thoughts. I suppose that our WTS experience is truly more complex than we ever bargained for. –Martini I fully agree. Even ‘knowing’ better is not enough. Time away from it all is needed.
    ” As for whether an "appearance that they are doing something for God" is better than what appears to be "nothing", that would be an interesting topic for another thread.“ I agree.
    I don’t think MDS’ comments were really about this topic. But since he posted here I feel obligated to say something. I fear that he/she is getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. I’m not judging here, just expressing an opinion. I like things out in the open and I don’t go for cryptic messages. Been there. MDS, don't go away mad. Just a suggestion: If you would post with the idea of discussing topics rather than 'preaching' your comments would be more acceptable. Won't you try it?
    Thank all of you for your thought provoking responses. We have a lot in common and yet we are so very different. That’s marvelous, isn’t it?

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

    Edited by - Frenchy on 8 November 2000 8:49:5

  • AhHah
    AhHah

    Frenchy,

    Thank you for posting this thread! The responses were very thoughtful and very revealing. I feel that I got to know everyone that posted much better after reading them. Many of my personal feelings were validated as I read those painful experiences. This is exactly what I had hoped for when I started posting on this forum.

    I am still curious, however, how you personally feel in regard to one question that you posted to open this thread. It is the question on which I chose to focus most of my response, and one which others commented on at length as well.

    Is the WTS, the Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult? It would depend on whom you ask. Is it an association that controls the lives of its members. Most definitely. However, would that not be the case if it truly was what it claims to be? Would that not be its very nature, to differentiate its members from the ‘world’? Is TRUTH not unique? Once found and accepted should it not be defended against all lies and misrepresentations?

    Your question seems to defend the JW control over its members from the perspective that claimed possession of the "truth" justifies such actions. Are you equating "making a defense" of one's beliefs with demanding total compliance at the cost of being rejected and shunned? At the very least, I sense ambivalence about the matter. Did the responses on this thread cause you to feel any differently? What do you think, are the JWs a cult? Is any of their control over members lives justified?

    In regard to their cult status, I can't help but think of what Theo passionately referred to -- demanding that members die before challenging their ever-changing blood prohibitions, at the risk of being shunned (if not officially disfellowshipped). Is that really any different from making members drink poison kool-aid? If the JW org is not a dangerous cult then what is it? What do you think?

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    Ahah,

    Not to sound contrary, but what is this facination with trying to label the JWs as a "cult". The word has so many meanings and once applied, what then? That we all know the majority of the details of its (the borg) duplicity, tactics and methods needs no further labeling in my book.

    It kind of reminds me of the abuse of the word "spiritual"! Does anyone have a solid definition of the term? It's used as an adjective nine thousand ways to the point that it has lost any meaning.

    carmel on his soap box

  • AhHah
    AhHah

    Carmel,

    I have no attachment to the label, only an interest in whether or not the "shoe fits" as Waiting said. If you check out the links that I posted at the beginning of this thread, it should be obvious that there is much consensus on many common elements of organizations that have often been labled as cults, including Jehovah's Witnesses. Would you prefer the term "BOrg"? Just becasue the label has been abused does not excuse the actions of organizations that are guilty of those characteristics, does it? What is your point? Do you believe that the "shoe fits"?

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    AhHah:
    As to whether or not JW’s are a cult is for you to decide for yourself. In your mind is a definition and concept of a cult and you must make that decision for yourself. The very word, as Carmel pointed out, is not clearly defined and has different meanings to different people. If you were to give me a concise definition of what the word means to you I can tell you if my perception of the WTS would qualify as a ‘cult’ to you.

    Your question seems to defend the JW control over its members from the perspective that claimed possession of the "truth" justifies such actions.


    Allow me to elucidate. The ambivalence you sense should be quite blatant I would think. There is much mixed emotion about this whole business. Now if you look at what I wrote closely: Most definitely. However, would that not be the case if it truly was what it claims to be? The key to understanding the idea here is in the phrase ‘if it truly was’ and not, as in your phrase, ‘…that claimed possession of…’. Do you see the difference? If the WTS was indeed God’s spokesman to mankind, his present day channel of communications to mankind and it did indeed possess THE TRUTH, what then? Then everything else would be a lie, would it not? It would then be the WTS against a world controlled and ruled by the devil. You would either be inside God’s organization or you would be of ‘the world’. One can hardly imagine Moses asking the Israelites to vote on which of the laws given to him they wanted and which ones they didn’t want. The same would hold true IF the WTS was truly what they claim to be. IF that were the case no dissension could be tolerated, anything that is opposed to THE TRUTH is a LIE. That is what makes TRUTH unique. Once you have it you don’t want to adulterate it. Such is the nature of TRUTH.

    Are you equating "making a defense" of one's beliefs with demanding total compliance at the cost of being rejected and shunned?


    I’m not sure I understand your question. But here is my view. If the WTS spoke for God and was indeed its authorized agent would it not have the right to demand complete compliance? Would you suppose that God would permit differing viewpoints from his own? (Remember that anything different from TRUTH is LIE) Remember Eden? If being a witness was truly being ‘in the TRUTH’ what would you suggest be done with those that would not accept those ‘TRUTHS’ ?

    Did the responses on this thread cause you to feel any differently?

    About what I just stated, no. About certain other matters, yes.

    I can't help but think of what Theo passionately referred to -- demanding that members die before challenging their ever-changing blood prohibitions, at the risk of being shunned (if not officially disfellowshipped). Is that really any different from making members drink poison kool-aid? If the JW org is not a dangerous cult then what is it? What do you think?

    I think perhaps you are not grasping the meaning of what I am saying. I have not argued the right or wrong of the doctrines, only that if the WTS truly were what it claims to be would it not be expected to act just like it’s acting? IF it were what it claims to be it would have the authority and responsibility to do just what it’s doing. That was my point.

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • AhHah
    AhHah

    Frenchy,

    Thanks for answering. I was just wondering if you wanted to share your opinions on your own question that you used to open this post. It sounds as though answering your own question was irritating to you.

    Many here were very willing to share their opinions as I was. Several, including myself, have already stated their answer (opinion) to your question about whether JWs are a cult. I was genuinely interested in your opinion and if your ambivalence had changed after hearing these experiences (which you said it hasn't). I was not looking for an argument over the definition of the word cult or anything else, for that matter. It was your question, and I was interested in your own answer, which you carefully avoided after quoting so many of our responses. I could not help but wonder why.

    Your answer did reveal much about your thinking on the subject. You seem to hold out the possibility that the JW org is indeed what it claims to be. You also state the premise that IF they are what they claim to be, then "would it not be expected to act just like it’s acting"? And, "IF that were the case no dissension could be tolerated." And, "IF it were what it claims to be it would have the authority and responsibility to do just what it’s doing."

    Those are indeed the relevant questions. My personal opinion is a resounding and most emphatic "NO" to those questions. I do not find the basis in the example of Christianity that Christ himself demonstrated to believe that any humans would be authorized to act "just like it's (JW org) acting".

    JW members have gone to their own deaths honoring interpretations of Scripture that have later been reversed, but too late to save innocent lives. They were willing to die rather than challenge what they were taught to believe was "new light" from God and Christ. Their alternative to dying was to face disciplinary action from "God's channel of spiritual light" and lose all of their hope, as well as the love and respect of their friends and family. I will never believe that Christ intended for those ministering to his loyal followers to treat the flock the way that this organization has done, even if they did have the "truth".

    Thanks for sharing your opinions. Please do not take my disagreement with you personally. At one time, I also felt exactly what you have stated here.

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Frenchy,

    I have not argued the right or wrong of the doctrines, only that if the WTS truly were what it claims to be would it not be expected to act just like it’s acting? IF it were what it claims to be it would have the authority and responsibility to do just what it’s doing. That was my point.

    And a fine point it is, Frenchy.

    But IF the WTBTS is the only channel of the True God, and IF the WTBTS speaks only the whole Truth, then why do they distort, lie, exaggerate, use lawyers to manipulate laws, use public relations to speak half truths when convenient, remake their own history, sometimes strongly "suggest" their members remain silent when crimes are committed, (such as rape), and the list just goes on and on and on.........

    We are supposed to be followers of God and of His son, Jesus Christ. In the Bible that we have, I know of no instance where Jesus behaved as such. I know sometimes he remained silent in the face of questions, but that is a far cry from the definition of a Lie given in the Aid to Bible Understanding, and this definition again given in a recent WT study.

    Jesus taught the children and primarily common people - ultimately anyone who wanted to listen to him. He did not tell them to be quiet when his apostles raped them. He allowed persons who listened to him the freedom to walk away - unhurt by him - if they chose not to follow him.

    Because an organization does some good does not mean they're all good or have The Truth. It means they are just like any other religious organization.

    As you have previously pointed out to other posters, "If you're going to call yourself God's Only Channel and if you're going to tell people how they must act in life and death situations, then you better be right."

    I agree with your comment (paraphrased) and I don't believe that the WTBTS is right. You don't have to trick people IF you have the Truth - and you don't have to keep them in The Truth with negative punishments IF you have The Truth. And IF you have The Truth, you don't have to make sure they keep quiet when they leave.

    waiting

    Edited by - waiting on 8 November 2000 22:5:56

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    AhHah: I thank you also for your replies.

    It sounds as though answering your own question was irritating to you.

    No. They are difficult questions for me to deal with, however. That’s why I posted them here. I appreciate all those that gave their views on them.
    ” Several, including myself, have already stated their answer (opinion) to your question about whether JWs are a cult. I was genuinely interested in your opinion… It was your question, and I was interested in your own answer, which you carefully avoided after quoting so many of our responses. I could not help but wonder why.
    I wasn’t really asking anyone if they believed it was a cult for the reason I gave concerning the problem of the difference of opinions on what exactly constitutes a cult. ” Is the WTS, the Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult? It would depend on whom you ask. Is it an association that controls the lives of its members. Most definitely. “ I answered my own question immediately. I also made the comment that it is an organization which controls the lives of its members. I thought I was being very plain and honest about my evaluation of them in this regard. In my mind there is a concept of what a cult is. According to that concept I view the WTS as a cult. However, that does not make it so in the minds of those who have a different concept of the term. My saying that I think it’s a cult is really meaningless inasmuch as the meaning of the word ‘cult’ is not understood by all in the same way. You seem to have fascination with this word. That’s okay by me. I hope that I have answered your question.

    You seem to hold out the possibility that the JW org is indeed what it claims to be.

    It was my intent to present this for consideration. I have said absolutely nothing about my believing it to be so. However, my acceptance or rejection of the WTS for what it claims to be is of no relevance to the issue. Only the arguments pro and con. In this case I felt like approaching the subject from an angle seldom seen on these boards. It seems to make you uncomfortable. I have been uncomfortable for a long time. I’m not attacking you or in any way making light of what you say. On the contrary I appreciate honest views and expressions.

    You also state the premise that IF they are what they claim to be, then "would it not be expected to act just like it’s acting"? And, "IF that were the case no dissension could be tolerated." And, "IF it were what it claims to be it would have the authority and responsibility to do just what it’s doing."
    Those are indeed the relevant questions. My personal opinion is a resounding and most emphatic "NO" to those questions. I do not find the basis in the example of Christianity that Christ himself demonstrated to believe that any humans would be authorized to act "just like it's (JW org) acting".


    And then you give reason for that statement:

    JW members have gone to their own deaths honoring interpretations of Scripture that have later been reversed, but too late to save innocent lives. They were willing to die rather than challenge what they were taught to believe was "new light" from God and Christ.

    Dying for one’s beliefs is nothing new. Jesus came upon the scene inside a society and religion that had been in existence for over one and a half millenniums. He came claiming to be the voice of God and His duly appointed representative. He also provided ‘new light’. He challenged the interpretation of the keeping of the Sabbath while he was yet alive and abolished it all together with his death. There may have been some Christians in the first century congregations who had ancestors that died for violating the Sabbath, died by a code of laws that came from God. Now, by God’s authority they were being permitted to do what had once been prohibited to them. Can you imagine the arguments used in this instance? I can. As for the shunning…” 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. If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 10,11 NWT What ‘teaching’ was Paul talking about? To what extent was this carried out in the first century. Was it taken literally? Were there ‘committee meetings’? I don’t know. But there are some interesting possibilities here, wouldn’t you say?

    Please do not take my disagreement with you personally


    I don’t and I hope that the feeling is mutual.
    I have cast myself in the role of the Devil’s Advocate here. Please feel free to respond/attack/agree/or whatever.

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    My dear waiting:
    You make some excellent points. You do understand, however, that I am not arguing that the WTS is what it says it is, don’t you? I still hold by what I said that an entity claiming to represent God would have to have some outstanding credentials. I have as yet seen no one with those credentials.
    ”He (Jesus) He allowed persons who listened to him the freedom to walk away - unhurt by him - if they chose not to follow him.” –waiting Quite true, see below:

    John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us. –Mark 9: 38-40

    Do you know the WTS’ response to this Scripture?

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    I'm doing a copy and paste here from the site http://www.freedomofmind.com which has been set up by ex-Moonie Steven Hassan. He does a lot of work on the cult issue. Someone had e-mailed this to me quite some time ago, and although many of the points initially made me uncomfortable, I found it to be enlightening, to say the least. Enjoy!

    Mind Control - The BITE Model
    From chapter two of Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves *

    * © 2000 by Steven Hassan; published by Freedom of Mind Press, Somerville MA

    Destructive mind control can be understood in terms of four basic components, which form the acronym BITE:

    I. Behavior Control
    II. Information Control
    III. Thought Control
    IV. Emotional Control

    It is important to understand that destructive mind control can be determined when the overall effect of these four components promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause. It is not necessary for every single item on the list to be present. Mind controlled cult members can live in their own apartments, have nine-to-five jobs, be married with children, and still be unable to think for themselves and act independently.

    I. Behavior Control

    1. Regulation of individual’s physical reality

    a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with
    b. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears
    c. What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects
    d. How much sleep the person is able to have
    e. Financial dependence
    f. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations

    2. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals

    3. Need to ask permission for major decisions

    4. Need to report thoughts, feelings and activities to superiors

    5. Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative).

    5. Individualism discouraged; group think prevails

    6. Rigid rules and regulations

    7. Need for obedience and dependency

    II. Information Control

    1. Use of deception

    a. Deliberately holding back information
    b. Distorting information to make it acceptable
    c. Outright lying

    2. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged

    a. Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio
    b. Critical information
    c. Former members
    d. Keep members so busy they don’t have time to think

    3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

    a. Information is not freely accessible
    b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
    c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what

    4. Spying on other members is encouraged

    a. Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control
    b. Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership

    5. Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda

    a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc.
    b. Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources

    6. Unethical use of confession

    a. Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries
    b. Past "sins" used to manipulate and control; no forgiveness or absolution

    III. Thought Control

    1. Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth"

    a. Map = Reality
    b. Black and White thinking
    c. Good vs. evil
    d. Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)

    2. Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

    3. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.

    4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

    a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
    b. Chanting
    c. Meditating
    d. Praying
    e. Speaking in "tongues"
    f. Singing or humming

    5. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate

    6. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

    IV. Emotional Control

    1. Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings.

    2. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s.

    3. Excessive use of guilt

    a. Identity guilt

    1. Who you are (not living up to your potential)
    2. Your family
    3. Your past
    4. Your affiliations
    5. Your thoughts, feelings, actions

    b. Social guilt
    c. Historical guilt

    4. Excessive use of fear

    a. Fear of thinking independently
    b. Fear of the "outside" world
    c. Fear of enemies
    d. Fear of losing one’s "salvation"
    e. Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group
    f. Fear of disapproval

    5. Extremes of emotional highs and lows.

    6. Ritual and often public confession of "sins".

    7. Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

    a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group
    b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.
    c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.
    d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group’s perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit