You're right, some things there are disturbing. Thanks, Red
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Reflections
by Frenchy 92 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AhHah
Red,
As I read your quote, I was impressed with the similarities of cult characteristics described there with the links that I posted, as well as most information I have ever seen on the subject. Contrary to what Carmel and Frenchy have stated in this thread, there is much consenus among those who study cults on the common characteristics and effects of them. The fact that uninformed persons may misuse the term does not invalidate that. One who has been a member of the JWs cannot help but recognize many (if not most) of the characteristics and effects. Regardless of the term used to describe them, it is significant that society recognizes the potential for dysfunction that membership in such organizations can create. I have observed those dysfunctions first hand all of my life. I have personally had to work very hard to overcome some of them in my own life, and I am still doing so.
So, if anyone tries to tell me that labeling the JWs as a cult is a meaningless exercise in semantics, I know better from my own experience. I also feel an obligation to anyone who may read these posts to speak up on this matter and help them to recognize the dangers of membership in the JW org. I believe that to do anything less would be contrary to the reason that I post on this forum, and would be a potential injustice to those who read these posts. I no longer have any emotional attachment to that organization that prevents me from recognizing the abundant evidence for their cult status.
My sincere hope is that any who may read this thread who are struggling to find the courage and strength to leave the JW org will find some of that strength from these posts. For those that have already left, I hope that these posts and real life experiences will give them the same validation that I have found, and that it will assist them to let go of their guilt. I believe that this is a very necessary part of our "ministering" to such ones and ourselves.
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 14:29:41
-
AhHah
Frenchy,
You stated above:
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.
I am trying to understand why you said the above in response to my statement that JWs have died honoring JW interpretations that were later reversed, but too late to save their lives. I also would be willing to die for my principles, but that is not the point. The point is that a self-appointed human organization (not God, not Christ) demands that its followers be willing to die over their imperfect attempts to interpret scripture. Can you not see the difference? Can you not see the real danger that presents to people when such an imperfect organization claims to speak for God?
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?
Again, when an imperfect human organization demands that its followers submit to their self-appointed authority (not God or Christ's authority) and demands that they shun someone based upon their own closed-door meetings (not open to the congregation) and their own imperfect doctrines and judging of their brothers -- does this conform to the spirit and intent of those scriptures that were directed to individual Christians and not some judicial committee? I hardly think so.
So, if you were attempting to use the Bible to defend the JW position of demanding that its followers die for their imperfect interpretations and honor their imperfect judgments (including for "apostasy") for disfellowshipping, then I must reject your arguments. You still seem to confuse what God rightly demands versus what a human organization may rightly demand. After reading your posts, I can't help but wonder whether or not you have read Ray Franz's books "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom". There are chapters in those books which do an excellent job of analyzing the JW positions on these same subjects. I believe that you would enjoy reading them very much, if you have not already done so.
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 12:56:29
-
Carmel
Ahah,
The problem is defining the "shoe". Is a sandle a shoe? a boot? a slipper? I have no doubt the WTBTS fits many of the definitions of "cult". How many does it take to say the shoe fits? Once it fits, what then? Does it make us feel any better that we were duped by a cult or by some other term for a self-aggrandizing corporation that makes money selling "spiritual" pornography?
carmel who weries of the name calling that seems to be an end in itself
-
AhHah
Carmel,
It is obviously not about name calling. It is about an honest warning of the dangers, regardless of what you choose to call it. It is also about assisting those who have been victims to recognize why, and to let go of any guilt for leaving. The guilt is one of the control mechanisms used to keep people from leaving.
Why is that I must actually state the obvious?
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 17:43:17
-
RedhorseWoman
While the term "cult" is not important in and of itself, I feel that understanding the dynamics behind such a group is definitely important.
So often when people leave the JW's, they (myself included) feel that there is some lack within themselves that caused them to fall away. They think (as I did) that the JW's are definitely a rigid, fundamentalist religion, but a legitimate religion nonetheless.
When you learn about cult tactics, however, it becomes easier to let go of the guilt. When you know that these techniques are known and documented, it helps you to see that you are not evil, or weak, or unworthy....but rather that you are human and you were victimized by an organization for its own ends. You didn't leave God....you were manipulated by an organization using God to suit its own purposes.
-
puppylove
With my self-realization that I belonged to, (and was RAISED in) a cult-like organization, I am better able to change my current thought processes.
For example, I no longer look at "worldly people" with distrust. I realize that most people are just like me. Struggling with world issues, struggling with family relationships, trying to do the best they can with what they have. The truly amoral or immoral (whatever that is) people are rare. I know they are out there. I just don't look for them around every corner now.
I feel freer to be happy. In my younger days, I worried that I wasn't "doing enough". Now I realize that that was drilled into my head to control my behavior. "Doing enough" now is doing what I can. I struggle with some health issues. Before I would have had to deal with the guilt of missing meetings, not going in service, blah, blah, blah. Now, I'm happy that I have enough time and energy to cook dinner and be with my husband and play with my dogs. It's great. No guilt. I'm doing the best with what I have available to me.
Think of all the JW-isms that still come so easily into your head. Talk to some of your jw relatives who still speak that language. The realization that you are free from the JW repetitive-indoctrinating-mind-controlling thought patterns and weekly indoctrination sessions (very reminiscent of Scientology's "auditing sessions") is truly astounding.
Little by little, we can all let go of the hold that this very, very, cultish organization had on us.
-
RedhorseWoman
Puppylove, your comment about the "JW-speak" was something that totally floored me when I realized it. Anywhere you go, you can pick out a JW simply by the words and phrases they use. Additionally, you can slip right into a dialog with them and unless you tell them you are no longer actively attending, they will never know. Sometimes non-JW's think they can pose as JW's, but they simply don't know the "special language", and they're always found out. Can you say Shibboleth?
-
waiting
Hey Frenchy,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
No.
However, I was the one who brought up Jesus as an example of a true channel to God - as you said, he brought New Light, the end to the Mosaic Law Code.
I was under the impression one of the most unique teachings of Christ's lifestyle was replacing rules & regulations, punishments, negative reinforcement, etc., under the Law Code with the "Two Greatest Commandments" which are essentially positive reinforcement through love.
The WTBTS has taught us that we are not under the Law Code, but the "principles" are still good. Fine. What the WTBTS successfully slips in on occasion is the enforcement of the Mosaic Law Code itself upon it's followers (a woman crying out during rape, a man under no constraints during rape, for instance).
The WTBTS manipulates at will - and we bought it. Not through laziness, imo, but through trust. I doubt if any other organization teaches it's members the Bible any more than jw's. The WTBTS just puts their own spin on it. People, in general, have always been hurt by religious organizations. We know that - we just didn't think it applied to us. We were duped - the scorned lovers.
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?
First, it should be proven that the person is leaving the teaching of Christ, and not the WTBTS doctrine.
What ‘teaching’ was Paul talking about?
"the teaching of the Christ" NWT
Second, not receiving a person in your home is a far cry from not recognizing him with common courtesy, let alone familial affection. It says nothing of husbands/wives/children/family not speaking spiritual matters to one another.
Third, "greetings" between Christians during the first century were akin to almost a secret handshake, such as a kiss on the cheek.
On another website, there is a breakdown of this scriptural passage and the history of the first century christians. I believe it makes good sense, and has documentation to back it up. The early christians were hunted down and killed. It's not far fetched to believe they had a "greeting" known only to them. Examples in our day - any nation in which the jw's preach underground - unique greetings, key words, etc., are used to help identify each other. We, through our words which were spoken above, "Truth, worldly, independent thinking, thinking too much of ourselves, narrow path, and a cazillion more, are our secret words. And we do identify ourselves quite quickly - even among strangers - to each other.
The first century christians did not have KH., they met for religions meetings in their own homes. Thus, if you felt that a person had left the teachings of Jesus, you did not give him the "greeting" nor invite him to your home, for a spiritual meeting. Dinner was not mentioned in the Bible passage, but the early christians did have "love feasts", did they not? Perhaps this would be entailed in the passage. As you said, "I don't know." Neither do I - nor does the WTBTS. But the WTBTS is the only one tearing families apart.
This passage does not speak of shunning as the WTBTS doctrine promulgates. The WTBTS wants to keep the "faithful" away from anyone not speaking the "pure language of truth" - as interpretated by the WTBTS. Fine - but it begets the question: Why? There is more than one answer.
As always, I enjoy the opportunity to toss ideas around with you. Such a new experience to think openly, even if I can't talk openly.
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 9 November 2000 19:14:22
-
Pathofthorns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
I think the answer is that the Christian congregation hadn't been set up yet (under a governing body?). At that time they were within their "rights" to do so, but later on they would not. Unity is always the prime focus.
This scripture has always facinated me. Jesus was a rebel of sorts in his day in that he condemned and operated outside of "God's organization" of his day. So did Isreal's prophets and many who stayed loyal during the era's of wicked kings.
What the Society does is return to the shackles of what Christ set us free from. I find this really disturbing that the formation of the Christian congregation seemed to have done the same, that when the HS was poured out and when Christ was physically gone there seems to be a return to rules again.
As I stated before when I joined this forum, there is no money or authority to be had in living the way Christ did. Christianity is a deviation from this simplity.
he that is not against us is for us.
This simple statement shows how many can have different viewpoints where the scriptures are not clear, but still have Christian unity. Of course, if we followed this, what authority would anyone have? Why would anyone need to join an "organization" then?
Path