JW Children Lie in Custody Cases

by compound complex 290 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • restrangled
    restrangled

    Slim said:

    Eduardo talks a lot of sense and I for one appreciate him.

    Give me one of him to a thousand mindless bash-the-Witnesses-at-all-costs numbskulls any day.

    Slim

    Slim, I don't wish to start an arguement with you but I believe most of the respondents are angry because of personal experiences, ... exactly opposite of what he has posted. It's like denying 1975 was ever mentioned or pushed. Those who lived it and made life altering decisions based on that date are furious if they hear it denied, including my die hard JW mother. It evokes outrage from those who lived otherwise, and based on the replies only Oroborus and one other person seems to be in agreement about all the supposed freedom. I would not call it "mindless bash-the-Witnesses-at-all costs numbskulls." It is anger of those who lived otherwise and the price paid and the outrage of seeing in print what is is to be said to our justice system....by children no less! If everything is so on the up and up, children should be able to reply with out the coaching.....period! r.

  • outoftheorg
    outoftheorg

    Eduardo must not be doing too well in his "attorney" business.

    If he were he wouldn't have the time to come here and spew this nonsense.

    Outoftheorg

  • Bryan
    Bryan

    Not only does he have plenty time to post here, but time also to build his Witness website found by Mary:

    http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.info/associate.html

    Bryan

  • moshe
    moshe

    yeah, I looked at his wesite yesterday. Maybe he is hoping Brooklyn buys him out for 1 million dollars.

  • atypical
    atypical

    Oro-

    I applaud your rhetorical skills, but to say that you are in favor of "balance" is a joke. You are skillfully promoting an agenda, and you do so by playing with words. I don't think anybody here would deny that you are not the only one with an agenda; this site is mainly for those who have left the wts and feel that it has been a destructive influence in their life, so to use something so obvious as part of your argument is tedious. If there is anybody here who doesn't know that most of us desire to point out the hypocricies of the wts, I guarantee they aren't reading your posts.

    You wrote:

    Atypical,

    read the citation (quotation) more closely. It does not say what you say it does, that is as you say "that the child are not to show that meeting etc. are first priority." The information very clearly states that the child should understand that the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings, etc. would be of primary importance.

    This was an amazing paragraph. (You are welcome!) First, you made the implied claim that I did not read the material as closely as you did, further implying that this is the reason we disagree. This is called begging the question. Stated another way, it could be put, "If you read the material correctly, as I did, you would agree with me, because I am right." This is a valid argument, but not a sound one, because the premises are not true. But the really amazing part is that you continue on to restate the same point I already made - let's look at it again:

    The information very clearly states that the child should understand that the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings, etc. would be of primary importance.

    Exactly! Where is your argument? If the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings and service are of primary importance, then just what IS it like? Taking the statement completely at face value, the only honest answer would be that it could be like lots of different things, but explicitly NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis is on meetings or service. So I will ask you, since you claim I distorted the information: Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so? On to the rest -

    No one is denying that meetings or one's faith is of "primary" importance and that is not the directive of the information. Again, the child (nor their parent, nor counsel) is not being told to be dishonest about the importance of their faith or of meetings, but only to present a full and complete picture of what their life is like. yes they will discuss their 5 meetings a week, etc. but they will also discuss their love of music, their hobbies, their other interests, their fav tv shows ,etc.

    Great! Again, where is your argument? I was pointing out that the children are being directed NOT to show that meetings and service are their first priority; those were my exact words. What would be the most effective way to do that? It would be to follow your exact advice, and give the very misleading idea that meetings and service are only two parts of their very full and balanced life. This is not an honest picture of a truly active jw family, therefore I make the claim that they ARE being directed to be dishonest about the importance of their religion.

    The goal of presenting an accurate account of how JWs spend their time is not intended to mislead the fact-finder or evaluator but rather to counter any preconceived bias or misconceptions that they may have about JWs.

    Also, even though the "ideal" and encouraged state involves a significant amount of time and focus for JWs, the fact is that few JWs ACTUALLY do all that is "encouraged."

    Actually, the goal is to win in court, not to present an accurate account. If the goal were to present an accurate account, there would be no need for this information or coaching. The fact that few jw's are able to consistently and perfectly keep all of the society's suggestions has nothing to do with this argument. The point of this argument is whether or not this information is encouraging deception by attempting to diminish the level of priority that religion has in a jw household. Am I wrong on this?

    Regarding the issue of "pioneering" as a goal, in the literature or from the platform, that "goal" is tossed out as an encouragement to all, YET it is clearly understood that not all persons can do it or should do it. That is why it is always stated as a matter of whether a person can make it possible to do it. Additionally, the fact that one must qualify and be approved to be a pioneer also implies that not all JWs would have pioneering as a realistic goal. The vast majority of Witnesses have other goals and desires in life pursuits, trades and how they will make a living, and since 1995 have the "socially blessed" goal of higher education. Pioneering (or other full-time service like Bethel) has always been considered a special privilege and possibiliity for only a relative few. Thus it is NOT deceitful for a child to tell the court about their goals if in fact they do have such desires or goals.

    -Eduardo

    Again, completely irrelevant. Did anyone claim that every jw is a pioneer? Did anyone claim that jws have no other goals beside pioneering? It's frustrating to have to keep bringing you back to the original argument, but it is necessary because you are attempting to smokescreen the basic issue. Again, if jws had a normal priority system, there would be no need for coaching. I don't think anybody here would claim that every jw child is forced to pioneer. The real concern is the level of importance that is placed on meetings and service, not whether or not every jw is trying to pioneer. Would you argue the fact that basic meeting attendance and field service are supposed to be more important than work, school or hobbies for EVERY jw, pioneer or not? THIS is the information that would not be helpful to a jw parent in a child custody case, and it is the information that this directive is encouraging children to distort.

    PS: No, it is not that I like to fight or start fires. I believe in balance and this is just one of those instances where I see somethng posted that is not only in error but conveys a very unbalanced and inaccurate viewpoint. I have read and considered the Child Custody pamphlet quite in depth and contrary to claims by persons such as Duane Magnani and others, it is not a manual for lying or "theocratic strategy" though it is obviously an not unexpectedly biased and imbalanced. I also don't think it particularly good at helping counsel who are unfamiliar with JWs either as clients or in opposition prepare for hearings or trial. Thus, I am working on my own guide for counsel in this area.

    Again, I think it is silly to claim that you believe in balance. You believe in promoting a certain outlook, even if you have to cloud the issue or resort to fallacies to do so. Condescension is not an argument, it is just a simple bully tactic. I like your website, by the way. However, I think we may also disagree on the definition of "hottie"!

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Atypical,

    Exactly! Where is your argument? If the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings and service are of primary importance, then just what IS it like? Taking the statement completely at face value, the only honest answer would be that it could be like lots of different things, but explicitly NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis is on meetings or service. So I will ask you, since you claim I distorted the information: Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so? On to the rest -

    I think we agree that the testimony is not like a convention or congregation part where the faith (so-called theocratic activity) would be emphasized.

    You ask an interesting question of "what IS it like?" and that is the point of the material. The child might not understand the situation, probably never being evaluated by a court or experts before like this. That is why the material reminds the JW parent/counsel to make sure that the child understands that this is a time when they can feel free to discuss all of their activities and interests.

    Where we seem to disagree is whether what is being encouraged by the Society is to devalue or actually lie about the priority of the child's faith.

    Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so?

    My answer to the first part of your question: No it does not say that the child should show that meetings and service are "first" priority and neither does that mean that it is NOT the first priority or that it remains the first priority.

    My answer to the second part of your question: I don't believe that asking the child to discuss OTHER priorities (interests) is an implication that the (faith) is not the first priority.

    Rather, I see the product of what is being asked of the child as being ADDITIONAL or CUMULATIVE to what will undoubtedly be revealed under examination.

    It is my belief that even a cursory evaluation of the child and testimony of both child and JW parent will without a doubt discuss how the faith is certainly first priority and certainly what is supposed to be most important for a JW. Certainly a review of the JW literature would lead to that conclusion. Thus the point that the faith or theocratic activity should be of first priority for a JW is inescapable and we might say "impossible to deny."

    The Society sometimes seems to ask the "impossible" of the faithful, but this is not one of those cases. It would simply be folly to try to mislead the court about the priorities of a JW's life. Any testimony in that direction would easily be shown to be false and probably result in loss of credibility and maybe even harm the interests of the party that was so impeached. Is the Society really stupid enough to do that? I don't think so.

    Yet somehow you and others conclude that the Society is asking JWs to hide the priority of the faith by finding that directive by implication in the CCB material.

    Great! Again, where is your argument? I was pointing out that the children are being directed NOT to show that meetings and service are their first priority; those were my exact words. What would be the most effective way to do that? It would be to follow your exact advice, and give the very misleading idea that meetings and service are only two parts of their very full and balanced life. This is not an honest picture of a truly active jw family, therefore I make the claim that they ARE being directed to be dishonest about the importance of their religion.

    How you find such "directive" is difficult for me to understand.

    Surely you agree that the statement of the CCB does not explicitly direct that children should either lie or tell the court that meetings and service are not their first priority?

    Also you must agree that it doesn't explicitly direct that the children should make it seem like meetings and service are only "two parts" or a portion of their "very full and balanced life." (And that is not what I believe it to be doing either.)

    Thus, it is only by implication that such a directive can be found, if at all.

    These are your questions again.

    Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so?

    And that leads me to ask you whether it is logically sound to:

    1) conclude that because the statement doesn't say that the child should tell the court the meetings and service are first priority THAT THEREFORE this means that they are to tell the court that meetings and service are NOT first priority? or

    2) means, by implication, that they are not first priority, or

    3) implies that the priority of the meetings and service (theocratic activity) should be devalued or even hidden.

    1, above is logical error to draw a negative inference simply because the positive is not stated.

    2, reads too much into the material.

    3, is where we disagree.

    I assert that simply because one is asked in a specific situation NOT to EMPHASIZE something (the priority of the faith) that it does not mean nor is it rational to conclude that the thing is devalued in the larger scheme.

    I also assert that being asked to discuss other priorities does not mean that the thing which is (assumed to be) FIRST priority is no longer first priority.

    What I find illogical is to find the implication that you and others are finding. Maybe you can explain how it is logical to find that implication?

    (I think it is obvious that the REASON why most, including yourself, are finding that implication is because of their larger knowledge and experience as Jehovah's Witnesses. After all, It seems unusual, to say the least, that JW children would be asked to talk about anything other than "theocratic activities" and the fact that this would be "blessed" by the Society seems contrary to the multitude of public statements contained in the literature and the whole persona of JWs ---and maybe if I wasn't so sure that during the full conduct of the proceedings the fact that theocratic life IS FIRST PRIORITY wouldn't be brought out, I might be concerned about what is being directed by the CCB, but since I am sure of that fact, it only lends more weight to why such an implication is not logical to find.)

    -------

    read the citation (quotation) more closely. It does not say what you say it does, that is as you say "that the child are not to show that meeting etc. are first priority." The information very clearly states that the child should understand that the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings, etc. would be of primary importance.
    This was an amazing paragraph. (You are welcome!) First, you made the implied claim that I did not read the material as closely as you did, further implying that this is the reason we disagree. This is called begging the question. Stated another way, it could be put, "If you read the material correctly, as I did, you would agree with me, because I am right." This is a valid argument, but not a sound one, because the premises are not true. But the really amazing part is that you continue on to restate the same point I already made - let's look at it again:

    Actually, I didn't imply that you needed to read the CCB more closely. What I stated is that it does not state what you say that it does (in your post).

    Seriously, I am convinced that you just like to start a fire. The quote says NOT to show that meetings and service are the first things in the child's life. What's honest about that? Would a good jw child be allowed to pursue other interests over meetings and service? Why would there be a need to misrepresent the true jw priority system, unless doing so would hurt the jw parent in a custody battle?

    To reiterate, You stated previously (and continue to assert) that the CCB STATES "that the child is to show that the meetings, etc. are NOT first priority." It baldly does not contain any such statement. As you must agree, if that directive is present, it is only there by implication.

    What the CCB does say is that the child should understand (to paraphrase the meaning of the CCB) that unlike at a convention, a time and situation WHEN they WOULD emphasize that the theocratic activity is their first priority in life, at THIS time, for this court proceeding, it is not necessary to so emphasize their theocratic activity, but rather, they may wish to discuss other things.

    We disagree whether doing that is an attempt at deceiving the court. I don't believe it to be. If the child is asked about their life, they are going to discuss their faith, going to meetings, going in service, etc. They can say for themselves whether such things are their first priority or not. All that is being asked of the child is to realize that this is not the time to give a "testimony" (in the religious sense).

    The goal of presenting an accurate account of how JWs spend their time is not intended to mislead the fact-finder or evaluator but rather to counter any preconceived bias or misconceptions that they may have about JWs.

    Actually, the goal is to win in court, not to present an accurate account. If the goal were to present an accurate account, there would be no need for this information or coaching. The fact that few jw's are able to consistently and perfectly keep all of the society's suggestions has nothing to do with this argument. The point of this argument is whether or not this information is encouraging deception by attempting to diminish the level of priority that religion has in a jw household. Am I wrong on this?

    Of course, the goal is to win in court. Duh! And that is done by showing that the child, although a JW and thus not "normal" in every aspect and one for whom such things as holidays, or dating, etc. might be forbidden or tightly controlled, is also not stuck in some compound under the thumb of some religious cult. They go to regular school (most of them), have friends, mostly JWs but some do have non-JW friends, they play basketball, go to movies, buy cds, play videogames, etc. etc.

    Again, to say that by discussing these other activities somehow hides the priority of the meetings and service is simply a mistake. So yes, I believe you and the others who hold that view are wrong on this. It is not possible to "hide" the level of priority that the religion has in a JW household.

    Would you argue the fact that basic meeting attendance and field service are supposed to be more important than work, school or hobbies for EVERY jw, pioneer or not? THIS is the information that would not be helpful to a jw parent in a child custody case, and it is the information that this directive is encouraging children to distort.

    Not at all. As I stated in this thread and as we all know, the generalized messages and the socially pressured viewpoint among JWs are that theocratic activity, and if possible, full-time service, are first priority and goals for everyone. The CCB paragraphs do not attempt to distort what are priorities or the priority hierarchy of JWs if you will.

    That information or those facts, which any counsel for the Non-JW parent worth her salt, would definitely highlight is not really hurtful itself to the JW parent, but depending on the circumstances and follow-up, it could be made to be. I am covering a few areas in my guide which the Non-JW advocate should explore.

    It is because a JWs faith is first priority, that a court could easily draw the wrong conclusion that the JW child's life is too one-dimensional or that they are somehow "suffering" or in bad circumstance to be given into the sole custody of the JW parent. And thus the reason for the CCB in the first place.

    -----------

    resort to fallacies to do so. Condescension is not an argument, it is just a simple bully tactic. I like your website, by the way. However, I think we may also disagree on the definition of "hottie"!

    hah hah. Sorry I don't mean to use "Condenscension" as a "bully tactic" it is just one of my character flaws. as for the site, yeah its not even a fraction finished..just work on it when i can. the picture section is just a few pics that I could find out of my old photos, of old Jw friends and conventions. I didn't take many photos I guess and certainly not of too many babes and of course not many pics of bros. anyway that part is just for fun.

    ---------

    Quandry,

    what a crack up! we need to save that post somewhere, its hilarious.

    Seriously though, I think it does illustrate the point of being imbalanced and the hypocrasy and contrast between all of the generalized statements and encouragement to avoid worldly friends and activities and focus on theocratic activities as espoused in the literature and from the platform and then the directive in the CCB to discuss the non-JW interests that the Witness child has.

    Sadly for some, they may be raised so strictly by their parents that the mock interview you wrote fits the picture to a "T".

    Yes I do agree that the CCB is contradictory to the IDEALIZED JW persona or even hypocritical in some waysj. What I disagree with is whether it is deceptive or fostering deliberate deception in the courtroom.

    I also continue to believe that the vast majority of JWs never even approach the idealized state or role or life. It is the denial of the Society that JWs not only don't live as abnormally as they encourage them to do, they don't even desire to live as abnormally as they are told to do.

    ---------

    Restrangled,

    First, the rules have not changed one iota from when I was young.

    That's not true. Just to name one major thing that has changed: the softening towards higher education, makes it possible for all of the young and future generations of JW youth to not only associate with classmates but also to develop critical thinking skills and be exposed to other cultures. This is one of the factors leading to the Revolution and why the Org will change.

    Despite, what has been put forth on JWD about "higher education" being slammed again, the cows have left the barn. Short of an all out explicit ban on going to college only the usual fractional amount of compliant "true blue" (to use your term) Witnesses are going to heed any warnings about how bad college (supposedly) is or interpret material in the WT as being a prohibition on college.

    Second, I haven't heard of any "true blue" JW's getting smart enough to think for themselves, ie: the need for the little booklet we're all arguing about.

    This really isn't about not being able to "think for one's self." A child custody battle is complex and stressful. If religion is allowed in as a factor or becomes an issue settling the custody dispute, it can be especially difficult for the court to make a good decision, in the best interests of the child(ren), even more so with an non-mainstream faith like JWs that the judge or expert evaluator may not be very familiar with.

    Third, a present day example:

    As I stated elsewhere, we all have our personal experience and not everyone's experience is the same. It is sad that the girl you described was raised so strictly. (just an aside but JWs don't have the monopoly on bad parenting.) But we can't make generalizations based upon individual experiences.

    As I said before, I had a rather liberal JW upbringing. Would it be accurate of me to assume that every JW also got to play baseball, varsity sports, go to Prom, etc. etc. and never forced to go either to meetings, out in field service or join the ministry school? Of course it wouldn't. It is also inaccurate to say that every Witness is raised as strictly as that girl was or that they will all meet the same fate.

    One of the themes that I always talk about is that the reality of JW culture and the Worldwide Association is that there is a great variety in how the faith is lived, in the adherence to the "rules" etc., the doctrines that are actuallly believed by the friends, etc. It is the Society that perpetuates the myth that there is both uniformity and that the uniformity and sameness are what is desired by all. It is the Society that tries to squash all such variance as "rebellion" and "independent thinking" and non-conformity, sometimes resorting to extreme tactics as disfellowshipping and shunning. It is the Society which attaches negative labels and connotations to those within the Organization that are believers in some portions of the faith but that can no longer support many of the false or harmful doctrines, beliefs, practices or aspects of the JW culture.

    I have question for you Oroborus21. If you were raised in such a progressive JW household and you were free to feel normal, get an advanced education, etc., then in all sincerety, I ask why are you here?

    First, of all I was hardly made to feel "normal" (I assume by "normal" you mean like the vast majority of our society or whatever). No, I suffered from the same delusion that all JWs have, that they are "special" and not supposed to be "normal." And in many respects, I did not have or do things that my friends did because I was a JW.

    Certainly, my whole worldview was different than my friends and peers.

    As to why I am here on JWD (or before JWD on H2O) there are many answers to that. I learn a lot from others and I have certainly obtained a lot of useful information from others here. In my own way, i hope that I have something to contribute now and then. I am not a big participant, my average posts per day is less than 1 post. Also, because of my atypical JW experience, it is helpful, useful and interesting to read about others who did have more a "typical" JW experience.

    I perhaps, naively to an extent, view JWD as it says, a "Discussion" board and not "JWB" (Jehovah's Witness Bashing board), though it does seem to be that a lot of the time. JWs are just one of many things in life that I am interested in and having been one, and having family and friends who are JWs currently, it is only natural that I would be interested in them or in participating in the best forum on the net that deals with the topic.

    -------

    Eduardo must not be doing too well in his "attorney" business.

    If he were he wouldn't have the time to come here and spew this nonsense.

    Outoftheorg

    Thanks for the plug I guess. I can always use more marketing. I don't have a lot of time for JWD and as I said I am not a major participant. I post less than once a day and go weeks without looking at the board sometimes. But it is a topic that I am passionate about so I try to find some time to visit JWD as well as work on my JW website and bulletin board with the little spare time that i have. (BTW, my site is listed in my profile, duh!, its not a big secret.)

    Anyway, I was never good at keeping my mouth shut and I have strong opinions on most things and tend to be long-winded, so when I do post on JWD my posts are sometimes lengthy. And of course, because I am not rabidly anti-JW (in every post) and some of my posts are sometimes interpreted as being "apologetic" I am a bit of a lightning-rod on JWD sometimes, especially when the topic touches upon things which are deeply personal. AS Restrangled said, a lot of persons on JWD had terrible JW experiences and it is easy to see how they could be angered by the Society when it officialy "blesses" having non-theocratic interests in the CCB when that so blatantly contradicts its public persona and never-ending emphasis on placing "the Kingdom first." I get that, I do. I wish the Society would be more consistent and more honest about reflecting the reality of the Worldwide brotherhood which is certainly that while their faith may be first priority, Witnesses do live in the world and do have non-theocratic interests and desires. Hopefully, more and more in the future their non-theocratic interests and activities would be "officially blessed" --though living as a Christian and keeping the kingdom first in their life should always be their first priority. I suspect it is that inconsistency that really bugs people about the CCB, especially if they weren't free in their own lives to live how they wanted to live or if they were raised in a strict JW household or were one of those "true blue" JWs as an adult.
  • R6Laser
    R6Laser

    It sounds like two different religions to me. I was a raised in a large city and knew many JW's from many different halls. We all had to follow the same rules, written and unwritten. Those rules were the religion. It wasn't just elders enforcing the law, it was parents, friends of parents, relatives, siblings and your own peers turning you in for any infraction, from any KH.

    There was absolutely no outside association allowed under any circumstances. No dances, school sports or organized sports of any kind. Life was school and the endless meetings, service and studying. After Highschool graduation, life was then assumed to be endless meetings, study and pioneering. 1975 was just around the corner.......it was that or die. Funny, to me it felt like we were already dead.

    r.

    Not two religions, two different types of followers. They were not rules, they were just comments made by someone who was given power. There were those that followed everything to the smallest detail and those that didn't. I have plenty of examples of those that didn't follow everything that they were told. As far as who is enforcing it, all it would take is for you to stand up for yourself and stop being taken advantage of. My uncle was an elder and he tried to get involved and give me rules. I would just tell him "we'll see what happens", but never was I involved in any circle of parents, friends or elders enforcing rules down my throat.

    Funny how you mention how there were no dances, school sports or anything, but I knew plenty of young members who did all those things you mention. I myself was later appointed as a MS but I still went to college, I went to college parties, clubs, bars all while being a MS. And guess what most of the times I was out in these so called wordly events I would come accross other members doing the same thing. So I'll say it again, if you were too afraid to stand up for yourself and let the elders walk all over you, then yes you were told what to do and you followed whatever they said.

  • restrangled
    restrangled

    R6Laser,

    I went to college parties, clubs, bars all while being a MS. And guess what most of the times I was out in these so called wordly events I would come accross other members doing the same thing. So I'll say it again, if you were too afraid to stand up for yourself and let the elders walk all over you, then yes you were told what to do and you followed whatever they said.

    I see that I am approximately 18 years older than you. So perhaps by time you were in your teens people loosened up. It is hard for me to imagine what you describe above, probably just as hard for you to imagine the way things were 18 years earlier.

    As far as "letting elders walk all over you" .....that was certainly not the case. There were no options, people were either in or out. What you describe above would of had you in the back room and promptly publicly reproved or Df'd if you didn't cooperate, plus a talk during the service meeting after your announcement describing what was not acceptable. So even though no name was mentioned during the talk, everyone new what you were up to.

    r.

  • outoftheorg
    outoftheorg

    You said you were never too good at keeping your mouth shut.

    That is not going to serv you well in a court of law.

    Knowing what not to say at the right time is vital.

    Also if too much is said in a poor way, to get your thoughts believeable

    by the judge, it ends up as food for the prosecutor.

    Which is what I see here.

    Outoftheorg

  • gwenalison
    gwenalison

    Oro, I sort of take offense to your indicating that following the "rules" in the JW org is optional for all JWs and that if one would only stand up to the elders and oneself then they can pretty much live their life however they wanted without consequences in the JW org. That just isn't true, especially if you are a minor. I suffered many years under a staunchly, "true blue" JW mother. And believe me when I say there were no proms, dances, hanging out with friends other than those JW ones pre-approved by mother, or any extra-curricular activities. This was not my choice...I couldn't stand up to my mother or the elders without serious consequences not to mention the fact that I thought that I would be KILLED at Armageddon if I disobeyed the society's directives. JWs are brainwashed to believe that the Society is speaking for God and therefore if they say that something is wrong to do, like having "worldly" friends, or participating in extra-curricular activities at school, then a "real" witness would feel they were risking their very life to go against that directive. Maybe you never felt that way, but if you didn't then I would say that you were never a "real" JW in the truest sense. My experience and the experience of many, many of my JW friends is quite different from yours. Good for you. Believe me, I wish that I had not been brainwashed in that way. It took me many years to undo that JW upbringing. I realize that you are trying to be fair regarding the child custody booklet and I appreciate some of what you are saying. But the truth is that the Society is trying to hide or distort the reality of a JW upbringing. Why should they have to coach the kids to talk about their hobbies and activities, even providing examples? Most children would not need to be coached to talk about their interests. But real JW children do, because they are raised in homes that limit and discourage fun activities that normal children enjoy on a regular basis. The society knows this, hence the need for coaching. A real JW child brought up in a strict JW home would not be allowed to partipate in theatre programs or pursue a career in journalism. Your defense of the Society is irritating in this case when so many people, including myself, have suffered under their rules, and yet when there is a child custody case they hypocritically ask their members to act like the rules don't exist. Even if they don't outright tell people to lie, that is the implication. The society gives the directive because they know that if a child on the stand is asked what their main activities and interests are the child is more likely to talk about meetings and field service. I don't understand why you don't find this at all deceitful...but if you don't, please at least aknowledge that the Society would prefer these real JW children not state the reality of their JW life, because if they did it would not be good for the JW parent in gaining custody. Take care, Gwen

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit