I also salute you nvrgnvk. I'm here just as another testament of how the WTS can ruin your life and how it is possible to survive. Let the GUILT not shatter our happiness.
Are JW's a Cult?
by PinTail 55 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
tapout1
Mad- This is not about semantics. It's like porn, can't define it, but sure as hell know it when I see it... Mental gymnastics and dictionary definitions will never change the fact of what the borg does. It's there, in plain sight. It's just a matter of seeing it for what it is. Oh, BTW if any elders are sneaking on this site and reading this: kiss my ass!
-
OnTheWayOut
They are a f**ing cult. Just because they don't fit the definition of the "single leader" does not mean they're not.
That's not an absolute definition that they must have a "single leader." Plus many cults have passed
on this leadership after the single leader died. Often, what is left is a group of believers that blindly
follow the dead leader's instructions. WAIT- that is Jehovah's Witnesses. Rutherfordites who only
abandon Rutherford's teachings that must be abandoned when they are clearly not coming true. -
Frank75
BA- It is CHRIST that said "where one or two are gathered in my name"... Nothing WRONG with being a One-Man-Band...just won't accomplish as much.
Mad
I thought that scripture meant a judicial committee?!?! LOL
Tapping- They are a f**ing cult. Just because they don't fit the definition of the "single leader" does not mean they're not.
OTWO - That's not an absolute definition that they must have a "single leader." Plus many cults have passed
on this leadership after the single leader died. Often, what is left is a group of believers that blindly
follow the dead leader's instructions. WAIT- that is Jehovah's Witnesses. Rutherfordites who only
abandon Rutherford's teachings that must be abandoned when they are clearly not coming true.So many good points made, I've really enjoyed this thread.
There is no reason to get hung up on the single leader issue. The Watchtower does have a single leader and it is the mystical Wizard of Oz called the Governing Body. As a singular entity it is hair splitting for anyone to argue the difference, as in this case there is none.
However as OTWO and others have noted, the WT has had single leaders, CT Russell and Rutherford. If you want to look at the JW's in that context they fit the definition. Anyone who argues they are not now such just because of their modern structure is arguing that they ceased being a cult when they adopted the 2/3 vote in the mid 70's. That just makes no sense.
Even Knorr who took over the presidency was a cult leader as he simply took over the reigns from the charismatic Rutherford. He used Franz to keep everyone mystified as he himself lacked the gusto to truly be their theological leader. However if Franz was not in the picture at all then whatever nonesense Knor thought up on his own would have been adopted by the faithful without question, pushed by the leadership and any opposition would have been crushed. That reality alone makes it a cult! The two together still constitutes the cult leadership of the past. Nothing changed about the religion just because two were leading it now. Even there the definition still fits.
Likewise, the lack of a defined suicide pact is not a disqualifier either, the future is still unwritten. Even so any number of policy/beliefs already constitute a time bomb of mass suicide. The blood issue and neutrality are just two. Witnesses in their entirety have pledged to die rather than accept blood or vote. Countless thousands who have died needlessly on the operating table and the Malawian members are solid examples of a suicide pact that has played out, at least for them.
Lastly, there is an expression defined here known as "the Cult of Personality". Many posters have described it without coming right out with it. In the end the Watchtower leadership is indistinguishable from a single leader as it operates as a single entity or "personality".
I am sure anyone who still denies the WT cult status realizes how weak any defense of the religion is. In fact all religion carries the mark of Cult in some way. In Spanish since JW's were not the only ones who went door to door, we often heard the expression, "Que culto son?" which simply means "which religion are you with?".
Frank75
-
OnTheWayOut
Even so any number of policy/beliefs already constitute a time bomb of mass suicide. The blood issue and neutrality are just two.
Excellent point on the suicide pact.
I want to say that legal entities and psychologists and doctors and religious leaders all have different definitions
of the word "cult" and include different things in their definition. I like to apply most of their definitions to clearly
show what a damaging and dangerous destructive group they are, but even many ex-JW's like to say they are
not a cult.We are arguing over a definition when we answer. That's a waste of time. We fall into the same pattern that
WTS does to us. Are they false prophets? When they answer, they say NO, BECAUSE......
Are those that leave WTS properly called apostates? Let's argue over the word, instead of
the intention of the name-calling.Are JW's in a cult? Who's asking, what do you ask for? Once we are free from their control, it seems obvious that
they apply mind control to keep members in control. Even there, many will say there is no such thing as mind control.
When everyone wants to argue over the semantics and never get to the substance of the argument, do you wonder
why governments move so slowly, why peace-treaties start with bickering over the shape of the conference table?I have done some research on cults. I recognize that the modern common-usage of the term applies to WTS.
I would save arguments over semantics and definitions for face-to-face with the elders and GB. -
Frank75
OTWO - We are arguing over a definition when we answer.
I agree it seems a useless debate. What I like about your approach is that it depends not on a point by point criteria but rather these are warning signs, indicators only. At the end of the day it is principally mind control and coercive tactics that does it for me, as the other marks are frosting.
By definition someone could say Christianity is a cult and Jesus is the leader. (Christianity is a bad word to use because of the number of cults that take it to apply to them, perhaps Christology is better)
However in reality the definition fails in that one critical area. The biblical Jesus never used mind control, guilt or coercive tactics. (although Jesus did make people feel guilty by relating simple stories that showed the people and their reasoning up it was not shame based as is done in the cults) On the other hand, Christianity, was meant to be liberating, freeing the mind and soul. Anything that does not mirror the "Christ" philosophy of brotherhood, unconditional love, true forgiveness and grace is a farce.
Frank75