Reasoning with spouses using the 09/07 KM article (page 4)

SnakesInTheTower

glad to see ya here Core88

Snakes ()

Leolaia

A very nice illustration. Just please tread with caution if and when you decide to use it....the most excellent illustration can backfire on a closed mind.

Here's another idea (not nearly as good, and may be better suited for a Never-JW like me), but just a thought:

If you still attend meetings occasionally, at a meeting before the one when the KM article comes out, try bringing some sort of Greek/Hebrew lexicon--but beforehand, painstakingly cover it with a homemade paper jacket. Use lots of tape.

When she asks you what's the deal with the book with the covering, tell her you like to understand the scriptures being discussed in light of the meanings of the original Greek and Hebrew words, but you're afraid what the consequences may be if you're seen with a book like that.

Then she may laugh it off and take the position that the org would not frown on anything like that. You acknowledge she might be right but still act uneasy...until your suspicions are confirmed by the KM.

wannaexit

What I have seen in my experience (and from listening to the experience of others) is that bringing up issues that call the Watchtower into question directly are a big no no. Instead you want to try back door conversations

There certainly is a lot of truth to this. I recall one occasion when my husband said to me: "Just think honey, Jesus has been in power since 1914. That means that there are only 900 years left to his reign".

I thought about this for a long time. I reasoned "if Jesus started ruling in 1914 hubby is right there are only 900 years left.Why doesn't the society realize this". I believe these "back door" conservations really are more effective.

It takes careful cajoling to help someone out. Bringing up an issue to a solid JW may be too confrontational.

wanna

Gregor

M.J. - You are diabolical and Machiavellian! Great scheme!

FreedomFrog

Oh, I don't get the KM's now....can anyone scan that article? I'd love to see it. Thanks!

carla

I've actually tried this years ago, no go. My point was only the guilty man would get insulted over his wife pouring over credit card receipts and phone records, the innocent one wouldn't care. The problem with this is that you are not the FDS guided by jah. I then tried using whistleblowers in the media (ex- Enron) why believe the whistleblowers there? I don't know about your jw's but mine is addicted to news channels and loves nothing more than a good scandal or the demise of some evil empire (business) he has no problem believing any of it. When you try to draw the comparison between ex jw whistleblowers and the whistlblowers of say, Enron they get a blank look and the cult mindset takes over, glassy eyes and all. Change the subject. The usual.

The same goes for the ridiculous stories told at the convention, he believes every word, they are jw's after all. Tell him a story from the boards and you are all bitter, sinnful, sour grapes, got an axe to grind apostates who do nothing but lie, lie, lie. You can't win sometimes.

Tried using the Bereans as an example to research, just got some convoluted wt answer, 'it's ok to research to a point but not to prove they are wrong' - What the hell?

FreedomFrog

'it's ok to research to a point but not to prove they are wrong' - What the hell?

Then my response would be (using the reasoning of the Dr example), "then you're telling me that if I was diagnosed with cancer that is going to kill me to not go get a second opinion to prove the first Dr wrong?"

carla

ahh yes, second opinions, needed when they are not the FDS. See? Men of couse can be questioned but not when they have jah Himself giving the instructions even if He keeps changing His mind.

Reasoning with spouses using the 09/07 KM article

Share this