People who make the truth EXCITING!

by slimboyfat 79 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Hello slim,

  If you allow me one bit of friendly criticism about your way of communicating on this topic, I'd say I find it slightly unfair. I know your reservations about the use of "distance/disclaimer quotes" (ultimately every single word would require them), but when you mention "the truth" or "apostate propaganda" without any observable distance from this wording you know you are triggering reactions -- especially from the people here who are leaving, or have just left the WT at much personal cost. You probably also know you wouldn't do it the other way around -- using "apostate talk" before JWs without distancing yourself from it... This at least points to a difference between those two mini-worlds: here you can.

  Now your last post brought back a bittersweet memory. A few months before I left Bethel, a small group of friends from my first congregation (including the family I mentioned above) came to visit me there. I hadn't been around them for some time, and I had changed a lot in the meantime. Most of the time we spent together I felt rather uneasy. They had a lot of enthusiastic questions about Bethel and the organisation, all of which I already knew I was about to leave. I felt they were addressing someone who wasn't there any longer, and they couldn't see or hear me. I tried to communicate about what then mattered to me -- not criticism of the WT but a different view on faith and life. It only got better when I took a day off and went with them to the Normand seashore, not far from Bethel but out of the concentrated JW context. Only then we could "meet again" as people, to an extent and for a short while.

  My point is: I loved those people, I would never have decided to "leave" them had I had to "decide," but mentally I had already "left" the world they were still a part of, and there was simply no way "back" for me to "whom" I had been, no matter how much I loved them. The only thing we could henceforth share was the pain of the departure -- which I was suffering alone while being with them, and which they would suffer a few months later when they would learn I was disfellowshipped and they could neither talk to me nor answer my letters. An insignificant tragedy when compared to many others, a tragedy nonetheless because it was irreversible -- the art of tragedy is all about taking the irreversible seriously.

  Maybe in your impressive library you've got a translation of L'irréversible et la nostalgie, by Vladimir Jankélévitch?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Awakened:

  I'm still not sure if what you're writing is authentically your own experience or if you're trying to get a point across by pretending to be the one who struggles with these issues so that we can provide good replies to them for whoever is lurking.

  Given the phonies we have had on this forum I can understand your cynicism, but I can assure you I am probably as mixed up as I appear. I am not trying to be consistent. I am just writing as I feel within myself. If people find this inauthentic then feel free to ignore me. There are some here I don't perceive as authentic and I just tend to ignore them.

  I have read Crisis of Conscience, and Steven Hassan's book that someone else mentioned. I did not like Hassan's book that much. I think that book is a bit over the top, and the word "cult" is used too freely I feel. People who have read that book should take a look at Eileen Barker's The Making of a Moonie for some balance on that topic.

  Homerovah, sorry I don't buy this love bomb idea. Why do you have to degrade the dignity of people by undermining their motives with that use of language? When people are welcomed and supported on this forum is that love bombing too? These are people who truly believe Jehovah has helped them in their lives and they are doing their best to help others too. No matter how wrong they may be I just cannot see the sense in degrading their intentions.

  Thanks Narkissos for your criticism.

  You probably also know you wouldn't do it the other way around -- using "apostate talk" before JWs without distancing yourself from it... This at least points to a difference between those two mini-worlds: here you can.

  Well one of the things I really enjoy about this forum is I like to think it is different in that respect. You won't disfellowship me for a word out of turn. Nevertheless pressure to conform is not totally absent here either of course. I am in the habit of using language is a barrier in all sorts of aspects of my life. I never like to adopt the in-group vocabulary. Or at least I do so very deliberately only when I believe such use feels authentic, and I have earned the right in some sense.

  If your picture of me is of a weasel who likes to use language to upset posters on here where there is no sanction, but in front of Witnesses I would not say boo to a goose, then I don't think that is a fair characterisation. Although I still call it "the truth" on here, with fellow Witnesses I have not called it that for quite a few years now. You are correct I do not use outright "apostate talk" with Witnesses, but neither do I go out of my way to use Witness-affirming language either. If I appear socially awkward on here because of my stubborn use of offensive language, then don't underestimate my tendency to stick out just as much like a sore thumb among Witnesses also.

  As an example: last week we had the circuit overseer visit our congregation. He gave a talk about "success" and how we as Witnesses can attain real success in Jehovah's eyes compared with the false conceptions of success that the world offers. He began his talk by listing the achievments of nobel prize winners, but then claimed such individuals were looking for recognition "in the eyes of men", and that by contrast our work in the ministry has enduring value before our creator. I view this perspective as very small-minded and it upset me to hear the CO talk like this. When he asked the audience for a definition of "success" from a worldly perspective brothers in the congregation were giving what I consider facile responses along the lines of: "making a lot money", "gaining material possessions", "getting letters after their name" and so on. I put up my hand and gave the definition: "success is to find something you enjoy doing and to work hard to become good at it". This was meant as a subtle attempt to contest the Witness use of language against others' quests for meaning, but to be honest other than embarrassing my wife, who could see the point I was trying to make, I don't think others in the congregation noticed me really. No change there.

  When talking to non-Witnesses I feel like a Witness inside compared to them, and that makes me feel the use of Witness language in that context is authentic. And when I am with Witnesses I feel like an outsider and I don't use that language. I have observed that to some people it comes very easy to adopt the perspective and hence the language of whichever group they happen to be around at any given time. I have never been like that.

  I suppose I could use quotes every time I use a phrase ex-Witnesses might object to, but it would not feel authentic to me. It would be a signal that I feel the same way most on this forum do about "the truth" and similar such concepts, and I honestly don't think I do feel the same way most here do about that term. It is fair to say that using such words without quotes probably signals too close a similarity between the JW worldview and my own in the other direction. But if there is going to be a misunderstanding resulting from the language I use I tend to prefer to err on the side that creates the barrier rather than to create a false sense of affinity. And I feel my use of the phrase "apostate propaganda" really conveys something of my inner conflict on the subject, and the bittersweet results of my having read literature Jehovah's Witnesses consider beyond the pale.

  And thanks for relating your experience about losing longtime Witness friends. Such stories really are heart breaking, even for me, as I can envisage that similar circumstances may lie ahead for me. Perhaps if/when I can share such experiences in common with many other posters on here I will have earned the right to use language against the Witnesses in the same way you do.
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  I really can not see how any sane level headed person whose done a thorough analise of the WTS can honestly say this is an excitingly good religion,

  Lets not forget the thousands of innocent people that lost their lives , some young children, the families that were destroyed , the lives decimated by broken promises

  all for the selling of some stupid ignorant magazines and books, I don't call that exciting, I call that immorally sick and inhumane.

  But whatever floats your boat Slimboy
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello slim,

  There's always some risk in expressing even slight disagreement with people you like. I trusted you enough to take that risk, as you have also done before...

  If your picture of me is of a weasel who likes to use language to upset posters on here where there is no sanction, but in front of Witnesses I would not say boo to a goose, then I don't think that is a fair characterisation.

  And that was definitely not my point. Actually, from your description I feel that my own way of relating to "group talk" is not unlike yours. Perhaps I just need some time to assimilate group talk (which implies a measure of imitation) before being able to meaningfully differ where I feel I have to -- you seldom start learning a new language by voicing very original thoughts, and if you try you'll probably get completely misunderstood. The flip side of that "strategy" is the risk of disappointing people who may misconstrue my initial conformity (or, rather, lack of dissonance) as agreement. From this perspective, your "contrary" approach may be assessed as more honest -- more inflammatory, too.

  Anyway, I was certainly not questioning your "right" to express as you feel like, just voicing some personal uneasiness with it. I for one just couldn't refer positively to the Watchtower religion as "the truth" -- not only because I don't think it qualifies, but also because I perceive this bit of insider JW talk as a particularly perverse and relatively efficient tool of "mind control" (if you pardon me this apostate cliché). When someone who perfectly knows you don't believe JW doctrine anymore suddenly asks you "when are you coming back to the truth?" (as my late JW father did a few times), the message is clear: We're right and none of your opinions matters.

  Thanks for understanding the heart-break part though. Thinking of your situation, I'm rather glad I didn't have any contact with "apostate propaganda" before I was totally out of JWs. I feel that relating to two antagonistic groups at the same time would have disturbed me to no end, rather than helped. But that's just me...
• 

  BluesBrother

  When I have been on the company of J W's, at family gatherings, I find it Oh so easy to slip back into the Witness mode, even now. I join in reminiscing about things we did, talking harmlessly about old times..before long I am speaking and almost thinking like I never left.

  I sure it could be explained psychologically, but I think that at those times i just hanker for the acceptance that I once had, the respect that i enjoyed and the good company that (at its best) can be life "in the truth"

  I am then forgetting the bad times, the hours and cumultive years wasted offering worthless mags to people who did not want them ..The stress and tedium of elder duties and secretarial jobs..But most of all it is easy to lose sight of the fact that it is just NOT TRUE...none of it . Once the scales have fallen from one's eyes you can see clearly. I can see that I can never love a god who is about to slaughter millions of people .. I can see that the message had been bent and changed by the Borg to fit the failure of their prophecies . I am as sure as I can be about anything that they are not speaking in God's name.

  So all the emotional pull in the world can never make me believe what I know to be false.

  Btw Beware of being the "project of the month" . A pioneer couple of my past acquaintance were very similar to your friends. They were great people and very skilled at "The Ministry" . The times that I have known ex studies of theirs express disappointment that they were ignored once they were baptized . They thought they had real friends but were now left alone as a new 'study' became the next project.
• 

  Awakened07

  Slimboyfat;

  one thing I agree with you on, is that there can be a tendency to paint everything that has anything to do with JWs with a broad, black brush. Especially I agree when it comes to people's feelings - I agree that many are genuine and really believe what they have been taught and are teaching. And I don't think it helps someone like you for instance, when other 'apostates' bash every single thing, even individual JW's sincerity. This is not your experience, and therefore you'll automatically think to yourself "This is not what I have seen and experienced. Perhaps the JWs have a point about apostates." So, I don't think bashing everything about JWs are helpful all the time. And it's not my own experience either. I once knew the "top guy" of the Watchtower in my country, and he was a genuinely nice guy who believed what he was "selling". Most others, and myself included, at one point did the same. It's not like I really knew I was wrong, but did it anyway. No, I really believed once. So in that particular aspect, I agree with you.

  That does not make the religion true, though.
• 

  parakeet

  Ever since I started posting on this board (now 2+ years), Slim has been blowing hot and cold regarding the dubs. I don't know what his motivation is. My guess is that he likes the attention.
  
  Slim, be a dub or don't be a dub. I don't even care any more which it is. Just make up your mind for once.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos: 'People like me'? Hey it's a good thing I don't take offense easy. No I can see what you mean, and do appreciate straight talking.

  Re: my email to you by the way, should I now consider myself snubbed?

  In your generosity you no doubt did not intend to paint me as a weasel, but to be honest I felt a bit like it "within myself" after reading what you wrote and thinking about it. So that is why I made the comparison.

  

  And that weasel looks quite friendly, doesn't he?

  You write:

  you seldom start learning a new language by voicing very original thoughts, and if you try you'll probably get completely misunderstood.

  I know what you mean. When I read back old combative posts I wrote they barely even make sense to me, if that is any consolation.

  The flip side of that "strategy" is the risk of disappointing people who may misconstrue my initial conformity (or, rather, lack of dissonance) as agreement. From this perspective, your "contrary" approach may be assessed as more honest -- more inflammatory, too.

  Well your gently assimilative approach sounds eminently more sensible and effective. I just don't think I can pull it off with your style. It's not that I think my obscurantist way of writing is any better. It is just what comes (probably all too) easy to me. I am aware that I tend toward solipsism when I don't make due effort to communicate clearly. It is something I am working on. It is not that I do not care.

  When someone who perfectly knows you don't believe JW doctrine anymore suddenly asks you "when are you coming back to the truth?" (as my late JW father did a few times), the message is clear: We're right and none of your opinions matters.

  For me the phrase does not have that sting. It still has some warm connotations of belonging to a group of people who care about each other. (Even if what holds us together may be somewhat misguided) But I can see why and where you are coming from. And although the implication of the phrase, as you say, may be "none of your opinions matters", the sad situation is that in a certain sense the implication is that none of their own opinions matters either - only what they have signed up to believe in, regardless of suppressed doubts and hesitations, strictly speaking matters.

  Is there any neutral way of talking about it anyway? If I ask "when did you come into the truth?" That affirms its validity, and implies that I the speaker belong. If I say "when did you become a Witness?" (Which is how I tend to word it around Witnesses incidentally) I stand somewhat outside, and depending on the tone it can sound slightly critical to a Witness ear. And then there are all sorts of outright critical ways to load the language too: "when did you get sucked in by the Dubs?" and so on. Is there a way to word it neutrally? Show me where the fence is so I can go sit on it. (You know us Scots like sitting on the fence becuase we enjoy the sensation )

  Awakened, thanks for your comments. I wholeheartely agree: Witnesses are a strange mixture of good and bad. And indeed the good does not make true.

  Well BluesBrother we will see if I become a project, but I doubt it. It was I who pursued them to come and visit. There were very pleasant, and I did quite enjoy it - but it was on my initiative. And I am already baptised, and just appear weak at the moment. (I think) So I am not prime "project" material when there are plenty of new Bible studies around. Ironically one of my aunts who was brought into the truth by this couple has complained to me in the past that they "dropped her" after she got baptised, just as you describe. But then that particular aunt takes offence a bit too easily in my opinion. Most people have nothing but good things to say about this couple as far as I can gather. And another way to look at it is to say that some people expect too much attention after they are baptised, rather than that too little attention is paid to them. (Playing devil's advocate to some extent here. )
• 

  TD

  Is there any neutral way of talking about it anyway? If I ask "when did you come into the truth?" That affirms its validity, and implies that I the speaker belong...

  When you're among a group that uses esoteric redefinitions of common words as a means of group identification, it might be awakard not to speak as they do....

  But outside of that group, I wonder if it is not so much ideological neutrality as it is simply a matter of using words in accordance with their normative definitions. Using a noun that describes an abstract quality or state (e.g. Truth) as if it were a physical object that you can "Have" or "Come into" is certainly an esoteric, if not arguably, an incorrect usage.
• 

  james_woods

  I am sorry - but: It is no more "the truth" than all the people trapped in it are "the friends".