Awake! July 2009 No one should be made to choose between their beliefs and family

by Awen 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  00DAD

  Cedars, not intending to make a big fuss over the pics, but as I explained, several posters have drawn conclusions based on believing the leftmost picture was paired with the Awake! quote from July 2009.

  It gives a false impression. The Awake article was only talking about non-JWs leaving whatever religion the formerly practiced to become a JW. The picture of the boy leaving and his parents crying is from an article about a JW young man "leaving the truth" and being disfellowshipped. They are pretty much the exact opposite situations which emphasizes the irony of the two contradictory quotes you pulled: Public Truth vs. JW Insider Policies.

  Hope that clears it up.

  00DAD
• 

  cedars

  Thanks 00DAD, I don't believe it gives any false impression. Both pictures depict clearly fictional scenarios based on the consequences of putting one's faith before one's family, which is what both quotes refer to - one quote painting it in a negative light, the other in a positive light when it suits the Watchtower's interests.

  A picture's a picture. I guess you can't please everyone.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Also, I didn't want to get embroiled in a debate with KS, but just for the record, he's wrong when he tries to minimize the contradiction between the two quotes. Regardless of the context, the 2009 quote quite clearly uses the words "no one" to imply that NO person, JW or otherwise, should have to choose between family and religious belief. One of the things about this forum that makes me despair is that such a clear contradiction can be classed by some as NOT a contradiction. Black becomes white and white becomes black. It's not worth discussing it in my mind unless you WANT to believe it isn't a contradiction, but I thought I would say for the record that it most clearly is.

  Cedars
• 

  King Solomon

  00Dad said:

  The picture of the boy leaving and his parents crying is from an article about a JW young man "leaving the truth" and being disfellowshipped. They are pretty much the exact opposite situations which emphasizes the irony of the two contradictory quotes you pulled: Public Truth vs. JW Insider Policies.

  Actually, the WT article says why the young man was leaving:

  Preferring “the temporary enjoyment of sin” to a personal relationship with Jehovah and with his godly parents, the young man is disfellowshipped.— Heb.11:25.

  Paragraph 14 gives more information:
  
  ....After all, their son had a choice, and he chose to pursue his unchristian lifestyle, rather than to continue to enjoy a close relationship with his parents and other fellow believers....

  Hence he didn't just LEAVE the truth, he rejected the truth and was kicked out, ex-communicated (DFed).

  In contrast, the Awake article was about those who belong to other religions where social and familial pressure to remain in the religion may exist, but SHUNNING is not a given, and they voluntarily LEAVE. For example, Hindus may leave their religion, and their family may not like it, but they will not be shunned (as JWs and Scientologists do, treating them as a persona non grata).

  So it IS a bit misleading to compare the two articles (and mix pictures of JWs with articles that depict Hindus), especially when comparing the statement in the Awake article, which applies to those who leave religions where shunning isn't practiced (vs JWs, where shunning IS practiced as part of the worship).
  
  BUT, it's a minor detail, since the practice of shunning itself IS the problem (altough that IS what the "Good Book" describes)!! Why people still follow practices of ancient hunter-gatherer and sheep-herders in the year 2012 is still beyond me....

  BTW, that WT article describes how YHWH even forbade Aaron to grieve the deaths of his apostate sons, or else face Divine punishment. THAT should be highlighted, as it's a message that JWs shouldn't even grieve the deaths of DFed family members even AFTER they are gone.
• 

  00DAD

  Cedars, Agreed. I understand both what you're saying and what you're not.

  If KS had been the only one that had made comments that seemed to be conclusions based on pairing the WT pic with the Awake! quote I would have ignored it, but there were a few others too.

  The important thing, I think, is this: The WTBTS puts on one face for the public, but a very different one for the converts.

  The Awake! and WT articles from which the quotes was pulled could hardly have been more opposite.

  • Awake: A young woman leaves the religion of her family of origin and fears possible shunning by them. They are Sikhs.
  • WT: A young man leaves the religion of her family of origin and faces certain shunning by them. They are JWs.

  There are differences. We aren't told WHY the young Sikh woman wants to leave her religion, but we are told that " eventually became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. "

  We are also not told why the young JW man left, but the WT insinuates it was due to some undisclosed "sin" for which he was disfellowshipped.

  In both cases, the young people made a choice, a choice with consequences. In both cases, there was strong cultural and religious pressure from their families and religious communities to shun them as a result of that choice. True, no one forced them to make a choice, but in both cases, their respective religious communities imposed consequences which made that choice one between freedom of religious belief and their family.

  The two situations are exactly parallel in every respect. The only difference is that the WT publicy proclaims the importance of "freedom of religious choice without sanctions" for those leaving other religions to join them, but hypocritically imposes those same sanctions against any and all that would leave Jehovah's Witnesses for whatever reason.
• 

  King Solomon

  They were Sikh, you say? Huh, I remembered it as Hindu, but interesting to note that Sikhs ALSO practice a form of shunning, like JWs, so there's yet ANOTHER religion which feels free to control the behavior of their members (like so many others):

  http://sikhism.about.com/od/questionsaboutsikhism/f/Do-Sikhs-Believe-In-Shunning.htm
• 

  mamochan13

  I"m tired and stressed and even though I'd love to add my observations, I cannot make sense of all the details on these threads right now in a coherent way - but I did want to comment that I was not confused at all by Cedars' pictures. I know they were not the actual Awake and WT pics. But they are powerful, nonetheless. On the other thread I observed that they could be seen as the teenage son leaving some other religion to join JWs and causing his parents' heartache. But I was not confused by where the pics came from.

  I think Cedars has offered a powerful image that aptly illustrates the horrible harm DFing does.

  Trying to pick them apart diminishes that. NO ONE should be made to choose between their family and their religion.
• 

  King Solomon

  Cedars said:

  Also, I didn't want to get embroiled in a debate with KS, but just for the record, he's wrong when he tries to minimize the contradiction between the two quotes. Regardless of the context, the 2009 quote quite clearly uses the words "no one" to imply that NO person, JW or otherwise, should have to choose between family and religious belief.

  Well, you don't have to publicly acknowledge that it's NOT a contradiction, but insisting that it IS won't make it so.

  con·tra·dic·tion /?käntr?'dikSH?n/

  Noun:

  A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

  If it appears contradictory to you, you don't understand the concept presented in the statement.

  Perhaps the confusion stems from misunderstanding the definition of the word immediately following "no one": "SHOULD"? (since you didn't mention it, although it's actually more important than "no one")

  'Should' is the operative 'weasel word' in the sentence, as it implies that while it may be desirable to attain a certain outcome, it's NOT a requirement or mandatory that the end-point is achieved (if so, then the word "MUST" would've been a better word choice).

  From Wiki, the definition of "should":

  • Should has, as its most common meaning in modern English, the sense ought as in I should go, but I don't see how I can. However, the older sense as the subjunctive of the future indicative auxiliary, shall, is often used with I or we to indicate a more polite form than would: I should like to go, but I can't. In much speech and writing, should has been replaced by would in contexts of this kind, but it remains in conditional subjunctives: should (never would) I go, I should wear my new dress.

  • ( obligation ) : Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must , which indicates that the subject is required to execute the predicate.
  • ( likely ) : Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must , which indicates that the subject certainly will execute the predicate.

  "Should" is a way of saying, "it would be great if this were to happen, but it's OK if it doesn't".

  Hence the WT is tactily acknowledging that in some cases someone MAY feel forced to choose, but that's up to their response to the situation (which is of their own making, in the WT article; the son CHOSE to pursue "sin" over God).

  So in fact, YES, by that one choice of words, they ARE excusing themselves AND other religions from the situation, if it should arise.

  HOWEVER, THAT'S not a contradiction, since it IS disclosed in the article in one word (should). If you're not familiar with law, it's quite easy to overlook such "weasel words" and miss their widespread use exactly for such purposes: fooling people who don't understand their use.

  Mamochan said:

  I think Cedars has offered a powerful image that aptly illustrates the horrible harm DFing does.

  Trying to pick them apart diminishes that. NO ONE should be made to choose between their family and their religion.

  My point remains that you're only likely deluding yourself if you think this IS an example of a contradiction, as the only reason I'm aware of this article is I pointed the same quotation out to a relative (elder), only to have HIM explain the subtle semantics which I didn't catch on first reading: he explained it to ME, which is NOT a good position to be in when you're trying to discuss JW beliefs with them. Sure, be my guest to go in to a debate unarmed with facts and ignorant, if you LIKE, but you lose credibility when YOU go in without your facts straight and they end up "witnessing" to you.

  Whether intentionally or not, Cedars is propagating ignorance by repeating an inaccurate understanding. Worse is, as always, he tries to squelch an attempt to offer truths. Sorry, but we're not all JWs still (well, he IS, but I've been away for 35 yrs).

  And who knows, the contradiction angle MAY work if someone's JW family is dim-witted, and don't ask their elders for direction. HOWEVER, my point is not to get one's hopes too high on a false claim of contradiction, when it's actually NOT a mistake: it's COMPLETELY harmonious with their policies, and most JWs understand the cold-steel policy (that is, until THEY are the ones being shunned: then, it's funny how quickly they forget...).
• 

  cedars

  KS

  "No one should..." means exactly what it says. First you were trying to argue that "no one" means ONLY non-Witnesses, but I notice you've now dropped that argument like a hot potato.

  "Should" is a way of saying, "it would be great if this were to happen, but it's OK if it doesn't".

  You're reading far more into this word than it says. It sound like you're telling us what you would like it to mean rather than what is actually means, which is merely "should". "No one should..." means "no one SHOULD". It implies, "and no one WOULD in a perfect world if we had our way with it!"

  If you're not familiar with law, it's quite easy to overlook such "weasel words"

  It's a magazine article intended for the public, not a legally binding contract.

  Your overly litigious and argumentative side flourishes once again.

  Cedars is propagating ignorance by repeating an inaccurate understanding.

  More mud slinging and insults, exactly the sort of vile hatred that distinguishes you on this forum whenever you disagree with someone.

  I'm not going to argue with you about why a clear contradiction is a contradiction. It's just ridiculous. Only those who, like you, don't WANT it to be a contradiction will feel compelled to agree with you. I just think it's sad that you're prepared to take up such a silly argument, and frankly it does no good to your credibility. I would expect more from someone of your stated qualifications.

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  Cedars, my friend, you have a PM

  Mamochan13: I did want to comment that I was not confused at all by Cedars' pictures. I know they were not the actual Awake and WT pics.

  I'm glad the juxtapositioning of pics didn't confuse you. I know it didn't confuse everyone, but it did confuse a few and not just KS. That's why I felt it necessary to clarify, because as I stated above, the two quotes come from articles with completely parallel hypothetical situations, just one is a Sikh leaving her religion to become a JW and the other is a JW leaving for unstated reasons.

  In the first case the WTBTS says no one should sanction a person for such a thing and in the latter they pressure JW parents to shun their own children.

  It's clearly hypocritical, Orwellian doublespeak. Their duplicity is shameful and needs to be exposed, albeit in a clearly articulated way.