Contrarian Ideas

by larc 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  larc

  Maybe it is because I am left handed, first born and received contrarian ideas during my education, but I see some things differently than many here.

  1. JWs a cult: I don't think they are a cult. I think they are a high control sect.

  2. Brain Washing: I don't believe that JWs are brain washed. I think they are indoctrinated if they came in as adults, and I think they were enculcated and enculturated, if they were raised in it.

  3. Disfellowshipping: Everyone says how terrible and awful it is. Well, what did you expect? You knew the rules. You would have done the exact same thing when you were a true believer. If you get so much as a hello, you should consider yourself lucky.

  4. The blood issue: All religions and governments require that you be willing to die for something. Their particular choice is peculiar, but the request for your life is not unique, by any means.

  Just some stuff to chew on.
• 

  OUTLAW

  HA-HA!Hey larc,dude I could not disagree with you more!(LOL)You are playing devils advocate...OUTLAW
• 

  refiners fire

  Larc. Dude. I could agree with you less.

  "High control sect" correct.
  Even the experts, though, cant agree what constitutes a "cult".
  So why should people on this site not disagree?

  Thing Ive learnt since reading all those cult books and mindcontrol books is everybodies indoctrinated.
  Government indoctrinates you, parents indoctrinate you, school indoctrinates you.
  Thats my opinion.
  I think theres nothing in the dubs behaviour that is not occuring in everyday life. Cultic practises are extensive, say, in the work place.
  Just in the Dubs, the practises are a bit more extreme than normal, is all.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Disfellowshipping: Everyone says how terrible and awful it is. Well, what did you expect? You knew the rules. You would have done the exact same thing when you were a true believer. If you get so much as a hello, you should consider yourself lucky.

  
  Personally, I could care less if they wish to shun me, it is their loss. However, I will be damned if they will come into my house and look down their noses at me. That is why the following notice is posted on the outside of my front door:

  NOTICE TO ALL
  Jehovah’sWitnesses !

  If your conscience dictates that you
  shun and ignore the disassociated head
  of this household; Then your conscience should
  also dictate that you not enter the premises
  or take advantage of the possessions purchased
  or owned by that same disassociated head
  of the household.

  In plain English, if you cannot be cordial
  and friendly and greet ALL members of
  this house, then please exercise your
  freedom to leave the property!

  Yes, it upsets the JW wife and her kids, but oh well! They will just have to see their dub cronies elsewhere, I guess.

  Stop and think, the idea behind shunning is supposedly to help the errant one see the error of their ways. Since I DA'd over abusive treatment and not because of theology, just what is it they hope to show me by abusing me more? Freedom?

  If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
• 

  Abaddon

  "1. JWs a cult: I don't think they are a cult. I think they are a high control sect."

  Personally, I think the semantic difference between 'high control group' and 'cult' is small, were it not for the negative nature the word 'cult' has. But they are functionally the same thing.

  "2. Brain Washing: I don't believe that JWs are brain washed. I think they are indoctrinated if they came in as adults, and I think they were enculcated and enculturated, if they were raised in it."

  I agree, and think that's an excellent way of putting it.

  "3. Disfellowshipping: Everyone says how terrible and awful it is. Well, what did you expect? You knew the rules. You would have done the exact same thing when you were a true believer. If you get so much as a hello, you should consider yourself lucky."

  Sorry, disagree due to difference of opinion. If most religions get away with not shunning, why do JW's do it? Look past the slender scriptual backing and we get to point 1 above; they are a high control group/cult, and forcibly detaching people from their social group if they show dissent (let alone sin) is a good control method.

  "4. The blood issue: All religions and governments require that you be willing to die for something. Their particular choice is peculiar, but the request for your life is not unique, by any means."

  Disagree due to statement not being factual; larc, not many religions or governments require that you die for something. Please give an example. We like in a democratic age with no conscription. Name one mainstream religion where you are required to be willing to die for something. Islam is not an example, as it doesn't require people to die for something, although some use the doctrine of martyrdom, this is an added extra, not par for the course.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  ozziepost

  Goodness larc, you are playing the devil's advocate today, aren't you?

  1. JWs a cult: I don't think they are a cult. I think they are a high control sect.
  If a group acts like a cult, there is every reason to believe it is one. The WTS make great boasts that there is unity amongst the "worldwide association of brothers" and that it wouldn't matter which part of the world you were visiting, you could attend the meetings of a local congregation and know exactly what will be considered on the meeting. Is that not so? Well, is that not uniformity rather than unity? The individual witness is under pressure to conform. Well conformity is the sign of a cult. Also be aware that nowhere in the NT is there a blueprint for a Christian organisation as such. Rather the Christian brotherhood was an organism, not an organisation. It is likened to a vine, a body , a church, but not an organisation.

  2. Brain Washing: I don't believe that JWs are brain washed.
  What is the effect of using the expression "in the truth"? How hard has it become for many exDubs to stop referring to membership in the JWs as being "in the truth". I would suggest that this, as well as other expressions (the "Theocratic Language") all serve to control the minds and thinking of the R&F.

  OK, that's as far as I'll go.

  BTW does it really matter? We know they're WRONG. That's it.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
  Anonymous
• 

  cellomould

  At an evening-with-industry event I attended last night, the IBM representative at our table used the word 'indoctrination' four times.

  No kidding.

  But at least he was honest. I think it was Carl Sagan who said that IBM was a cult, of sorts, in the mid-80s.

  Apparently, they've changed a lot. Facial hair and long hair on men are okay now. I asked.

  cellomould

  

  "In other words, your God is the warden of a prison where the only prisoner is your God." Jose Saramago, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ
• 

  GinnyTosken

  In trying to decide where the Watchtower Society falls in the continuum of education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought control, the chart at this site helps me a lot:

  http://www.workingpsychology.com/ethics2.html

  The Society's methods are often coercive and sometimes unethical. I am not sure whether the goal is a cohesive group or perpetuation of the group for money and/or power.

  In my opinion, the Society straddles the line between indoctrination and thought control.

  Ginny
• 

  gravedancer

  Mr Larc,

  Hope you slept well and that you enjoyed the wake-up menu. No I am not stalking you - just debating you as I preceive your intelligence and the manner where you are one of the few who can argue ideas rather than insult the other person. You are a technician?? Why do I perceive that? Because of the technical differences you perceive in things. To quote you:
  

  1. JWs a cult: I don't think they are a cult. I think they are a high control sect.

  Pray tell me what the diference is?

  Using the dictionary:
  cult (klt)n.
  A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

  It doesn't take too much massaging to stuff JW's into that box does it? One could probably point to some issues of semantic definition but I would be interested in seeing your substantiated technical claim, sir.

  2. Brain Washing: I don't believe that JWs are brain washed. I think they are indoctrinated if they came in as adults, and I think they were enculcated and enculturated, if they were raised in it.

  I would postulate, sir, that while we could find more palatable terms they touch and crossover with the term "brainwashing". In reference to such I post as evidence the following 2 articles: http://www.dcd.net/NBP/persuasn.html and (my favorite on the subject) http://www.factnet.org/ (look at this page on that site http://www.factnet.org/coercion.html?FACTNet).

  Disfellowshipping: Everyone says how terrible and awful it is. Well, what did you expect? You knew the rules. You would have done the exact same thing when you were a true believer. If you get so much as a hello, you should consider yourself lucky

  Sir, you almost convinced me but then I thought about it for half a second longer. Perhaps if they removed "disfellowshipping" there powers of mind control would be diminised. Whenever coercive psychological systems are employed by "confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts." (source: Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.)

  The blood issue: All religions and governments require that you be willing to die for something. Their particular choice is peculiar, but the request for your life is not unique, by any means.

  You state a fact, but it is one which is missing the real issue. That's like saying "we all die at some point" (a fact you agree) but if I add "...so why don't we all just kill ourselves now and drink the kool-aid?" Now I am using the first fact as a basis for influence to a certain action. This is a common technique in the psychology of influence. I won't get into the specific issues on the blood doctrine as this is not what this is about.

  I would like to conclude with a general impression of your post, sir (one you can score or clairfy for me). You are using the technique of "minimizing by comparison" as well as attempting to reframe the issues. While these techniques can be effective in treating victims they can also be destructive when victims are told that they are over-reacting and/or things aren't really as bad as they thought they were. Isn't there some danger to just throwing this type of post out there? Or was your intent to foster debate?

  Respectfully,
  GD
• 

  larc

  Folks,

  You have given me lots to chew on as well, especially GD's three references. I will probably write my thoughts in "chunks" since all of my conclusions based on your feedback are not fully formulated.

  Cults

  Sociologists place religions on a continuum from Denominations to Sects to Cults. Denominations are characterized by having members who, besides having their particular beliefs, are fully integrated into their society. Further down the line are sects, whose beliefs tend to be more rigid and structured and who are to some degee are withdrawn from society. Cults show the greatest extreme as far as their alienation from society. Sociologists also maintain the religious groups tend to migrate from cult to sect to a denomination. There are exceptions of course, as some cults self destruct.

  In between these three conditions, there are "fuzzy boundries". I tend to agree with Ginny's conclusion that the JWs may straddle the sect - cult part of the continuum. I think the JWs are moving in the direction towards a sect, but at a much slower rate than I would have predicted many years ago. Here are some changes that I have seen over my life time. Some support my view, some do not.

  In the era before 1975, there were several changes that moved them in the cult direction:

  1. The elder arrangement. The differences before and after this change is being discussed on another thread, one started by Englishman.

  2. Dating practices. This was a terrible change in my opinion, and it ruined many lives. Dating practices in the 1950's and early '60's were more "normal".

  When 1975 became a hot topic, I thought that they would tighten the rules, which they did. I thought that after 1975, they would relax the rules, which they did not, at least they did not for a very long time.

  Here are changes in more recent times that makes me think they are moving towards a sect.

  1. College: stated in print that it is OK, but of course, it still is not strongly encouraged.

  2. Allowing alternate government service in place of the military, instead of going to prison.

  3. Allowing blood fractions, a small consetion (sp), but a consetion nonetheless.

  4. Allowing transplants and vacinations.

  5. Cutting quotas, which include the number of pioneer hours, length of the conventions, and length of the Sunday meetings.

  Other threads have discussed whether the JWs will mainstream of disappear. I think they will mainstream, but at a very slow rate. There is a very big cultural lag between the JWs and the rest of society, especially in the areas of woman's issues, and in dealing with child abuse. I think they will only respond to these issues when forced to.

  Those are my thoughts for now. I will be back with another chunk later.