Is it possible for an apostate to get reindoctrinated?

by foolsparadise 106 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  botchtowersociety

  Is it possible for an apostate to get reindoctrinated?

  It depends on the apostate. Some people leave over a personal spat, not a fundamental awakening over the Watchtower falsehoods. In a sense, they never de-indoctrinated. The same goes for many (most?) disfellowshipped persons.

  Others do go back to maintain family relationships etc, but they never go back mentally--not 100 percent. And let me tell you from experience, it is a severe psychological torture to be in there when you know what it really is.
• 

  sizemik

  "In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion." -- Yahya, Hasan. "A New Definition of Apostasy and Heretics: Sociological Analysis" . . . Teary Oberon

  "Most former members do not become apostates. They remain — in sociological terms suggested by David Bromley and others — "defectors" (members who somewhat regret having left an organization they still perceive in largely positive terms), or "ordinary leave takers" with mixed feeling about their former affiliation. These are poorly defined generalisations Teary, which make no allowance for the difference between a loose religious affiliation more akin to joining a volunteer social group, and a high-control fundamentalist religious cult, which is more akin to enlisting in the armed forces. The degree of active opposition to a former group is more closely aligned to the nature of the group than the nature of the defector. A group which employs deceptive and damaging techniques which create serious ongoing difficulties for the defector is going to generate far more 'apostates' by your definition than deciding to leave the local knitting club. Like most JW apologists, you seem to have a penchant for hiding the real issues behind hand-picked definitions and debates about words.
• 

  sizemik

  We don't agree on everything 100%. How about sizemik and you?

  Actually unshackled . . . Sizemik tends to be a pain-in-the-ass know-it-all at times and fairly pisses me off. At times however, I have to concede (albeit reluctantly), that he may be right. Just don't tell him I said that.
• 

  sabastious

  Anyone who uses the term apostasy to classify dissidents of a group is going beyond it's definition. An apostate is simply one who denounces their own faith. However, the ones that the denouncer leaves behind often become off put by the very notion of anyone choosing to leave the faith they hold so dear. Instead of accepting the truth that apostates have free will they create a derogatory slang term and encourange hyperbole when using it.

  -Sab
• 

  Teary Oberon

  "The degree of active opposition to a former group is more closely aligned to the nature of the group than the nature of the defector. A group which employs deceptive and damaging techniques which create serious ongoing difficulties for the defector is going to generate far more 'apostates' by your definition than deciding to leave the local knitting club."

  Actually, you are quite backwards on that too, but it is ok because most people are (just like they are backwards in thinking that minimum wage laws actually help the poor). Here, I have some more extracts for you:

  Extracts From: Melton, Gordon J., Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory, 1999

  Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions. Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms among ex-members, the process of leaving the group. Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample.

  The Lewis and Bromley study became a landmark study in shifting the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions from the religions to the coercive activity of the anti-cult movement. In the wake of this study (and other works that confirmed its findings), treating former members as people in need of psychological help has largely ceased. The lack of any widespread expressed need for psychological help by the tens of thousands of former members of new religions in the succeeding decade has itself become the strongest evidence refuting the early sweeping condemnation of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.”
• 

  sabastious

  Sheesh, opinions are like internet domains these days. All taken no matter how stupid they sound.

  -Sab
• 

  botchtowersociety

  So Obey Tearon, are you saying that apostates are, by their very nature, "mentally diseased?"
• 

  unshackled

  I agree with the sentiment on here that unless you never deconstructed the indoctrination, you can't be in a position to be re-indoctrinated.

  A good friend that I grew up with is an example of this. Born-in JW, but he has been pretty much inactive for the past 10 years. Has a job which allows him to travel a lot. Lives it up...resorts, partying, smoking, many tales of long nights with exotic women, etc. But keeps all this secret from his family...all JWs. Yet...when talking to him not too long ago, the subject of setting up a Christmas tree with my wife sent him into full attack mode. "So you're an apostate then?"

  Caught me off guard. I don't consider him a JW, but yet he has never really questioned anything he was taught. He still believes it all, just doesn't live it. Find that kind of behavior odd...but then again, he is still indoctrinated.

  However, if one has gone thru the deconstruction of their previous indoctrination, I don't think it is possible to be re-indoctrinated. Brain trauma injuries or amnesia aside.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Unshackled, your description sounds a lot like my brother in law. I don't know if he has set foot in KH in 5 years or more, but I am an evil apostate to him, and he resists associating with me. It is mind boggling.
• 

  sizemik

  Actually, you are quite backwards on that too, but it is ok because most people are (just like they are backwards in thinking that minimum wage laws actually help the poor).

  Ho-hum . . . A cherry-picked false analogy . . . now you're just wasting my time.

  I read Wikipedia too . . . as any intelligent fool can . . .

  As a scholar who reports on New Religious Movements without condemining those groups, Melton has received criticism from scholars and organizations, such as the Anti-Cult Movement, that feel that New Religious Movements are dangerous, and that scholars should actively work against them. Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs published a critical article When Scholars Know Sin, in which they characterize Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, and Anson Shupe as biased towards the groups they study. Melton was also characterized as a "apologist" in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and by a Singaporean lawyer as a "cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults" in The Straits Times, and in an article: "Apologist versus Alarmist", in Time Magazine. The term "cult apologist" was also used in Esquire Magazine in describing Melton's actions in the Aum Shinrikyo incident.