JW's not identifying themselves?

DanielHaase

I had a visit this morning from a couple of older sisters from a local congregation that I'm not terribly familiar with (I don't live in the territory for the congregation that I was raised in). Anyway, I didn't have the balls or energy to question them about the usual things (recent Dateline, etc.) because they were these sweet little old black sisters that really reminded me of the witnesses at the beginning of "Friday". Ahg hell, I'm really getting of my point here. The thing I noticed after they left is that they never (ever) identified as Jehovah's Witnesses. Is this a new thing after the Dateline story, or is this just some thing they started doing after I left(about 3 years ago)?

Prisca

Several years ago (during the 90s) I remember the CO instructing us not to immediately identify ourselves as JWs to the house-holder, as doing so can result in the house-holder immediately stopping the conversation.

Instead, we were told to just do our presentation, perhaps referring to ourselves as students of the Bible, and then, only at the end, and if we are asked, we could ID ourselves as being JWs.

So what the two older sisters wasn't that unusual.

garybuss

They are not proud of who they are and who they represent. Their parent Corporation knows they are not at all respected and instructs recruiters to hide who they represent.

The current case issue before the United States Supreme Court centers around anonymity. The Society does not want members to have to give their names or reveal who they are representing .

I believe once they register as agents for the Watch Tower Corporation in writing, agency is established and the Watch Tower Corporation is responsible legally. My guess is this has much farther implications than a mere proselytizing permit.

I predict there will be new light as to agency and who recruiters represent when they are working for the Watch Tower Corporation. The new light will be this: When in service or anyway representing the Watch Tower Corporation, members will be instructed to indicate they are representing themselves and not the Watch Tower Corporation. They most likely will have to sign a release form.

This will be in the same spirit as the donation arrangement adopted after the Watch Tower Corporation lost it's quest in helping Jimmy Swaggert at the California Supreme Court.

Comments?

gb

The Way I See it http://www.freeminds.org/buss/buss.htm

Scully

For the 25 years that I was a dub, I remember several times hearing admonitions from the platform AGAINST identifying yourself in the door-to-door work. The reasoning was that you didn't want the householders stopping the conversation before it got started. The other thing (unofficially) was that if you didn't identify yourself, householders didn't have your name to give to the police if they decided to make a complaint about trespassing or canvassing without a licence.

I always found, though, that I got a better response when I started the conversation by introducing myself. Plus, at the time, I felt that it was an honour to be 'spreading the Good News' and was pleased to give my name. I never did agree with the notion of hiding who I was or why I was at someone's door. But then again, I'm not a big fan of Theocratic War Strategy.

I was dumbfounded when we were instructed from the platform in a letter from HQ that we were not to identify ourselves as representatives of the "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society" or "Watchtower Society", for LEGAL reasons. In other words, the WTS didn't want any flak from the general public over being associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. What we were "encouraged" to do, if we felt it NECESSARY to identify ourselves to householders, was to say we were "from the ______ congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". Another example of the WTS keeping itself at arm's length from the bodies of elders and congregations, for legal reasons.

People come across as more "professional", polished and confident when they introduce themselves when speaking to strangers. I don't give anyone my time - either on the phone or at my door - if they don't identify themselves. The ones I really hate are the telemarketers who've obviously gotten my name off of a list. If they knew me (which they try to pretend that they do) they wouldn't mispronounce my name, now would they??

Love, Scully

Edited by - Scully on 17 June 2002 8:46:40

NeonMadman

People come across as more "professional", polished and confident when they introduce themselves when speaking to strangers. I don't give anyone my time - either on the phone or at my door - if they don't identify themselves. The ones I really hate are the telemarketers who've obviously gotten my name off of a list. If they knew me (which they try to pretend that they do) they wouldn't mispronounce my name, now would they??

Yeah, I love those telemarketers who want to act all friendly, like they're an old pal calling to get re-acquainted, but who can't get your name straight! I got married last October. My wife's last name before the marriage was E*****, and I moved into her house, where she, of course already had phone service in that name. So the telemarketers call, hear a man's voice, and say, "Hello, Mr. E*****?" Which, of course, blows their cover immediately. Many of them still try to go into their buddy-buddy speil, but I usually cut them off rather brusquely by saying, "There is no Mr. E*****; what's this about?" That tends to fluster them a bit.

As far as identifying oneself as a JW at the door, I fluctuated in that over the years according to the latest trend as well as what seemed to be working best at the time. Different CO's differed in their advice. And householders in different areas differed in their response. In some neighborhoods, identifying yourself as a JW or not didn't seem to make a bit of difference, in others, opening the conversation by saying, "we are Jehovah's Witnesses" was about equivalent to saying "please close the door in my face now." We pretty much went with whatever worked at the time (and - to a lesser degree - whatever the current CO was suggesting).

Edited by - NeonMadman on 17 June 2002 9:27:9

Room 215

Scully, et al...

Straight talk has never been their strong suit.

Have you ever phoned Bethel with an inquiry? First and foremost, they seek your name and congregation. When you try to get the person on the other end of the line to reciprocate, they evade if not refuse outright to give you any infomation. Yet they love to perpetuate their myth of an egalatarian international Brotherhood of Christians.

I no longer seems to matter they they're dealing with outsiders or with their own people ;``Theocratic War Strategy'' is Standard Operating Procedure in Brooklyn, where suspicion, circumspection and downright paranoia prevail.

Lady Lee

Seems to me they are becoming more and more like the moonies who have fronts to hide who they are really recruiting for. Soon new recruits won't know what they are in until after they are baptized

scary thought for the day

Robdar

Many JW's that I know have been saying to me that nobody is mentioning the Dateline episode to them when they go out in service. Could their lack of identifying themselves be one of the reasons that nobody has brought the subject up? I believe that it could be.

Nathan Natas

"Men make gods of wood and stone,

but the true God they've not known...

We're _______'_ __________,

We speak out in fearlessness..."

mustang

The last one that came to my door sang it out LOUD & CLEAR... Although I had equally clearly told it to LEAVE.

Mustang

Edited by - mustang on 17 June 2002 13:48:54

JW's not identifying themselves?

Share this