Top STUPID criticisms of the WTS

by JanH 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  professor

  You all have me confused with this thread....now I'm thinking I should go back to the meetings!!

  Oh Geez! Now we have to start the de-programming all over again!
• 

  Marilyn

  Larc, so what's Imbue got that I haven't got? I said the same thing as her! But you give her the point and tell me I'm wrong? Please let your yes mean yes and your..........oh never mind. Anyway I don't accept your comments about being cash strapped. Property is wealth. There is a vast difference to being cash strapped when you have 5 billion dollars of property to being cash strapped and having no assets.

  Marilyn

  Edited by - Simon on 26 June 2002 12:43:30
• 

  plmkrzy

  I like this thread.

  A lot of very good points are made.

  It seems to be bringing out the roots rather then just venting.

  I'm glad you posted this Jan.

  If I had the finesse to have written this post

  I would be getting bashed through the roof and accused of being a "watchtowerite"

  Note: this is not a complaint. just an observation.

  plum

  Edited by - plmkrzy on 26 June 2002 2:0:30
• 

  AlanF

  Jan, I agree with your first points but somewhat disagree with the last two.

  On brainwashing: We have to distinguish between casual and technical uses of this term. It is true that the classical notion of brainwashing derived from the 1950s era is largely incorrect in a technical sense. But most people, when speaking of brainwashing casually, mean something more like "influenced by an outside authority to such an extent that the reasoning facilities are turned off". In the latter sense, Jehovah's Witnesses, by and large, are certainly brainwashed. Given these distinctions, if I were to write a technical paper on the JWs, I would certainly avoid the term, but in casual writings such as I sometimes put up on this board, I think the term is appropriate because everyone understands it.

  On JWs being a cult: Many of my above comments apply. It's true that many people use the term to mean "a religion I don't like", but I think they're misusing the term. There are plenty of religions I don't like, but I wouldn't call them cults. I do refer to a number, including JWs, as cults. Until 2-3 years ago I would argue that JWs are not a cult, for the same reasons you are here. But I have come to see in a very personal way how completely a great many JWs give their minds and emotions over to the Watchtower corporation. They literally have put this monstrosity above the God they claim to worship. They deny it, of course, but the proof is easy: Someone can go so far as to denounce God to a typical JW and he will not flinch, but if that someone denounces "God's organization", the JW will usually become extremely angry or fearful. That anger and/or fear is the proof. So when I call the JWs a cult, I mean that they are harmful, and are under the influence of men who exert undue control over JWs' thoughts and actions. This is certainly one of the main connotations of the word in most peoples' minds, and so I use it.

  Most cult members are aware, on some level, that they're in a cult. They know deep down that there are severe problems with their cult, and this disturbs them, but in the usual Orwellian manner they suppress these "doubts" and press on. When someone or some bit of knowledge comes along that nudges a bit of this suppressed knowledge to the surface, the typical JW reacts with anger and/or fear. I think that most of the anger is a result of underlying fear. Fear of what? That the person may have spent decades wasting his time. That he may have to abandon his social circle, or that it will abandon him. That he will have to learn a whole nother way to live life. That's heavy stuff!

  In a way, I think that one measure of a cult is the degree to which a cult member reacts to criticism. Especially criticism from a former cult member, who knows the ropes and can no longer be fooled by smooth words and mind-numbing rhetoric. Most members of mainstream religions shrug off criticism just as they shrug it off with respect to, say, membership in the Boy Scouts or whatever. But we ex-JWs know all too well how concerned the Organization is with its image, and how strongly they react to negative criticism. For example, it is now becoming apparent that the main objection most JWs who saw the show had to the recent NBC Dateline show on pedophiles in the JW organization was to the presentation of raw, unadulterated JW teachings in the first couple of minutes. Images from Watchtower publications were shown that depicted the usual people falling into huge cracks opening up in the earth in massive earthquakes, and so forth. The overall impression was of a doomsday cult. That is exactly what the JWs are, but they hate to have it aired without the standard bullshit "cotton wool", as you Norwegians like to say, around it, to soften the blow to the average person's sensibilities. We know very well how JWs go out of their way to avoid admitting in public their most shameful teachings and practices. All of this should give some idea why I now have no problem calling the JWs a destructive cult. When your own flesh and blood becomes so thoroughly braindead that they cannot tolerate answers to questions that they themselves asked, you know they're in a cult.

  AlanF

  Edited by - AlanF on 26 June 2002 2:43:57
• 

  larc

  Marilyn, Imbue's point as I understand it, was that they have a source of revenue from the wills of members who die. Now that is cash money in their pocket. My point to you was regarding their fixed assets, buildings, which can not be converted into cash.
• 

  larc

  AlanF, I thought I had this whole thing figured out, but I have to say that you made some good points for the case of the cult definition.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Hey AlanF,good post!..I also believe JW`s are a cult.I have believed that for over25 years...OUTLAW
• 

  Imbue

  Larc: I'm not disagreeing with you or Jan. I was just adding a thought about the WT's resources. I agree with Jan's statements and have discussed some of these points before. Strong inaccurate statements, such as the WT is a cult, confuses the main issues.
• 

  ISP

  Hey Jan.....you spoilsport. I with agree Russell and freemasonery. It was never a big deal to me. The NWT likewise. I disagree with the commercial interests of the WTS. I think they make a great deal of money. Look at the tax evasion 'donation' arrangement. For a non-profit organisation they accumulate millions. I don't know where it goes. But we know that one of the GB and his wife stayed at the Radisson Cable Beach Resort, Bahamas...because we were there also! Handy holiday!

  Re. brainwashing. I think a degree exists. 5 meetings a week. Answering study questions from WTS material 'in your own words' without using your own thoughts. What do you think 'inculcate' means? Its close. Whether you call it it brainwashing or not, many dubs cannot use their brains. I had a conversation with one recently and I remarked on something I had read in a newspaper. The dub said that she only read what was in the mags! Hey you cannot have private thoughts!

  Re.Cult. There are degrees. Many worldly authorities regard them as a cult. They are certainly cultlike! Lovebombing newbies. The idea that you are special because you can see the truth and others can't. You cannot leave without repercussions. The way they view the world as from satan, likewise opposers.

  I think that there are many criticisms that we discuss that are not valid or are in the validation process. Some maybe of more interest than others. We just discuss them. Some after research become quite valid. i.e. UN scandal.

  ISP
• 

  JanH

  Thanks for a lot of good comments.

  Hillary_step,

  How could I forget the "conditional love" argument? That has been one of my pet peeves for some time. As you say, all love is conditional. It should be. The problem with the JWs is that they "love", even on the deepest level (parent-child, spouses) on the condition of social acceptance within the Jehovah's Witness community. Naturally, this doesn't fit into a nice slogan.

  I both agree and disagree with your second argument. Surely the main problem is that there is an organization that makes basically nice people do atrocities. But I cannot agree that this abstains them from responsibility for their own actions. We are all answering for what we do and did, no matter what context we are working in.

  Professor,

  It is simply not true that the winged sun or the cross-crown are particular freemason symbols. Freemasonry is very synchretistic in its use of symbols. Particularly the cross-and-crown have been used by a number of other religious people, especially in the 19th century. Freemasons use a huge number of symbols, from all sorts of different cultures.

  Alan,

  When we debate defintions, we have to realize there is no such thing as a "true" or "false" definition of terms like "cult" or "brainwash." They are functional defintions. We are communicating to people from different backgrounds, and then we have a duty to make sure our point is properly understood. Sure, in casual writings for a limited audience that understand what we mean, we can say whatever we want. On the balance, I am still convinced we are hurting ourselves more than the WTS by using a loaded language. Such techniques can properly be called propaganda.

  But most people, when speaking of brainwashing casually, mean something more like "influenced by an outside authority to such an extent that the reasoning facilities are turned off". In the latter sense, Jehovah's Witnesses, by and large, are certainly brainwashed.

  I don't agree that this is how people understand the term. My whole point in criticizing the terms "cult" and "brainwashing" is that while the term may be well understood by exJWs, they are very prone to being misunderstood by outsiders. The term "brainwash" was used related to experiences of allied POWs in the Korean war. Some researchers claimed that certain techniques could make people turn around 180 deg, and that these techniques were also employed by "cults". Both are false.

  I will reassert that the term "brainwash" is understood to mean a process where the individual can be converted against his or her own will. And that is impossible, or the WTS would have converted the whole world by now.

  Until 2-3 years ago I would argue that JWs are not a cult, for the same reasons you are here. But I have come to see in a very personal way how completely a great many JWs give their minds and emotions over to the Watchtower corporation. They literally have put this monstrosity above the God they claim to worship.

  True, but this doesn distinguish them from many other religions, and from many religious people within mainstream religion.

  Most cult members are aware, on some level, that they're in a cult. They know deep down that there are severe problems with their cult, and this disturbs them, but in the usual Orwellian manner they suppress these "doubts" and press on.

  It is precisely the point of Orwell that this phenomenon exists at every level of society. Surely it is particularly prevalent within a conform high control group like the JWs, but this just means there are degree of cultdom. You have discussed enough with various forms of fundamentalists to know that self-imposed stupidity and unwillingness to think criticially about their own ideas is a depressingly universal phenomenon.

  In a way, I think that one measure of a cult is the degree to which a cult member reacts to criticism.

  Is the US a cult?

  Ahem, my point being that people have strong emotions about their religion and about many other issues. JWs are certainly more thin-skinned than most, but you don't have to be around much to see that many people are very sensitive about a whole lot of things.

  I just don't agree with you that a differentiation between the real and the supernatural objects of worship are very relevant. If people are fanatical about criticism to a publishing agency, I don't see how that makes them a cult anymore than being fanatical about criticism of a postulated supernatural being (ie God).

  When your own flesh and blood becomes so thoroughly braindead that they cannot tolerate answers to questions that they themselves asked, you know they're in a cult.

  That is a functional definition of cult, so, sure, whatever you want to call it. But precisely because a large number of people lay other connotations to "cult" than what you are saying here, we should still avoid using it.

  I suspect the main reason we keep using this term even though we know it has low preciion is because 1) JWs hate being called a "cult"; and 2) it is a simple rhetorical insult that doesn't require lengthy explanations, as the ones you have provided above.

  PS: Why is this page (#3) messed up? I have to scroll miles sideways to read most messages.

  - Jan