Top STUPID criticisms of the WTS

by JanH 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  chasson

  Good thread, thanks Jan.

  On freemasonry, i could linked the use of "cross and crown" to the Quaker "William Penn" one of the historic's founder of Pennsylvania who has the same meaning of this symbol as Russell. So Xavier Martin Dupont has shown us that this symbol is a christian's symbol (catholic, presbytarian, adventist) and now it could be possible to link this symbol to the Quaker William Penn with his book "no cross, no crown".

  On brainwashing: i prefer the term "personnality's control" which is softer than "brainwashing" and explain all the stuff that we can find in the Watchtower.

  On cult: JW are cult in the sociological's meaning (Weber and Troeltch's theory) as the mormon, the adventist for the modern definition of cult, this is clearly more difficult to apply to them. The french's commission (MILS) has used this definition regarding JW:

  "religious community with some cult's pratics" ( blood, disfellowship for example). There are not classified in the coercitive cult's group.

  Bye

  Charles
• 

  lastcall

  Larc, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, and your point is made. I still think "cult" in it's common definition, while not nessesarily the MOST correct description, is a word that can justifiably be used to describe JW's ( especially by those who lived as JW's formerly).

  Jan -- Would the description "cult-like" be acceptable in your opinion? That actually is how I usually find myself describing them. I guess sometimes we are looking for one word to sum it all up and there just isn't one.
• 

  TheStar

  Thank you Alan!!!

  I think you just saved terafera and I from going back to meetings, Good God this thread!!!

  Don't get me wrong Jan H, I am most greatful for threads like these that enrich my understanding and feed my intellect but I think it's a little deep for us newbies fresh out of the borg that are still in the "sorting this all out" stage. Kinda scarey even.

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

  Please, whomever knows how to fix this problem please let us know how?!??!?!?! It's driving me nuts.
• 

  Salud

  Interesting thread. Many good points.

  Hate having to scroll to the right to read though, temp. solution:

  I have been copying and pasting everyone's comments on a Word document

  makes for easier reading.
• 

  Simon

  ... there ya' go
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  Thought #1:

  JanH said,

  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.

  I totally agree with this. When I was younger, I did not feel this way. I was raised a JW and honestly felt people were helplessly sucked into a big trap and I just felt sorry for them. I did not hold them responsible for their shunning, etc. Now, of course, I realize each person is responsible for his or her choices. I believe that every JW has had a moment where they did something that they KNEW was wrong (like shunning an old friend), but made a choice to push that thought out of their mind in order to continue being a good JW. But I also hold the Org responsible because they use immoral and unethical methods to convince people to do these thingsThey trick people ... Am I making any sense here?

  Thought #2:

  JanH,

  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the use of these terms (cult, mind-control, brainwashing) hurts us because it weakens our argument to active JWs. Do I understand you correctly?

  If so, I tend to agree with this. Telling a JW they are in a cult is about the stupidest thing a person could say if they are trying to get them out of the org, or even if they just wish to remain on speaking terms with them!

  But I also understand you to say that these words dont just hurt our arguments with active JWs, but that they are actually incorrectly used words and we should not use them at all, even when speaking amongst ourselves.

  IF I were convinced these words were WRONG and indeed loaded language, I would have to agree with youbut Im not there yet.

  What words would be more correct, in your opinion?

  I have used the term, dangerous control group. but that is for me just a way to say cult without pissing people off as much. Isnt that a euphemism?

  Surely the main problem is that there is an organization that makes basically nice people do atrocities.

  What is the word for organizations like this?

  -LisaBObeesa
• 

  jack2

  Good thread......tera and Star, I, like you, was thinking, hmmmmm, maybe I should go back....oh wait, I still attend meetings.

  Actually, what this thread and this discussion shows me is that those or the likes of those who post on this DB are not just a bunch of raving lunatics who have no objectivity when it comes to the jw religion, as the WTS often implies. Rather, reasoned, thoughtful discussions like this reaffirm my feeling that this is a pretty darn good place to hang out and hear a different point of view.

  Edited by - jack2 on 26 June 2002 13:59:41
• 

  dmouse

  What gets my goat is those attempts to show subliminal images of demons etc secretly drawn into Watchtower pictures.
• 

  Englishman

  As I recall, one of Jan H's pet peeves is the way some folk use their WT upbringing as a scapegoat for anything that is wrong in their lives. In this manner they become unable to mature in any way because they never take on board any responsibility for their life.

  Seems a good point of view.

  Englishman.
• 

  NewWay

  Oxford English Reference Dictionary Definition Of 'Cult':

  1. a system of religious worship esp. as expressed in ritual.
  
  2. (a) devotion or homage to a person or thing (the cult of aestheticism). (b) a popular fashion esp. followed by a specific section of society.
  
  3. (attrib.) denoting a person or thing popularized in this way (cult film; cult figure).
  
  [F culte or L cultus worship f. colere cult- inhabit, till, worship]
  
  It seems to me that the word 'cult' when used in connection with a religious group should properly refer to a group that adores (i.e. worships) an individual leader. I find it irritating when emotionally-charged words such as 'cult' are used to label religious groups that we disapprove of. Its impact value may be great, but it is seen by many as a poor and dishonest way of trying to influence a person's opinion. Of course, I don't infer that everyone using the term does so purposely to influence! I can think of another word used in another context that is used to coerce agreement with a minority group, but I won't say what it is in case anyone takes offence - suffice to say that many are currently using this word although it is not a fair description. On the use of 'brainwashing', perhaps we are victims of the trend to use superlatives and impact words without discretion. Unfortunately, this makes any comparison of degree impossible. If this is not bad enough, words have even been forced to mean something completely different. We all know for instance that the word 'wicked' has been rendered virtually impotent as to its original meaning - very soon anyone new to the Bible will think Jezebel was a wonderful woman!
  
  Jan, I have noticed that you talk a lot of sense, and that your reasonings are well presented. Thank you for creating this thread as anyone who wishes to argue against the WTS will do themselves no favours by using arguments that rest on shaky foundations. I do agree with some others here who have mentioned the Freemason connection. Not so long ago I spent some time reading and researching about the Freemasons to find out about their origins, beliefs and manner of operation. Although it cannot be proved Russell was a Freemason, there are many strong indications that convince me that he at least had some connection with them. I was interested to learn that the name 'Jehovah' is (or at least was) very important to them.