Are ALL criticisms of the Society justified?

by logansrun 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  Let me start by saying that I deplore much of the teachings of the Watchtower and am convinced that it is not "the Truth." Either through ignorance, error or deliberate action they have caused great heartache for thousands and unknown heartache for millions. I have thoroughly disconnected myself from their teachings and would rightly speak out against what I know to be harmful in that organization.

  That being said I have to make an observation which I hope is shared by others: do ex-JWs sometimes go "overboard" in their criticisms of the Society? Are ALL derogretory comments of the JWs to be taken seriously? Is there NOTHING good about the organization or it's teachings?

  It saddens me when I see former witnesses who engage in the same black/white, "us" versus "them" type of thinking that we had as witnesses. We used to think that the world was the "bad guy" and, now that we are out of it, the organization becomes an "evil empire." I feel there is a fundamental falacy in such simplistic thinking. Worse yet, for those doubting JWs who have the courage to actually start investigating their beliefs such unwarrented or overblown criticisms seething with hatred could have the effect the JW leadership wants: the witness will walk away thinking that all "apostates" are liars who are full of hatred.

  I know this is not true. But, when I occassionaly visit websites that portray the organization or the GB in the most unflattering of light, even using arguments that are not based on fact, I am deeply dismayed. For instance, on one website I visited a while ago the site owners listed everything "you can't do as a JW." One of the things listed..."watching fireworks." Now, I don't know about you but I often watched fireworks as a JW, especially after baseball games or at amusement parks etc. I've even sat next to a circuit overseer watching a fireworks display. To report that such activity is not allowed is not even a half truth; it is a lie. (Doubtless the site owners were exagerating the fact that JWs would not celebrate the US Independence Day. Evidently they did not report this fact to enhance their case against the Society)

  Another thread on a different forum reported that the JWs were listed as one of the top ten companies by Fortune 500. The general idea floated around that the JW organization is collecting millions from the public and it's members and is engaged in the most duplicitous of financial practices. All of this is utter hogwash.

  Reason and logic got me out of the Society. But these same abilities will prevent me from making unwarrented attacks and generalizations which might do nothing but damage my credibility in my assesment of the organization. By the way, I have no problem with sarcasm or humor directed against the Society, I engage in it often myself. But in making a public criticism of the organization or in making an accusation it is important to stay balanced. (Geez, now I'm starting to sound like the WT!)

  My point is not that the Society should not be criticised, but that only valid criticisms supported by undeniable evidence and presented in a logical, coherent and emotionally detached manner should be cited. Not everything the Society does is bad or dishonest. The cold hard fact is that the majority of JWs, even the top management, are misdirected zealots who are unaware of many facts and are generally incapable of using non-witness logic (this includes the GB). As Ray Franz once wrote, "we are victims of victims." Perhaps realizing this more will affect the way we criticize the organization.

  Bradley
• 

  Simon

  Some good balanced points there.

  I think reasonable arguments are the most powerful and when people resort to sensational claims then the audience and the argument is lost.

  Too often people are too eager and too willing to believe anything bad they hear about the WTS.

  There is plenty to nail them for without having to make things up !!
• 

  ISP

  Hi,...........

  But these same abilities will prevent me from making unwarrented attacks and generalizations which might do nothing but damage my credibility in my assesment of the organization.

  Thats cool.

  Although few here have time for the WTS, I have no doubt that we would not support 'unwarrented (sic) attacks and generalizations'.

  Just because you may say something aginst the WTS, does not mean it is true or it will be accepted here as truth. There is enough crap on the WTS to keep us busy, without resorting to fiction. Most attacks on the WTS, here are pretty well founded!

  On the WTS itself, I feel very sorry for those who are in it and do not realise the disappointments ahead of them. Apart from that, the WTS does very little right or that cannot be viewed as protecting its business interests. It is worthy of condemnation!

  ISP
• 

  drahcir yarrum

  Most of the points I read in this forum that are critical of the WTS have some merit. Each of us must use our intellect to discern fact from fancy. What needs to be remembered when visiting these forums, is that many who post have in some way been injured or mistreated by their JW experience. At least they feel they were deceived by the teachings of the organization. I was out of the WTS for over 18 years when I discovered this forum, so I was not in any danger of being misled by what was posted here. What I have found out though, is how the WTS had made an agreement to be a participant with the United Nations for almost 10 years and as soon as it was brought to light here, they immediately resigned in writing from the UN. The GB had a policy of covering up matters of child abuse within the local congregations for many, many years. With the information exposed by Bill Bowen and others and what has been posted on this forum, and exposed in the media, the WTS is under intense scrutiny by the authorities regarding such matters.

  In the two years I have been posting here, I have seen hundreds of hurt and down trodden former JW's get the encouragement and support they need to face life without the controlling influence of the Society. So in answer to your question, "Are ALL criticisms of the Society justified", NO!. "All, Never, Always and Forever" are words that need to be viewed in context with caution. But I would say that most of the criticisms I've read on this forum are based in fact. I have also run into some smug jerks while posting here. I have also been a smug jerk while posting here. Aint it great to be human?
• 

  logansrun

  ISP....I agree that most of the "really sensational" stories about the JWs would be recognized for what they are by members of this forum. OTOH, I do take exception to this statment you made:

  "the WTS does very little right or that cannot be viewed as protecting its business interests."

  I agree the Society is very flawed, should be held accountable for it's errors and should be spoken out against. I disagree that it "does very little right." In my experience the WTS genuinely feels it is doing the right thing. It's not like the GB gathers together on Wednsday mornings and says, "Let's see...how can we make people miserable and lie to them?" I don't think that is their intention at all. I feel that whatever error the WTS does make is due to doing what they think is the right thing, not what they knowingly know is the wrong thing. The Society is fundamentally flawed because most everybody in it has been thoroughly indoctrinated and is unable to get out of that mindset.

  As for their policies on shunning, abuse, treatment of outsiders I think of a statement made by Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg (not quoted verbatim): "Whether there is religion or not, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

  Bradley
• 

  Brummie

  Are ALL criticisms of the Society justified?

  No not all of them...Only the real nasty ones count.

  Brummie

  Just kiddin you make some good points
• 

  ISP

  Not sure where you are coming from, logans but the WTS is misleading its followers into believing that it is the FDS and that whatever it says is from god. Its doctrine is false. The eschatology has been one ever evolving mess. EG the generation change in 1995. Not to mention '75, '25 etc. The blood issue is unintelligible but the WTS persists with it so as to not lose face and so it exposes children and families to foreseeable and avoidable danger. What good does it do? Maybe you can answer that.

  ISP
• 

  roybatty

  do ex-JWs sometimes go "overboard" in their criticisms of the Society? Are ALL derogretory comments of the JWs to be taken seriously? Is there NOTHING good about the organization or it's teachings?

  Of course the JW and their teachings aren't 100% bad. But that could be said about anything. Were the Nazi of WWII 100% bad? Nope. They did build an impressive highway system, they pulled Germany from an economic depression ummm...not much else good. I'm not saying that the JW's are as bad as the Nazis but the more I think about it, it's only because they don't have the means to.
• 

  belbab

  Anyone read Mathew chapter 23 lately?

  IS calling someone and S.O.B. the equivalent of calling some a S.O.V?

  belbab
• 

  AlanF

  You make some very good points, logansrun, and I agree with almost everything you said. However, you need to keep in mind some very human points: many who have been sorely disappointed, or abused, will go overboard with emotion and not stick strictly to the facts. Also, many ex-JWs join some other religion that's as dopey or even more so than the JWs, and so they end up substituting one bit of nonsense for another. No excuse, but that's the way people often are. Also, a great many of the JW-critical websites are not run by ex-JWs but by religious fanatics every bit as doctrinaire, or braindead, as the worst JW apologist. And since the Society routinely misrepresents other religions, it's no surprise that similar (mostly fundamentalist types) religions do the same to it (turnabout is fair play, no?). In other words, the JWs are a very human religion with all of the usual failings, and so are all other religions. I don't expect many good things from any of them. You can't always expect strictly logical criticisms from religious fanatics, or from people who have been emotionally, spiritually or physically abused.

  A couple of specific points. You mentioned seeing something about an accusation that the WTS is among the top ten Fortune 500 companies. I've seen information listing them among the top 500 in terms of annual revenue. I've not looked into it, but it appears not unreasonable to me. As for the Society's finances, you're right, on the whole, that it plays its game not specifically for financial profit but to advance its religious agenda. Nothing wrong with that, but I think that the Society's extreme concern for money contributes to that feeling. Also, certain high WTS officials, including GB members, have become fairly well off financially during their terms of office. That's pretty amazing, given that they're required to take a vow of poverty. I've often wondered how they manage to stay a step ahead of the IRS. Have you ever heard of the "green handshake" routinely given to COs, DOs and other WTS officials? Do you think that these contributions are reported to the IRS according to U.S. law? I don't. A former DO told me how this works at the top. In the 1970s the Society's Treasurer was Grant Suiter. Once, a group of officials, including Suiter and this DO, were out to an expensive dinner and had had plenty of drinks, and Suiter started bragging about how the Society was financed. He pulled a little packet of diamonds out of his pocket and explained that they were contributions from JWs, and that he was going off to the downtown Manhattan diamond district real soon to sell them. Who knows how much Suiter may have skimmed off for himself? Skimmed off for himself, you wonder? How can I make such an insinuation? I can because a former JW (by the name of Stanley; he died a few years ago but once owned a great deal of property and businesses in Wenatchee, Washington) told me that in the 1970s he regularly contributed a million dollars a year to the Society through regular channels, and once a year handed Suiter $100,000 in cash. Stanley's widow is now a friend of mine and will confirm this. So WTS officials are not the squeaky clean, purely spiritually minded men the Society makes them out to be.

  ISP said that "the WTS does very little ... that cannot be viewed as protecting its business interests." While that may be a slight exaggeration, I think that a good deal of experience justifies the basic idea. For example, they've done dastardly things to child molestation victims. Why do they refuse to set things right, admit error and make restitution? Because to do so -- even though it's the right thing, the Christian thing -- would open them up to massive lawsuits. So doing the wrong thing is a studied business decision.

  I absolutely agree with your statement:

  : My point is not that the Society should not be criticised, but that only valid criticisms supported by undeniable evidence and presented in a logical, coherent and emotionally detached manner should be cited.

  Trouble is, not that many human beings are capable of presenting anything in such a manner. Therefore, one must allow for human failings.

  Your Weinberg quote is priceless.

  AlanF