Internal Watchtower Statistics Re: Disfellowshipping and Shunning

by NotFormer 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  joe134cd

  Although no one has proof of record keeping or the hiring of outside sources. I’d say WT would be pretty naive, if not foolish, if they didn’t.
• 

  NotFormer

  "I'm educating a simpleton. Alas"

  Enough with the insults, dude.

  I used one poorly worded sentence. I have been led to believe by previous posts that the outside consultants were an established fact. I see now that such is not the case. Does learning from mistakes make a person a simpleton?

  I agree that I indulged in faulty logic trying to stop my original questions and thoughts from being derailed. I retract the original assertion based on new information and advice. I'm sorry I got a faulty "fact" mixed up in my original premise.
• 

  NotFormer

  joe134cd, that's a good thing to point out. One problem is: from what we've seen over the years that the leadership seem to be very naive and foolish. An argument against the outside consultant theory might be that the echo chamber environment of Bethel might never allow the thought to be entertained: "We could do with a fresh set of eyes to look at this". They believe that they are Jehovah's channel and his direction, as decided by them, is sufficient.

  But the other side of the coin is that we outsiders see that they could do with that fresh set of eyes, and therefore we assume that they may be wise enough to engage them. Vienne may be right; it could be wishful thinking on our part.

  It doesn't change the fact that the current state of affairs within the Jehovah's Witnesses is a dog's breakfast, and they need all the help they can get to right the ship.
• 

  NotFormer

  nicolaou: "Claiming such as a fact because you "believe it" is misleading and dishonest."

  I was actually trying to be sarcastic, and a bit tongue in cheek, but the dry media of pure text didn't convey it very well. FWIW, I no longer believe it to be a fact*, having had the opposite pointed out. I hereby retract that assertion that I made in the original post. I wish I hadn't written it in the first place, knowing what I now do know.

  *I believed it at first due to having read several posts that made that assertion as though it were a fact.
• 

  NotFormer

  Slidin Fast: There are more exes than current members now

  "Is this a substantiated fact or another speculation?"

  Okay, another common assertion made here, and you're right, it's probably more hyperbolic than factual, now that you mention it. Shall we say instead "There are now a lot of exJWs out there to provide support for those who might feel the need to leave"?
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I was actually trying to be sarcastic, ~ NotFormer

  This has been a learning experience. Now you know that one has to "ring the sarcasm alert" so you don't confuse some of the slow learners.
  

  (Hope I did not come across as nasty posting this. I assure you, no malicious intent.)
  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  IMO, the recent attempts at appearing more mainstream do suggest that alleged insiders’ reports of outside consultants (and the related dismissal of Uncle Tony) are indeed legitimate.
• 

  Vidiot

  DesirousOfChange - “…Now you know that one has to ‘ring the sarcasm alert’ so you don't confuse some of the slow learners…”

  I use this:

  😏

  Seems to work most of the time.
• 

  nicolaou

  nicolaou: "Claiming such as a fact because you "believe it" is misleading and dishonest."

  I was actually trying to be sarcastic, and a bit tongue in cheek, but the dry media of pure text didn't convey it very well.

  That along with my long held suspicion that I may be somewhere on the spectrum. I'm very linear in thought and tend to take things literally.

  No biggie, it's all good.
• 

  NotFormer

  Vidiot: "I use this:

  😏

  Seems to work most of the time."

  You pull that off so well, I wouldn't dare try emulating you! 😉

  "IMO, the recent attempts at appearing more mainstream do suggest that alleged insiders’ reports of outside consultants (and the related dismissal of Uncle Tony) are indeed legitimate."

  Given that the original question was about crunching the numbers in the WT files, and the WT's stance on higher education would suggest a dearth of number crunchers at Bethel*, should they decide that they want to do that, they might find themselves in the position of needing to engage the help of outsiders. It is not unreasonable to wonder if they may have yielded to that temptation in the many areas where they may find themselves deficient. However, as pointed out in this thread, there is not a lot of real evidence that they are in the habit of engaging outside consultants**.

  *The small pool of tertiary educated JWs to draw on due to their stance higher education is pretty well established as fact. There are exceptions, people who decide to get a degree against WT advice, but they are enough of a rarity to be the subject of many a thread***. And, more often than not (I'm now trespassing back into the area of speculation rather than concrete fact), they tend to become exes and may well end up here!

  **I read on another thread that the WT has engaged the services of a legal firm that helped the Catholic church with their CSA cases. Is that an established fact?

  ***And it is said that the WT will send favoured Bethelites to university to get the education they need to function in certain roles. No-one**** ever said that the WT is above pragmatism in the face of principle. "Hypocrisy" might be too strong a word, and perhaps the subject of a different thread. And, of course, many such threads exist.

  ****This is hyperbolic and sarcastic in nature.