I have a hard time blaming the Watchtower

by spiritwalker 132 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Sorry, I was going to answer this earlier, but I had to go to the store and get more Depends...
• 

  Nosferatu

  Basically, when I want to discuss rape and abuse and what is accountable and when with the Society, I will bring it up.

  Spiritwalker, you've done just as I stated above. People have become offended because their history with the WTS brings back many terrible memories (including me). You've pushed a lot of people's buttons, getting them to react based on emotions. You cannot stop people from doing that, or it'll just be you and Phanton Stranger having a discussion. Many here have been abused, or have had close family members abused by people in the "truth".
  

  When a parent sends their child to another person's house, and the child is sexually abused by someone in that house, is the parent responsible for the abuse because they sent their child to that person's house?

  Can everyone agree that

  A) some undefined degree of personal responsibility (between 1 and 100%, to remain undefined) is incumbent upon the adult competent actor, regardless of misleading, manipulative, or deceptive statements which contribute to the deed or deeds, because of their free agency? No making someone feel bad, no guilt - and, and acknowledgement of choices made?

  B) and that those who actively manipulate, mislead, and deceive are fully responsible for their acts in doing so?

  Sorry Phantom, I cannot agree with you mainly because I have no clue what you just wrote.
  Big Words + Nosferatu = ????
• 

  concerned mama

  This is an fascinating thread. I'm an outsider, so I won't offer a point of view, other than to say that all of your posts deal with the questions we, 'never JWs', ponder about personal responsibility and mind control.

  Why do JWs not question?

  How can they live like that and not leave?

  What is the hold?

  I don't have any answers, but it is sure interesting listening to all of you. Thank you.
• 

  amac

  Interesting thread. I have only been able to glance over most of it but tend to agree with spiritwalker and Phantom...here is my opinion...

  Personal responsibility does not necessarily have to do with "blame" in the sense of finding fault. Taking personal responsibility for your actions as a JW does not mean that the WT has no responsibility as well. It just means that you are more concerned with your actions and what you can do differently rather than how others have wronged you.

  I was raised as a JW and groomed into a MS and Pioneer/Bethelite. My parents became JWs when I was 2 years old so I can easily blame either the WT or my parents for being raised a JW and for all the things I missed out on and the emotional effects it had. But what's the point? Did my parents malicously try to ruin my life? No, they thought they were doing what was best for me and I love them for that. Who do I blame? No one. Those were the cards I was dealt and now that I am old enough to take my own personal responsibility, I deal with them as I see fit. Once I was old enought to decide for myself, being a JW was noone's fault, it was my personal choice. It was also my personal choice to question it and now my personal choice to fully disagree with it and live my life as I deem appropriate.

  I think it is important to embrace personal responsibility rather than continually play the victim and think how others have wronged you.

  If someone cons you out of your life savings, is it better to spend the rest of your life thinking how they screwed you over or is it better to examine what caused you to fall for it and what you can do different? If you want to help others, figure out what you did wrong and help them to not make the same mistake.
• 

  spiritwalker

  Spiritwalker, you've done just as I stated above. People have become offended because their history with the WTS brings back many terrible memories

  Actually, what I have done is step on to people's comfort zone. As some former Witnesses feel better with blame then responsibility. It is not all negative, but perhaps it is not the strongest course of healing either. I am pushing it a little, in that I keep responding and making my point over and over again and to some that is annoying or to much. The thing is, I never once in this thread said that people are terrible people for doing what they did. They could have been wonderful people and not all Witnesses are bad people, in fact many are great people to know. Yet we just have to sit back at ome time and say, "you know, I did do those things and I decided to do them and I am responsible for them." It has nothing to do with children and like I said many times, there are exceptions to everything.

  This sums up what I mean here, posted by another poster

  I think it is important to embrace personal responsibility rather than continually play the victim and think how others have wronged you.
• 

  shotgun

  Spiritwalker

  I agree with you that life is about choices especially when you become an adult. I was raised a dub and made the choice to believe my parents and follow their direction just as my daughter does presently to me.

  As an adult I made the choice last year to research all my doubts and now I am fully aware that the WT and GB are and never were what I was taught to believe.

  With that knowledge I am now able to make a decision and take responsibility for myself. Without accurate knowledge ( I hate to use that expression) it was impossible to make a responsible decision.

  The decisions I have are to continue putting faith in an Org which does not deserve it or pretend that I do and hold my family together. The other choice is to make a stand and lose my family because they are taught by that same org that accurate knowledge is attainable only through them.

  Neither choice is pleasent but there they are.

  I at times hate myself for accepting so much that was taught to me without question but that does not help either,what's done is done.

  What's your story?

  Were you raised as a dub or did you accept the teachings as an adult?

  If you have not done so I suggest you read Steven Hassans book Releasing the Bonds of Mind Control. You may not need it for yourself but it would help you understand a little bit about how many on this forum feel and also how they were and possibly still are controlled to a certain degree.

  P.S..You mention in a post about 20k leaving voluntarily each year. Where did you get that number from? In the late eighties when the number of publishers was about 2.5 million there were about 40 to 50k being df'd each year. That did not include the faders. I'm not sure what the percentage of returnees is for df'd ones but its about 50% from my personal experience.
• 

  Nosferatu

  "you know, I did do those things and I decided to do them and I am responsible for them."

  I don't disagree at all with this statement. I've done stupid shit in my life that I accept full responsibility for. However, I don't blame myself for a choice resulting from someone else's manipulative ways.

  You can come up with an idea which causes you to take action, or you can be influenced by someone else to take action. Those that I come up with myself I take full responsibility for. Those that others have come up with, I have them to either thank or blame. Give credit where credit is due.
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Another long one...

  It seems that there are many comments on this board recommending that we "learn" about "mind control".

  In this spirit, below are excerpts from a 1987 "friend-of-the-court" brief filed by several scientists and academics, as well as the American Psychological Association in a case involving expert testimony in a Scientology case. The APA later withdrew its involvement with the brief due to an internal task force that the brief would have been affected by - see below (the brief was not contradicted by the internal APA report when it was released). Please note that Scientology is not being defended in this brief or in this post. I know that there have been many reports of physically abusive behavior by the CoS and I am not defending them in any way... but I think the conclusions reached by the APA below are worth a read (no doubt many on this board have read this before...I beg your patience as I provide an opportunity for those who have not read this before). The entire brief can be found here. Bold text is my own emphasis added - underlines were present in the brief.

  From a scientific point of view, it is exceedingly difficult--most would say wholly illegitimate--to evaluate allegedly coercive acts by measuring their effect on some ineffable human quality called free will. To do so, a scientist would have to define what free will is, describe how the environment affects free will, and decide the point at which the effects become so great that free will can be said to be overborne. In such inquiries swirl the deepest philosophical mysteries of human existence; no responsible scientist lays claim to the power to define or discuss free will in this sense....

  What responsible scientists can do is investigate the range of observable responses to environmental stimuli. From a scientific perspective, coercion is thus a feature of external environment, inferred from the constricted range of behavior most people show in that environment. When measuring coercion in this statistical sense, psychologists and other behavioral scientists can infer the degree of coercion of a particular complex of stimuli by measuring how much it affects the range of behaviors most people generally show. When an apparently fit beggar asks for money, for example, a few people give a little, a few give more, and most simply walk on. Begging, then, is not ordinarily very coercive. When a mugger asks for money with a knife at the victim's throat, most people give it. Armed mugging is quite coercive....

  If empirical evidence shows that the great majority of people subjected to a particular complex of stimuli exhibit a very limited range of behaviors, even though other behaviors were physically possible, it can be said that this complex of stimuli is an effective constraint. Conversely, when persons subjected to particular stimuli engage in a broad range of behaviors, it cannot be said that this complex of stimuli is coercive in any scientifically meaningful sense...

  When plaintiffs' theory of coercive persuasion is evaluated in this scientific way, its plausibility evaporates. A significant and uncontradicted body of empirical social science evidence demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of persons who undergo the process plaintiffs describe as "coercive persuasion," even for a period of weeks, choose not to affiliate with the Unification Church. Several studies of Unification Church recruitment workshops reveal that, on the average, fewer than one in ten of those who got as far as attending a Church workshop agree to join the Church, and fewer than one in twenty remain with the Church for two years...

  Given these statistics...the only conclusion that can scientifically be drawn is that the conversion practices of the Unification Church are not coercive. These practices not only fail to convert at least 90% of those subjected to them, but actually dissuade the overwhelming proportion. Furthermore, although persons who join the Church remain in an environment plaintiffs' experts would characterize as psychologically manipulative, even most of those initially persuaded to join the Church leave it after a period of months or years. ..

  Nor does the proffered testimony suggest that even the small percentage of persons who decide to join the Church have been psychologically coerced. Because the Church's conversion practices are not in themselves coercive for the vast majority of people, the operation of some other variable--either alone or interacting with the Church's conversion practices--must explain individual decisions to join the Church. It might be possible, for example, to define a certain subgroup of persons possessing common traits who are particularly likely to respond favorably. Were experts able to show statistically that members of this subgroup will typically respond to the Church's conversion practices by joining the Church, then it might--under some circumstances--be possible to express a scientific opinion that this complex of stimuli was coercive for this subgroup. Drs. Singer and Benson have not, however, purported to undertake any such definition, much less analysis; they simply advance the demonstrably incorrect claim that the conversion practices of the Church are inherently coercive...

  Precisely because free will is ineffable and not susceptible to direct observation or measurement, drawing any conclusions about deprivation of free will is an exceedingly uncertain enterprise. When scientists purport to conclude that an individual has been deprived of free will they have stepped beyond the sphere of their expertise. Such a claim does not partake of science because it cannot be measured or tested; it has no empirical foundation. Accordingly, when Drs. Singer and Benson proffered testimony that Church conversion practices overcame plaintiffs' free will, they were not speaking as scientists. Their claim must thus be considered unreliable in the most fundamental sense. It is philosophical speculation, not science. Scientists can evaluate the degree to which the conversion practices of the Church result in a decision to join the Church by those subjected to the practices, but all available scientific evidence of this nature refutes the claim of coercion plaintiffs advance. When Drs. Singer and Benson describe the "systematic manipulation of social influences" as "coercive persuasion," they self-consciously ground their claim in a body of scientific inquiry into purported mind-control techniques that became notorious during the Korean War. Seeking to explain why some American prisoners of war held in Korea and China appeared to adopt the belief system of their captors, the popular press advanced the theory that the free will and judgment of these individuals had been overborne by sophisticated techniques of mind control or "brainwashing." Without accepting the claims about "free will," several reputable scientists also concluded that--under conditions of confinement involving extreme physical hardship, isolation for extended periods, deprivation of necessities, physical torture, and threats of death--some individuals might be induced temporarily to accept belief systems antithetical to those they previously held. Under such conditions, survival itself might hinge, or be thought by the captive to hinge, on adopting the captors' ideology.

  To justify their claim that those subjected to Church conversion practices were deprived of free will, Drs. Singer and Benson have accepted the validity of the claims of brainwashing in the POW context and extended them to the context of the Unification Church. This analytical approach is fundamentally flawed for two reasons.

  First, Drs. Singer and Benson have exaggerated the findings of the original POW studies ...<details follow>

  Second, Drs. Singer and Benson have wholly failed to account for a crucial factor distinguishing Unification Church conversion practices from Korean War POW camps: the complete absence in the Church context of physical confinement, torture, death threats and severe physical deprivations. Physical confinement and abuse were--as Dr. Singer acknowledged in another context--central to the debilitating character of POW camps ("Coercive persuasion occurs when a person is subjected to intense and prolonged coercive tactics and persuasion in a situation from which that person cannot escape" )

  For these reasons, the overwhelming preponderance of scholars has repudiated the effort to extend the POW mind control hypothesis to the context of new religious movements.

  This consensus view of relevant professionals fatally undermines a fundamental premise for the conclusions Drs. Singer and Benson assert. Physical confinement and abuse was a necessary condition for coercive persuasion in the POW context. Because the Unification Church context involves no confinement or violence, hypotheses derived in the POW context--whatever their validity there--cannot be generalized to provide valid explanations for Church conversion practices. Thus, the entire conceptual framework for the conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson has been rejected by the scientific community.
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Below is an excerpt from a 21-year CoS member, Robert Vaughn Young, who left. It is part of a much longer piece that is fascinating to read here.

  Various ''experts'' can (and do) argue if ''mind control'' or ''brainwashing'' really exists or if we are just talking about various forms of ''influence'' that is found in everything from advertising to conversations. But they can't argue with the fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in abusive situations and there are women who flee and when found by the husband are talked BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape and then it repeats...

  The first time I saw the parallel between my own experiences in the cult of Scientology and battered women was when I was reading ' 'Captive Hearts, Captive Minds,'' which is an excellent book. It was in the Intro or maybe the first chapter that they cited and quoted the singer Tina Turner who had been in an abusive relationship for something like 10 or 15 years. She remarked how being with Ike Turner was like being in a small cult. The remark jumped off the page at me. Given the success of Tina Turner as an entertainer, one is not prone to say she is a stupid woman but there she was in a marriage where she was beaten constantly and yet she stayed.

  One wonders how often she has been asked since, ''Tina, you're such a talented woman, so intelligent, how could you stay with a man for 10/15 years who was beating you?'' Maybe she has an answer in her autobiography. I don't know. It is on my to-read list. But I know she was asked that question. Every woman who escapes a man who has been beating them must get that question and it is probably the hardest one in the world to answer. After all, it's not that you don't KNOW you're getting beaten. And it didn't happen just once. Nor twice. It happens week after week, month after month, year after year.

  Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for example, and she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to the store, buys food, and brings it home, to the very place where she is being beaten and she makes dinner. She doesn't keep driving. SHE COMES BACK. To what? More abuse.

  There are also plenty of cases where the women DID escape, where they finally got up their courage and maybe grabbing the kids, they fled and the man managed to find them. Then, with no physical abuse, he TALKED HER BACK. And then when the abuse started again, she stayed. Some leave, but some stay.

  When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he makes for his (mind-control) model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their models of ''mind control'' or ''brainwashing'' or however you call it, battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.

  Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled my situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were able to cross into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions in East Berlin were as bad as we were being told in the West, how could they step into the West, see the difference, buy the things they didn't have back home and then return? I don't cite this as an exact parallel, but there is a similarity. Why would a person go BACK to a condition that is worse? I don't think ''mind control'' or ''brainwashing'' fits that situation any more than it fits the abused woman or that it fit mine.

  One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned the East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. ''East Germany was their home,'' she said. ''People don't easily leave their homes unless they have someplace better to go.''
• 

  Singing Man

  Hey Hansen, if the person living next to you said your house was on fire when it was not who's fault is it? I rest my case. Hootie Hoo