by AK - Jeff 20 Replies latest jw experiences
Right.
That is what I think makes it good for those who might still be unwilling to read hard core 'apostate' writings like Franz' or Penton for example. I am hoping to help her have a soft landing out and start thinking for herself somewhat. COC did it for me, but I was ready to see the light by then.
Jeff
Uh-oh!
Just did the 666 post here on JWD... the devil's number
Just did the 666 post here on JWD... the devil's number
You tiger you!
I also thought my daughter would be better able to relate to this story because it is written more as a life experience than it is a JW rip session.
Drama! The infamous multiple posting syndrome..
Drama! The infamous multiple posting syndrome..
Drama! The infamous multiple posting syndrome..
I have read the book. It was an interesting and entertaining book but is not entirely true to fact about Jehovahs Witnesses. Mr. McCool is not and has not been one of Jehovahs Witnesses. His book is (I believe) based on knowing some Jehovahs Witnesses and observing the religion. Some of the actions of his Jehovahs Witnesses characters are believable but not typical of most JWs I have known. The book is biased against Jehovahs Witnesses but if one keeps that in mind they will still find it entertaining.
Ordinarilly i wouldn't take the time to critique a work of fiction based on its acuracies... But I had a unique reaction when I read it- I was both throughly entertained by the struggles of the main characters and apalled by the gross inacuracies...
Each character was written in such a way as to cause a certain emotional reaction, and it delivered. Truly a fantastic work of FICTION... Unfortunately the author in his preface makes this comment: "...the vast majority of the public is not aware of Jehovah's Witnesses' true eccentricity, which this novel has attempted to reveal."
In other words, Mr. McCool wrote a work of fiction using fictional characters with fictional personalities in a fictual situation and his put his own spin on their supposed beliefs and expects the readers to decide whether or not the WTBS is an "authoritarian religion."
How is someone supposed to make a decision based in fact on a work of fiction, exactly?
This is my first post, so maybe I should introduce myself...
I'm an ex-Witness, lapsed Witness, whatever you want to call it... I was raised a witness and later in life decided that I didn't want to live my life the way witnesses are taught to live. That was the begining and end of it- I had no experience in leaving the religion that comes in any way close to the stories that I've read on this website or any other. I've examined certain claims made by anti-Witnesses about 1914, blood issues and child abuse. I've found little merrit in these arguments; they played no part in my decision not to remain a witness. All through my life I had friends who were both witnesses and non witnesses. I still have contact with my family. (Only my parents and one aunt are active witnesses). I was not shunned, though i wont say my decision to leave wasn't disappointing to my family. I still have contact with certain witness and ex witness friends.
I have never known anyone who has had an experience similar to the ones described on this website. I don't consider myself to be very interested in religious things... An experience with an ex-girlfriend's family (not witness, Evangelical Lutherans actually) turned me off to ANY sort of religion. My experience with them taught me that "shunning" and all the bad treatment that most posters to this website ascribe to witnesses are common to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. The long and short of it was that my ex's family wanted me to join their religion; I refusesd. From that point I was treated very badly by them and it caused no shortage of problems in an otherwise great relationship. She found some witness material in my home one day and expressed an interest in it, though I at the time was not practicing. When her family found out our relationship with them was totally altered. They actually threatened HER with shunning if she tried to engage in a study with the witnesses, though that the time nothing had been offered to her- she was simply curious about some reading material she came across. Her family also used material from such websites as freeminds.org and silentlambs.org to discourage her from trying to learn anything about witnesses except from those sources. It was through one of those sites, I forget which, that I learned about the McCool novel. I was curious and I read it.
Like I said it was both upsetting to read it and enjoyable because I felt that it was a good "story." I was upset because I can't stand hypocrisy. I couldn't stand it as a witness, and I still can't stand it as an ex-witness. I have read stories on this site and on others that talk about how despicable the WTBTS is for appealing to emotions concerning the future of the world but see no problem with a fiction author appealing to emotions the way Mr. McCool does in his book.
I was moved by the story, emotionally. I was upset with Jack and Susan's mother and step father and the elder who assisted them. I looked at their father as a hero who loved his children and who sincerely wanted what was best for them. I had to stop myself and realize that I was reading a work of fiction designed to give people a negative impression of JWs and lead them to make a judgement about them as though they'd just read a book of facts, not a book of fiction.
Assuming every charge of deception and falsehood against the WTBTS was true, I'm left with the question after reading ITT, "why is using deception and appeals to base emotions evil and rotten when it comes to the WTBTS, but praiseworthy when an author writes a book with anti-witness leanings?"
It's like I'm Glen Larson, and I've just put out my new Battlestar Galactica mini-series, and after it I put up a placard for my viewing audience that asks them, "is research into cybernetics something that will destroy humanity in the future? Let the viewer decide..."
So I ask you, how can someone draw a factual conclusion from a biased work of fiction, no matter how stirring to the emotions it may be?
N
Welcome to the board Mr. Neutron . Your reasons for leaving were similar to mine. I pretty much decided I no longer wanted to live my life the way they wanted me to and I was sick of trying to follow the rules. Granted, I was exposed to multiple situations similar to some of those communicated here on this website and I believe there is drama in all religions. Those negative experiences were not what prompted me to leave though.
Hindsite has definitely convinced me that I never want to go back to the JWs nor do I want my children involved in it.
Again, welcome and I am glad to meet you .
I, for one, have not read the book described in this post but I plan to. From my understanding the book was merely an accounting of someone's experiences growing up as a Jehovah's Witness. It was not my understanding the write put a spin on said accounting. Having been a Witness for 10+ years I will hopefully be able to decipher between fact and fiction .
Thank you for your greetings...
Nothing in the writer's preface leads me to believe that the story was a "true" one...
Different situations described throughout the book led me to believe that the author had heard the information through a gatekeeper as opposed to experiencing the details himself...
Particularly disturbing was the account near the end where the son was left to die under a tree rather than seek any sort of medical help... While it's common knowledge that JW view on blood transfusions is a negative one I have a hard time believing that any parent would just let their child die rather than attempt to find ANY way of treating him/her. But I don't know "everyone" so who knows... Maybe I'm wrong ;)
I was also disturbed when reading about how an elder in the novel was insinuating that he would help a study to find a mate other than her opposing husband... I know MANY MANY people who are married to witnesses and, though they may not agree on religious matters, are able to coexist very well. I'm sure there may be situations out there where a person just can't stay married to a witness, but I've found these to be the exception and not the rule. And in most situations it's the non-witness mate that leaves or "shuns" his or her mate... So my own personal experiences lead me to believe that while some witnesses take shunning to an extreme, the same applies to all sorts of people (no matter what religion they're part of-- even atheists) when they don't agree with someone else's ideas...
Plus I felt that important details were left out of the story. The father seemed to be a very loving and caring man, and his wife seemed to be reasonable as well. Why did the two divorce? Was one unfaithful, or is this further insinuation that the step-father "stole" the true father's wife? How did the other man get into the picture?
'N'
