OneEyedJoe

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 2,930 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OneEyedJoe

• 
  2

  A proliferation of semi-pro-JW sites

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  as more and more jw learn ttat maybe these new ones who are still in might be interested in making a bunch of jw sites where they are more loosely moderated and negative stuff about the organization is planted and removed(allowed to stay but only a few days).. make it appear safe for regular jws but allow some freedom of expression to stay on for a time.

  iow run by more moderate moderators who eventually get rid of offending posts after some deliberation..

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  eh. Personally I think things are fine the way they are. The super indoctrinated aren't going to be made to think without something impacting them on a personal level. If something does hit them on a personal level, they'll find their way out eventually.

  I think it's much more advantageous to have the internet full of 99% anti-JW information with one or two forums full of such sickeningly thick cult behavior that it makes it completely obvious to the outside world what this cult is. When you dry up recruiting, their only outlook is attrition. That attrition will then cause more to doubt and wonder why things aren't going the way they should be.
• 
  15

  My Husband Lies

  by disillusioned 2 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  my husband went to the assembly at the weekend.

  a few people asked about me, why didn't i go anymore?

  he lied and told them "i don't know"!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Yeah, this is about what you ought to expect. He doesn't want to bear the brunt of the passive-aggressive nonsense that he knows he'll get if he gives a straight answer. He probably also realizes that if he tells them you're a full-blown apostate that you'll become the subject of a lot of gossiping and slander, not to mention the cruel practice of shunning. On some level, he may realize that you're right but is afraid to face it and knows that seeing you mistreated in this way will only prove you right.

  It's a tough spot for both of you to be sure. Cut him some slack and have some patience and pity - he's just a human operating under the undue influence of a cult. I know first hand how difficult it is to separate a spouse's genuine personality from what they do and say in cult mode in your mind, but I think it helps to remember that they're trapped in a cult and therefore in just as bad a situation as you're in even if they don't realize it fully.
• 
  16

  Would this be any use to the Royal Commission?

  by freddo in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i believe this shows how the org.

  doesn't want to be held accountable to secular legal authorities.. in the 1991 green elders handbook (used between 1991 and 2010) there is a blank page (page 143) and at one elders school we were instructed to write six expressions that "should not be used on s77 + s79 forms (df and da forms)".. 1) anything alluding to or naming one of the society's legal advisers.. 2) any mention of the legal desk.. 3) any comments referring to direction from the society.. 4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached.. 5) any comment that might suggest someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but instead somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party.. 6) any comments indicating the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.. i have in my possession two elders handbooks with these exact words written in each in different handwriting.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  It certainly would go towards establishing that they have a clear pattern of secrecy in an effort to keep up appearances. Giving instructions like that is absolutely unethical. It's a clear attempt to prevent any inconvenient truth from making it into the records and is effectively preemptive evidence tampering.
• 
  13

  How does the WTS view 'ancient humans' (i.e. fossils assigned to the genus Homo)?

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  having read i love ttatt's thread about evidence for humans living more than 6,000 years ago, i responded by using neanderthals and homo ergaster as evidence.

  .

  this got me thinking about the wt's current view on 'cavemen' (), etc.. so, how does the wts view 'ancient humans'?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  The JWs don't have a view on ancient humans because they close their eyes.

  There are none so blind as those who refuses to see.
• 
  232

  Geoffrey Jackson Royal Commission update

  by umbertoecho in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  hello people.

  the rc will still go ahead with it's live stream on friday 14th august.

  however, it seem that it will be a video link.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  The main reason I want him to show his face (and I suspect the main reason he doesn't want to) is because the first reaction of most JWs upon finding the ARC in the years to come will see that it's just audio of GJ and they'll assume that it's been faked or otherwise pieced together by apostates.

  I know that's what I would've assumed if I'd stumbled upon something like that 2 years ago. Hopefully they'll put the video link on the streaming feed.
• 
  15

  Did anyone catch the change on jw.org point number 4 who is babylon the great

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jw.org changed point number 4 excluding the idea of child molesting.

  coments please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I think this is a reference to:

  http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/babylon-the-great/

  Do you have a screen capture from before the change?
• 
  15

  Its really weird

  by SpunkedTeen in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i tried testing my family by mentioning that a member of the gb was summoned to appear in front of the royal commission and i found it really weird how they reacted.they dismissed it saying its just satan attacking the 'truth' and i could not believe how ignorant they are.they all think that the organization did nothing wrong or even that jw's abuse their children.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Don't hold it against them. They are being controlled and conditioned.
  

  Furthermore, if you were in a group setting you'll never really know what they think. It's quite conceivable that they could all be doubting the cult, but are just afraid to speak up around other JWs for fear of the consequences. That's the sort of thing that can happen when freedom of speech is abolished, like it has been in the JW community.
• 
  30

  Hello!

  by BeautifulMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been enjoying all of the discussions here for a good while now.

  i found this site as i was researching things about this religion i've been in (finally after nagging curiosity and questions) but i wanted to figure things out more before coming on here and posting.

  i'm glad to see that im not alone or crazy!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Welcome! It's always nice to hear of a couple that's getting out together. Another marriage beats the cult!
• 
  18

  Jw gift.org

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how did i miss this ?

  .

  www.jwgift.org.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Note the minimum, 5 pounds, stops us from donating a penny and letting them get stiffed for the credit card minimum, bummer.
  

  They're definitely not interested in "two small coins of little value"
• 
  18

  Jw gift.org

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how did i miss this ?

  .

  www.jwgift.org.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  How long before jws start giving certificates that say "A donation in the amount of $xx has been made in your name to jw.org" for all their gift giving needs? If that happens, I predict birthdays will get the nu lite treatment!