Posts by OrphanCrow

12

Trey Bundy 13-minute interview at C.I.R. headquarters re: allegations of sex abuse among JWs. You will find this video quite "revealing"

by AndersonsInfo in

https://www.facebook.com/thisisreveal/videos/1265278083563107/?utm_source=reveal+newsletters&utm_campaign=41ea55c5ef-the_weekly_reveal_01_10_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c38de7c444-41ea55c5ef-229964425.

january 5, 2017. reporter trey bundy discusses his reporting on allegations of sex abuse among jehovah’s witnesses.

.

OrphanCrow

Thank you Barbara.

This is so excellent

45

Are there any doctrines which all Christian religions follow.

by jwfacts in

i cannot think of a single doctrine that is so clearly laid out in the bible that every christian sect teaches the same point.

are there any doctrine where there is total consensus amongst all christian religions, including jehovah's witnesses?.

OrphanCrow

jwfacts: I cannot think of a single doctrine that is so clearly laid out in the Bible that every Christian sect teaches the same point. Are there any doctrine where there is total consensus amongst all Christian religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses?

I can.

This one is so easy.

God is male.

That is the one unchanging doctrine that is consistent in ALL Christian religions. Try changing that one and the whole f***ing mess comes crashing down

16

Goal: To digitize all WT statistical data

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

i have the goal of digitizing all wt statistical data, as much as possible, as far back as possible.user 88jm.

i recently did 1980 and i had a friend help me with 1979 and 1978.. do we have any volunteers to help me with previous years??.

it's a lot of work, but if you know excel you can make some macros that will speed up the work..

OrphanCrow

I have the list of countries as listed in the yearbook...

Haha! Yeah..."lands", according to the org

A person has to be careful when extrapolating figures from the yearbooks so that actual countries are represented. For example, for many years Newfoundland reported their own figures that were separate from the Canadian report. Likewise with Alaska, Hawaii etc

I recently did some number crunching using the old yearbook numbers and it was really frustrating to deal with the way that the org breaks down the figures into their idea of what makes up a "land" as opposed to a country

I remember Angus Stewart touching briefly on this issue during Jackson's testimony and I was puzzled about it at the time. After I worked with the yearbook figures, it occurred to me that Stewart may have been trying to highlight how the org doesn't respect secular boundaries

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

It was to highlight that as a society we need to focus on things that are verifiably true and things that masquerade as fact even though they are opinion or feelings.

Really? Then why was the title of this thread "Not a sympathizer"?

And besides...you have demonstrated that you only think you know what those terms mean. Or...maybe I should use your lexicon here...you only feel that you know what those terms mean

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

Honestly i am not going to describe my feelings on this in this forum...

Lol!

So why did you start a thread that claims you are not a sympathizer/apologist if you are not willing to back up your claim?

Seriously? You think you can just waltz on here and make a statement and expect us to accept it?

Hahaha!

I love this forum. Too much fun. :) better than comedy central sometimes

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

I know all that, Richard. I am aware that you have said all of that.

The exercise I proposed involves you and your feelings.

This is your thread. State your feeling/opinion on each of the points listed.

Tell us exactly why you feel you are not a sympathizer of the org.

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

Okay. I give up. We will use your definition of what terms mean. I can do that - it just means learning a slightly different language and making adjustments for inaccuracies. Not a problem. I have been an educator in a past life and I have had to do it before - I can do it again.

So. Let's tackle this.

Richard, what is your opinion about this checklist? How do you feel that the org measures up when you compare it to these characteristics of a high control group? What is your subjective analysis of each point? Do you feel that the org is different or the same as each point?

(bolding is mine in the following)

This checklist of characteristics helps to define such groups. Comparing the descriptions on this checklist to aspects of the group with which you or a family member or loved one is involved may help determine if this involvement is cause for concern. If you check any of these items as characteristic of the group, and particularly if you check most of them, you might want to consider reexamining the group and its relationship to you. Keep in mind that this checklist is meant to stimulate thought. It is not a scientific method of "diagnosing" a group.

We suggest that you check all characteristics that apply to your or your loved one's group, then print this browser page for future reference. You may find that your assessment changes over time, with further reading and research.

8

Is strong faith or belief in religion or "God" a mental disorder?

by kpop in

jw
friends

it is a most interesting study.

when one studies anthropology, one can see how the "need" for belief in a higher being evolved from early man.

and it served a purpose.

OrphanCrow

Article from Scientific American:

How Do You Distinguish between Religious Fervor and Mental Illness?

It's not meant as insult to believers; the two states of mind can share many similar characteristics

By Nathaniel P. Morris on December 22, 2016

Last year, a news column circulated the web, announcing the American Psychological Association had decided to classify strong religious beliefs as mental illness. According to the article, a five-year study by the APA concluded that devout belief in a deity could hinder “one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters.” Refusals by Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept life-saving treatments, such as blood transfusions, were given as an example.
Of course, this turned out to be a fake news story. But it still drew legitimate media coverage and outrage from readers. Fact-checking websites like Snopes had to point out the column was satirical.
To many, this was a ridiculous stunt. But for me, a physician specializing in mental health, the satire hits home in many ways. My colleagues and I often care for patients suffering from hallucinations, prophesying, and claiming to speak with God, among other symptoms—in mental health care, it’s sometimes very difficult to tell apart religious belief from mental illness.
Part of this is because the classification of mental illness often relies on subjective criteria. We can’t diagnose many mental health conditions with brain scans or blood tests. Our conclusions frequently stem from the behaviors we see before us.
Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.
But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.
It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. For example, the Church of Scientology argued with the Internal Revenue Service for years to be classified as a charitable religious organization and to qualify for tax-exempt status. The Church eventually won this battle in 1993, a major step towards becoming a mainstream American religion.
According to Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, a book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright, Scientologists believe in alien spirits inhabiting human bodies. Many believe they have special powers, like telekinesis and telepathy.
This puts mental health professionals in a tricky, cultural bind. Before 1993, should mental health professionals have treated patients expressing these beliefs as psychotic? After 1993, as faithful adherents?

*read full article at link

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

Richard, why do you need a peer reviewed article that specifically states that? Are you not capable of rationally analyzing this on your own? Can you not access a list of characteristics of a high control group and compare it to the WTS?

It is a simple exercise that does not require peer reviewed articles that directly speak of the WTS. There is plenty of information from recognized mental health professionals that lay down the parameters of what defines a high control group. You are fully capable of inserting "characteristics of a high control group" into your search engine and rationally choosing those sources that are attached to a mental health professional that has at least a PHD from a credible university

Just do a comparison. It isn't difficult - there is lots of available credible material that can be accessed for this exercise. It is a rational exercise, not an emotional one

I have been trying to understand my own involvement in your thread here, Richard. I normally don't bother to engage with these type of threads and the conclusion I came to as to why I have bothered to try to converse with you is that I am experiencing a feeling of compassion for you. And for others like you.

You are intelligent. You deserve to arrive at a place where you can use your intelligence to sever the emotional tie you have to the org. I propose to you that your attachment and defense of the org arises from your need for security and surety. The org's restrictive policies and apparent surety of future is what fills that emotional need you have for security. The org's black and white teachings and the rigid structure gives the illusion of security that satisfies you emotionally.

I look forward to the day that you, and others like you, feel safe enough to think on your own and that you will find your authentic self. And have the freedom to be that person.

130

Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver in

i think everyone here is under the impression that i am a watchtower sympathizer, i am not.

i just like facts and when people say things, which are their opinions but that facts point out as not being true, than that is when i get so motivated to make a comment.

i have read posts here, listened to six screens and read jwsurvey and seen things that people say, which are opinion, but pass them off as fact.. there are legitimate things that people on here and former jws have concerns over without manipulating what is said or trying to pass off opinion as a fact.

OrphanCrow

Richard: And you feel it is not a subjective thing, but you say it is an absolute fact.

I was right. You do have a problem with terminology.

"Feel" has nothing at all to do with what I "think". My thinking on this matter is a rational process and "feeling" is an irrational process

I do not feel what I said - I think it