within the past decade, two elders stepped down in my old congregation.
actually one was taken off for commiting adultery and therefore reproved, but the other one simply stepped down for no apparent reason.
also, in another congregation i used to attend for a short time, i was shocked to hear of another elder stepping down, again for no apparent reason.. i am wondering if there has been an increase in the number of elders stepping down for no obvious reason and to see if this is a worrying trend causing alarm for the society.. i am thinking the past 10 years, particularly with the internet being available to so many people around the world today; but have you experienced many elders stepping down in your congregation or past congregation?
After I stepped aside I had one of those R&F nutbars (a loopy loonies with the fake bipolar) come up to me and tell me how much she was shocked and surprised and asked what lead up to my decision as she and her husband were so sad....my answer..."you and your family - you robbed me of my joy"
LOLOLOL - that's fantastic!
NLP - welcome. And, exactly!
i knew about elders being "deleted" and have commented what a strange and pejorative term that is, but it wasn't until "wtwizard" and "designs" commented on another thread about it that it actually hit home for me.. one cannot step down as an elder with any dignity!
elder's can't quit, with the word "quit" being as in "he quit his job.
" elder's can't resign as in "he resigned as chairman of the board for xyz corp.".
If they invited the "deleted" elder to give the closing prayer at the end of the meeting, that was a signal to the congregation that "yeah, he's not an elder any more, but he's still a decent chap".
That's the practice I've seen as well. My take was always that if someone decided that he either didn't want to be an elder or maybe couldn't for whatever reason, he should be allowed to step aside with some dignity. The offical WTS position doesn't allow the BOE or congregation collectively to thank them for their service but its basic common courtesy to do so. So this is a way to send a signal to the congregation that the person stepped down on his own.
Crazy and similar to the mob. You can't just quit (that's what my old COBOE/PO said to me when I resigned)
within the past decade, two elders stepped down in my old congregation.
actually one was taken off for commiting adultery and therefore reproved, but the other one simply stepped down for no apparent reason.
also, in another congregation i used to attend for a short time, i was shocked to hear of another elder stepping down, again for no apparent reason.. i am wondering if there has been an increase in the number of elders stepping down for no obvious reason and to see if this is a worrying trend causing alarm for the society.. i am thinking the past 10 years, particularly with the internet being available to so many people around the world today; but have you experienced many elders stepping down in your congregation or past congregation?
The standard procedure is to get the resignation in writing which is then forwarded to the branch. I'm quite sure they keep that letter in your permanent file. So, everyone has to state a reason. I've actually seen more resignations than removals and the most common reason is "to take care of family". No one can really argue with it so its the perfect excuse. In some cases, its probably true but in other cases (such as mine) there was some skepticism from the BOE. It seems whether its for "sin" or not, that's the automatic assumption from the rank & file. It's all part of the control (punish behavior not condusive to the leaders)
iv.
emotional control1.
manipulate and narrow the range of a person's feelings.. 2. make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's.. 3. excessive use of guilt.
I'm on a roll!! Great posts Jimmy Page. When you take a honest look at these cult identifiers, its difficult to argue that the WTS doesn't qualify. It was hard for me to admit but that's the reality.
1. How else can you get people to shun family or friends they've known for decades because the leaders tell you to?
2. See the WT explaination for the 1975 debacle.
3. See any assembly for numerous examples. Also the WT articles telling us about how a brother in Africa swam across croc infested waters and walked 10 miles each way to get to the meeting on time.
4. Shunning, persecution and of course the big A
5. People crying over the new song book at the DC.
6. No public confession until the elders wives gossip about it ( that doesn't apply to everyone but it happens)
7. They took that right out of the WT playbook.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....
iii.
thought control1.
need to internalize the group's doctrine as "truth".
Again a 100% WTS match.
1. The "truth"... black & white thinking... us vs them (true christians vs the world)
2. Too many buzz words to mention. Gathering instead of party always irrated me. Also, Brother So & So being used like a formal title also annoys me.
3. Yeah, but that could apply to most religion.
4. Rejection of rational analysis, JWs??? No chanting or speaking in tongues but you're told to shut the conversation down.
5. Try asking a question and see what happens if its not dropped quickly.
6. True christians = only JWs
ii.
information control1.
use of deception.
This is by far the most applicable to the WTS:
1. Theocractic warfare! Misquoting outside publications. Old light/new light
2. a not so much as long as it isn't news about the WTS then yes. b & c. Apostate material d. Just look at those worthless tract campaigns and convention invitations.
3. Shepard the Flock book not readily available to non-elders. COs keep stuff from elders, DOs keep stuff from COs. Dead on accurate.
4. So many examples!
5. Whoa, did the writer read the WT and KM? The "Congregation Bible Study" that consists of reviewing paragraphs in a WTS book and never actually cracking open the Bible? Or if you do open it, its to read one or two out of context scriptures to support a particular WT take.
6. We recommended a person to be a MS once that was divorced 20 years ago from his first wife. He was df'ed because of adulty back then. Remarried for a long time, yet the letter came back referencing this man's divorce from that far back.
2nd identifier = 100% applicable to the WTS
i. behavior control1.
regulation of individual's physical reality.
a. where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with.
Let's see:
1 a. Not so much where but with whom (if not married and want a roommate should be with a JW of good standing of the same sex). Associates? Should only associate with JWs in good standing
b. See the Bethel guide to attire & grooming. See the KM convention insert where members are discouraged from wearing shorts & jeans after teh convention and encouraged to wear the name badge. Lots of individual congo rules regarding dress. Attendants & those giving PTs MUST wear suits. etc.
c. Not really
d. Not really
e. No
f. Absolutely! Lots of written "counsel regarding keeping entertainment in "its proper place".
2. - 10 hours per month in service and attendance at both meetings + family study or your not good association.
3 - Must consult WT pubs when making major decisions. Don't have time to dig up references but in addition to written, there are the talks which say the same thing.
4 - Yup - confess your sins and those of others.
5 - Rewards - privileges, status... Punishment - loss of status, shunning
6 - yup
7 - yup
8 - yup
So, step 1 of identifying a cult = Yes to JWs
at a recent series of circuit assemblies, the governing body put out warnings on what in their view is the latest danger from satan, designed to break the faith of jehovah's witnesses everywhere.. facebook.. yes, thats right, apparantly, the gb is concerned because a lot of people are having "facebook sex".
they are meeting old friends who aren't jehovah's witnesses and getting it on with whomever would willingly sleep with them.
evidentally, the gb would like their flock to believe that when jw's get on facebook and other social networking sites, fornication happens.. now, this is news.
Jeff - I couldn't agree more with your take. Funny, it's usually a combination of factors that leads ones to doubt the borg. For example, I had seen many "apostate" sites and it never really phased me. But, the actions I saw by elders & COs coupled with the UN thing really got me to take a serious look at doctrine. And when you look objectively at the JW faith, it just can't withstand the facts and falls like a house of cards.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/18765/russia-to-drafts-law-to-ban-religious-cults-mormons-moonies-jehovah-witnesses-and-others-fear-persecution/.
Here's the definition of a not-profit organization from the IRS:
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
The purpose of granting this status is because these organizations are supposed to be working for the good of the community with NO profit motive. I simply disgree with the IRS in their definition of charitable when it includes organizations that advance religion. I think its a direct violation of the 1st amendment because the State has no business advancing any religion. Freedom of religion is an important right but I fail to see how allowing religious organizations amass large amounts of wealth (cash, property, whatever) without paying for the burden they place on the government can be deemed charitable. If they're actually engaged in real charitable activity such as running a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc. then fine. Make those funds deductible and tax whatever profit they make.
I realize religious organizations are very powerful and that's the real reason why they are considered charitable. It doesn't make it constitutional or right.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/18765/russia-to-drafts-law-to-ban-religious-cults-mormons-moonies-jehovah-witnesses-and-others-fear-persecution/.
Although I disagree with banning any religion per se, I do think they are given special unfair treatment and would like to see 2 things happen:
1 - Any tax exemptions should be revoked. I don't see how paying property taxes and income taxes on profits restricts or prohibits the free exercise of religion any more than saying my paying property taxes or income taxes restricts my freedom of speech. In my opinion, the freedom FROM religion is just as protected under the first amendment as freedom OF religion. By religion not paying its fair share for various services provided by the government, they force those not affiliated to pick up the tab. Tax exemptions give religion preferential treatment. Their profits should be taxed at the corporate tax rate on profits because that's what they are. I would say they should be able to deduct monies used for charitable services but the problem is the tax code says religious instruction is charitable services. That's why the WTS can avoid taxes although they use very little funds toward true charity work. The inherent bias in the US legal system is towards religion. Not necessarily to promote any one religion or a state religion, but they do go out of their way to give religion protection that no other type of corporate is afforded. Putting a tax on a particular religion or establishing a religious tax is unconstitutional. Making them pay property taxes and income taxes that everyone else pays? I can't see how that would be unconstitutional.
2 - The WTS, Amish, Scientologist, etc hide behind the 1st amendement when they treat former members poorly and slander them. The WTS & Christian Scientists hide behind the 1st amendment when they coerce people into dangerous behavior regarding medical care. I think individuals shoudl be allowed to sue for damages in these cases and religions be held responsible when their teachings cause harm. Sure, they can teach what they want, but they shouldn't be given protection from their own teachings.
People should have the freedom to believe what they want. But religious organizations should be held responsible for their bad behavior.
