Note: I am learning to be able to lengthen my submissions but I still haven't studied how to better format them. This post is to anyone in general who may be interested in this topic. In this discussion, it is my objective to make, what I believe to be, "honest" acknowledgements as a basis for moving an argument forward in a productive manner. If a person is trying to convince someone of the sincerity of one’s cause, they must, in my opinion, show that they are honestly aware of all the contingencies to the extent possible. For instance, when I read prejudicial statements that I know are “technically” wrong but nevertheless popular, I no longer pay much attention to the details. For me, it becomes “political rhetoric” and not necessarily truthful. This is what the “theocratic warfare” ploy is all about. It covers over unacceptable conduct with a “god like” mantel. Its true success is based upon a “singing to the choir” tactic. Those who agree with you will continue to agree and those who don’t will turn you off. In my opinion, that is exactly what the Watchtower Society has always done. When they “condemn” often it is without a firm basis and so the condemee won’t pay any attention. However, the message has really been sent to masses of condemors as an example of courageous and forthright behavior that they should emulate. So the condemnation need not be factually based because the audience isn’t really interested in facts. They only want to have their values reinforced whether “right or wrong.” I want to defend Eduardo’s goodness in order for him to, at least, listen to my criticisms. I do not want to automatically raise his JW “defensive shields.” Once the shields are up, you may as well stop “wasting your breath.” To defend a person’s “good appearances” is not to condone their alleged “bad behavior.” However, because the “point of the argument” is to get a person to “reconsider their behavior” and its relevance, honesty is necessary whether it fits all agendas or not. My challenge to Eduardo is whether he is “being honest” or just singing to the choir in his dealings with this group. My challenge to everyone else is to reconsider your motives in this discussion. Then write your motive or objective as the first line of your argument. In that way, the reader can tell up front whether they want to read the rest of the discussion. If the WT did that, wouldn’t that save a lot of time and trouble? This practice would also give the reader some ‘key words” to focus in on as a basis for grading the effectiveness of the material. As an example, in this discussion, my motive is to convince the audience that honesty, even if it hurts, is the best policy -- as a secondary objective, don’t my arguments sound cleaver and am I not smart. I don’t expect you to agree with all my objectives but if you, at least agree with one of them, then I will “ fill in the blanks for myself” on the rest. Thanks for listening (reading) if you have gotten this far. PS
pilgrim searcher
JoinedPosts by pilgrim searcher
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
Thanks Junction-Guy for your agreement. I am not trying to "justify" the conduct of JW's in seeking to "orient" their children with regard to what their "legal attitude" towards life "should" be. However, I think I have to admit that if my child were going to testify about me or our family in court, I would like to clear up any "possible" misunderstandings he may have. I would not want my child to tell the court I sometimes "kiss" his belly when we are "wrestling" or give him or her “whisker rubs” because that could be "misunderstood." Though that illustration is not precise, it is useful to describe the concern a JW parent would have regarding what their child's testimony might be. Look at what is at stake? Also, the child, who may not really know what is going on, probably just wants to please his or her parents. So the briefing is designed to "walk the line" and give the child the information needed to be "pleasing" to both Jehovah and parent alike. In their minds, it is a "win win" situation. I don't say that this is right? I just referred to the "theocratic warfare" policy to explain why I, personally, might have done the same thing without feeling that I was being "bad or deceitful." Eduardo may likewise make the same justifications without any feelings of shame or guilt. Though we may not agree with him, we should at least acknowledge whether we personally could do the same things under similar circumstances. Once we do that, then we can start assessing the type arguments needed to put such “erroneous” thinking into proper perspective. That is why I quoted Jesus’ experience. Did Jesus lie for a greater good? Do JW children likewise lie for a greater good? If JW’s think that Jesus “lied” but “without sin” then why shouldn’t they do the same, in His name? Thanks again for your remarks.
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
Thank you sKally for your interesting observations. I apologize if my remarks seemed to justify a class of people who may have been a source of grief to you personally. Since I have experience with “all types” of people, both within Jehovah’s Witnesses and on the “outside,” I know that you can’t please everyone all the time no matter how hard you try. Probably, the best you can hope for is to demonstrate an awareness towards diverse arguments and somehow find a middle ground. That isn’t always easy as you probably know. So I will agree that there are JW’s who may derive personal satisfaction from being oppressive and unkind in the name of Jehovah and I likewise find it hard to justify such conduct under the guise of misdirected zeal or ignorance. I don't, nevertheless, include my parents to be among them. However, even with regard to these "objectionable people," I still want to seek to recover what “was lost” with honest convincing arguments. This may require looking for the “good” in JW’s and not necessarily the “bad.” In this regard, I am reminded of the Parable of the Prodigal Son and his Older Brother. Though the older brother did have very good reasons for criticizing both his father and his brother, I am still left with a feeling of sadness, wishing that the older brother could just “get over it,” so to speak. How do you feel about the older brother and what do you suppose Jesus’ message to us through that parable was? Thanks again for your remarks. (Luke 15:32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.)
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
This is, hopefully, my final post in this series. I hope the message has made some sense to some of you. The actual crux (if I may use that word) of the matter deals with JW bashing more than the child custody issue. (Continued #6 … ) I have to think that Eduardo, being an attorney, is fully aware of these “theocratic tactics” and himself typifies a “good Witness” attitude with regard to loyally defending the Society’s position no matter what the facts would suggest. That is exactly what I have done in the past. Like Eduardo, I also do not like JW bashing. My parents, whom I loved (they are both deceased) didn’t “officially” speak to me for the last 15 years of their lives. During that period, their Granddaughter, (my daughter) grew up. My parents tried to buy her affections but were not successful. My daughter is not nearly so understanding as I am and this was a source of bitter grief for my parents. I also know my parents were very “good” people and gave up or lost far more than I during this period of official isolation. They did it for Jehovah and not because they didn’t love me and my family. No other power on earth would have made them do the same because they were loyal “fighters” and lived a life of self sacrifice for their god and his Organization. If more people had their zeal for obedience and loyalty to a lawful cause, the world would be a far better place in which to live. How could I ever “bash” them or others like them for such godly zeal? So I will conclude with the words, “Eduardo, I will be interested in your testimony after the JW “veil” has been fully removed from your heart and eyes. You have a unique perspective, as do we all, with regard to your experience as a JW. What will be really interesting to me is to hear your testimony on how you found a better life outside the Watchtower -- Shalom Eduardo.”
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
This is my fifth submission to Uzzah regarding this issue. I am still apparently hitting the “word ceiling” and haven’t learned what the maximum is yet. Please be patient. For the “interested” reader, please find posts #’s 1-4 in order to understand this on-going saga. (Continued #5 … ) Similarly, this should also be obviously true with regard to suggestions issued by the Society that deal with child custody disputes. In my opinion, I believe that the custody booklet was very carefully “crafted” in compliance with the putative “theocratic warfare policy” principle. It was intended to advise a parent how to “coach” their children to focus on the feelings Jehovah would expect them to have as my personal experience with regard to meetings would suggest. I am sure that I would have been a good “kingdom soldier” and said all the “right things” to the extent that I could remember what they were suppose to be. In my opinion, anyone who truly believes “otherwise” was never a JW kid. So the booklet isn’t intended to be a lie, it is intended to “defend the truth” tactically.
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
This is my “fourth” submission in response to Uzzah. I am still not sure why my original responses have been rejected. It may be “length.” Maybe the system feels the same way about “long winded” responses as I felt about JW meetings, … zzzzzzzz. (Continued #4 ….. ) As Elders, it was our understanding that when it comes to legal matters, we were always to be aware that the Devil would use “matters of law” to oppose God’s people. This fact lead to the “unofficial and unstated” principle that “theocratic war tactics” may require us to withhold information or to be deceptive if circumstances required it. The word lie as I recall was defined as “withholding information from those entitled to know” or something like that. Within this context, it would seem that you could only lie to the Society because they were the only ones, as Jehovah’s earthly representative, who were truly entitled to know anything. So it was up to the individual to decide who is entitled to know other than the Society or its representatives. In defense of this policy, I remember that Bro. F. Franz quoted David’s experience with Saul and Jesus’ dealings with his disciples as examples of “strategic” theocratic testimony against opposers of Jehovah. With regard the latter case, I will include the Scripture he used and you will have to decide whether Jesus “lied” to his disciples because, under the circumstances, they were apparently “not entitled to know” of his plans and so his words to them would be “theocratically strategic” and not necessarily an outright lie. [(John 7:8-10 NWT) “You go up to the festival; I am not yet going up to this festival, because my due time has not yet fully come. So after he told them these things, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he also went up himself, not openly but as in secret.”] The bottom line is that my experience indicates that every knowledgeable Witness is assumed to know how to “read between the lines” when it came to Society-instructions. This is certainly evident in the current practice of “disfellowshipping” people without saying that they are disfellowshiped. Somehow, though, everybody seems to know that how these “dis-membered” ones should be treated.
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
(continued #3 …..)
Now to the point of this discussion. During my stay at Bethel, I made many precious friends among which was one who worked, and I think still does work, in the Society’s Service Department. During a discussion about the Society’s liability in enforcing “Society Policy,” he causally said that the Society only makes “suggestions,” and it is up to the congregation Elders or the individuals involved to decide whether they will follow the suggestions. So the Society is not responsible for any decisions Elders or Parents might make in most circumstances. He added, however, that, depending upon those circumstances, suggestions can be given more weight by using simple “assumptions.” He illustrated this by saying that if he wanted to add weight to a suggestion he might preface it by saying, “we ASSUME that the individual involved has been relieved of their responsibilities unless you have decided to do otherwise etc.” My experience has shown that it would take a very courageous Elder to “decide otherwise.”
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
This is a continuation of my “first” post which was rejected the first time around for reasons I have yet to discover. (continued…) To somewhat validate my testimony, I will give some background information. Having been raised a JW, I hated meetings all my life. Up to the age of about 5 or 6, if I could sleep through a meeting, I thought my prayers had been answered. In later years I started “drawing” to pass the time. Drawing was specifically discouraged, however, because it suggested that I wasn’t really paying attention and thereby set a “bad example.” I am not too sure to whom I was being a bad example because all the other kids my age felt the same as I. They did not need a bad example to make them “hate meetings.” The meetings achieved that status all on their own it seemed. So instead of being a bad example, it was advised that we young ones keep track of how many times a word like “Jehovah” was said during the meeting. However, that practice was short lived in my recollection because that meant that my parents would also have to listen to “check my work.” The reason I tell you this is because if I, as a child, were ever required to give any court room testimony about meetings, it would have been bad. If I said anything at all nice it would have been an honest “lie.” However, the last people I would have wanted to find this out would have been my parents. If it were left to me alone, I would have said all the things I thought they would have wanted to hear. This is the reason why I think that JW kids have to be “coached” in order to let them know what specifically Jehovah, His earthly Organization, and his parents “assume” they will to say because it is the Truth. If they told “the truth” as I have suggested it to be, their case would be lost.
-
290
JW Children Lie in Custody Cases
by compound complex indirect and cross-examination questions in child custody cases.
wtb&ts, page 42.
"be careful that they [jw children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the kingdom hall.
-
-
pilgrim searcher
Uzzah’s words have a “ring of truth” associated with them to those who have lived the experience. To those who haven’t, Uzzah could be lying about his background and experience and how would we ever know. So his testimony will likely be viewed differently depending upon your own personal “agenda.” Having said that, I will comment later on why I personally believe Uzzah and why I think the booklet in question was written to be deceptive in an “indirect way” in accord with what I will call the Society’s principle of “theocratic warfare.”
Note- I have a somewhat long message, but the system would not take it. So I will have to enter it piecemeal. This is my first "post." Does anyone know what I may have done wrong to have my original "long" post ignored?