Posts by Olin Moyles Ghost

31

What woke you up to the WTS?

by megaflower in

jw
friends

16 years ago

i was in service one day and the sister i was working with said," i will start to enjoy life once the new system comes".

sirens went off in my head.

basically, she was saying she was miserable but would wait till the new system to have any happiness.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Jamiebowers said:

Olin, please also consider the number of victims who were coerced by the elders into saying nothing to anyone, waiting on Jehovah, so as not to tarnish the name of God's earthly organization. There are probably tens of thousands for whom this is the case.

Absolutely! I think everyone knows somebody in the congregation who was sexually abused by a Witness authority figure (I know several), and most of these did not even report the matter to the authorities. It's part of the ingrained JW culture to avoid doing or saying anything that "brings reproach on Jehovah" (which means anything that could cast the congregation/Society in a bad light). Also there have been plenty of instances where victims (or their parents) were discouraged from reporting these cases to the authorities.

So even though the current official position of the WTS is that victims are free to go to the authorities, we all know that such action goes against the JW intense pressure to avoid "bringing reproach."

Link

31

What woke you up to the WTS?

by megaflower in

jw
friends

16 years ago

i was in service one day and the sister i was working with said," i will start to enjoy life once the new system comes".

sirens went off in my head.

basically, she was saying she was miserable but would wait till the new system to have any happiness.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

As is the case with lots of Witnesses, I noticed problems for years, but pushed them to the back burner. My reasoning was that these were imperfect men, it's a wicked system, the light gets brighter, and where else are you going to go! Of course, this line of reasoning is based on a faulty premise--that the Watchtower was chosen by God to be his earthly organization.

If I can point to one thing that woke me up, it was this: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/TVNews/Nightly%20News/2007/11-Nov/statement.pdf . This is the press release put out by the Watchtower in 2007, after the child sex abuse settlements were reported on NBC News.

I was already shocked that the WTS had settled the cases. I recognize that an out-of-court settlement is not an admission of liability. But the WTS has a long track record of vigorously and successfully defending itself in court. Thus, with that history, it is reasonable to conclude that the WTS would have fought the cases if it was not at fault.

I was also shocked at my own initial reaction to the news. My first reaction was 'oh no, this is going to make the org/Jehovah look bad.' Then I stopped myself and was ashamed that my first reaction was not one of sadness for the victims and disgust toward the perpetrators. And then I started to think about what caused my first reaction be a concern about the organization's reputation.

Then when I read the statement linked above, I was even more dismayed. It was so deceptive, particularly this portion: "During the last 100 years, only nine elders have been sued for child abuse in eleven lawsuits filed in the United States." First, the modern elder arrangement has only been in place since the 1970s, not 100 years. Also (and more importantly), the statement only relates to elders being sued. This does not include elders that are prosecuted for a crime.

I think your average reader does not readily distinguish the difference between (1) an prosecution and (2) a lawsuit. But in the case of a crime (such as abuse), there are many more instances of prosecution than lawsuits. In other words, few victims of crimes sue the perpetrators--they may go to the police and they may testify in a criminal trial, but they do not typically sue their perpetrators in civil court.

(The OJ Simpson case is an exception that proves the rule. There was the criminal trial where OJ was acquitted, but then there was a civil case where the Goldmans sued OJ for money damages. This is a rare occurrence, which was borne out by how the news media was constantly explaining the difference between the two trials.) Thus, I felt that the WTS was being terribly deceptive and deliberately minimizing the problem.

This realization allowed me to ask the question: is the FDS/Society/GB what it claims to be? It did not take long for the house of cards to fall.

Link

24

Recording a Judicial Committee Hearing

by Olin Moyles Ghost in

16 years ago

i was reading the thread about hoboken's jc meeting and started thinking about the rule prohibiting recording devices in such meetings.

has anyone on the board tried to challenge this rule?.

on its face, the rule is absurd.

14 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

In the USA, most states allow you to record conversations to which you are a party. In other words, you can record a conversation if you're part of the conversation--such as during a JC. Some states require all parties to consent. A handy summary of state laws can be found here: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html.

Link

26

Did you know the End started in 1799?

by jwfacts in

16 years ago

yes, it sounds crazy doesn't yet.

if a religion went around preaching that today no one would take them seriously, and yet that is what the watchtower used to preach.

"the "time of the end," a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from a.d. 1799 to a.d. 1914, is particularly marked in the scriptures.

12 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

1914 already has absolutely no meaning for the average Witness. Unlike most of us who grew up on the "generation" doctrine, today's witnesses have no chronological means to set a boundary for The End. As time passes, 1914 will become less and less relevant to Witnesses.

That being said, the WTS will continue to use 1914 as the date for (1) the end of the Seven Gentile Times (whatever that means); and (2) the beginning of Jesus' invisible presence in kingdom power.

Sure, every year they look dumber and dumber, but that's not going to stop them. Remember that the Seventh Day Adventists still hang onto 1844 as a critical year--that's 165 years ago! If they can hang onto 1844, I think the WTS can hang onto 1914 for several more decades.

Link

45

"He was really smart. Smart people leave all the time" <- Unwitting Witness Tells The Truth

by gubberningbody in

jw
friends

16 years ago

how many of you have heard this one, or words to that effect?.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Many years ago, I had a discussion about apostates with a P.O. who was a former Bethelite. I just couldn't understand why anyone would "go apostate" since we had the truth. In that conversation, he said that apostates are typically very intelligent people who study the Bible a lot.

I actually came away from that conversation having a bit more respect for apostates.

Link

24

Recording a Judicial Committee Hearing

by Olin Moyles Ghost in

16 years ago

i was reading the thread about hoboken's jc meeting and started thinking about the rule prohibiting recording devices in such meetings.

has anyone on the board tried to challenge this rule?.

on its face, the rule is absurd.

14 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Thanks for the comments. I am one of the 144,000 or so that watched Rick's Youtube video about his DF-ing and I appreciate folks like Rick and Hoboken who put this material out for us to see.

And I agree with the commenters who think my idea would not be successful. You're almost certainly correct. My point is that pressing the issue highlights the absurdity and "star chamber" nature of a JC. If you know you're going to be DF'd anyway, it might be an interesting route to take.

Also, is there anything in print--that a regular, non-elder, JW has access to--stating that JC meetings can't be recorded? I'm not aware of WT literature that addresses this other than the Flock book, which non-elders are not allowed to possess. So, isn't there a problem of notice? I understand that post-1986 baptisms are "into the organization" and this implicitly includes an agreement to follow the rules; but does this include secret rules that members are not informed about? I guess in practice it means whatever the WTS says it means...

I think it would be enlightening to the public if someone recorded and posted the conversation in which the elders refuse to let you defend yourself unless you submit to the no-recording rule. This would add to the body of material (such as the recorded JC hearings of folks such as Rick and Hoboken) highlighting the absurdity of the JC procedure.

While many folks may not have the time or inclination to listen to 3 hours of JC hearing testimony, they may listen to a 10 minute conversation where an elder refuses to allow an accused person to defend himself against judicial charges unless he turns the tape recorder off. For some people, that might have an impact.

Link

24

Recording a Judicial Committee Hearing

by Olin Moyles Ghost in

16 years ago

i was reading the thread about hoboken's jc meeting and started thinking about the rule prohibiting recording devices in such meetings.

has anyone on the board tried to challenge this rule?.

on its face, the rule is absurd.

14 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

I was reading the thread about HoboKen's JC meeting and started thinking about the rule prohibiting recording devices in such meetings. Has anyone on the board tried to challenge this rule?

On its face, the rule is absurd. The meeting is called a Judicial Committee hearing. The word "Judicial" means related to judges or courts. Has anyone ever heard of a court that doesn't allow some sort of recording (typically a court reporter/stenographer) of its proceedings? Sure, such courts exist--in North Korea!

So, it seems to me that if a Witness is brought before a JC, he should state his intention to record the proceedings. Of course, the elders will say that's not allowed (as I recall, this is explicitly forbidden per the Flock book).

So, what would happen if the Witness stands his ground and insists on recording the proceedings? Would the elders refuse to allow him to participate? This could be an interesting game of "chicken." Would they DF him in absentia?

Such a situation could make for a "teachable moment." I imagine a conversation going thusly:

Accused Witness (AW): Good afternoon, I'm here for my JC meeting. I just wanted to say up-front that I'll be recording the proceedings.

Elder: No you won't. Recording JC meetings is not permitted.

AW: Really? That doesn't make much sense; where does it say that in the Bible or the publications.

Elder: We don't want these recordings getting into the public, this is a confidential private matter. The elders have specific instructions from the FDS not to allow recording of JC meetings.

AW: With all due respect, brother, I am shocked. How would you feel if you were accused of, say, embezzlement, in a court of law, and the entire trial was held behind closed doors with no way for you to have a record of what really happened there? Does that seem fair to you?

Elder: Well...this is different...this is a theocratic arrangement and we have holy spirit.

AW: Ok, but isn't it called a "judicial" committee--and doesn't "judicial" mean something related to a trial or court?

Elder: Sure, but it's theocratic, not a worldly court. We're all brothers here.

AW: Ok, so then you would agree that the Nation of Israel as described in the Hebrew Scriptures was theocratic, right?

Elder: Of course.

AW: How were trials held in the Nation of Israel? Were they secret or public? I'll answer that for you. They were public. See the Insight Book page 198 under "Assembly" and 475 under "City." So, where do the scriptures command you brothers to try me in secret without even allowing me to record what is said? What are you trying to hide?

Elder: Brother, we are following the direction from the FDS. I appreciate your feelings on the matter, but we cannot allow you to record the meeting.

AW: With all due respect, I insist on recording the meeting. I have seen nothing in the scriptures or publications that forbids or counsels against such a thing. Thus, I must respectfully make a stand and insist that I will record the meeting.

*****End of hypothetical conversation*****

At this point, the Accused Witness and the Elder are at an impasse. I would like to see whether a JC would really DF someone in absentia simply for insisting on recording the meeting.

It would not surprise me if the elders called the Society about this. I wonder if the Society would buckle. I kind of doubt it. But it would make a point, especially if the Accused Witness recorded the conversation in which the elders tell him that he is not allowed to defend himself against the accusations if he insists on recording the meeting.

Anyone tried something like this?

Link

47

The desperation of JWs hoping the end comes "soon"

by sir82 in

jw
friends

16 years ago

i'm starting to sense a certain desperation among jws, that they feel that the great tribulation must start soon.

i think this is due, in many cases, to their own personal situation, financial or otherwise.. if the gt doesn't come soon, and these guys really start to suffer - what then?

the watchtower's promises that "jehovah would not forsake them if they put kingdom interests first" by skipping or dropping out of college, turning down promotions, "simplifying" their lives by selling their homes and moving to the hinterlands...will all prove to be meaningless.. if the gt doesn't come soon, and "jehovah" doesn't bail them out...then what?.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Great thread. It brings to mind Proverbs 13:12--"expectation postponed is making the heart sick."

Most of my JW acquaintances are more like those mentioned by "PSacramento" above--that is, they are young and materialistic. They are buying houses, going to college, having kids. In other words, these are the folks who are "tearing down their storehouses and building bigger ones." But if I suggest that The End isn't going to come in our lifetime, they get freaked out. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is!

I attended a JW assembly earlier this year and saw lots and lots of elderly folks. I guess I'm a softie, but I feel so sorry for them. I daresay not a single one of them expected to be hobbling around in 2009--rather they expected to be several decades into the New World. These folks were sold a bill of goods.

It will be interesting to see how this generation of JWs responds to getting old in this system. How long will the WTS be able to keep these folks motivated with the "End is Near" message. Eventually, they may get tired of the WTS "crying wolf." Or perhaps they will shrug it off because they have not invested as much in the WTS as previous generations.

Link

59

The Last Warning

by cameo-d in

16 years ago

did i read somewhere that wt is putting out "the last warning"?.

was it assembly topic or something?.

does this mean they will shut up now?.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Proverbs 13:12: "Expectation postponed is making the heart sick."

Link

226

Recently disfellowshipped prominent Assembly overseer in Western Europe now speaking out against the Watchtower org.

by the research lady in

jw
friends

16 years ago

former elder, and assembly overseer roberto from france will be joining barbara and joe anderson on tonight's conference call, july 18,2009. roberto was disfellowshipped in june 2009 and after many faithful years of service is now joining thousands of others who are speaking out against the evils of the watchtower organization.

our call tonight will be focused on how the country of france, as well as other european countries are investigating jehovah's witnesses.

the watchtower organization is experiencing difficulties in these countries for the inhumane treatment and exerting too much control over people's lives.

16 years ago

Olin Moyles Ghost 16 years ago

Billy, thanks for pointing this out. Just another example of double-standards by the WTS and JWs. It's interesting that if anyone criticizes their religion, then it's "persecution," but for some reason they don't think about the fact that a large part of the Witness identity revolves around criticizing other religions and eagerly awaiting their destruction.

Remember the 2006 tract campaign--"The End of False Religion is Near"? What does "False Religion" mean to a JW? It means every other religion except theirs! So, three years ago the Witnesses were covering the earth with a message that everyone who was not a member of their religion would soon be killed by God. And now they have the audacity to cry foul when someone criticizes their faith? Reminds me of an old proverb about a pot and a kettle.

And, don't be misled into thinking that Witnesses no longer teach that you must be a JW to survive Armageddon (which is right around the corner, remember!). Sure, they try not to put it in print because it makes them look bad, but make no mistake about it--the WTS absolutely teaches this. For example, in any month's Kingdom Ministry you will see the JW preaching work described as "a life-saving work." If God and Jesus are simply going to read hearts at Armageddon, how is the preaching work life-saving?

Also, recall the JW interpretation of the passage in Ezekiel regarding the man with the secretary's inkhorn. The JWs teach that in order to survive The End, you must be "marked for survival." I don't have the WT Library with me now, but I recall that the Society teaches that there are 3 components to the mark--one of which is being baptized as a Witness. So, if being baptized as a Witness is part of the "mark" that is required for survival, how could you survive without being a Witness?

With this background, isn't it ironic (don't ya think) that people who eagerly await the "imminent" destruction of 7 BILLION humans start whining when someone criticizes their religion?

Link