Posts by Hmmm

126

AMAZING - Exposing Elders (re: Expose Ave...

by AMNESIAN in

jw
friends

replying to:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17880&site=3.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17923&site=3.

Hmmm

…last night in a rather odd exchange I had with hmmm. His last post presented an argument or point-of-view about me "changing my mind" when I never said anything of the kind. My post previous to his was an answer to a totally unrelated question. Our "conversation," an extension of a long-running dialog, went something like this:

Amazing (last week): "I like burgers, and here's why...."
AMNESIAN (last week): "Oh no, Amazing, burgers are no good. I like pizza, and here's why...."
teejay (last week): "hmmm... you have a point, Amazing. But I like pizza, better."
Hmmm (speaking rhetorically last night and well into the debate): Man! I don't see why people get so bent out of shape. Pizza is good. Burgers are good. What difference does it make, teejay? (speaking rhetorically, unbeknownst to me)
teejay: oh, I suppose in the end, you have a point, Hmmm. It really doesn't matter.

Not that it’s important, but which is it… “His last post presented an argument or point-of-view about me "changing my mind" when I never said anything of the kind.” Or “oh, I suppose in the end, you have a point, Hmmm. It really doesn't matter.”?

Hmmm: gee, teejay! When did you change your mind about pizza? Sheesh! I wasn't even trying to change your mind, fella. I guess we all agree.
teejay: Whuh?????

This reminds me of the sit-com episodes where six people tell the same story six different ways. Orson Scott Card does an excellent job of showing how viewpoint and unknown background can completely change a story. Ender’s Game tells the story of a brainiac kid. Ender’s Shadow tells the same story from another character’s viewpoint, which makes it an entirely different story, built from the same set of facts. Both books are excellent.
Here’s my take how the "conversation" progressed:

Amazing: “I used to work in the burger industry, and I don’t think they’re 100% bad…”

Amnesian: “Oh no, Amazing, burgers have not one redeeming quality. This is proven by the fact that pizza has long been oppressed by the burger industry.“

Teejay: “Amnesian is completely right. Also, I think this issue is of paramount importance.”

Hmmm: (NOT speaking rhetorically) “Man! I don’t see why people take such an extreme stance. Isn’t there a middle ground? Since we all agree that burgers are not 100% good, and pizza has been undervalued, what can and/or should we do about it today? Incidentally, Teejay, you said the vileness of burgers was an important issue. Did you mean it was important to current, or ex-members of the burger industry? I’m interested in your viewpoint.”

Teejay: “Hmmm, you wrote a really long post to say it’s not important. I agree.”

Hmmm: “OK, we agree. But you don’t seem willing to discuss it, so I’m going to rhetorically ask, ‘what made you change your mind.’”(HERE was the rhetorical question)

Teejay, I think there have been a number of misunderstandings in the discourse between you and I:

1) I thought you were saying that “elder culpability”—Amnesian’s original issue--was important. I think the issue quickly changed to one of “gender/chauvinism”, and I now see that this might be the issue that you were calling important. If so, then I agree with you.

If you were, in fact, saying that the "culpability" issue was very important, I was simply asking your opinion as to why you felt that way. I’m not married to my opinion, so I was looking for an exchange of viewpoints, not an argument.

2) I thought you were blowing me off by saying that my post was not important. After rereading it, I now think you were actually summarizing my post.

First a little background. On this thread, Outnfree agreed with Amnesian and summarized her tome into one succinct paragraph. Most readers probably had a chuckle about it, and you responded good-naturedly that she’d done a good job of summing it up. (Or something like that. I’m not going to spend time finding the quotes to make sure I use the exact right words to score points or avoid painting myself into a corner. If I misremember your words or intent, just tell me, but please don’t think I’m trying to mislead or twist things.)

Anyway… you had something nice to say about Outnfree. Then, on the screen-name/character thread, she continued the joke. You had posted something rather long. She summed it up with a sentence or two, a clear parallel to the earlier thread where she had summed up Amnesian’s post. I thought you’d chime in joking that she should be the Official Post Summarizer for the board or something, and you did. But you prefaced it with:

“Regrettably, I have not taken special note of you before, but if this note of yours is any indication of your insight or character, I will be mindful of your comments in the future on this board. Perhaps I should have enlisted YOU to answer the charge that Brother Amazing laid at my feet for waiting's words, as obvious as the case was that he seemed to overlook. (Again?) “

That first sentence really bothered me. I don’t know Outnfree well, we’ve only chatted once or twice. But I know that she seems to be a very nice person. She entered the fray in a volatile thread and agreed with Amnesian, while trying not to strip Amazing of all dignity (I think she is the one who said she’s met him, and he was not the same in person as he sometimes comes across on the boards).

Anyway… your words to her seemed so dismissive that I was taken aback. Here you had joked with her amiably earlier that day, and suddenly you’ve lost all recollection of that (and her). That’s fine, people forget, but the tone seemed like she was an insect who’d been beneath your notice, but now showed some promise, so you were going to bless her by being mindful of her comments in the future.

I sat there saying to myself, “Self, what would have happened if Amazing had said those words. Imagine if Amazing had pronounced from on high that he had not taken special note of a poster before (especially a poster that he’d just bantered with). Imagine that he said he’d have to be mindful of their future comments, and he might consider the ultimate boon of enlisting them to be used as a tool to further his bounteous works in the future. Wow. That sounds more arrogant than the GB!”

I have no idea how Outnfree interpreted this, and since nobody else commented on it, maybe I’m the only person who took it this way.

Nonetheless, right or wrong, I read your reply to me right after reading this, so maybe I was spoiling for a fight.

Hmmm,
What difference does it make?

I was already a bit miffed at you when I saw you abruptly asking me what difference my opinion made (implying that it was worthless).

In a new paragraph, which usually means a new thought, you said, “After more than 2,500 words (I had Microsoft do the counting), that's the point I got from your post…”

Making an issue of how many words it took for my “nothing” post added to the feeling that you were just going to be taking shots at me.

Then, lo and behold, I re-read your words a couple of days later.

Maybe I was reading too quickly the first time, and maybe your choice of paragraph breaks contributed, but whatever the reason, I’m pretty sure now that I misunderstood you. Instead of evaluating my post, you were summarizing it. You said “that’s the point I got…” “That,” used in this way usually indicates something in the past, something already stated, so I should have realized that “that” referred to the sentence immediately preceding it, namely, “What difference does it make?” I apologize for the misunderstanding, and the provocative post it elicited from me.

3) Last, and probably least, you misunderstood which of my statements were rhetorical.

Hmmm (speaking rhetorically last night and well into the debate): Man! I don't see why people get so bent out of shape. Pizza is good. Burgers are good. What difference does it make, teejay? (speaking rhetorically, unbeknownst to me)

You apply my rhetoricalisialitizationismness (new word) to the post previous to the one in which the word “rhetorical” appears. I made no mention in my “megapost” that anything in it was rhetorical.

This is when I used the word “rhetorical”:

It looks like we agree—now.

But this begs the question (this is officially a rhetorical question. I don’t need to know how many letters or pixels are in this post) “why did you change your mind?” I haven’t followed things closely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t the first time in your posting history that you’ve changed your mind on a subject. You didn’t come close to saying you were wrong (and it was never my contention that you were) but you completely reversed your position on an issue. That’s more fascinating to me than the rest of the discussion.

I said “this is officially a rhetorical question…” Up until this point in the post I had not stated any questions, but one immediately followed this phrase. The use of the phrase “this is” indicates that the next question is going to be rhetorical. Had I said “that was a rhetorical question…” I could understand how you might think I was referring to a previous posting.

Then again, I can’t criticize you for a reading comprehension error when I made a more obvious one, now can I?

These three misunderstandings (for which I accept 72.349% of the blame) speeded the decline of what I thought could be an innocent dialogue into a brouhaha-in-the-making.

My board time is limited, so I think my participation in this thread is probably over. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Hmmm
[Edited to make it somewhat more readable...]
[...and to remove a comment that was more inflammatory than I intended...]
[...and because I evidently haven't learned the difference between "tantamount" and "paramount"]

30

Ebonics Homework

by Tatiana in

apologies to any tyson fans, but this was too funny!.

as part of his parole agreement, mike tyson has to go back to school .

and finish grade 5. this is mike's ebonics homework assignment.

Hmmm

SixofNine,

Btw, if you were trying to use christianity to pick up a gorgeous french woman, you really are a dawg. Not that I haven't used my spiritual awakenings as an opening for conversation myself, lol.

Nahh, I wish I was that smooth. This is actually unrelated to my trip to Paris. I stayed with some Haitian "friends" in Chicago once on a big JW outing to the Windy City. I wrote a thanks-for-the-hospitality card to the sister at whose house I stayed. I was mildly smitten with her daughter, so I thought I'd earn a few brownie points by writing the card in French. (The mother speaks English, but her first language is French, and I was trying to be Rico Suave.) That's when I found out the similarity in words.

Hmmm

37

The Beginning of the End for Me?

by rem in

well, friends, this could be the beginning of the end for me.

im not sure what, if anything, is going to happen to me in the next few weeks, so ill have to wait and see.

heres the situation:.

Hmmm

Should I take down my Listmania book recommendations? This is the first time that I’ve ever felt like they’ve got me on something that could be considered a DF’ing offence (though I’m not sure what that would be in the spirit of Proverbs 18:17). I know it was my own stupidity and apathy that brought this on, but I suppose I’ve already helped many to see both sides of the organization and to make their own informed decision, including my family and some friends.

I get the feeling that you were torpedoing yourself. It seems that, maybe subconsciously, you don't care any more about getting caught, so you did things (posting Listmania recommendations) that were bound to expose you eventually.

If it's really important for you to stay in, you should probably take the list down. You can tell the elders that you were having doubts, but you're "all better now" and removing the list is proof of that.

Just curious, Rem, how long did you have the list up? Did you tell others about it, or was it random surfing that discovered it? When I'm ready to go public, I'm thinking of just posting my picture here or something, and seeing how long it takes to be discovered. My little experiment.

Any thoughts from the premier Jehovah’s Witness discussion forum on the Internet?

I don't know, I'll go ask Witnessesonline.com

(kidding Simon!)

I enjoy your posts, rem
hmmm

17

The timewaster's guide to field service

by RunningMan in

jw
friends

last week, i posted evidence of the monumental inefficiency of the field service work.

you might be wondering how it is possible for people to put in so many hours, and produce so few results.

well, the answer is really quite simple.

Hmmm

Philo posted a similar thread a while ago. Since we have so many "newly interested ones" in our midst, I'm going to resurrect my post from that thread, as it brings back so many great memories for me. Mind you, this is in a city territory where you can drive from one end to the other in about two minutes. People in more rural areas can stretch things to new heights of inefficiency.

The 14:59 rule
Two variations on this theme: In my area there was the "15-minute rule." Basically, if you stopped "preaching" for 15 minutes you had to stop counting time.
When doing streetwork in business territory, going back to the car to warm up or cool off, depending on the season. Stay in the car, chatting with friends for exactly 14 minutes and 59 seconds, then jump out and walk around one block until one circuit has been made, or one person talked to... whichever comes first. Then back to the car. Ratio 5 minutes walking, 14:59 in the car.

When making return visits, follow roughly the same pattern. The other unwritten rules about making RVs can really work in your favor here. Consider this scenario:

I (broA) am in a car group with broB, sisA, and sisB. I go on a call and take sisA with me. Whether the householder is home or not, we drag it out as long as humanly possible. (See Philo's point about miming a door knock, etc...) We return to the car at 2:00 pm. The clock is tick, tick, ticking

Now it's sisB's turn, and she takes broB with her. We drive to the next call--as far from this house as you can get and still be in the same time zone. Arrival time at the next house is 2:06.

At 2:15 sisB and broB get out to do the call. Luckil... er, fortunately, the householder is home and they're in there for a whopping 23 minutes. They return at 2:38. The next four minutes is spent giving us the high points of the call. During this time, the 15 minute rule is suspended. At 2:43 we drive across the territory for the next call. Interestingly, this call is on the same street as my first call.

[Note: this visit was stretched out utilizing one of Philo's documented techniques. It involves a social contract between publisher and householder:
Tea and bikki calls
old dears who are lonely, and tell you so.
But you have to pretend to evangelise (to count your time) while they pretend not to be uninterested (so you can come back)
"Yes, I know you read your bible, Edith…I SAID, I KNOW…" ]

It's now broB's turn. The householder is a female, so he must take one of the sisters with him. He asks sisA to accompany him, since he was with sisB last time (besides, sisA kinda likes us both, and he needs to spend some alone-time with her so she can decide who she's going to hold hands with at the next movie outing.) At 2:58 they get out of the car.

They do us a favor and take as long as possible, continuing to knock despite the obvious fact that there has been a major fire at the house and nobody lives there anymore. No need to mime any knocking, here. They knock LOUDLY on the charred door frame, ignoring the fact that the fire department knocked in the door some weeks ago. They return to the car at 3:03, promising to look up the householder in another few weeks, since they weren't home.

It is now after 3:00 and time for a break. We drive three minutes to Burger King for something cool/hot to drink. When we hit the BK parking lot, at 3:06, the 15-minute clock is tick, tick, ticking. At 3:21, not wanting our precious time to stop, we head back out. We arrive at the "next" house at 3:25. I must get out, but I have managed to count time for one hour and 25 minutes from the back seat of a car.

Ahh, the good old days of pioneering.

Hmmm

19

No Change in 1991 - Library Card

by Lionel_P_Hartley in

i received the folowing two emails from dana loytved who is senior reference librarian at the un library in nyc.. in view of her first reply i asked her what procedure the wts used to access the library before 1991. her second reply is a bit cryptic but she states with confidence that there were no changes in procedure.

i don't want to pester these kind folks any more.. .

the procedure for a library pass is the following: the interested party needs to fill out an application form and supply a letter of recommendation in support of the research.

Hmmm

Thanks LPH,

I have no doubt that most JWs will call this an apostate lie, but when they're ready, they'll have proof that a) the rules did NOT change after 1991; and b) NGO affiliation was NOT necessary to keep access to this all-important library.

Thank you for keeping the ball rolling on this,
Hmmm

126

AMAZING - Exposing Elders (re: Expose Ave...

by AMNESIAN in

jw
friends

replying to:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17880&site=3.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17923&site=3.

Hmmm

In the final analysis, in the end, nothing matters.

Of those “2500 words” exactly 167 were directed specifically to you.

Never mind, I should have known better. It looks like we agree—now.

But this begs the question (this is officially a rhetorical question. I don’t need to know how many letters or pixels are in this post) “why did you change your mind?” I haven’t followed things closely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t the first time in your posting history that you’ve changed your mind on a subject. You didn’t come close to saying you were wrong (and it was never my contention that you were) but you completely reversed your position on an issue. That’s more fascinating to me than the rest of the discussion.

And the most ironic thing is… I didn’t even try to change your mind! I asked a question that I had no strong opinion on… like two guys having a beer at the bar, just making conversation. And you changed your mind!

I’ll be honest with you, teejay, just when I thought I’d figured you out pretty well (and I have a decent amount of respect for you—still do) you go and pull the rug out from under me.

Never a dull moment here,
Hmmm

126

AMAZING - Exposing Elders (re: Expose Ave...

by AMNESIAN in

jw
friends

replying to:.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17880&site=3.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17923&site=3.

Hmmm

It's a bit cold outside, and I'm watching the playoffs on TV, but I feel an uncontrollable urge to take my life into my own hands today. So I'm going to post to this thread instead of walking in dangerous neighborhoods or skydiving with a tattered parachute.

I think most of this discussion has gotten way off track. Amnesian's original post was that she blames elders who K-N-O-W they no longer serve the r&f witnesses, and holds them responsible for any and every damaging word or deed after that point.

To me this doesn’t mean they are simply aware of the infamous “poopy” list, but that they knew about those things AND K-N-O-W that Jehovah is NOT going to take care of it. Not that they don’t have issues with one or more specific doctrines, but that they are convinced that it is NOT Jehovah’s Organization at all.

I agree with a couple of other posters, who said that the number of elders who K-N-O-W this is probably very small. Most don’t question, and those that do, are in various stages of doubt; they don’t K-N-O-W it’s all hogwash.

But what about those (arguably) few that do K-N-O-W? Is it inexcusable that they would stay in their position, ostensibly to lighten the burden carried by the R&F? I don’t think so, and it was an illustration used by someone else which led me to this conclusion. I can’t remember for sure who said it, and I have neither the time nor inclination to search through 37 different threads to find it, but I think it was Amnesian. She said (paraphrasing): ‘It is no excuse that they say they want to lessen the harm caused by a corrupt system. They still hold the whip, does it matter that they would deliver fewer strokes, or swing with less force?’

To me, it absolutely does matter. If I were a slave in ancient Israel who was starving and got caught eating the master’s grapes, I sure as hell would want the guy whipping me to be someone who felt some compassion for me. Maybe he is against slavery in general, or maybe he feels it is the master’s fault for not feeding me properly. Whatever his motivation, I want my “forty strokes less one” coming from a guy who is trying to work from within the system to help my plight, not some gung-ho martinet who wants to impress the master with how quickly he can make me bleed. THE SYSTEM dictates that I will be receiving my strokes, whether the compassionate foreman is there or not, so I’ll take my beatings from him, thank you very much.

One quote from Amnesian that I was able to find is this:

You see, if every good and conscientious man who decided to remain an elder did so only until he pulled off his one big covert operation that will likely reap huge benefits for lots more JWs worldwide than merely a couple of troubled teen-agers and one elderly and ill sister or two in his own congregation, I’d be in their cheering section. You and I both know that is not only rarely the case, it is virtually never the case, which is why “Silentlambs” and “Lee Elder” are receiving well-deserved backslaps.
These type men do more to raise questions in the minds of sincere JWs than any man does who sits on some JC in some remote congregation of 55 publishers in French Lick, Indiana “compassionately” voting to publicly reprove instead of df Brother Filtertip Marlborough. This French Lick man who remains an elder with the weak justification that he is helping others is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He gets to continue enjoying the perks of being an elder and yet be thought of by the vulnerable and needy sheep as “the good elder” all the while accomplishing nothing nobler than perpetuating the myth that the WTS is God’s organization, with just a few rotten apples that Jehovah is using just to test our faithfulness…”
<insert audio file: “projectile vomitous emitus.wav”>

[emphasis added, but the quotes around “compassionately” are original]
What if an elder who has come to reject all of the society’s claims of inspiration, but who has not stepped down, is called to sit on the JC of Amnesian’s brother Filtertip Lowtar Marlborough, of French Lick, Indiana. Well, I happen to know brother Marlborough. Let me tell you a little about him that Amnesian wasn’t aware of. He has been struggling to beat smoking for years, but hasn’t been able to kick this habit, which so defiles his temple. Filtertip is distraught, now that his worst nightmare has finally come true… he’s been caught lighting up.

He knows it’s a grievous sin, but his weak flesh controls him in this aspect. He also knows that the end of this system is close, so he wouldn’t have time to be reinstated, and he couldn’t live with the humiliation and pain of being shunned. Therefore, he has purchased a gun and has determined to end his own life (saving Jehovah the trouble) if the elders decide to disfellowship him. But since this elder who K-N-O-W-S that it’s not the truth remained an elder and sat on the JC, this brother-on-the-brink was reproved instead of disfellowshipped. At this point, who cares if he ever realizes it’s all a sham, and leaves the organization? What’s important is that he is alive to sell magazines or not.

Or what about the older ill (and therefore disposable?) sister who starts expressing doubts? What if this K-N-O-W-I-N-G brother is assigned the local needs part, encouraging the flock to lean on Jehovah, but he is much less harsh, condescending, and dogmatic than one of the true-believing elders would have been--and even privately tells the sister that she should keep her research private, allowing her to stay below the radar until she decides how she wants to proceed? If he can lessen (while not totally alleviating) the confusion and guilt she feels, was it worth it for him to stay on as an elder? Or is she so inconsequential that she’s an acceptable casualty to some grand gesture?

I suspect that even in a group made primarily of Ex-JWs we could find a few “troubled teens” who were taken under the wing of a good and conscientious elder. Maybe that elder kept the young brother or sister sane enough that they didn’t hit the streets as a teen. Maybe he helped them maintain a modicum of self-esteem, which indirectly and years later, gave them the strength to buck the flow and question their beliefs. Maybe?

Later in that post, Amnesian says the following in response to Amazing’s comment about having a gun put to his head :

About your being confronted with a literal gun: I certainly don’t mean to minimize your trauma, but if you think there is no difference between having a literal gun held to your head and having the df gun held to it, might I suggest that you interview victims of the former and the suicided victims of the latter and report back which you determine to be the better or worse off.
Or, more to the point, why not try talking to some who are df’d and shunned who cannot bring themselves to suicide and so are condemned to continue lives rotted out by this policy? I wonder if too many of them might wish that someone would sneak up behind them and put a bullet through their skulls.
My sense is that most df’d victims are not of the hale and hearty, resilient constitution of those who post their happily-ever-after testimonials here on JWD. Many, too many, suffer indescribably in spite of getting on with life. Physical death is not the worst consequence one can suffer, or have you discarded that teaching from your JW days?

This seems incongruous. Are individual members (like troubled teens and elderly sisters) worth saving or not? Amnesian uses the word “merely” to describe them, then says that DFing can be a fate worse than death. I’m not trying to twist her words; I think it’s a valid question. She say that some are so miserable after being DFed that they might wish for someone to sneak up behind them and shoot them, yet she’s ready to issue a blanket condemnation of a good and conscientious brother who wishes to stay in his position to help such ones, unwilling to ascribe any good motives to his doing so?

Anyway, back to this good and conscientious elder. If he doesn’t grasp after or abuse the magnificent Ps, but accepts them as coming with the territory, does that negate what good he is able to do?

On the other hand, I don’t think we can deny that the “good” elders unwittingly help ‘perpetuate the myth that the WTS is God’s organization, with just a few rotten apples that Jehovah is using just to test our faithfulness.’ I’ve seen a few say that there is no excuse for them to stay in their positions, and the arguments of some seem to have been construed to say that they should be completely absolved of blame. Isn’t it possible and probable that the truth lies somewhere in between?

Still, I believe that the number of elders who K-N-O-W it’s all a lie is pretty small (but that’s another argument). Regardless of the number, even if all brothers who K-N-O-W were to step down, there would still be plenty of clueless “good” brothers to help R&F keep up their own precious illusions.

“Their precious illusions?” I don’t think this illusion is being created by elders for[ the R&F. It’s an illusion created by the Borg, and elders and publishers alike buy into their respective roles.

I can’t personally absolve myself of the blame for participating in the group. I knew then that I was smarter than my elders. My raw intellect and reasoning abilities were sharper. [Wow that sounds arrogant, but to paraphrase Tedd Williams, “it aint braggin’ if it’s true.”] It would be disingenuous of me to jump up and scream to the elders “Why did you not protect me from my own gullibility?” Sure, some of them had the advantage of 30 more years in the system than I, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t still blissfully ignorant of what was really going on.

If any of them had secretly decided it was all bunk, I certainly I wish they would have told me. But I think if I’m honest with myself I’d have to say that I would have ignored them at best, and narced on them at worst. This is because the vast majority of us, no matter how smart we style ourselves will not leave until we are ready to leave. I think the real blame lies with THE SYSTEM.

When I was indoctrinated, I knew about much of the “doody” list from the “culpability” threads. Elders rarely talked to me about private judicial matters, but I heard the details/rumors from the other Pioneers (elder’s wives). I knew very well that there were miscarriages of justice, and that an appeal was a joke, but I waited on Jehovah to Straighten Things Out. I knew there was a “Flock” book, but thought it was just mundane administrative stuff. I knew about the Society’s history, but was grateful for the New Light. I saw the news expose about the Society helping a sister win custody of her kids in an ugly court battle, and railed at how apostates had twisted matters, painting the Society in a bad light. I can’t in all honesty say that knowing everything the average elder knows would have caused me to leave any sooner than I did. Maybe, maybe not.

To me, the crux of the matter is “now what?” Should these (few) elders who remain landed be absolved of all culpability? I think they need to realize that they do help perpetuate the myth that all elders are appointed/anointed by God, but what next?

Amnesian seems to give some clue as to what she thinks should come next:

Neither [the trusting publisher, nor the all-knowing elder] is in a position to protest his innocence too vociferously, yet there are degrees of guilt that carry varying penalties.

What are the penalties? Should we force remaining elders to resign? Should the penalties be commensurate with lives destroyed, years spent as an elder, years spent K-N-O-W-I-N-G? Should elders who stayed for a while, then left, be treated differently from elders we (the underground, the rebellion?) had to expose as staying on for the Ps? Should we start with the current ex-elders in the JWD community? What form of solitary confinement can we impose for those on JWD who show signs of “elder influence”? Who will be Judge, Jury, and Executioner? Should ex-elders get credit for time served if they can prove that they did things to mitigate their harm done?

Oops, Amnesian answers this one:

You may be doing some courageous things now---and I heartily applaud you for that---, but they don’t, as you suppose, acquit you of your past crimes.

The question still remains, what is to be his, and his compatriots’, punishment?

For those of us who were never elders, is our bloodlust so great now that we would rob those still inside of the relative relief that comes from only having three heartless elders, instead of four? (My premise is that a K-N-O-W-I-N-G elder who steps down WILL be replaced. A massive walkout of “good” elders won’t cripple the society, they’d just reach lower into the barrel for their candidates.)

A couple more finishing thoughts, then I’m going to go pack my parachute.

Teejay, twice in one of your posts, you said that this subject was very important. My question is, “Is it really?” Is it important to current JWs? Many, including myself, have loved ones still on the inside. Is it for them that we need to settle this matter of culpability? That would include forcing acting elders to kamikaze themselves. Would that help our loved ones? If these “good” elders (who are actually bad for sitting on their knowledge) go public, how many of our loved ones will listen? How many of them are ready to leave? I’m sure some are, so how do we weigh them against the “mere” troubled teens and old, ill sisters? I’m sure glad it’s not my decision. I guess I see what others were saying about this not being a black/white issue.

Or is it important to the Ex-JW community? Which is more important, getting the ex-elders among us to repent in ashes and sackcloth, or is it the active elders that the ex-JW community is more interested in bringing to justice?

Then again, since this was just a human behavior test being conducted, I guess we who wasted so much time engaging in it should feel pretty stupid.

[Edit: Sheesh, a gazillion proof-reads before posting, and grammar no-nos still slipped through]

5

Double Standards

by Norm in

jw
friends

aftenposten writes the following in its sunday, januay 13 paper:.

similar to taleban, escapes criticism.

homesexuals are beheaded, prisceless artifacts are destroyed, women have to cover themselves up and the king rules.

Hmmm

Norm,

Good post. I didn't know it was quite so severe over there, but I'm not really surprised, and I would be extremely shocked if the west's response were anything but a deafening silence.

Hmmm

14

My last talk as a JW

by Hmmm in

jw
friends

diamond's thread inspired this idea... at least, this is how i wish my last talk had gone.. next on the school is brother hmmm.

his talk is based on the song of solomon, and his theme is: "be steadfast and faithful, like the shulamite maiden.. "throughout history, babylon the great, the world empire of false religion, has fornicated with the scarlet-colored wild beast.

they have traded support for the league of nations--and it's successor the united nations--for political clout and expediency in furthering their selfish goals.

Hmmm

[Chairman] “Welcome to the Generic Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We have an excellent Watchtower study this morning. If we pay attention, we’ll see that we have some New Light on the exact dimensions of a cubit. Before that, however, we’ll enjoy a public discourse. We are privileged this morning to have a visiting speaker with us—-Brother Hmmm, from the Justanother Congregation. Brother Hmmm’s theme is ‘Christ’s parousia, how seen?’ with the subtitle of… uh… Watch Dateline?”

[Brother Hmmm nods to the Chairman]

“Uh, his theme is “Christ’s parousia, how seen: Watch Dateline.” Brother Hmmm.”

[The Chairman sits down, trying to burn the image of Sister Hot, who is sitting in the second row wearing a very low-cut dress, into his retinas]

“Before his ascension to heaven, Jesus Christ told his followers that he would return to them. This return, from the Greek parousia would not be in a physical sense, but instead refers to his “invisible presence,” and began in 1914.

Well, I sure hope this invisible presence was discerned by two people at the same time, otherwise it is invalid. This is in harmony with the principle that a matter is established at the mouths of two witnesses, which has apparently become a Universal principle, applicable to all times and circumstances.

Why do we say this? Well, it must apply to Christ’s return, if it applies to a situation like child molestation. That’s right, friends, unless you or your child has ever been the victim of a depraved brother or sister who gets his jollies abusing young girls and boys, you probably aren’t aware of this dirty little secret.

If a young child approaches the elders, claiming that she was abused by a Witness, the elders will first contact the Society’s legal department to see if they have to report the matter to the police. In states where these untrained men are not compelled to notify law enforcement, they will meet with the accused. If the molester denies the accusations, and there were not two witnesses to the same act the matter will be dropped. The word of the victim is not enough to even warrant a real investigation, and since authorities aren’t brought into the matter, there will likely be no “admissible” physical evidence.

So let’s take this to its horrible conclusion. A brother, who may even hold a position of respect and authority in this congregation, could molest your little girl one day, molest another little girl the next day, and if they both went to the elders it wouldn’t be good enough, unless he was foolish enough to let them witness each other’s abuse. To add insult to injury, you and your child will be told not to breathe a word of this to anyone else, on pain of disfellowshipping for slander!

It seems that “Jehovah’s Clean Organization” puts more value in its reputation than in the physical and emotional health of its children.

[Brother Hmmm walks off the stage and out of the building. The only sound is the startled clapping of one couple, their six-year-old daughter sitting between them.]

[Chairman: Great, what am I going to do for the next 39 minutes, before the Watchtower study starts?]

Hmmm

[Author's note. I wrote this in a semi-humerous and irreverant vein, but I understand that this is a very touchy subject. If anyone finds this post offensive, please email me and I'll edit or remove it.]

23

Post Resurection for the bored Fundies

by unclebruce in

jw
friends

the times in which jesus lived are well documented.

we know a lot about the historical context of the world in which he lived.

this knowledge is not a matter of personal belief but of historical fact.

Hmmm

unclebruce,

Enjoyable and informative post. I take back almost every bad thing I ever said about you.

Hmmm