Posts by Palimpsest

21

"What will be examined in the following article?" How many of you adults shamelessly raised your hand for these questions?

by miseryloveselders in

jw
friends

every wt magazine has at least one article that asks this question at the end of one of the study articles.

sometimes these questions are in the books such as this week's book study.

they spiced it up a little bit for this book study though.

Palimpsest

I only ever answered questions where the answer was not in the paragraph. I didn't answer very often.

Same. I really resented the questions, even as a child, so I usually went for follow-ups (we had one WT conductor who was good about including some) or reading Bible passages. Felt a little less demeaning to me. But then, I was also the same way in school -- I only liked answering questions from teachers if they were about outside information -- so it wasn't just a JW-related thing for me.

I also very rarely read those introductory pages that set up the rest of the magazine for you. I think of the magazines sometimes now when telling students to stop using their thesis paragraphs to provide an outline the rest of the paper. Show, don't tell!

On the flipside, its funny how some parents who think too highly of their childs developement.........let their children read scriptures, or paragraphs beyond their child's capabilities. Sometimes you can see the irritation in the conductor's face when this happens, or some of the more zealous dubs. I find it funny personally, some little 5 year old reading John 17:3...

If it really irritated a conductor, why would they call on the child?

That's one of the few things I ever gave/give JWs credit for, to be honest. Talking down to children or assuming they can't do something based on their age is one of my biggest peeves. (Probably why I respect the Society of Friends/Quakers so much.) I like the idea of getting children involved in things and making them feel like equal human beings, regardless of the setting. Besides, letting them read a Scripture keeps the children entertained during what can otherwise be a torture session. It's like a moment of mercy for them.

And honestly, we had kindergartners in my congregation who read better than some of the adults. ;) I'd rather listen to a 5-year-old sound out Maher-shalal-hash-baz than listen to an adult butcher the inflection or tempo of a verse when they ought to know better. And hey, anything to not have to listen to yet another SuperCommenter or kiss-ass MS, right?

"We should be grateful that Jehovah has given us the faithful and discreet slave organization to provide meat in due season in the short time left before Armageddon."

That's ALWAYS the right answer.

Hah! I always loved when people would lose their train of thought or start to stammer, and then try to make a "save" with something cheesy like that. Never failed!

7

Christina Aguilera

by asilentone in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oysubiayf0w&feature=player_embedded#!.

Palimpsest

What happened to her face in the first video?

Bad makeup and lighting, it appears. I don't think she's had significant work done, if that's what you mean.

Her weight has gone up and down a lot over the years. The fact that she has such a tiny frame makes any change stand out more on her than it would on other women.

The dress she wore on Conan didn't appear to me to show a "bump" -- in fact, it would have been a pretty unforgiving choice for a pregnant woman trying to hide it. But then again, I can't say I was checking her out as much as some of you might have been. ;)

21

While Screaming Bible Passages, 'Ugly Betty' Actor Kills Mother With Samurai Sword

by leavingwt in

while screaming bible passages, 'ugly betty' actor kills mother with samurai sword.

police say an "ugly betty" actor held his mother hostage and then murdered her with a samurai sword while screaming bible passages tuesday in brooklyn.. .

neighbors identified the suspect as haitian-american actor michael l. brea, who has had roles on the tv series "ugly betty" and movie "step-up 3-d." he was also the face of a campaign for the energy drink coca-cola: full throttle, according to haiti internet movie database website belfim.com.. .

Palimpsest

LWT has a history of passive/agressively blaming anything and everything on religion.

I admit that I know his posts more from JWR than from here, so perhaps I've missed some epic tirades against religion, but LWT is pretty much the last person I would think of as an aggressive anti-religionist. He's always struck me as very fair. I imagine this was posted more because it's an interesting story than because of any evil motive or agenda. :)

Anyway, I'm very curious to learn more about his/their particular faith. The "Haitian-American" line jumped out at me because there are some radical, isolated segments of the Haitian population that believe in the necessity of extreme actions like this if they believe someone is possessed or otherwise acting as an agent of the Devil. There have been many documented cases of people in Haiti being killed due to them being suspected demons. There's also the whole zombie phenomenon...Haiti is pretty much an anthropologist's paradise, to be honest. So it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

45

Nobody forced us to believe. We CHOSE to follow their crap advice.

by hamsterbait in

have you noticed that the recent trolls are now claiming that if anybody drew conclusions or made decisions based on what the society was printing, it was their own fault?.

kind of "we didn't force you to believe what we said or adjust your life because of it.

you chose to think we were teaching the end would come in <insert time range>".

Palimpsest

I don't know the particular examples to which you refer, but I can tell you that, as a cultural anthropologist who researches cults and HDOs, I think a lot of it comes down to a misunderstanding of terminology. A lot of people use common terms -- mind control, behavior modification, brainwashing, etc. -- in extremely different ways, which makes clear discussion of the general subject very difficult. We had a thread once on JWR (I think it was there, anyway; might have been a different location) where we asked people to give their own definitions of what "mind control" means, and it was pretty much a different response from every person. The same thing happens when I've asked interview subjects and students to explain to me what they think it is. So when someone says they're critical of the concept of "mind control," they may actually not be criticizing your own view of it. It's very tricky and requires a lot of very careful listening to figure out the specifics of what's being supported and what's being questioned.

There's also the problem of teasing out the different criticisms and their implications for the overall debate. The growing consensus of most social science organizations since the early '90s has been that the most popular concept of mind control either does not exist or cannot be proven, and that people are instead manipulated through social control that results in behavior modification. A lot of people like Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer, both controversial figures within the larger field of cultic studies, have a tendency to write off that distinction in a way that suggests that people who don't endorse the concept of mind control are "apologists" or "blaming the victims." We're not. What we're saying is that the cause of the control is different than previously believed. We're saying that the social influence of the cult is so strong that, even if you do disagree with the cult on an intellectual level, you are effectively prevented from being able to act against it.

So no, we're not saying anyone has a "choice" to follow or not -- we're actually saying the cult is so strong socially that it takes that choice (and all other options) away. The people who do want to make a choice can't, which is, to me, the saddest thing about cults and HDOs. That is anything but blaming the victim -- it places the blame squarely on the organization.

I think a lot of people have an emotional attachment to Hassan, Singer, and some others, which is perfectly understandable. Their writings and positions have helped a lot of people find the closure they seek, and even many critics (including Barker) still endorse Hassan's books even while disputing some of his core ideas. Unfortunately, I think that attachment can at times cause people to see any criticism of them, especially Hassan, as a personal attack on both him and his supporters. I also don't think for a moment that he or Singer or anyone else on "that side" of the argument is "bad" or anything else pejorative. It's just differences of opinion, and those differences need not be taken as insults or an attempt to demean members/ex-members. They're not meant to be at all. Everyone, regardless of their stance on mind control/behavior modification, is working towards the same goal of freeing people from outside influences, so there is much more commonality than there is difference.

Of course, it's entirely possible that there have been people on the board who have meant to be pejorative, and that's a shame. But I don't feel that they represent the entirety of that side of the debate.

22

I'm doing it, I'm buying a christmas tree!

by littlebird in

jw
friends

i'm so excited, im going out to buy my first christmas tree today!

it will be small, but it will be great.

since im still living separate from my jw hubby, im going to take advantage of the freedom.

Palimpsest

WTWizard: Those must be some pretty intense trees you're putting together! ;) Most families that I know only use a couple dozen ornaments and a few strands of lights.

17

participant awareness

by Nickolas in

i've recently been involved in a thread in which one of the participants, member of this board since april last year and who has made over 1200 posts, had not been aware of the 1975 failure.

isn't that unusual?

it tells me that this board is inefficient at getting the message out.

Palimpsest

Finally, I do not see the fiasco of 1975 as a theological subject at all. I see it as a key issue of credibility that goes to the much larger question of the legitimacy of a Society and what it claims to be.

Except...1975 is part of their eschatology, and eschatology = theology. And it's the flawed eschatology that makes them lack credibility. So it's all directly related; you can't separate it from theology. So if someone has the position that they don't want to talk about theology, then it makes sense that 1975 is a conversation that won't be of interest to them, because 1975 = eschatology = theology. I'm not saying people should feel that way, but it still makes sense to me.

The fact that 1975 has become a non-issue to so many, and that so many aren't even aware that it happened, is mute testimony to the efficiency with which the WTBTS has been able to sweep it, and other facts that reflect badly upon it, under the carpet.

While I see your point, I'm not sure that you can use a few examples to make that extrapolation. I think what you're saying is that some people openly acknowledging that they're unaware of eschatological failures, combined with many people apparently choosing to not participate in those discussions when they come up, means people are generally unaware of the 1975 issue. I don't think it can be taken to that. Silence doesn't mean a lack of understanding; it usually just means a lack of interest. So I don't think we can really assume that the number of people unaware of 1975 is so significant that it says something about the board.

Also, bear in mind that many people get sick of discussing the same issues over and over again. This is common on every ex-JW board I've seen -- some issues simply become dead horses. So threads on 1975 that appear to be less active than they "should" be could instead be ones that people look at and then choose to skip because they don't feel like they have anything else to contribute or share. Again, I'm not sure we can say that silence means blindness.

11

Facebook-banning NJ pastor acknowledges threesome

by Scott77 in

here is a link for this story headline.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_us/us_pastor_facebook_edict/print in retrospective, i wish rev.

cedric miller was an elder or a member of gb of jw.

Palimpsest

You knew this was coming the second he came out with his anti-Facebook stance. It's kinda like pastors who run "ex-gay" missions or preach that "God hates fags" -- you know it's only a matter of time before their meth-dealing boytoy comes out and we get yet another tearful confession on cable news.

17

participant awareness

by Nickolas in

i've recently been involved in a thread in which one of the participants, member of this board since april last year and who has made over 1200 posts, had not been aware of the 1975 failure.

isn't that unusual?

it tells me that this board is inefficient at getting the message out.

Palimpsest

In addition to what Black Sheep said: A lot of people simply do not care about theological points, which is perfectly fine. Most of the JW-related problems people look to recover from are social and psychological ones, not spiritual. So if posters don't want to get weighed down in matters of eschatology, good for them. Maybe that's part of their recovery.

15

Has anyone ever had a 'Near Death Experience' ?

by 3Mozzies in

jw
friends

i'm wondering if anyone here has had a "near death experience" or know of someone that has.

as an example: such as floating above your body during your operation when the doctors 'lose' you and you make a decision to return back to your body even though the bright light and some voice tell you otherwise... .

did it change you/them in anyway?.

Palimpsest

I know someone that was clinically dead for 30 min before he was brought back. He told me he remembers absolutely nothing.

I was lost on the table in 2006 and brought back within a couple of minutes. Not only do I not have memories of that experience, I have also lost the memories of the two days before it happened. I have a friend who went through the exact same experience with the exact same medical emergency the year before, and he also remembers nothing.

I don't have a definite stance on NDEs, but I tend to think they involve false memory.

47

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Damned For Their Beliefs?

by Cold Steel in

obviously this is for people who believe in an afterlife.. are jehovah's witnesses damned because of their beliefs?

please elaborate.. .

Palimpsest

I find it interesting that this thread has followed a stricly Christian perspective. It's entirely possible to believe in an afterlife and not associate it with Christianity (or any other religion) at all. I wonder what non-Christians who believe in an afterlife but perhaps still think salvation is necessary for it would have to say on this matter. Do we have anyone like that around?