voltaire

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 318 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by voltaire

• 
  4

  Will WTS Use 'Gang of Four' Defense?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  suppose a big organization gets into trouble with.

  corrupt, stupid leadership and needs to make big changes.. one way to fix the mess is to round up a bunch of.

  scapegoats in the leadership, imprison them (executing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Good sugestion. Maybe they could pin the blame on several deceased or senile insiders. They wouldn'tbe able to complain if they wanted to.

  Francoise, you clearly expect the imminent demise of the org. While I do expect it to make some fairly drastic changes in the near future, I personally doubt whether it will really implode. Religions are resilient. People believe because they want to. It makes them feel better. FACTS ARE NOT AN ISSUE WITH SOME PEOPLE(MAYBE MOST PEOPLE). Remember 1975? 1914-1925? Carl Sagan had an interesting remark about Rutherford. He said that the whole episode was proof that there is something very near the heart of religion that is suprisingly resistant to rational inquiry.(my paraphrase). Let's hope that the new and improved version will be a far more benign, less controlling religion.
• 
  37

  Blood and RANK dishonesty!

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

  if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

  i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Alan, Maximus and francoise,

  I'm chewing on your remarks. I have about 3 minutes before I have to go, so I can't be sure anything I write will be as cogent as I would like. Francoise, you are coorect that the org as a whole isn't very flexible/forgiving. But I think that's the nature of large organizations. I am at least willing to allow that some individuals in the upper echelons might be ignorant of all the facts and/or not in a position to do anything substantive about these doctrines. I think Maximus discussed his views(in a previous post) about their being some persons who seem to be genuinely concerned about the direction of the organization. I also believe that post got a lot of action! I may or may not be right on this one.

  Alan. I must conced that somebody has acted dishonestly in the publication of the creation book. I do wonder, though, how many persons aside from the author have taken the time the investigate the issues, such as what Max posted. At any rate, I do think there must be some community responsibility, as the WT says.

  I gotsa go. Thanks for the food for thought!
• 
  37

  Blood and RANK dishonesty!

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

  if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

  i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Marvin,

  You're probably correct. I think I use the above line of reasoning since, regardless of the choice, there's no really no excuse. With the evolution issue, it seems plausible that whoever wrote the Creation book might have simply pasted together the quotes. They are freely available in any creationist rag. Also, I think the science involved in the creation/evolution debate is often not as easy to understand. No one is dying as a result of the creation policy, either. So this is less reason to suppose that this issue comes up for discussion.

  I think it's simply in my nature to always assume the best of others. I agree that it's highly unlikely that the higher-ups aren't aware of these issues. Most likely scenario is as Maximus states. They set policy first, look for support later and ignore anything that doesn't fit. Looks like you have them in a very tight box.
• 
  22

  PREDICTION:

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as we see a rising tide of problems confronting the new watchtower leadership, and a tidal wave swelling on the horizon, some interesting rumours are starting to trickle out.

  we are waiting to see what the fallout will be following the dateline expose' on pedophilia cover-ups, which will undoubtedly lead to exposing the watchtower's policy to cover up other criminal behavior so as to not "bring reproach on jehovah's name.

  " rumour is that the factions at headquarters are becoming increasingly divided.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Humans all seem to have the ability to interpret information in such a way as to confirm their present views. The loyal ones will probably, as you have observed, become even more determined. I do hope, however, that those who feel something is wrong, but can't put their finger on it, will have the information they need to make their move. Likely the org. will have to respond in some way in order to prevent a mass exodus. They will deny it, but the pressure will have made its mark. A more moderate org will be better for everyone.
• 
  37

  Blood and RANK dishonesty!

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

  if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

  i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Marvin,

  Very scholarly post. There is an alternative explanation to the dishonesty hypothesis. Complete and total ignorance.(I know that's redundant, but I like the sound of it!) It strikes me that the evolution/creation debate is similar. They have either knowingly ommitted facts that are central to the issue or they really aren't capable of (or interested in) understanding them.
  Good work.
• 
  11

  Question for Jim Ladd.

  by voltaire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jim,.

  i just read on another post that you are close to being df'ed for having doubts.

  i, too, am on the bubble, so to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Thanks for the points of view. The idea of being a "James Bond type" is intriguing. I doubt I could pull it off, though. Most of all, I just want a normal life back. I do live in a rather large city, so the subterfuge with the different halls would work if it weren't for the wife. Interesting thought, though. I must say that you're a resourcful bunch. No wonder you got the boot. You all sound pretty dangerous to have lurking around the KH.
• 
  11

  Question for Jim Ladd.

  by voltaire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jim,.

  i just read on another post that you are close to being df'ed for having doubts.

  i, too, am on the bubble, so to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  My wife is a JW. So is my mother. The problem is that I feel I'm reaching the limit of my ability to act like I believe this stuff. A part of me just wants to be honest about everything. I could quit going to meetings. I've faded about as far as I can given the fact that I have a wife in the org. If it weren't for her, I would've faded by now. It's actually getting difficult emotionally and psychologically to smile and act encouraged by attempts to help me.

  Thanks for the advice, though.
• 
  11

  Question for Jim Ladd.

  by voltaire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jim,.

  i just read on another post that you are close to being df'ed for having doubts.

  i, too, am on the bubble, so to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Sorry. Looks like my question was for exodus, not Jim. I would be interested in knowing about other cases where someone was DF'ed for having doubts and/or disagreements. Just how far were you able to go?
• 
  11

  Question for Jim Ladd.

  by voltaire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jim,.

  i just read on another post that you are close to being df'ed for having doubts.

  i, too, am on the bubble, so to speak.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  Jim,

  I just read on another post that you are close to being DF'ed for having doubts. I, too, am on the bubble, so to speak. I can't bring myself to go out in service anymore. This is the first month I'll have no time to report. I'm sure the elders will want to visit. I'm not sure if I should let them know that I'm having doubts.(The truth is, I'm not having doubts at all. I'm quite certain that JW's don't have the truth) I'm curious what you're going through. How have you expressed yourself? In other words, have you been frank in telling them that you don't agree with certain things, or just expressed concern?

  just curious
• 
  3

  Do you need to study bad grammar?

  by voltaire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one of my favorite arguments by the society: you don't need to study evolution, read apostate literature or anything else that contradicts what we say, just as you wouldn't study incorrect grammar in order to learn correct grammar.

  i can't believe i ever fell for it.

  (in my defense, i was practically raised around the meetings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  voltaire

  slipnslidemaster,

  For the past several years, I've been wrestling with the issue of whether or not JWs really have the truth. I've tried to talk to my wife about some of the things I've learned. We rarely have any discussions about the "truth" anymore because we can't even agree on the most fundamental of groundrules. #1 in my book is that any open-minded person looks at both sides of an issue. Another is that a person should at least be willing to admit that they MIGHT be wrong. Our conversations were sooooo frustrating because she won't do either. She is really an inteligent woman. She wouldn't approach any other area of life without a willingness to examine more than one side of an issue, but when it comes to the "truth", she is totally naive (or perhaps conditioned is the right word).

  It was very traumatic for me to come to the realization that what I had been taught was the truth does not rest on the firm scientific ground that I once thought it did. If she would just admit that she sometimes has a little twinge of doubt, that there is something that the society believes that she knows isn't true, but that she goes along with anyway, I'd have felt so much better. More than anything else, it's the society's demonization of ex-members, the way that it controls(or tries to anyway) what the members read and even think, that leads me to the conclusion that this isn't the truth. I feel like I'm the man in the story of "The Emporers New Clothes" who is staring at the naked king in disbelief but I know it would be useless to say anything.(And it sometimes drives me crazy.)

  What specifically led me to write the above? I'm studying linguistics, which is why I came across the discussion of ungrammatical statements. It reminded me of what a CO had once said about how you can discern what's true or not. "You just know that, "I is happy that you seen it", is wrong." As though you can detrmine right from wrong intuitively. Recently some magazine repeated the illustration about how it isn't neccesary to study wrong grammar to know correct grammar. The three clicked together somehow.