Posts by logansrun

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

logansrun

Auld Soul,

Yes, I know what HLC means.

you likely heard of Witnesses dying of kidney failure, sepsis, a car accident (massive blood loss being a frequent result), sickle-cell anemia, or quite a few other illnesses or trauma that reasonably would result in death in a large majority of cases. However, death is prevented, or at least forestalled for a number of years, by blood transfusion in a large number of these cases for the population at large.

True.

The fact that a specific Witness was put at much greater risk of death due to refusing blood tranfusion is not typically advertised around the congregations. In my case, both of my maternal grandparents were put at much greater risk of death due to rejecting transfusion. A childhood friend of someone I am close to lost her life because of a condition that still requires blood transfusion as part of the treatment. Another friend of mine discovered, too late, that his father could have been spared if given needed blood treatment.

I never said there were no cases of loss of life due to the Society's policies, only that they are infrequent and becoming more infrequent due to advances in medical technology.

I personally know at least a half-dozen Jehovah's Witnesses that have died due to complications as a result of refusing blood transfusions (including two grandparents), and a dozen more where they would have if they hadn't decided to take the transfusion. Four from among that last group were disfellowshipped for making that wise decision for themselves, they refused to be repentant for saving their life—how odd.
Your reasoning on this point is neither deductive, inductive, or abductive from what I can discern. It is conjectured from the (tiny) sampling of your personal knowledge and the related knowledge of one other person, and it might be that neither of you is in a position to know the medical course taken in the particular cases of Witnesses you know that died. I disagree with your assessment, either way. But I hold your opinon on this point to be abstractly derived, pending your relation of how your opinion came to be informed.

I still stand by my statements. It cannot be denied that the extreme majority of JWs will not die from lack of a blood transfusion, even though this remains a statistical possibility.

Your attempt to sidestep the coersive subjection of self as destructive (and you know exactly what I mean) was, in my opinion, rather weakly executed.

And your sidestepping of my point about positive self-delusions was also weakly executed.

B.

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

So then we can rightly say that the Society is conditionally destructive: that is, when one realizes it for what it truly is. I might go with that, although the extent of it's destructiveness must still be moderated by it's positive affects and the fact that it's destructiveness is based on subjective contingent knowledge. As an aside, a Buddhist would say that all of desire is destructive once you really look at it for what it's worth.

James,

OK - Logansrun - I have to say that you know how to run an interesting thread.

I try. :)

I realize that the Society wouldn't like what I write, although they wouldn't bother me since they don't even know who I am. Besides, I'm a walk-away and my life wouldn't drastically change if I got DFd. Plus, as has been noted earlier in this thread, I could always plead insanity to my JC.

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

logansrun

Auld Soul,

To my knowledge, there has never been a single death recorded as caused by a lack of blood transfusion.
However, every year many deaths due to massive blood loss could be avoided by transfusions that are refused. For others, sudden onset of certain diseases or late detection either certain diseases or of blood toxicity create a vital need for untainted oxygen-carrying volume in order to give a chance to fight off infection. Many continue to die every year die due to refusal.

I’m not sure how your first two statements go together but I will try and comment further on blood transfusions. I don’t agree with the Society’s stance on blood, nor am I saying that there haven’t been lives lost due to their policies. All I’m saying is that medical technology makes the need for a blood transfusion rarer, and that not many Witnesses experience death from a transfusion refused. In my years in the organization I actually have never known one person to have died from refusing a transfusion – and I know hundreds of Witnesses. Based on this experience – and in talking to a fellow ex-JW who concurred – I cannot help but conclude that the probability of any physical damage caused by the Society’s transfusion policy is very, very low.

Ah, your wager is safely out of harms way. For one can never know the outcome of taking the well-worn road rather than the one less traveled. Again, the "destructive behavior" you refer to in Malawi was not a refusal of political activism, it was refusal to pay 25 cents for a piece of paper with some words on it. Those words merely aceded that the controlling political party in the nation was the only legally recognized political party in the nation. Refusal to purchase the card symbolized rejection of the authority of the superior authorities. It was for this that so many were tortured and killed—not for refusal to vote, salute a flag, or go to war.

Simultaneously, Mexican Jehovah's Witnesses were specifically permitted to bribe officials—through a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement—in order to obtain certificates (cartillas that they carried and used to obtain privileges and services) stating that they completed their mandatory military training and they were added to the first ranks called in the event of civilian conscription.

I am still waiting for anyone to resolve that into political neutrality. Would you like to try?

Whether the situation is Malawi was a refusal to engage in political activism or some by-product of the Witnesses peculiar theology is not my point. I’m satisfied to go with how the Society presented the matter – which is open to debate – for purposes of this essay. Nevertheless, I still stand by my statement that political neutrality – including refusal to go to war – has saved more Witness lives than it has cost. I cannot back this up with statistics but only with inductive reasoning.

ALL Jehovah's Witnesses are damaged by their exposure to the "Group Think" of their peer group. If you can explain to me how it is that you believe there is any Jehovah's Witness who is not damaged emotionally, mentally, and socially (through systematic retardation by coersion, if by no other means) I will be most appreciative.

If you are referring to a lack of social damage within the group you have my agreement on that score.

However, Jehovah's Witnesses are not limited to social interaction with only each other (like communal cult followers) but they are rendered largely impotent in their interactions if they adhere to the expectations of the group. If they do not adhere to the expectation of the group, emotional and mental coersion will ensue until they either conform (accept a sublimation of their own identity in favor of adopting the group identity) or reject conformation (usually resulting in behavior for which expulsion is a consequence).

I do not believe there is any Jehovah's Witness who is not emotionally damaged as a direct result of their religion, whether they recognize it about themselves or not.

In thatthe organization shamelessly promotes subjecting individual will (self) to the will of an organization, they promote self-destructive behavior. Like every other cult. I invite you to present your strongest possible argument to the contrary.

I think this is more of a subjective argument on your part, although I readily agree that there is “group think” and weird patterns of behavior and reasoning in the JW community. But one must distinguish between these psychological phenomenon and the idea that they are “destructive.” For example, “group think” and ‘subjecting individual will to an organization’ is actually quite common human behavior; just look at the world of advertising or Internet discussion boards ;)

The fact of the matter is that some Witnesses appear to be quite content and happy. Psychologists have long recognized that some people can engage in positive deslusions: for instance a man might believe that he is God’s gift to women and, although false, this belief might have some positive effects, i.e. he may approach women with greater confidence, will have exaggerated, though helpful, self-esteem, etc. In short, I cannot say that JWs who are ignorant of the issues which have led myself and countless others to reject their belief system are any happier or unhappier than the statistical norm for the general population. (Indeed, in some ways a case can be made that they are happier because of their faith: they suffer less negative effects of destructive behavior such as drug addiction, promiscuity; they experience less anomie in the face of an ever-changing world; they experience less alienation due to their strong group bonding; etc.)

B.

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

logansrun

Mega,

One example of how destructive the Watchtower is is is the content of your post.
I believe your thinking is a real mess. Your separating of categories is so ludicrous and explanations so weak as to make me question your mental health.
But I applaud you for thinking outside the box and having the balls to post how you really feel.

And I applaud you for citing specifics and making a logical argument in response to mine.

Not sure what you found so incredibly offensive to make such an ad hominem, but oh well.

B.

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

logansrun

james,

Well, kind of. But I was not on this board last August and all I remember reading from you are a thread suggesting that we not call them a cult and now one which suggests they are not really so destructive.

Right. Exactly. But remember I'm not saying that they are not somewhat destructive towards some people at some time.

You know, I don't really think it makes for a hill of beans whether people here use the word "cult" or "destructive". Its certainly is not like they are going to see our points just because we make nice with our language.

"They" -- I assume you are refferring to the Society or individual JWs -- are not going to 'see [your] points' if you don't make nice with your language either. I'm not trying to balance things out for the sake of the Society, but for ex-Witnesses.

After all, they called us apostates first - and I can make an argument that many of us are not that word either...

True, and you have every right to do that. I would even endorse that view. B.

24

Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

logansrun

Is it really proper to say that the Witness organization is a “destructive religion (or cult)” or that they promote “self-destructive” behavior in its members? Most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so. I think the situation is actually more complex, however. I don’t believe it is fair to categorically state that they are destructive without defining what one actually means by such a label. Let’s peruse four different domains in which a group or individual can be thought of as “destructive”:

Physically: This is probably what most people think of when they hear the word “destructive.” David Koresh and Jim Jones obviously led groups that would rightly be labeled as destructive in this way. The alcoholic or drug addict can also be thought of as engaging in self-destructive behavior that effects the physical domain (either to the abuser or to others). Three areas come to mind that might open the Witnesses up to accusations they are physically destructive: their stance on blood transfusions, poor handling of cases of abuse (sexual or physical), and possibly their politically neutral stance which might open individuals up to uncessary physical persecution (for example, Malawi).

In the first instance -- blood transfusions -- one must admit that present day technologies make death from lack of a blood transfusion a rarity. Also, there might be few instances -- especially years ago or in underdeveloped countries -- where refusing a blood transfusion has saved individual Witnesses from complications or even death (although, it must be admitted the reverse is also true). So, all in all, it might be said that this peculiar practice of refusing blood transfusions may be physically destructive. But is it really fair to then give the categorical label of destructiveness based on just this practice? Looking at the matter mathematically may help answer this question: in all probability the potential for individual Witnesses to be physically harmed from the Society’s stance on blood is very low.

The Society’s handling of abuse cases has been given great attention on this forum and in the popular press. Surely there was mismanagement on the part of the organization’s representatives both on the local level and from Brooklyn. But changes have been made and it is quite possible that further changes will be made from the top down, especially as further negative press comes to light. Just like blood transfusions I don’t think that one can judge the whole of the organization on just one aspect of it’s parts.

Because of their neutral stance the Society has promoted needlessly destructive behavior on the part of some of their members, such as those in Malawi in the 1970’s. But again, how many lives have been saved due to the Witnesses politically neutral stance (not going to war, engaging in civil conflict, etc)? I would wager that more have been saved than lost.

Therefore, I conclude that it is inaccurate to say that the Witness organization is destructive in the physical domain. Perhaps what most people mean by their use of the label “destructive”, however, is emotional, mental and social. I think a greater case can be made that they are indeed destructive in these spheres, although broad categorizations are still open to dispute.

For those who have been disfellowshipped, reproved, shunned and reaped the disciplinary whirlwind from the elders a strong case can be made that the organization’s practices have been subjectively harmful. On a milder scale than most, I too have experienced the psychological pain and social stigmatization that are the by-products of the Society’s draconian moralism. But I think one must realize that not all Witnesses experience this pain, nor do all who are involved in judicial matters resent the discipline they meet. Other than those who leave the organization permanently, the emotional pain and social inconveniences endured by those reproved or disfellowshipped are temporary and their memory usually fades. It is those who leave the fold on a long-term basis that are truly the ones who are hurt, and in this regard I do believe it is proper to call the organization “emotionally and socially destructive.”

But notice I wrote “in this regard.” I think that it is impossible to categorically brand the entire organization destructive due to their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning of former members (not all of whom are shunned, I might add). Just as with the other examples mentioned earlier, most Witnesses will never experience this sort of pain on a long-term basis. Since the Society’s practices are not emotionally destructive for the majority of it’s members, I don’t think it is fair to label them destructive. On the other hand, since a sizeable minority do experience this pain I don’t think it is proper to label them harmless or benign either. The truth is somewhere between these poles.

17

Reification of the "cult" idea

by logansrun in

jw
friends

sometimes i must confess bewilderment at peoples talk of cults: i.e.

comments like well, the witnesses display all the characteristics of a cult as noted by [insert anti-cult website here].

has it occurred to anyone that the idea of a cult is a human invention, indeed a very peculiar modern human construct in comparison with the rest of social history?

logansrun

sass,

Still I like to use the word a lot because it's such a sharp blade, slicing up my old beliefs. Feeling like I should go back? Say 'It's a cult, idiot', and I'll get over it pretty quickly.

Very interesting point. Actually, I think that comment really cuts to the heart of why many use the word "cult" with such intensity and regularity here. I have no problem using, oh how shall I put it, "reverse neuro-linguistic programming" as long as one views it as just that. Just as "it's the Truth" creates an emotional charge in a JW/ex-JW, saying "it's a cult" does the same. Fight fire with fire, perhaps? Fine. I guess I've been out long enough -- and thought/read/talked about it long enough -- where those verbal cues don't cause much emotion anymore.

proplog,

Interesting. Of course for every societal "positive" the JWs might generate there could very well be equal or greater negatives (including thwarted positives). For instance, although I agree the JWs generate useful services to the community in terms of entrepeneurship (mainly cleaning and construction businesses), certainly someone else would fill this need in the community and those who JWs who were involved in it might be doing something else, such as working for the Peace Corps, becoming a doctor, etc.

Of course, the president of Hustler magazine (can't remember name at the moment) might just as well have been a force for free speech as the JWs have been. You won't find that in the Awake! magazine.

All in all I'm not saying that the "cult" label is totally wrong with regard the JWs, only that it is problematic, culturally contingent and not the full picture.

Little Toe,

Hey! Hope you are well.

B.

17

Reification of the "cult" idea

by logansrun in

jw
friends

sometimes i must confess bewilderment at peoples talk of cults: i.e.

comments like well, the witnesses display all the characteristics of a cult as noted by [insert anti-cult website here].

has it occurred to anyone that the idea of a cult is a human invention, indeed a very peculiar modern human construct in comparison with the rest of social history?

logansrun

james woods,

well, this is a cult being run by cult leaders. That's why we have this word in English - to be able to describe this kind of organization and behavior system.

The problem is that language can be slippery: it is ever evolving and any word can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, definitions. For instance: "queer" in modern parlance refers to homosexuals (unfortunately), but it's original meaning simply meant "weird" or "outside the norm." Another example: God. I've heard the word "God" referred to as the Big White Man with a beard in the sky, the totality of the laws of nature (i.e. Stephen Hawking's "God"), the part of you within which is spiritual, and so on. The list for this sort of thing is enormous.

Groups that I've heard the word "cult" used against (and appear to me to be mostly harmless): the Unitarian Universalists, Shambhala International, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Secular Humanism, the Amish, etc.

Personally, I'd like to eliminate the word entirely from the English language because of this sort of confusion.

B.

17

Reification of the "cult" idea

by logansrun in

jw
friends

sometimes i must confess bewilderment at peoples talk of cults: i.e.

comments like well, the witnesses display all the characteristics of a cult as noted by [insert anti-cult website here].

has it occurred to anyone that the idea of a cult is a human invention, indeed a very peculiar modern human construct in comparison with the rest of social history?

logansrun

proplog: One thing you did write made me think, however:

I view cults as little laboratories from which interesting and useful social structures emerge. Just another part of evolution. Evolution makes its greatest leaps in little isolated pools.

The problem with your analogy is that isolated populations in the biological world are constantly mutating. The JWs seem to be pretty stagnant -- actually, that's an understatment. There are no signfiicant new mutations (essentially, new information) going on in the JW world, unless of course you consider the latest pimple-faced 19 year old off to Bethel as a mutation.

B.

17

Reification of the "cult" idea

by logansrun in

jw
friends

sometimes i must confess bewilderment at peoples talk of cults: i.e.

comments like well, the witnesses display all the characteristics of a cult as noted by [insert anti-cult website here].

has it occurred to anyone that the idea of a cult is a human invention, indeed a very peculiar modern human construct in comparison with the rest of social history?

logansrun

Hi proplog: Yes. Entering alternate universes is fun in moderation. Hope you are well.

jstalin,

I would say the a cult is defined as such because it is a construct that takes advantage of human psychology to encourage people to engage in self-destructive behavior.

Of course, what is considered "self-destructive" is open to debate. Some Christians consider masturbation "self-destructive." In my reality tunnel I perceive the Witnesses as promoting some features of self-destructive behavior, and some features that are not self-destructive. For instance: smoking. The tight controls that the JWs have in place in this matter might seem draconian to some -- including me -- but you cannot deny that the effect is pretty good. Another (non-JW) example: the Mormons. Now here is a group that most people consider a cult, yet Utah has one of the lowest crime rates and highest rates of longevity in the nation. Point: being in a "cult" can have some beneficial results. Would you say that the world of advertising is also a cult? Many advertisers promote people to make purchases which surely are self-destructive to the buyer and others: cigarettes, booze, SUVs :) How expansive would the term "cult" than be if it is simply a manifestation of those who use "human psychology to encourage people to engage in self-destructive behavior." I wouldn't place blame on former members of high-control groups (the phrase I like to use in place of "cult"). I don't see it as helpful in attaining one's goals. Responsibility perhaps, but not "blame." Big emotional difference in the way people read those words. Also, please note: just because something is a "human construct" does not negate it completely, but nor does it affirm it as concretely as I sometimes see people use such constructs. I mean, some people throw around the term "cult" as if it were some fundamental aspect of nature, or as logically tight as 2+2=4. Somewhere in between reification and nihilism lie the truth. B.