Atypical,
Exactly! Where is your argument? If the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings and service are of primary importance, then just what IS it like? Taking the statement completely at face value, the only honest answer would be that it could be like lots of different things, but explicitly NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis is on meetings or service. So I will ask you, since you claim I distorted the information: Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so? On to the rest -
I think we agree that the testimony is not like a convention or congregation part where the faith (so-called theocratic activity) would be emphasized.
You ask an interesting question of "what IS it like?" and that is the point of the material. The child might not understand the situation, probably never being evaluated by a court or experts before like this. That is why the material reminds the JW parent/counsel to make sure that the child understands that this is a time when they can feel free to discuss all of their activities and interests.
Where we seem to disagree is whether what is being encouraged by the Society is to devalue or actually lie about the priority of the child's faith.
Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so?
My answer to the first part of your question: No it does not say that the child should show that meetings and service are "first" priority and neither does that mean that it is NOT the first priority or that it remains the first priority.
My answer to the second part of your question: I don't believe that asking the child to discuss OTHER priorities (interests) is an implication that the (faith) is not the first priority.
Rather, I see the product of what is being asked of the child as being ADDITIONAL or CUMULATIVE to what will undoubtedly be revealed under examination.
It is my belief that even a cursory evaluation of the child and testimony of both child and JW parent will without a doubt discuss how the faith is certainly first priority and certainly what is supposed to be most important for a JW. Certainly a review of the JW literature would lead to that conclusion. Thus the point that the faith or theocratic activity should be of first priority for a JW is inescapable and we might say "impossible to deny."
The Society sometimes seems to ask the "impossible" of the faithful, but this is not one of those cases. It would simply be folly to try to mislead the court about the priorities of a JW's life. Any testimony in that direction would easily be shown to be false and probably result in loss of credibility and maybe even harm the interests of the party that was so impeached. Is the Society really stupid enough to do that? I don't think so.
Yet somehow you and others conclude that the Society is asking JWs to hide the priority of the faith by finding that directive by implication in the CCB material.
Great! Again, where is your argument? I was pointing out that the children are being directed NOT to show that meetings and service are their first priority; those were my exact words. What would be the most effective way to do that? It would be to follow your exact advice, and give the very misleading idea that meetings and service are only two parts of their very full and balanced life. This is not an honest picture of a truly active jw family, therefore I make the claim that they ARE being directed to be dishonest about the importance of their religion.
How you find such "directive" is difficult for me to understand.
Surely you agree that the statement of the CCB does not explicitly direct that children should either lie or tell the court that meetings and service are not their first priority?
Also you must agree that it doesn't explicitly direct that the children should make it seem like meetings and service are only "two parts" or a portion of their "very full and balanced life." (And that is not what I believe it to be doing either.)
Thus, it is only by implication that such a directive can be found, if at all.
These are your questions again.
Does the material say that the child should show that meetings and service are their first priority, or does it imply that the child should NOT do so?
And that leads me to ask you whether it is logically sound to:
1) conclude that because the statement doesn't say that the child should tell the court the meetings and service are first priority THAT THEREFORE this means that they are to tell the court that meetings and service are NOT first priority? or
2) means, by implication, that they are not first priority, or
3) implies that the priority of the meetings and service (theocratic activity) should be devalued or even hidden.
1, above is logical error to draw a negative inference simply because the positive is not stated.
2, reads too much into the material.
3, is where we disagree.
I assert that simply because one is asked in a specific situation NOT to EMPHASIZE something (the priority of the faith) that it does not mean nor is it rational to conclude that the thing is devalued in the larger scheme.
I also assert that being asked to discuss other priorities does not mean that the thing which is (assumed to be) FIRST priority is no longer first priority.
What I find illogical is to find the implication that you and others are finding. Maybe you can explain how it is logical to find that implication?
(I think it is obvious that the REASON why most, including yourself, are finding that implication is because of their larger knowledge and experience as Jehovah's Witnesses. After all, It seems unusual, to say the least, that JW children would be asked to talk about anything other than "theocratic activities" and the fact that this would be "blessed" by the Society seems contrary to the multitude of public statements contained in the literature and the whole persona of JWs ---and maybe if I wasn't so sure that during the full conduct of the proceedings the fact that theocratic life IS FIRST PRIORITY wouldn't be brought out, I might be concerned about what is being directed by the CCB, but since I am sure of that fact, it only lends more weight to why such an implication is not logical to find.)
-------
read the citation (quotation) more closely. It does not say what you say it does, that is as you say "that the child are not to show that meeting etc. are first priority." The information very clearly states that the child should understand that the testimony is NOT like a convention presentation or congregation part WHERE the emphasis would be that meetings, etc. would be of primary importance.
This was an amazing paragraph. (You are welcome!) First, you made the implied claim that I did not read the material as closely as you did, further implying that this is the reason we disagree. This is called begging the question. Stated another way, it could be put, "If you read the material correctly, as I did, you would agree with me, because I am right." This is a valid argument, but not a sound one, because the premises are not true. But the really amazing part is that you continue on to restate the same point I already made - let's look at it again:
Actually, I didn't imply that you needed to read the CCB more closely. What I stated is that it does not state what you say that it does (in your post).
Seriously, I am convinced that you just like to start a fire. The quote says NOT to show that meetings and service are the first things in the child's life. What's honest about that? Would a good jw child be allowed to pursue other interests over meetings and service? Why would there be a need to misrepresent the true jw priority system, unless doing so would hurt the jw parent in a custody battle?
To reiterate, You stated previously (and continue to assert) that the CCB STATES "that the child is to show that the meetings, etc. are NOT first priority." It baldly does not contain any such statement. As you must agree, if that directive is present, it is only there by implication.
What the CCB does say is that the child should understand (to paraphrase the meaning of the CCB) that unlike at a convention, a time and situation WHEN they WOULD emphasize that the theocratic activity is their first priority in life, at THIS time, for this court proceeding, it is not necessary to so emphasize their theocratic activity, but rather, they may wish to discuss other things.
We disagree whether doing that is an attempt at deceiving the court. I don't believe it to be. If the child is asked about their life, they are going to discuss their faith, going to meetings, going in service, etc. They can say for themselves whether such things are their first priority or not. All that is being asked of the child is to realize that this is not the time to give a "testimony" (in the religious sense).
The goal of presenting an accurate account of how JWs spend their time is not intended to mislead the fact-finder or evaluator but rather to counter any preconceived bias or misconceptions that they may have about JWs.
Actually, the goal is to win in court, not to present an accurate account. If the goal were to present an accurate account, there would be no need for this information or coaching. The fact that few jw's are able to consistently and perfectly keep all of the society's suggestions has nothing to do with this argument. The point of this argument is whether or not this information is encouraging deception by attempting to diminish the level of priority that religion has in a jw household. Am I wrong on this?
Of course, the goal is to win in court. Duh! And that is done by showing that the child, although a JW and thus not "normal" in every aspect and one for whom such things as holidays, or dating, etc. might be forbidden or tightly controlled, is also not stuck in some compound under the thumb of some religious cult. They go to regular school (most of them), have friends, mostly JWs but some do have non-JW friends, they play basketball, go to movies, buy cds, play videogames, etc. etc.
Again, to say that by discussing these other activities somehow hides the priority of the meetings and service is simply a mistake. So yes, I believe you and the others who hold that view are wrong on this. It is not possible to "hide" the level of priority that the religion has in a JW household.
Would you argue the fact that basic meeting attendance and field service are supposed to be more important than work, school or hobbies for EVERY jw, pioneer or not? THIS is the information that would not be helpful to a jw parent in a child custody case, and it is the information that this directive is encouraging children to distort.
Not at all. As I stated in this thread and as we all know, the generalized messages and the socially pressured viewpoint among JWs are that theocratic activity, and if possible, full-time service, are first priority and goals for everyone. The CCB paragraphs do not attempt to distort what are priorities or the priority hierarchy of JWs if you will.
That information or those facts, which any counsel for the Non-JW parent worth her salt, would definitely highlight is not really hurtful itself to the JW parent, but depending on the circumstances and follow-up, it could be made to be. I am covering a few areas in my guide which the Non-JW advocate should explore.
It is because a JWs faith is first priority, that a court could easily draw the wrong conclusion that the JW child's life is too one-dimensional or that they are somehow "suffering" or in bad circumstance to be given into the sole custody of the JW parent. And thus the reason for the CCB in the first place.
-----------
resort to fallacies to do so. Condescension is not an argument, it is just a simple bully tactic. I like your website, by the way. However, I think we may also disagree on the definition of "hottie"!
hah hah. Sorry I don't mean to use "Condenscension" as a "bully tactic" it is just one of my character flaws. as for the site, yeah its not even a fraction finished..just work on it when i can. the picture section is just a few pics that I could find out of my old photos, of old Jw friends and conventions. I didn't take many photos I guess and certainly not of too many babes and of course not many pics of bros. anyway that part is just for fun.
---------
Quandry,
what a crack up! we need to save that post somewhere, its hilarious.
Seriously though, I think it does illustrate the point of being imbalanced and the hypocrasy and contrast between all of the generalized statements and encouragement to avoid worldly friends and activities and focus on theocratic activities as espoused in the literature and from the platform and then the directive in the CCB to discuss the non-JW interests that the Witness child has.
Sadly for some, they may be raised so strictly by their parents that the mock interview you wrote fits the picture to a "T".
Yes I do agree that the CCB is contradictory to the IDEALIZED JW persona or even hypocritical in some waysj. What I disagree with is whether it is deceptive or fostering deliberate deception in the courtroom.
I also continue to believe that the vast majority of JWs never even approach the idealized state or role or life. It is the denial of the Society that JWs not only don't live as abnormally as they encourage them to do, they don't even desire to live as abnormally as they are told to do.
---------
Restrangled,
First, the rules have not changed one iota from when I was young.
That's not true. Just to name one major thing that has changed: the softening towards higher education, makes it possible for all of the young and future generations of JW youth to not only associate with classmates but also to develop critical thinking skills and be exposed to other cultures. This is one of the factors leading to the Revolution and why the Org will change.
Despite, what has been put forth on JWD about "higher education" being slammed again, the cows have left the barn. Short of an all out explicit ban on going to college only the usual fractional amount of compliant "true blue" (to use your term) Witnesses are going to heed any warnings about how bad college (supposedly) is or interpret material in the WT as being a prohibition on college.
Second, I haven't heard of any "true blue" JW's getting smart enough to think for themselves, ie: the need for the little booklet we're all arguing about.
This really isn't about not being able to "think for one's self." A child custody battle is complex and stressful. If religion is allowed in as a factor or becomes an issue settling the custody dispute, it can be especially difficult for the court to make a good decision, in the best interests of the child(ren), even more so with an non-mainstream faith like JWs that the judge or expert evaluator may not be very familiar with.
Third, a present day example:
As I stated elsewhere, we all have our personal experience and not everyone's experience is the same. It is sad that the girl you described was raised so strictly. (just an aside but JWs don't have the monopoly on bad parenting.) But we can't make generalizations based upon individual experiences.
As I said before, I had a rather liberal JW upbringing. Would it be accurate of me to assume that every JW also got to play baseball, varsity sports, go to Prom, etc. etc. and never forced to go either to meetings, out in field service or join the ministry school? Of course it wouldn't. It is also inaccurate to say that every Witness is raised as strictly as that girl was or that they will all meet the same fate.
One of the themes that I always talk about is that the reality of JW culture and the Worldwide Association is that there is a great variety in how the faith is lived, in the adherence to the "rules" etc., the doctrines that are actuallly believed by the friends, etc. It is the Society that perpetuates the myth that there is both uniformity and that the uniformity and sameness are what is desired by all. It is the Society that tries to squash all such variance as "rebellion" and "independent thinking" and non-conformity, sometimes resorting to extreme tactics as disfellowshipping and shunning. It is the Society which attaches negative labels and connotations to those within the Organization that are believers in some portions of the faith but that can no longer support many of the false or harmful doctrines, beliefs, practices or aspects of the JW culture.
I have question for you Oroborus21. If you were raised in such a progressive JW household and you were free to feel normal, get an advanced education, etc., then in all sincerety, I ask why are you here?
First, of all I was hardly made to feel "normal" (I assume by "normal" you mean like the vast majority of our society or whatever). No, I suffered from the same delusion that all JWs have, that they are "special" and not supposed to be "normal." And in many respects, I did not have or do things that my friends did because I was a JW.
Certainly, my whole worldview was different than my friends and peers.
As to why I am here on JWD (or before JWD on H2O) there are many answers to that. I learn a lot from others and I have certainly obtained a lot of useful information from others here. In my own way, i hope that I have something to contribute now and then. I am not a big participant, my average posts per day is less than 1 post. Also, because of my atypical JW experience, it is helpful, useful and interesting to read about others who did have more a "typical" JW experience.
I perhaps, naively to an extent, view JWD as it says, a "Discussion" board and not "JWB" (Jehovah's Witness Bashing board), though it does seem to be that a lot of the time. JWs are just one of many things in life that I am interested in and having been one, and having family and friends who are JWs currently, it is only natural that I would be interested in them or in participating in the best forum on the net that deals with the topic.
-------
Eduardo must not be doing too well in his "attorney" business.
If he were he wouldn't have the time to come here and spew this nonsense.
Outoftheorg
Thanks for the plug I guess. I can always use more marketing. I don't have a lot of time for JWD and as I said I am not a major participant. I post less than once a day and go weeks without looking at the board sometimes. But it is a topic that I am passionate about so I try to find some time to visit JWD as well as work on my JW website and bulletin board with the little spare time that i have. (BTW, my site is listed in my profile, duh!, its not a big secret.)
Anyway, I was never good at keeping my mouth shut and I have strong opinions on most things and tend to be long-winded, so when I do post on JWD my posts are sometimes lengthy. And of course, because I am not rabidly anti-JW (in every post) and some of my posts are sometimes interpreted as being "apologetic" I am a bit of a lightning-rod on JWD sometimes, especially when the topic touches upon things which are deeply personal. AS Restrangled said, a lot of persons on JWD had terrible JW experiences and it is easy to see how they could be angered by the Society when it officialy "blesses" having non-theocratic interests in the CCB when that so blatantly contradicts its public persona and never-ending emphasis on placing "the Kingdom first." I get that, I do. I wish the Society would be more consistent and more honest about reflecting the reality of the Worldwide brotherhood which is certainly that while their faith may be first priority, Witnesses do live in the world and do have non-theocratic interests and desires. Hopefully, more and more in the future their non-theocratic interests and activities would be "officially blessed" --though living as a Christian and keeping the kingdom first in their life should always be their first priority. I suspect it is that inconsistency that really bugs people about the CCB, especially if they weren't free in their own lives to live how they wanted to live or if they were raised in a strict JW household or were one of those "true blue" JWs as an adult.
