by Oroborus21 103 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • DaCheech
    Dacheech...........I discussed this issue with friends that had lived at Bethel for over 25 years...........their answer to me was that while a brother or sister is in the process of putting on the new personality of a Christian, there is still the imperfect, wicked flesh to deal with. They said that at Bethel, they are encouraged NOT to allow any temptation to the brothers or sisters.........example: if you have money, don't just throw it on the top of your dresser, put it away, safely out of sight, so there will be no visual temptation.

    But how many examples of trustworthyness are stated from the podium?

    "so, and so sister was cleaning the house of this great dignitary, one day he left $250.00 on his dresser on purpose, the cleaning sister never even thought about taking the dignitary gave her a bonus, and every ......."

  • Sunnygal41
    But how many examples of trustworthyness are stated from the podium?

    "so, and so sister was cleaning the house of this great dignitary, one day he left $250.00 on his dresser on purpose, the cleaning sister never even thought about taking the dignitary gave her a bonus, and every ......."

    Why, Dacheech, don't ya know that was for the benefit of outsiders, mostly? Hate to sound cynical, maybe realistic would be the better choice of words..........yes, we who are in or were once in, know that JW's are as human as any other religion...........but, for appearance sake, and as any good advertisement, we downplay the negative, highlight the one "worldly" woman I once worked with said: "Terri, there are assholes in every religion". I heartily agree with her..........realizing that no matter what, we are human and prone to act as such, though our moral code may be much higher.......sort of a "spirit is willing flesh is weak" thing...........

  • AuldSoul
    Does the goverment shut down hate sites?

    Yes, if certain lines are crossed that raise an issue of compelling state interest.

    Does the goverment shut down organizations that create suicidal conditions for it's members?

    Yes. (see previous response)

    And your comment regarding the Branch Davidians is well taken. As long as they did not cross the line drawn in the law, their beliefs were protected. Actually, at every step their beliefs were protected. Certain of the acts motivated by their beliefs were not protected, however.

    And the act of publishing misrepresentations of secular material as medical facts and/or historical facts can, in some cases, be construed as tortuous. Can this theory currently be applied in every blood transfusion case? No. Will it very likely be tested soon? Yes. Will that test bring attention? YES, and emphatically so.


  • TD

    I appreciate your hard work Eduardo. Hopefully by now, more people understand that a good (merciless) critical examination of an essay like this is a kindness.

    My question would be in line with Marvin's. Both orally and in print the JW organization has been emphatic that the medical information provided should not be considered part of their doctrinal stance and is only presented for its (alleged) corroborative value.

    Do you think this would have any bearing?

  • steve2

    Excellent emerging analysis, Oro. You have written it with due consideration for the various issues that could become entangled and detract from the main thesis of the Church & State article in question.

    I notice that Odrade's immediate response is to question your motives, rather than respond to specific points you have raised. Odrade may not realise this, but her response mirrors the JW response to criticism: Ignore the content of the criticism and raise questions about the individual's motives.

    Enthusiasm is all very well, but is not the be all and end all. Reminds me of the way in which the Watchtower tries to generate "enthusiasm" for the door to door ministry and is very suspicious of any point of view that is contrary.

    I can understand to some extent Odrade's response. However, I'd recommend people consider your response based on the merits of the argument, rather than focusing on side issues such as motives.

  • DaCheech
  • jeanniebeanz


    I appreciate the time that you spent on this ‘rebuttal’ to Ms. Louderback-Woods essay. However, given the fact that your personal goal is reform and not dissolution of the WTBTS, it is not surprising that you would not be willing to acknowledge the potential of ‘lawsuits over blood’ to devastate them.

    It is virtually impossible for someone not to allow their own goals and views to color their estimation of the ‘enemy’. In my mind, although you ‘hang out’ here, you do not really consider yourself to be one of ‘us’ in that our basic wishes are different from yours. On some levels, we are your enemy. Many here wish the society to be completely eviscerated. That thought is offensive to you. You think that they have a solid basis in the "truth," many here feel that they are very wrong.

    The fact is that not one person here knows how this will play out in court, not even you. To say that the WTBTS legal team will shred any attempt to use this against them is just your attempt to throw water on a flame, stop it before it becomes a raging wildfire.

    The WTBTS is morally wrong to have misled people for so many years over the medical facts on blood. You say that people would not have based their decision regarding blood on these ‘medical facts’ and that it is purely a religious stand. You are wrong. I assure you that as I lay dying in my hospital bed, my religious beliefs were solidified by my belief that with so much medical information to back the religious stand, the witnesses must be correct.

    I cannot have been alone in that assumption.


  • steve2

    Jean, I acknowledge that you were swayed primarily by the medical arguments and I respect your position. However, I have known numberless witnesses who have boldly stated that, even if there were no medical support for their abstinence, they would still refuse blood. They bolstered their anti-blood stand with the medical "facts" but did not put prime emphasis on those medical "facts".

    J ean, I'm absolutely with you in a desire to see the Watchtower lose its despicable influence, but I tend to agree with Oro over the blood issue:

    The JWs view of Scripture speaks way louder than the parade of selected and distorted medical "facts". Rather than talking about how the Church and State article will prove to be a slow-release death-knell for the watchtower, I'd like to see someone - anyone - actually try to convert the article into a plan of action against the watchtower. That would be interesting and - I suspect - ultimately pretty vain. We do have the luxury of watching and waiting though....

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Oronbus, review will likely be a lot less harsh than the WTBS. Even if Oronbus is a JW apologist....the WTBS will have very highly, skilled, and trained TEAM of lawyers tearing Ms. Louderback's article to shreds. It's what lawyers do. You don't have to believe Oronbus argument, anymore than he has to believe Ms. Louderback's. So this was reason for my initial caution. The judges may rule that in fact Ms. Louderback has a very solid article, or they may believe the WTBS refuting of it. Who knows. It will probably be in the middle somewhere.

    So don't attack Oronbus, because the WTBS is going to do worse to the article. Attack his assumptions and arguments. Attacking him is no different than those attacking Barbara directly.

  • skeeter1

    There are 6,000,000 JW's. Some do feel that the Society's medical information did not sway their decision making. Others will feel that they were swayed by the false medical information. There will be JWs all over the spectrum. For those that decided 100% on religious grounds, they can not sue. Those who were swayed by the purported "Truth" of the medical information, will have a chance at suing.

    Harm from the blood policy does not always cause death. You can have brain damage & major organ failure. These people will be alive and able to talk.

    Plus, parents of children & family members of the deceased will be able to explain what swayed the dead person's mind. See Anna Nicole Smith.

    So, do you think Bethel's writing department is going to change? Do you think that they will be more honest when they quote? If they do, then that's one step accomplished. Or, do you think they will just go on with their deception knowing it could one day cause them liability?

Share this