Has the WTS ever sued a "brother" or any baptised Witness?

by Shawn10538 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Honesty

  Welcome to the board, Shawn!! BTW, Eduardo is deceived by the WT cult of Lies and innuendo.
• 

  Shawn10538

  Ok, how about this: the WTS is no better than any other worldly Satanic company or government in terms of it taking care of its workers, but is probably somewhat worse since they don't pay them and use techniques that I have listed from first hand experience of being in the infirmary at Bethel and the fact that they refuse to consider paying compensation of any sort to exiting Bethelites whether they are injured or not and are even going through the process of battling for their right to legally deny any worker compensation for injuries. After all, even Enron payed workers for injuries, cooperated with WC laws and gave severance packages, some of them quite large to their workers. Enron by the way, while being ruthless to its stockholders, and those counting on pensions, for the most part actually treated their workers quite well. I should know, I worked for Enron for several years and I had no complaints. With the WTS, I have plenty of complaints. Think about it, the WTS is not even thinking about providing for the retirement of its long time workers. At least Enron had a pension program before it was raided by a few elites at the top. At WTS, there was never even a dream of a pension, and extremely elderly Bethelites have no hope of ever surviving on the outside once they are passed retirement. They are literally trapped in those prison-like walls with a room mate they don't like or a wife. They can never ever leave. Think about it. Never, unless they are part of the elite ones and have special priveledges.
• 

  greendawn

  Welcome to the forum Shawn, I liked the point about the change in the oath it shows how man made and artificial the WTS is, changing religious oaths for legalistic reasons.
• 

  YoursChelbie

  First of all, according to every cult expert, exit counselor or any professional who regularly deals with destructive mind control cults: Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. It's a universally accepted fact by everyone except for the members of the cult itself.

  
  

  
  Hi, and welcome Shawn10538. Thanks for your clear manner of explaining the facts. Do keep us posted as to your pending litigation.

  YC
• 

  sf

  Eduardo,

  Please explain this corporate graph to the lurkers and seekers:

  

  Thank you. And welcome Shawn.

  sKally
• 

  Kenneson

  Hi Shawn,

  You sound like the person who was just deleted from a pro-Jehovah's Witness forum that I frequent, for expressing almost the exact same ideas. Are you one and the same?
• 

  Oroborus21

  Shawn,

  I realize I am wasting my breath, or rather key-strokes, but I just can't let your bold (and uninformed) assertion hang out there unchallenged.

  You state that every "expert" on cults considers JWs a cult. This is simply untrue.

  "Experts" can be broken down into three general camps (not cleanly of course but generally speaking.) These groups are: "Counter-cultists" "anti-cultists" and scientists/academics.

  Counter-cult experts (often evangelical and other conservative Christian groups) generally are religiously motivated and almost invariably include a theological assessment and adhesion to specific doctrinal criteria for the groups they assess which they interpret along orthodox and traditional lines. Those groups which do not meet the criteria are automatically labeled a cult. Thus some christian faiths such as Mormons/LDS, Adventists/Seventh-Day Adventists and JWs are almost always labeled a cult this is true. However, this approach is inherently biased and denies religious plurality in addition to making such "experts" as legalistic and totalistic as the cult groups so identified. Experts along this vein, such as the esteemable late Walter Martin, feel that the scripture: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - means that there is only one acceptable path to God, their way.

  Anti-cult experts (e.g. Steve Hassan and other similar counselors and therapists) focus more on the dynamics and social milieu of the group in making a determnation. I would point out to you that Hassan in his seminal work, Combating Cult Mind Control, never identifies Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult in the body of the text (as he does the Moonies and other groups) but only has a single reference in the appendix of the book.

  It is painfully obvious that Hassan has never really engaged in any serious study of Jehovah's Witnesses and that his inclusion of Witnesses in his identification of cult groups is at best superficially ministrative and at worst unqualified reliance upon the few ex-members he has either personally counseled or from the groups of ex-members he has spoken to (at paid engagements).

  Even the listing from his website provides this info as the reasons why his BITE model applies to JWs:

  Behaviors:

  Members cannot read anything critical about the group or engage the internet on non-approved sites. They cannot talk to ex-members, take blood transfusions, go to war, or celebrate holidays. Independent thought heavily discouraged. Must report others who don't comply. College discouraged.

  Information:

  Spying by the elders and even the rank-and-file is encouraged, if not required.

  Thought:

  Doubt is of the devil.

  Emotional:

  Guilt and fear are the number one tools.

  Not only is the information out of date on certain points but any objective assesment clearly shows that the type of totalistic milieu control that Hassan correctly discusses and identifies in cult groups such as the Moonies, Heaven's Gate, etc is far from the actual environment and reality of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Just for a brief example, the identification that "members cannot read anything critical" which he points to above (on his website) is patently false in practice and reality. Any Jehovah's Witness may read critical information and many do so. The only constraints upon reading such material is a weak emotive imperative based upon doctrine, whereas in a real cultic environment there are often actual physical barriers and restraints involved - in addition to severe punishment including physical abuse, torture, etc, being used to reinforce such prohibitions. In contrast, the worst "punishment" that Witnesses might receive is expulsion from the group (completely diametrical to the aims of real cult groups which seek to retain members) and even this punishment is anecdoctal. The number of times when a Witness has actually been expelled for reading critical information are minuscule at most.

  There are a number of reasons why anti-cult experts, while possibly helpful to ex-members in counseling, are not the best cult experts to cite as definitive sources including their lack of fieldwork, participant observation, scientific method, biased reliance upon ex-members' testimony and experience without balance, and of course a pecuniary interest to cast as wide a net as possible for potential clients and for personal prestige.

  In contrast to the foregoing groups of experts, scientists, academics and scholars (psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, etc.) display a broader perspective. While there is, of course, much debate among these experts as to identifying which groups to be cults (or even to use that term), you will find, with a little investigation that there are many experts that do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a cult.

  I have found that sociologists, especially, are a group of experts that have not identified JWs as a cult, but more often- correctly label them a sect of Adventism, if anything.

  Unfortunately, because Sociologists and other such experts take a dispassionate scientific approach to the subject, they are often unfairly labeled as cult sympathizers or supporters.

  But in fact, these scholars are among the best to look to for explanations and investigations about the cultic or non-cultic qualities of a group because they utilize scientific method and an array of accepted tools to obtain data and to arrive at their conclusions.

  If you have never read any book which did not label JWs a cult, it is evidently because you have not read enough books. I would recommend two books to you:

  Understanding New Religious Movements – John A. Saliba 1995 and

  Misunderstanding Cults - edited by Benjamin Zablocki & Thomas Robbins 2001

  This later work is an anthology of several essays which present perspectives from both "sides" of the issue and as a whole stands as a moderate and balanced approach.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  PS: If you care to read my own explanation of why I believe JWs are not properly considered a cult you can visit this page:

  http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.info/notacult.html
• 

  Oroborus21

  Regarding this:

  socially destructive mind control cult. If JWs aren't a cult, then neither are Moonies, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate, People's Temple, Branch Dividians because they all meet exactly the same criteria.

  The assertion is laughable and seems to inform us that perhaps you have never been a Witness yourself? the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses and the environment within the religion is a world away from all of these groups which you have identified. The differences are too numerous to bother delineating but perhaps you might enlighten us by clearly identifiying the specific traits of JW which are "exactly" shared with these groups?

  -Eduardo
• 

  jwfacts

  
  O21,

  You are nit picking. Though many experts disagree on whether they are a cult or not, there is general agreement that they are a high control group. The WTS fits all 8 of Liftons cult criteria. The WTS may not be depraved as some cults tend to be, but it does lead to severe emotional damage to many former members, and the misuse of shunning has trapped many in a religion they not longer believe in.

  In regards to the question at hand, unfortunately I do not have the answer. However, the WTS makes good use of the courts, recently sueing Quotes even though it is not illegal to quote from publications and not an infringement on copyright. It also fought for Freedom of Rights through the court system despite affording little freedom to its own members in regards to saying out loud what they believe. With such a history one should feel no guilt sueing back for what they rightfully deserve.
• 

  Shawn10538

  To O21,
  I am guessing that you are a lawyer since you sign off with Esq. every time? Just why exactly do you like to sign off that way? Do you think it gives your actual arguments more credibility? Hmmm.
  
  Anyway, I haven't cruised this site in quite a while so I am just now seeing your challenge. First off, you should read "Releasing the Bonds" by Steven Hassan before going much further into this debate. Also, why was JWs listed as a resource in the back of Hassan's book if they are not considered to be a cult by him? The reason why JWs were not listed in the "Combatting Cult Mind Control" text, according to private conversation I've had with Mr. Hassan himself when I was seeking services from him, and as has been verified by his secretary and Randall Watters, who has written an excellent analysis of exactly why JWs are a cult as far as mental health professionals are concerned by the way, is; when Mr. Hassan was writing his first book he was simply unaware of any of the details of the JW religion that classified them as a cult. It was not until he investigated the matter further, just after completeing his book, out of necessity due to so many ex- or exiting Witnesses coming to him for therapy that he came to the conclusion that JWs indeed fit the criteria of a cult. His meeting and working with Randall Watters also enlightened him about just how destructive this group is.
  
  Before getting into what sociologists believe or do not believe, let's get a working definition of cult going so we can have a point to springboard off of. I think starting with a definition of the WORD cult is a good place to start, long before we get into applying the meaning of the word to professional practice.
  
  CULT, according to the American heritage dictionary means: 1. a system of religious worship or ritual.
  2. A religion or sect considered extremist or false. 3.a.Obsessive devotion to a person or principal, b. The object of such devotion.
  
  I looked up cult in several dictionaries and the definitions are extremely varied and diverse. So, argument can be had on the definition I've chosen to quote for sure, but I chose the one that was focused out the most, generic and general.
  
  Another dictionary, Websters New World definition has so many specific qualifiers like (must have a single leader, not a body or more than one leader) and is usually quarantined in some kind of colony or compound like Bethel.) Since almost all cults have a leader but yet SAY for the record that Jesus is their ultimate leader (and not Rev. Moon, Marshall Applewhite, Davis Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard) this ultra specific and narrow definition of cult would make the word useless and meaningless for the purpose of conducting a mental health practice, or for scientific inquiry, since it allows a loophole so large that any group can wiggle out of it. Also, Websters says that the group must be religious in nature, yet there are many non-religious cults. I find Webster's definition to be unworkable and not helpful in any real investigative discussion on the subject of cults. That definition tends to shut down inquiry into the subject while a broader defoinition allows for different fields to adopt their own model of what a cult is, for use for their purposes.
  
  So as you can see, we all have to decide before we begin talking: are we having a conversation about sociology, religion or mental health?
  I know how Biola University defines their cult model, and you are right; they consider almost any religion that strays from their so-called mainstream Christianity to be a cult. So, the Christian apologist view nails JWs as a cult, and according to their extremely broad brush, JWs are indeed a cult WITHIN THAT MODEL. I refer to the book "Kingdom of the Cults" written by Walter Martin, 1997 edition. I think we both can agree that his book is just an apology for his own beliefs, and conveniently enough, those of Biola University and that in general, literature that comes out of the Biola University school of thought is all but useless as an objective commentary. I speak of only their commentaries when I say this by the way; I am not saying that Biola can't be used as a resource. I'm just saying that, we all can pretty much guess the conclusions that they are going to reach on any matter before even reading their commentaries, because all of their inquiries end up right with the assumptions that they began with, namely, that they are right and everybody else is wrong and therefore a cult. You won't see progressive enlightenment in any religious apologies, including WTS.
  
  APOLOGIST VS> CULT DYNAMIC
  The difference between WTS and Biola is that WTS is a moment to moment apologist, and the shelf life of their truth is only as long as the next time they write on the subject. This may seem to make them progressively enlightened, but only if you define it as "changing beliefs on a need to change basis." Furthermore, any so called enlightened changes take place UP AT THE TOP BY MEMBERS OF THE GB only, according to them. (R+F members therefore can not be enlightened as individual seekers of truth.) We see changes alright, as they put it, the light getting brighter, doctrine changing or flip flopping (sometimes it is more like a light turning on and off and on and off to apply the illustration more accurately to what we know their doctrinal history reveals) but, historically we know that many of the changes WTS has made were not prompted by new information or by Holy Spirit but by law suits, new laws from the government, new tax laws that affect how much money they will be able to make (the bottom line so to speak) having a prophecy's date pass by going unfulfilled, the need to reign in dissenting voices and losing lots of members because of certain issues. This is simply a matter of hind sight and good business sense. No need to label these things as enlightenment or spirit directed. What makes WTS apologists AND cult-like, according to Charles Kimball in his book, "When Religion Becomes Evil" is their claims of absolute truth and their exclusive right of access to it, but ONLY AT THE TOP conveniently enough for them.
  
  In other words, they are always right, RIGHT NOW, even if right now conflicts with yesterday. Truth is what they are saying is truth now, and from moment to moment. This keeps their followrs in a state of suspended anticipoation of whatever the next thing is to come out of their mouth, because for all intents and purposes, it may as well be coming out of the mouth of God himself, since whatever comes out, no matter how silly and non-sensical, each member knows ahead of time that they are already going to accept whatever new light is shed forth. This is where Orwell's 1984 is most applicable. 'We're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with east Asia, Euro-Asia is our friend.... We're at war with Euro-Asia, we've always been at war with Euro-Asia. East Asia is our friend....' R+F members are never remionded of what they were taught yesterday. Yesterday is forgotten as quickly as it came and went. It doesn't matter how or why the change was made, just that it was made by the FDS, and they are right, RIGHT NOW, even if tommorrow they have to change it back to the original way (which as you know has happened scores of times in WT history, if you are one who has been so bold to actually delve into WT history that you are encouraged to ignore, play down and just forget.) This is how we come to find that the reality of the situation amongst JWs is that they are the most ignorant of their own heritage. Anyone who wants to can be far better versed on the history of JWs than JWs themselves because outsiders have access to all sources of knowledge about JW history. Let me clear that up a bit. Non-Witnesses have access to the whole story of JWs, whereas, most JWs have only the Proclaimers book, which is nothing more than an exercise of self-worshipping masturbation on the part of the GB. It is probably the single most grossly apologetic and anti-critical analysis that has ever been written by anyone about anyone. It's pages are still wet and sticky even, if you can follow the analogy...
  
  There is no critical process going on in the WTS model, as far as individual members are concerned. In fact, members, as I know from being one for 30 yrars, are encouraged to stuff, stomp , pack, smack, and pummel all thoughts and alarms that go off in one's head (God given logic and rational thinking by the way and God given senses) if they disagree with the WTS. If such thoughts persist, as you know, they are encouraged to seek HELP? from the elders who will tell a person how wrong they are and to just ignore one's own natural God given processes of rational sense in favor of some man made entity. This is at the heart of what makes a group a cult. It is called "Doctrine over person" and is a socially and psychologically destructive dynamic.
  
  Another funny thing about WTS is that the opposite of their current stance may have been held as true yesterday, yet in my 6 years at Bethel and 10 years of full time service I have NEVER heard a JW actually SAY, "We were wrong then" in precisely those terms. This is evidence that some serious self manipulation is going on, and is a blatant response to cognitive dissonance. What they will say is, in full blown rhetoric of denial, yesterday, it was true yesterday. It was present truth yesterday. Today, it is considered not false or a lie, but past truth. "Keep in step with present truth" as the song I know you know goes. These types of mental acrobatics that believers must be well practiced at and use up much mental energy performing is one of the aspects of a cult in several cult models. When it comes to saying. "Hey, if the past is any indicator, we're probably wrong about about a whole host of things RIGHT THIS MOMENT!" Well, as sensible a thing as that is to say for most humble, rational and cognitively viable people, I still have yet to hear it from a JW, in my 30 years in this org. So, WTS is an apologist of a particularly insidious type.
  
  
  What I know so far is, as far as sociologists are concerned, their aim is not to judge, as I mentioned. They are typically not interested in whether a group is "healthy or safe" to get involved with. If you want to know what some of the most famous sociologists have to say on the matter of cults, start with the book, "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger. This book does mention JWs and the Millerites separately.
  
  [A little history on the Millerites that the WTS hides from you: Millerites of course were literally one and the same people as JWs. They started up just 20 to 30 years before C.T. Russel. Most Millerites followed George Storrs over after their prophecy of 1844 and 1845 failed, him being among the most prominent Millerites next to Miller himself. Much like how the Indian/Hindu/Buddist Essenes who became Christian all at once as a group under the evangelism of Peter and Paul, (as they arrived in droves in Palestine from India in search of Chrishna) giving Paul's brand of Christianity much power and numbers in the first century, the Millerites added to the JW roster gave Russel the initial numbers to become a significant religion. If not for the Millerites joining as a group numbering several thousand, JWs might never have become a force to wreckon with. Since Millerites, proven long time false prophets, were already aware of how to deal with the cognitive dissonance of failed prophecy, they felt right at home as Russel began making new prophecies, all of which failed eventually. So to sum it up, career false prophet George Storrs brings his zealous preaching followers to CT Russell and they became a false prophecy making machine the likes of which the world has never before seen. Nobody does false prophecy with the vigor and shameless, bold-faced arrogance that JWs do. They are the kings of false prophecy, and know better how to deal with cognitive dissonance from failed prophecy better than anyone.] Now back to our program...
  
  Personally, my purpose is usually to discover what is healthy and what is not in a group. I am a teacher, K-8 currently, and will be entering an MFT program next year. I really don't care if sociologists list JWs in the right, left or middle column. As a hopeful parent one day, I am likewise not interested in the sociological classification of a group, especially by sociologists whose aim is to never identify any group as "bad" or "good." It just isn't practically helpful for my purposes.
  
  This doesn't mean that sociologists don't list JWs as a cult, in their definition of cult which has yet to be stated here. We know what the dictionary says about the WORD cult. Now, how do the different disciplines define cult as it is used WITHIN their perspective disciplines? We talked about Christian apologetics' definition as well. But science in general tries to stay out of the role of moral judge, in any field usually, like I said. That is part of being scientific about things and objective. All groups are equally legitimate according to sociologists, and that's OK. I'll leave it up to you to find a good definition from the perspective of a sociologist. How does that sound? Maybe in your response you can inform me on a succinct definition by and for sociologists, and please list the names of the scientists you quote and their exact field of study, and the date of the quote.
  
  
  But, psychologists are equally involved in cults, and they are concerned about how the group dynamic affects the individual, where a sociologist is not interested in the individual or person necessarily. I find the sociologist stance to be not as useful to me because its concern is about groups and groups' interactions with other groups.
  
  If you can read "When Prophesy Fails" by Festinger for a sociologists viewpoint and "Releasing the bonds" by Hassan before responding to this post that would be much better. Then I'd like to meet you in person, and we can sit down and chat over coffee. Maybe you can enlighten me on some things. Maybe I'm crazy. At least let's talk on the phone. My number is 562-225-5928. I live in Long Beach, CA. You are always welcome at my pad.
  
  
  Shawn Dean