Welcome keo.
I agree with you that most of ordinary Jehovah's Witnesses are good, sincere people.
When it comes to WTS leaders, there is indisputable evidence about pure evil actions they have done (e.g. refusal to inform all hemophilicas about change in the doctrine in '70s) and continue doing (e.g. protection of child abusers using organizational policies). It almost makes me believe that there is a personal Devil althought I consider myself an agnostic.
WTS leaders have blood on their hands.
Fair minded person with a fair point of view
by keo15929 41 Replies latest jw experiences
-
observer
-
keo15929
I think some of you totally miss the point. Unless you were in their shoes you can't say what you would or wouldn't do. There are things that all of us have done or said in the past that someone could harp on and demonize us for if they wanted to. We are all guilty of something and someone somewhere could find a way to make it sound evil. And I say that usually it's just something that makes us human.
Just as an example, would you say a woman was evil if she aborted a child? I wouldn't. I don't agree with it but I'm not in her shoes and can't say what I'd do if I were. I could choose to write article after article saying how evil she was. What kind of insensitive person would that make me?
I don't think the WTS is intentionally dishonest. They only seem dishonest to outsiders looking in because they are dishonest with themselves, without realizing it, but in their minds they think that all of their responses to past mistakes are the correct things to say. It might sound stupid but when someone is completely indoctrinated then all common sense is thrown away.
As for these reports of Witnesses gang raping someone, first of all, I don't listen to stories and rumors that I know nothing about. And if that did happen then I'd say blast away at the people who did it but don't implicate an entire organization because of it. I speak from personal experience. I was a Witness for 9 years and was never abused in any way. Any Witness who has sex outside of marriage is likely to be disfellowshipped. If "brothers" were to gang rape somone then they'd definitely be disfellowshipped.
Remember even Rayond Franz participated in those "lies" for many years. He may regret it now but it doesn't take away from the fact that for, I think it was 10 years, he was a member of the Governing Body. But I believe he was sincere and he was indoctrinated. He over came it. Some never do. When someone is completely indoctrinated it's hard to sit in the judgment seat over them. You don't know what you would do or how you would act if you were indoctrinated past the point of recovery.
Heres the paradox that I see in the situation: they are dishonest.....in all honesty. Sounds stupid, but, like I said, hardcore believers are going to sound stupid because they are completely indoctrinated.
-
dobbie
I can sort of see what you are saying. Most witnesses are sincere in their beliefs, that is why they don't dig any deeper, they are so convinced its the truth. I know this because i have been there recently as have others on this board. Yes it took R Franz a long time to admit his doubts, i think many in the religion have doubts but put them away because they are told to, and people will always conform when there are so many others doing it, it is a sort of follow the pack instinct that is everywhere in this world. Perhaps those higher up in the organization do think they are being honest, perhaps they are just too scared to speak up like others, perhaps some of them think they are better placed staying there to try and help the brothers, after all someone must have been instrumental in relaxing the blood issue. With reference to the sister who was gang raped, i believe it was not done by witnesses but others because the wts said they couldn't carry political cards, which opened the jws up to persecution,while the wts gave the go ahead to the jws in Mexico been able to get hold of these cards creating a double standard. I'm sure others here can explain it better. In the illustration on the lady who has an abortion, i suppose you could draw some similarities except that the wts haven't just been instrumental in causing one death like the woman would have, but thousands of death by their flip flopping doctrines, just a short humble statement when they changethese things admitting their error would help, but they just distance themselves away from it.I don't think people are missing your point its just that we all have such different views on things, and there is bound to be those who feel anger at the wts. Personally i feel more pigged off with myself for going along with it all, but in the position they are in they must surely be accountable to God (if he exists) for all the deaths from changing policies.
-
anewme
Hi Keo!
Welcome!
And ditto James Thomas
Anewme -
AuldSoul
Keo: It might sound stupid but when someone is completely indoctrinated then all common sense is thrown away.
keo,
To me, this is the whole point. You referenced a time period when the indoctrination, the culture itself, was still forming with your question of "What would you do?" The culture was SET by the events surrounding the 1914 coverup and the 1925 coverup. The current culture is a direct result of decisions made at that time. And at that time, they were blatantly dishonest in order to to keep the religion going.
In 2006, what you are saying might have merit regarding decisions made today. But there was no fixed culture for this organization in 1918. "The Society" and its culture was really born from decisions made during the very years to which you referred.
What I would have done is what I did when I figured out it was wrong. I went back and apologized to every single individual I could remember influencing toward believing lies. I even have apologized to some with whom I argued in the door-to-door ministry, and experienced their empathetic forgiveness. I can say what I would do, because I would not change depending on the circumstances as you descrubed. I have integrity and honor, the choice they made in 1918 could only have been made by those devoid of integrity and honor. They made a self-serving, ego-protective choice; they continue doing so. Such choices characterize the top levels of organizational decision making.
I don't have to wonder whether I would make those choices, I know for certain I would not. Such choices do not characterize my life. You asked a question for which you assumed an answer that would not be true in my case, so I reject your assumption. Your question does, however, have an answer. I know what I would have done. Not because I think I might have done such-and-such, but because I have already done what I said I would have done, in real life (as opposed to hypothetically), during 2005, culminating in my disassociation in December.
I don't really see fairmindedness in trying to press your viewpoint on me. I disagreed, but I have done so respectfully. Fairmindedness allows room for other perspectives without feeling threatened.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
itsallgoodnow
keo, I understand where you are coming from and I thought as you do about the sincerity of the FDS until I found out more about it.
The list Blondie mentioned is a start. Don't you wonder why they have changed their minds about these sorts of things? Is it because Jehovah whispered into their ears or conferenced into their roundtable meetings to tell them to do so? Or is it because their legal department told them the risks of continuing to be stubborn about these things? And their attitude after the fact is another indication of their deceiptful intentions. They say certain things are a "conscience matter" to satisfy legal requirements and at the same time, allow congregations to treat persons who exercise their newfound rights in the same manner as before. They do not come clean about why they are doing it. It is always a big MYSTERY. And there are no apologies, sincere or otherwise. Only martyrs who lived through needless troubles or died in vain.
I trusted these people with everything at one time in my life. After the trust died, I still believed they were basically good. I was wrong. At least I can admit it and apologize for any stupidity I have caused.
Carl Sagan (Broca's Brain) was right when he said...
"Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions. But not always. One prominent American religion [editor's note: Jehovah's Witnesses] confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - while the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended.
There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy: They could have said, "Oh, did we say ‘1914’? So sorry, we meant ‘2014.’ A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren’t inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn’t noticed, that was our lookout.
It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry."
-
keo15929
I understand what you guys are saying. I'm still not convinced that the wts has ever been blantantly and purposefully dishonest. It sounds that way from the outside looking in. I just think that their "coverups" were a result of their 100% belief that they were God's people. I think that because of their belief they were able to convince themselves that their explanations were reasonable. I just think that religious beliefs can make a person kind of dumb at times. But you all have the right to feel however you want.
I have read the entire book published by the WTS that deals with their history, the "Proclaimers" book. They talk about all of the unfulfilled predictions they made. I've read their history from their viewpoint and I can understand their reasoning. I can understand the reasoning of the people on this site also. I can't say who's right or wrong. All I can say is that, to me, from all that I've read I think that the WTS's leaders are sincere and I simply don't believe that they just want to decieve people. What's the point in that? What benefit would they get to decieve people? It isn't money, they take a vow of poverty and they spend all the donations building new branch offices and printing books and taking care of traveling overseers and so forth. They also spend a lot on relief work when natural disasters strike. It doesn't make any sense to me that they would knowingly, viciously, and purposefully try to mislead people. I think it's all based on their beliefs and their imperfections.
But, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not a part of their organization anymore and I'm a lot happier. I felt like a worthless piece of junk judging myself by their standards. I still struggle with feelings of low self worth at times and I feel nervous around certain people at times. It's going to take some time for me to feel normal again.
Anyway I'm sure there are more agreeable topics we could discuss. I do like to get things off of my chest at times.
-
outoftheorg
Hi KEO its me again.
Your comment that you think the wbts should be forgiven since they believed they had 100% belief that they were Gods people.
Actually they claim that they are the only group on earth through which God speaks.
Reminds me of the caution that if you talk to God, it is called praying.
If God talks to you, it is schizophrenia.
Ha! maybe that says it all.
Outoftheorg
-
TD
Hey Keo
I understand what you guys are saying. I'm still not convinced that the wts has ever been blantantly and purposefully dishonest.
Falsehoods have been put forth and the JW organization, at least collectively, has certainly known the truth at the time the falsehood was promulagated.
For example, the JW organization has had a long history of forbidding preparations and procedures involving blood for the first few years they were available, then reversing themselves and declaring them "Matters of conscience" once they became widely accepted and their efficacy was beyond question. Examples include the use of albumin, gamma globulin, factor VIII, and hemodilution.
Yet JW publications have openly declared that their position on the "Blood issue" has been consistent over the years. This is a blatant and purposeful falsehood that serves no other purpose, save mask the fact that JW's have died remaining faithful to short-lived positions that were subsequently reversed.
-
sspo
Keo
Are you not happy you can express your viewpoint here? I agree with you on everything you said, 100%.
Now try to express that to your best friend in the KH, go talk to an elder or a pioneer and tell them what your views are and then come back and let us know what how they feel about you and how you will treated from then on.
Thanks