by AhHah 54 Replies latest jw friends
I think that Bergman's bias toward the WTS along with his training gives us a valuable insight toward the results this cult can have on people.
Xandit said:
His bias is obvious and I've found blatant inaccuracies in some of the things he's written.
Could you please cite some of these blatant inaccuracies?
Tom
To all:
Lest we forget, and I don't see how we can, given our experiences, the WTS goal is to ensnare people with slick talk and to retrain them to not think objectively or independently. The "snare and a racket" quote from J.F. Rutherford have come full circle to bite the WTS in the a**.
TFS's post about the recent WT article points this out in grand fashion. How many times in the past have we read from the WT or other WT publications the need to do research and to "make the truth our own." This is all designed to fool us into believing that we're being objective when in reality we're being told the opposite. It is truly an "orwellian" organization. This is evident in the fact that most JW's who leave have a struggle doing so. Many xJW's harbor fear of deserting "God's organization" sometimes years after they leave. The WT mind control machine does it's job and leaves it's mark long after one has bailed out. None of this is new to any of you, I realize. Just had to say it.
Tom
Here are a few links for those who are interested.
I did not read the links, only the summary presented here. I hardly think that enough data has been gathered about the witnesses to make such an assessment. I think that Jerry's bias against the society prevents him from making any impartial assessment. I think the man is guilty (perhaps unkowingly so) of manipulation of limited data and of taking some rather creative liberties with that data.
I don’t have time to read everything.
Wouldn't you agree that it is helpful for thinking persons to have access to a dissenting opinion -- an opinion that one cannot find in the WT publicatons?
Only if that opinion is accurate.
Are his opinions scientific? That is the question that comes up and most posters here seem to feel that the man is not being scientifically objective.
But, as a doctor, he does not have the right to present his personal opinions as if they were somehow scientific. He should clearly differentiate between medical and personal opinions.
I don’t have time to read everything.
I disagree with the WTS on many things. That does not mean that I consider them the devil. There are doctrines and organizational procedures with which I do agree. Some people have a difficult time understanding that it would seem.
I think that Jerry's bias against the society prevents him from making any impartial assessment. I think the man is guilty (perhaps unkowingly so) of manipulation of limited data and of taking some rather creative liberties with that data.
I don’t have time to read everything. "Hey,that's just me. I have no degree!"
Everyone is entitled to dismiss anything they want without ever reading it and to form and express their opinion on that basis. I personally enjoy reading JW relevant research and then drawing my own conclusions.
Lest we forget, and I don't see how we can, given our experiences, the WTS goal is to ensnare people with slick talk and to retrain them to not think objectively or independently. Many xJW's harbor fear of deserting "God's organization" sometimes years after they leave. The WT mind control machine does it's job and leaves it's mark long after one has bailed out.
Edited by - AhHah on 2 November 2000 17:58:35
Edited by - AhHah on 2 November 2000 18:2:5
Hello AhHah,
One quote you forgot:
I know that the line would be hard to tow, but it's not much different than the WTBTS choosing professionals that they know will back them up, instead of getting impartial opinions.Jerry Bergman is a highly opinionated professional.
Of course, I'm not even that, so go figure......
That was my full opinion. It was thoughtful of you to cut it short, but then when I spoke above against the WTBTS's ability to choose professionals that only agreed with them - strangely, you didn't challenge that. I think we all agree, as brought out again by TR, that the WTBTS has used this bias to our harm. Perhaps we're just trying to be onguard against a professional PhD giving opinions on mental disorders etc., and coming across as less than professional - even biased.
Again, I don't agree with the finding of professionals who are overly
biased. Again, I strongly believe that a professional - particularily in the mental health field - should try to help/educate people without overloading his personal opinions upon them.
Again, because of my background, I've been to several professional mental health persons with MD behind their names. Some good - some opinionated to the excess. In review, I gained more insight from the ones who did not overshadow me with their findings and views and excesses of negativity.
Just because a person has initals behind their names doesn't mean anything except that they have education. And I would assume that we all know educated people who are neither intelligent, insightful, or mentally balanced. My aunt has a doubleset of initials, and was an expert medical malpractice researcher and court witness until the age of 65 - but she's 70 and confined to a nursing home with advanced Alzheimers.
Of course, I'm not even that, so go figure
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 2 November 2000 20:49:27
Edited by - waiting on 2 November 2000 20:53:5
Waiting,
I didn't quote your posts in my post above, but thanks for your reply.
I have been surprised by some of the reactions to this post. One would think from some of the responses that I had posted a blanket endorsement for this man's articles, almost as though I had written them myself. I simply thought that they contained a perspective that I had not seen elsewhere and that some might find it an interesting and perhaps even a valuable read. He may indeed be guilty of everything that he has been accused of on this thread. I didn't personally find any blatant inaccuracies in the articles that I read. In fact, my personal experiences and observations after 31 baptized years of devout JW membership confirms many of his observations. I also believe that he discredits his own articles by including his personal opinions and conclusions in his research. In that context, conclusions should be left to the reader. But, that having been said, I still found the research interesting and insightful.
Apparently, some here are very sensitive to reading quotes that portray the WT society as an intolerant cult that causes extensive harm and injustice to its members. I didn't expect to find attempted censorship and intolerance on this forum since I was not attacking anyone or their opinions.
Why are you so persistent in pushing this man’s opinions?
Ironically, people that post here (including myself) have made similar points to Bergman's without castigation. I will respect those sensitivities in the future -- I will never again post any quotes that speak negatively of the WT society. I will only post the links and let people who are interested read them for themselves. That way, no one will have to read anything that might make them feel uncomfortable or challenge their thinking or opinions about the Borg. We wouldn't want that, now would we?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. Waiting,
I wanted to add that, by way of contrast, I appreciated the way that you expressed your opinions on this thread. You obviously did not take the content of the links personally, nor did you make me feel that you were attacking me for posting it. As usual, you set a good example for all of us. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by - AhHah on 2 November 2000 21:54:58
Edited by - AhHah on 2 November 2000 22:34:28
Hello AhHah,
Sorry to infer that my first of the negative opinions of Bergman's profession opinions was not on your extensive quote list. One of your quotes referred to a poster as not being a professional, so go figure.
I think that's the point. We, none of us to my personal knowledge, are professionals with doctorate initials behind our name. We all can have, and say, opinions. We may try to sway people to our thoughts. That, as you have brought out, is free speech, discussion, argument, whatever.
Bergman is a professional - using his doctorate degree behind his name as his qualifications. I've read his opinions in at least one court case where he was called in as a professional expert witness. I, imho, felt his testimony highly negative and opinionated. So did the Court, btw. I'm sorry for not giving a reference, but I'm not writing under a professional title at this time. This instance, amongst others in his writings, is why I feel he's overly opinionated.
In the clicks given, Bergman, PhD, was the name given. He is a professional, he should be able to contain his professional detachment or go into therapy to resolve some of these issues more succinctly.
If he can't do that, he should write under another name when expressing his deep anger towards the Society (like me as in "waiting" and you in "AhHaH."
Then his professional work would be professionally detached and his anger could vent in private work.
Such as several professionals do on H20.
I do enjoy chatting with you, AhHah, as do others obviously do here. I've reread the posts - interesting thread. I really don't think anyone was trying to attack you or your ethics. Bergman just doesn't sit well with some people.
Man, you should have been around when Friend and SS were here!!!!Now, those were Attack Days!
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 2 November 2000 22:53:53
Ahah:
I do not believe that anyone here has been offended by your posts. I do not believe that anyone here would have you censored either. I can't think of a single person at present that would object to your posting a criticism of the Society per se. I think perhaps it would be good for you to re-read the entire thread. The objections presented here are against Bergman and not you.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
I was asked to list the specifics of Bergman's errors. I read that stuff a couple of years ago and I don't really have time to go through it all again. I just remember my opinion at the time, and the fact that some of it was just ludicrous. If it's important to you I suggest you check it out yourselves. I did take a quick look at a couple items that may impact Mr. Bergman's credibility. I cannot vouch for the absolute reliabity of these statements, ain't the Web wonderful ,as follows:
******************************************************************
Any Jehovah's Witness that has extensively explored the web has no doubt stumbled upon a Dr. Gerald Bergman's writings. Mr. Bergman is often referred to as "Dr. Jerry Bergman" or "Jerry Bergman, Ph.D." Mr. Bergman was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness but seemingly could not abide by its standards. He has now made it his life's work to write rather long and shallow "scholarly" treatises concerning Jehovah's Witnesses and various topics. While it is true that Mr. Bergman holds a doctorate in some type of discipline, possibly educational psychology (at least that is as specific as I could discern), he has had quite a few problems in his academic life. He now teaches at some small technical school named "Northwest Technical College." One fact that he never seems to mention about himself is his troubles with the academic world and his peers. He previously was denied tenure from Bowling Green State University for reasons that included his ethics, teaching, quality of publications and relevance of publications to his teaching. Interestingly enough, he sued the University claiming that he was discriminated against due to his failure to obtain tenure. He has stated that the reason for his failure was attributable to academic discrimination concerning his ardent creationist teachings. The court did not agree with him.
Check this site for more http://www.jehovah.to/freedom/
Hey Xandit,
I'm going to have to read that info again. It's been a while for me too. I read it in my angrier days, so maybe I'll have a different perspective this time.
Tom
