Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Thanks, waiting, for the compliment. My concentration has been off for the last few days because I've been worrying about my kitty. He was pretty sick, and I thought I might lose him. He's recovering now, though. :)

    I can imagine how painful your situation must be for you. I've never gone through anything of that magnitude, but I've experienced a little of the treatment you've received.

    Somehow it seems that when you've been wronged and are seeking redress for those wrongs, there are many elders who are very adept at making you feel guilty for seeking help.

    I could never understand how we were always taught that these men in charge were shepherds and were to care for the flock, when all they seemed to do was to figuratively beat the sheep with their staffs and blame them for their own pain.

    I refuse to sit back and meekly accept that "Mother" knows best and somehow whatever is done is in our best interests. If it were, there would not be so many bruised and battered sheep lying bewildered by the wayside.

    Things need to change. This organization is dealing with lives and emotions, and yet I sometimes feel that the only value we have is as statistics....hours, literature, studies, and meeting attendance.

    Some elders are very caring and try to be good shepherds. Unfortunately, because of the multitude of duties they need to carry out, many of them burn out. Others, usually the ones who last the longest, are the proverbial bean-counters and enforcers. They tote up the hours and make sure everybody toes the mark. Compassion doesn't rate very high with them.

    We SHOULD be able to write to the Society and feel that our thoughts and feelings count for something. I've garnered from reading the posts here that that is often not the case.

    Whether or not an expedient method is being used is not really the point. Maybe the organization is just too big to be able to concern itself with its' individual members. This is regrettable.

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    I am not sure where you are taking this discussion. Perhaps it will assist that I recap my reason for participation on this thread and questions about certain of your premises.

    My participation here was to counter the idea that "every time [we] write the society the society sends a copy of [our] letter to [our] local cong. elders." That assertion was made by spectromize and is yet to be validated—though several seem eager ready to jump on that band wagon. Contrarily, considering the Society’s general policy to respond in writing to personal letters, your own prowess of mathematical probability demonstrated that the reverse is probably true.

    One of your bases for complaint on this issue has to do with your assertion that some right is being infringed upon. I have asked that you evidence this right yet you have not. I will ask you again, what explicit or implicit right do you have in mind? Where is that right expressed? It cannot be one of confidentiality because you have already expressed that "…no one should be foolish enough to presume that only one person would be privy to the matter…." After I specifically addressed the issue of confidentiality you said, "…your logic is correct…." Therefore, by your own admission your claimed "right" is not one having to do with confidentiality. What else can I conclude?

    You went on about persons being shocked that local elders would know of and be used to respond to them. I do not understand how that effect can be a basis for your complaining here because you already agreed with the logic that the Society’s utilization of elders was correct.

    Now, in the very beginning I expressed that the Society does occasionally respond through the local elders. You are quite correct that some are shocked by this, and I have not disagreed with that. However, those who are shocked react so because of their own expectations not because some expressed right has been infringed upon. Well, expectations vary from person to person. In that case, no matter what the Society’s response someone will probably be shock, that is unless the Society first meticulously determines the exact expectation of each person writing them. Do you think that is realistic?

    You asked:

    And why should they be equally shocked to receive a written reply?

    Earlier you based persons shock at getting a face to face response on the premise that they did "not know the procedure" but that they expect it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities". Well, since that was your basis I merely applied it to another conclusion just as logical as your own. Assuming as you did that an individual did not know the procedure and that some large entities respond through local agents who ask to meet with you face to face—which you agreed with—, then the logical question arises, "Should they be equally apt shocked to receive a written reply?" Your only response to that question of logic was one of special pleading, which does not answer the internal contradiction of your own argument.

    Friend

    Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:48:7

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    I have never said that I knew whether or not a copy was sent to the local elders EVERY time a letter was received by the Society. It could be true....I don't know.

    You have said that in your experience, it wasn't always the case. Fine, I accept that. I have no experience either way.

    I took issue with your statement that it would be "preposterous" for the Society to send a copy to the local elders because they had so much mail that they could only take the time to send personal replies.

    From a totally logical standpoint, I pointed out that the time needed to send off a copy would be much less than that needed to personally reply. Also, several of the people involved mentioned that they had NEVER received a reply from Bethel, but rather a visit from a local elder.

    My point was that in my opinion, the Society should have the consideration to inform the questioner about how their correspondence is being handled.

    Most of this argument has involved my attempting to clarify to you exactly WHAT I have very plainly stated. Unfortunately, you go off on tangents that, while very interesting to read and very valid in many ways, have nothing to do with what I had stated.

    Very simply, I believe that procedures should be changed. Before a local elder is sent out, the Society should inform the questioner of the manner in which their query will be handled.

    As a matter of fact, I DID understand that your initial participation was to add input as to whether or not "all" letters were forwarded. I have never questioned your veracity on that point.

    However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter however it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it.

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    You said of me:

    I took issue with your statement that it would be "preposterous" for the Society to send a copy to the local elders because they had so much mail that they could only take the time to send personal replies.

    Thanks for illustrating that you have not understood the simplest of my expressions. Please show everyone where I ever have represented that assertion of yours above.

    Friend

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman
    Certainly the Society does on occasion copy local elders of correspondence received from a publisher. I know that for a fact because I have received them myself. I also know that local elders are not always copied. I know that from personal experience and the experience of a multitude of others known to me. You apparently have no idea of the huge volume of this type of correspondence received by the Society. Other then responding personally to such respectful letters they do not have the time to copy local elders each and every time. The notion is preposterous.

    Friend

    Oh, yes, I should have said in my post that I took issue with your saying that it was preposterous for the Society to copy local elders each and every time.

    This was wrong of me. I apologize. Gnat dead.

    Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 16:9:7

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    Understanding your posts is not the issue. The issue is that I have stated my opinion on the handling of this correspondence, and you choose to ignore anything I have said on the matter while you repeatedly "strain gnats".

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    You said:

    The issue is that I have stated my opinion on the handling of this correspondence, and you choose to ignore anything I have said on the matter while you repeatedly "strain gnats".

    That is one of the galldarndest things yet asserted on this thread! Would you please go back and READ(!) my post of Jun 7, 2000 11:04:23 PM. Therein I thoroughly presented exactly the problem with your opinion and my reasons for disputing its validity, even asking for your clarification. Did you reply to it AT ALL? No, you did not. Yet you did take the time to further accuse that I ignore anything you have said on the subject. WOW! Since then all you have done is distort my words with false assertions!

    As for “straining gnats”, it is amusing how often such a term in invoked when details begin contradicting some opinionated view. If my request for your clarification is such a gnat then it should be easy enough for you to answer.

    It is also quite amusing how you characterize your misrepresentation me as “gnat” in significance. You then also characterize my requests for a logical explanation of specific and pertinent details as “straining gnats”. It looks like anything you don’t like to deal with is rubbed off as an insignificant “gnat.” Isn’t that type behavior at the heart of your complaints against the Society?

    However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. [Emphasis added]

    There you go again. Please show everyone where I ever have represented such a ridiculous notion.

    What I don’t understand is why I bother replying to such prattle.

    Friend

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    Let me simplify for you.

    People have stated their experiences in corresponding with Bethel.

    In reading those experiences, I formed an opinion about Bethel's handling of the correspondence.

    My opinion is that the letter should be acknowledged with a reply informing the questioner of the manner in which it will be handled.

    What clarification are you seeking? What proof? What explanation? My opinion is my opinion. Whether or not you agree with it is your decision. My opinion will not change company policy. By stating an opinion and stating that I feel people have a right to know how matters will be handled does not necessitate a lengthy treatise on "rights" or any other matter.

    That is why I have not debated you on this. There is nothing to debate. These are simply my feelings, and I STILL do not understand why you repeatedly feel you must insult me and demand "evidence" as to why I have formed my opinion.

    I like roses. My opinion is that every yard could be enhanced by having one or more rose bushes. If this is not your opinion, DON'T PLANT ROSES!

    It is also quite amusing how you characterize your misrepresentation me as “gnat” in significance. You then also characterize my requests for a logical explanation of specific and pertinent details as “straining gnats”. It looks like anything you don’t like to deal with is rubbed off as an insignificant “gnat.” Isn’t that type behavior at the heart of your complaints against the Society?

    This, Friend is misrepresenting me. The "gnats" I have been referring to are embodied in your insistence on picking apart every statement. It is NOT a matter of not wanting to deal with something and rubbing it off as an insignificant gnat. THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO DEAL WITH. I stated an opinion....nothing more. You, on the other hand appear to be intent on analyzing every nuance, every phrase. If I'm wrong in this, forgive me....this is the way it appears to me. (note: I am NOT stating that this is what you intend to do....I am stating that this is the way it "appears" to me.....this is a subjective statement)

    However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. [Emphasis added]
    There you go again. Please show everyone where I ever have represented such a ridiculous notion.

    Did you notice my use of the word "seem"? I never stated that this was "in fact" your opinion....merely that it "seemed" to be your opinion.

    Could you possibly EVER respond with "no, that's not my opinion" rather than flinging insults?

    Sorry to continue on with the "prattle", but I would definitely like to convince you that all I have done is express an "opinion" on the matter.

    Am I allowed to do this?

    Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 17:24:13

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    Alas, here we go again….

    You said:

    What clarification are you seeking? What proof? What explanation? My opinion is my opinion.

    You based your opinion on what you referred to as a right. That was your description, not mine. But regardless of the word usage, all I asked was that you clarify that basis by asking, "I will ask you again, what explicit or implicit right do you have in mind? Where is that right expressed? I see now that just asking you for clarification of one of your own representations gets you all wound up. There is probably a reason for that.

    Get it? Opinion = formed conclusion based upon something

    The something is what I was looking for. Your most recent posts have pretty much answered the question of whether you have bases for your opinions.

    I said:
    However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. [Emphasis added]

    There you go again. Please show everyone where I ever have represented such a ridiculous notion.

    You replied:
    Did you notice my use of the word "seem"? I never stated that this was "in fact" your opinion....merely that it "seemed" to be your opinion.

    Did you notice my use of the word "notion." I never requested anything explicit, only for the mere notion. If you are right that what you said "seem[ed" to be my opinion then the notion must exist somewhere in my responses to you. So, where is it? Can you or will you show me and everyone else the notion that I think "it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Mind you, all I want you to demonstrate is the mere notion of that idea.

    You have definitely convinced me that you have an opinion on this matter. That has been clear from the beginning. What I have sought after is the bases or basis for that opinion. If you had one by now it would be evident. I have not seen it and you have consistently refused to offer anything resembling such even in the face of direct request for it.

    Believe it or not, like it or not, prattle is the correct characterization of what you been doing so far. If you would read what others are actually writing and also read what you are actually writing then perhaps you could communicate and make some sense for those of us interested enough in your views to seek an understanding of them and their bases.

    Friend.

    Edited by - Friend on 8 June 2000 19:9:23

  • waiting
    waiting

    Dear Friend,

    You are a fascinating opponent, as in opposer. Why, again I ask, do you perceive yourself as our Teacher? Why must we follow your standards?

    We don't have to, and from reading so many posts in the past week, we don't want or agree with your standards of excellence.

    Some of your arguments make sense, your grasp of law in ok, and your knowledge keeps up with ours.
    However, speaking for myself, this is not a Debater's Club.

    If debate is your arena - fine. This is a forum, not an arena. Perhaps your weapons of sarcasm, dry wit, condescension, denigrating, arrogance, and the incessant use of quotes could find a better, more deserving home for your skilled marksmanship, elsewhere.

    You have brought us to angry discussions for an entire week. Why? Is that your plan? Who are you and what is your background? I have asked before and you refused to enlighten us on any detail of yourself. Why?

    Andyman said you were really a nice person - why must you provoke animosity with everyone you reply to? Do you treat your family, your congregation, your dog, this way? Why have you targeted us? We did not ask you to improve us.

    Does our use of emotion, opinion, humor, poetry, discussion, so irritate your sense of righteousness that you feel compelled to "set us straight?" Why? Do we make you that insecure? That's not our intention. However, you do make, at least me, feel insecure - and I resent you for that. A true Friend would not do that to another friend.

    If you read some of my posts, I usually resort to humor or sarcasm, but I don't think I offend too often.

    You offend almost every time you post. In all earnestness, please stop - you are not presenting yourself as a friend at all, but as an opposer.

    Edited by - waiting on 9 June 2000 20:14:44

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit