Teejay,
Whatever standards I use to judge elders, I feel I must first use to judge myself. If a "good elder" perpetuates the myth that the WTS is God's organization, I think a "good publisher" does the same. What varies is the degree of influence each may have.
This is, in a nutshell, all Amnesian was saying.
Not quite. Amnesian can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I were summing up her post, I think I would change the ending to read, "What varies is the degree of power each has. Elders have more power than publishers and are therefore more culpable." I deliberately refrained from making that judgement.
She never said that she, or any average JW publisher, was exonerated from the part we all played in continuing the lies of the WTS. Her entire thesis however, 100% correct imo, is that the difference (and it is HUGE) is in the matter of degree. About THAT there really can be no debate.
I think the question is worthy of discussion. Do elders play a bigger part than publishers in continuing the lies of the WTS? I'm not even sure this is the best question. Do elders cause more harm than publishers? Do elders cause the harm or do the beliefs cause the harm? Do elders have more influence than publishers over whether people remain true believers?
I don't agree with Amnesian when she says, "The average JW has no power. Zero. None."
I've been thinking today about whom I would blame for my becoming and remaining one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I've tried to mentally assign percentages of blame.
Who recruited me? My parents. Dad was a more fervent believer in the beginning than Mom, so I say: Dad 70%, Mom 30%.
How were my beliefs maintained? Who influenced me?
Looking back, the elders were on the periphery of my experience.
Many in my family were Jehovah's Witnesses--my parents, several aunts, cousins, my grandmother. For the person I was back then, this was strong evidence that the beliefs were true.
I also remember the brothers and sisters in the congregation who were warm, kind, and loving. This, too, was strong evidence for me that these were Jehovah's people, so unlike cold, selfish worldly people. There were so many--the elderly couple who had no children of their own and often took me with them out in field service, the artistic brother who showed me how to draw, the brother who taught me how to swim at a hotel pool after a day at a district assembly, the special pioneer sister who considered me her pioneer partner when I was in junior high, all of the people who came to our house to play cards and laugh and talk . . . The people I knew were honest and sincere. They had researched, too. How could they all be wrong?
My beliefs were continually reinforced by the literature I read and the talks I heard. I chose to read the books and listen to the talks, so I am not a hapless victim.
When I went to the elders to confess a sin that could get me disfellowshipped, I knew the elders had the power to decide. I didn't think much about the elders that day, though. I thought of my family and all the friends mentioned above, what they would think, how disappointed they'd be, and how much I would miss talking with them. If disfellowshipping is a gun, publishers who shun are the bullet. Do publishers shun because elders tell them to? I think they shun because they believe it is God's will.
Amnesian says:
And no matter how guilty the women you care to cite, veeeeery few of them can boast slaughter and carnage in astronomic ranges elders can.
I'm still unsure about this. I think we all had a share in the slaughter and carnage by supporting the system; elders have a more visible role. I see the relationship between publishers and elders as a codependent one--publishers give elders their power. Beliefs cause publishers to relinquish their power.
Btw, you started your post by saying that you felt this issue was "getting muddied by the battle mentality--Amazing vs. Amnesian, elders vs. rank and file, men vs. women." I think in saying that you totally miss a crucial point. The issue here is fairly simple and is not defined by terms that are usually thrown around in discussions here.
I shared my impression, Teejay. Amnesian discussed not only differences in power and culpability between elders and publishers, but also confronted Amazing personally, calling him an "ex-JW elder type" and expressing her dislike of what she perceived as his condescending attitude towards women.
This argument, for the lack of a better term, isn't about individuals -- whether posters on JW.com with opposing views or male/female -- but about a very real, ongoing situation in which people are being abused and, by varying degree abusers are accountable. Male/female, men/women, Amnesian/Amazing has nothing to do with it and only cloud an understanding of the real issue. It's about the relative power (and the responsibility/culpability that is connected with it) of various members of the wts.
I agree. That's why I posted. I wanted to express what I viewed as the core issues.
"What did you know and when did you know it?" is a query that has been used in courts of law to ascertain the level of one's 'guilt.' It's a useful question in THIS debate.
Yes, it is. There are many nuances of knowing and awareness, which is why I found the Buddhist link helpful. Elders do often have more information, but are they able to mentally process what they know? Are they truly aware? Are they thinking clearly or has their thinking been clouded by their beliefs?
Ginny
