Former Elders and Friendly Fire

by jst2laws 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Xena

  .
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello teejay,

  Excellent illustration you used (above). I liked the thoughts you presented as well.

  Most here have fled an organization intolerant of differing opinions. Compared to what we used to be we have all, except for You Know and a few others, learned to be tolerant of differing opinions. I am only concerned when not only the opinion is dismissed but the holder of the opinion is attacked personally. Is it possible that at this point it is no longer a debate but an argument?

  It happens. I'm suggesting that we try to remember we are all victims and now we, at least I and those who have responded to this thread, are here to support each other. We do not serve ourselves nor those who come here to visit when we destroy each other with 'friendly fire'.

  You have presented a positive thought, with your illustration and the good quotes. Thanks for helping.

  Jst2laws
• 

  teejay

  I am only concerned when not only the opinion is dismissed but the holder of the opinion is attacked personally. Is it possible that at this point it is no longer a debate but an argument?

  jst2,

  Your concern is a valid one. I share it.

  The wish to avoid verbal fistfights has been a topic of discussion ever since I've been here at JW.com. Personal attacks have been a pet peeve of mine almost as long. I'm currently involved in a discussion about that very topic.

  What I've repeatedly seen as often and that's about as bad as personal attacks (and what I was *really* trying to say with the cartoon) is that some view a spirited debate as a vicious argument or a personal attack, or view a serious concern thoughtfully presented as a negative thread. People should have (and as far as I'm concerned *do* have) the freedom to present any topic of conversation (or rebuttal) they wish without it automatically being characterized as "negative" or as "an attack." That's where you come in.

  You said:

  ... there has been a series of negative threads where in those who remain on the inside as appointed servants have been harshly criticized. To defend myself in the blanket condemnation of any man who continues to serve in the WT society is as fruitless as my decades of fighting the WT society. Even if those who criticize are right in their condemnation of us who have tried, the fruitage of the battle is only dead bodies left behind. The bodies are those whom you should have recognized as allies.

  Is it "harsh criticism" or a valid argument?

  Is the elder culpability response that AMNESIAN just made a "blanket condemnation" or is it specific of certain ones who need to read what she has to say; even more specifically, did Amazing himself need to hear what AMNESIAN had to say?

  You suggest the possibility that those who are critical of elders who stay (and know better) are right, but qualify that positive comment by saying that the "only" result is "dead bodies left behind." Is there an alternative view or two (or five) and are those holding those views to be criticised for presenting them?

  If we personally view AMNESIAN's thesis to be wrong and wish to censure her, might we be equally wrong in that attempt, thereby verifying her argument?

  Personally, I thoroughly enjoy seeing and participating in discussions that are made up of people with radically different but valid viewpoints. I come to the table with strong opinions of my own but have learned a couple of vital lessons since leaving the Organization: 1. One is that I don't know everything like I thought I did as a hard core JW, and 2. I'm willing to shed wrong ideas instead of feeling the need to fiercely support and cling to them—I don't have to defend a Governing Body anymore. Now it's just me and what *I* think.

  So, now I can simply say, "hey, you know what Jst2? you are right... I never thought of it that way... I like your idea better.... I was wrong." Which brings me back to what I said before. Having the freedom to present, hear and consider widely divergent views is not only good fun but ultimately important. I hope the elder culpability issue can play itself out in spite of the strong opinions and vibrant personalities on both sides of the issue. I have benefited from the discussion.

  Peace,
  tj

  ps. AMNESIAN *did* make some comments relative to Amazing's personal behavior both as an elder and a poster. I thought her comments were relevant to the discussion and should not be viewed as a personal "attack." I could be wrong, though.
• 

  AlanF

  You Know is apparently afraid of the tyranny of freedom. Better to be warm, safe and dumb -- and stuck in a cage.

  AlanF
• 

  NeonMadman

  You Know is apparently afraid of the tyranny of freedom. Better to be warm, safe and dumb -- and stuck in a cage.

  Good point, Alan. As Bob Dylan sang, "are birds free from the chains of the skyways?"

  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
• 

  borgfree

  Jst2laws,

  I have read this thread from the time it started and had decided not to post to it as I do not wish to add anymore to the "harsh criticism" of elders or former elders, but, one thing keeps bothering me about your comments:

  Quote:

  "I learned from those many years not to waste time on systems nor people who are more concern with being RIGHT than understanding the perspective of others. I have left destructive associations that thrive on harsh and judgmental views."

  and:

  "Having decided to not even read the negative posts or work of the posters I have failed to consider the posiblity you have proposed."

  The attitude of "I am so busy, I don't have time for your problem" and in some cases the attitude that is very evident you can almost hear them thinking "Who are you, I am so intelligent and I am an ELDER, who do you think YOU are to question ME"

  I do not mean to put you in that catagory but your comments above brought back those memories.

  I am happy for every elder who starts waking up and seeing the WT for what it really is, and I am even more happy for the ones who bravely separate themselves from that disgusting organization. I will be happy to aid any, that I know, if the occasion ever arises.

  I know several ex-elders and they are wonderful people, I treasure their friendship. I have also met some who give the impression that they think their prestige should be transfered from elder to non-elder and that they should be treated with high honor just as they expected in the organization.

  I resent the high-mindedness of some, if that elder is truly a good friend/brother he does not have to demand honor, he will be given it gladly and willingly.

  I do not have any respect for an elder who learns the truth and then keeps acting as a "faithful" representative of the WT organization. By staying in that position he is encouraging others to continue in their course. I have family in the WT. Some of the elders go out of their way to "adopt" my family and keep them "strong" in the organization.

  Those elders have displayed wrong motives and in at least one case an elder was disfellowshipped. That elder fits the description I stated above, one who demands great honor, he is a self-righteous, self-serving person. He was just recently reappointed as elder. How should I feel about such a person?

  I do not know you, so I do not mean to put you in any catagory. I do wish you all the best in your journey.

  (My apolegies to any who has posted something while I was preparing this post, that is, if I repeated your thoughts.)

  Borgfree

  "Without knowledge there can be no genuine faith--only superstition on the one hand or speculation on the other" Robert Banks
• 

  jst2laws

  teejay

  Is it "harsh criticism" or a valid argument?

  You know I always appreciate your reasoning. Several things you said made me think but I will address the above.

  I have been known to be overly sensitive which is not a good quality for one who has fought many issues with the WT over the years. I guess with that background I have a slight aversion to confrontational interchanges here on the board. I admit I have taken personally some of the statements made about those who try to make a difference in the inside. That is my fault and an area I could improve. At the same time I did learn some things from the discussions.

  I will be fine and grow from what I read here whether it is ‘harsh criticism’ or ‘valid argument’. At least I hope I am mature enough to handle it. You see, TJ, it doesn’t matter whether or not it is ‘valid’ if it feels like ‘harsh criticism’. That’s why in my original post I said:

  Even if those who criticize are right in their condemnation of us who have tried, the fruitage of the battle is only dead bodies left behind. The bodies are those whom you should have recognized as allies

  The casualties are not necessarily the result of flawed reasoning but of what may feel like ‘harsh criticism. This would be especially true of JW ‘elders’ lurking here of which I was one less than a year ago.

  I guess my sensitivity is showing again. But I’m probably not the only one. Anyway, thanks for responding again. From what I have seen your approach is a model of valid argumentation without coming across as critical.

  Jst2laws