Thought Control (A simple test for JW's)

by TD 143 Replies latest jw friends

  • GermanXJW

    For the multiple choice questions it might be a good idea to start with some examples from other religions like mormons that a JW can decide freely on. Then go on with the JW examples and see what the mind does with this dissonance.

  • bohm

    Alice, serious question, do you think that NONE of the multiple choice questions can be answered with the options TD has given?

  • Earnest

    TD, I always look forward to your posts and appreciate the reasonable way in which you express yourself. With respect may I put the following multiple-choice question to you :

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    A) Yes

    B) No

    C) Not sure

    The point that I am obviously making is that with a closed question the choice of options may be too limited, or you may choose one of the options but wish to qualify it.

    In the choices that you give to all your questions it is clear that the two quotations are giving different dates for the same event and are thus contradicting themselves. But that answer would surely be qualified by your statement :

    Nothing in what I said above was intended to imply that there is something inherently wrong when students of the Bible make adjustments to their eschatological views when either new information comes to light or events simply do not unfold as expected.

    That is to say that the dates when these events are thought to have taken place have changed because either new information has come to light or events simply did not unfold as expected. A personal observation I have made with dates proposed by second adventists is that the nearer the date gets the less certain (and more qualified) the date becomes. This is true of Millerites, Russellites, JWs et al.

    As far as the personal experiences you mention where individuals "remember" certain events it has to be said that the mind (including memory) is a mysterious thing. I would certainly not suggest any of these memories are held in bad faith, but we "remember" what we want to remember, we think what we want to think and, to a large extent, we believe what we want to believe.

  • Mythbuster

    I sometimes visit another "JW" site that is very unmoderated and I gotta say, I see a definite pattern in AIW's comments to a poster there.

  • Mickey mouse
  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    I sometimes visit another "JW" site that is very unmoderated and I gotta say, I see a definite pattern in AIW's comments to a poster there.

    My parents exhibit the same pattern. They don't even own a computer.

    They never admit any 'revision' of Watchtower history either. They just change the subject or try to assassinate my character for bringing it up.

    To be 'nice' to the Watchtower you could put 'revision' down to sloppy research, but I'm sure these articles are written by a number of people over a long period of time. It isn't just the same mistake being repeated by the same author.

    Bible Teach 2005 Page 84 contains another one. Notice how it is carefully worded to give the impression that the Bible Students were looking forward to Christ's return in 1914, without actually coming right out and saying it. This is not sloppy research. This is deliberate, calculated deception.

    23 For how long? During the 19th century, sincere Bible students calculated that the waiting period would end in 1914. (Regarding this date, see the Appendix, pages 215-18.) World events that began in 1914 confirm that the calculation of these sincere Bible students was correct. The fulfillment of Bible prophecy shows that in 1914, Christ became King and God’s heavenly Kingdom began to rule. Hence, we are living in the “short period of time” that Satan has left. (Revelation 12:12; Psalm 110:2) We can also say with certainty that soon God’s Kingdom will act to cause God’s will to be done on earth. Do you find this to be wonderful news? Do you believe that it is true? The next chapter will help you to see that the Bible really does teach these things.

    Personally, I don't give a toss when the WT says Christ returned or how many times they changed it, I do care when I am being deliberately lied to ... and that is what the truthfull answers to TDs questions imply.

    It is interesting to see JW apologist reactions to those questions. I notice most of them have responded by not responding.



  • bohm

    Earnest: Well, i have to disagree with you. Your example falls quite far from what is actually asked. If you look at one particular year, we assume that "the current light" in that year is not contradictory (if it were there would be no point in asking any questions about it). Lets call all statements in a particular year x for S(x). Not contradictory means that all the statements in S(x) can be true at the same time.

    What TD ask is that the WT makes a statement today (or recently) that in a sence says: Statement A is in S(x) (x being 1879 or something like that, A being "christ returned invisible in 1914", whatever). That basically mean A AND all statements in S(x) can be true at the same time. Keep in mind its not TD who claim this, the WT do. What that boils down to is that one should be able to take ALL statements B in S(x) and ask if A and B can both be true at the same time, and if the WT is right one should allways be able to say yes.

    That makes it a valid question. Its something the WT claim is right, and it can either be right, wrong or impossible to deside due to limitations in the language. TD is asking the question on the watchtowers premises, in fact, he is taking a special case of something the WT claim is right, and ask us if it looks allright to us. The statement TD makes is something like this:

    "Is it true statement A in S(x) and B can both be true at the same time?"

    (x being 1879, A being some statement they made at that time, B being some claim the make today regarding their belief system back then)

    Your questions - "Have you stopped beating your wife" - is different in many fundamental ways. To put it in my notation, let S(x) be all actions a given person do at some time x. Let A be "beat the wife". The question is now:

    "Is it true there was a time y < x such that A is in S(y) and A is not in S(x)"

    That is a perfectly valid yes/no question but due to a special formulation of the question we are only given the following options:

    a) TRUE
    b) FALSE and "there exist a y such that S(y) is true" (notice that if b) was the option "false" the question would be perfectly fair!)
    c) not sure

    So you can see the two statements are entirely different in the sence the fundamental question is of a different nature, and the language narrow down the options so they are insufficient. I dont think that happends in TDs example, or rather, i dont think it happends in his questions, only in the heads of those who try to ask it but cannot consider the "contradictory" option.

  • Earnest

    bohm : I am not sure that I completely understand the point you are making but I do understand that you disagree with me.

    Both my questions and those of TD were closed questions with a number of limited options i.e. three in both cases. What you have said does not address my point that the options provided may not be sufficient to answer the question.

    If we are simply dealing with whether a person is willing to agree that something which is clearly a contradiction is such then I suppose that is fair enough. I suppose it would be akin to a JW asking a trinitarian whether God + Jesus + Holy Spirit equals (a) 1 (b) 3 (c) not sure. Another closed question with a loaded answer whatever answer you choose. The fact is both questions, and the one I put to TD, require qualification or some other alternative to be answered.

  • moomanchu
  • poppers

    If we are simply dealing with whether a person is willing to agree that something which is clearly a contradiction is such then I suppose that is fair enough.

    It seems to mean that is precisely what TD is asking. When a contradiction is obvious, which is what TD is providing, are they willing to see it and acknowledge it as such? If yes, then they have some intellectual integrity and can begin to disentangle themselves from obviously misleading and contradictory WT teaching. If no, then they remain under the influence of someone else. When someone refuses to see what's right in front of their eyes what does that tell you? TD's "test for JW's" is designed to illustrate and highlight whether they can use their own conscience and intellect or remain in mindless lockstep with whatever they are told. Do I have that right, TD?

Share this