by bigmac 5 Replies latest jw friends
when i was an active jw, 40 -odd years ago in the UK, in the 2 congs i went to, we had a fair number of brothers privately called "weak"
this was implied if a bro ( or sis )didn't attend most meetings, answer up, do field service, talks etc.
they weren't reprooved for this ( as far as i know ) but "marked" so to speak'
is this still the case? if so would anyone care to venture an educated guess what the % is of "weak" ones in the religion?
As far as my experience goes the "weak" witnesses aren't marked officially, which would imply some wrongdoing on their part but just viewed as weak spiritually. "Strong" members of the congregation would want to assist and encourage them while at the same time being cautious of having too much association with them.
Weak is synonymous with inactive. There are many who are irregular, (missed reporting a month of field service every so often) who are just as "weak" as those who are inactive (no field service reported for 6 months straight) and are thus just as undesireable to the hardcore jws. These irregular witness are the majority and are the most fun among those still trapped. The inactive are often free and on their way to a successful fade.
Weak is synonymous with inactive. There are many who are irregular, (missed reporting a month of field service every so often) who are just as "weak" as those who are inactive (no field service reported for 6 months straight) and are thus just as undesireable to the hardcore jws. These irregular witness are the majority and are the most fun among those still trapped. The inactive are often free and on their way to a successful fade.
I never really thought about how sad it is that ones are viewed in this fashion until reading this. They really are viewed as undesireable. They really are. Its as if they have a disease and are somewhat untouchable. All because they're not the most outgoing. Its really sad.
They are 2nd class citizens to the elite. Some of those weak ones just had doubts and were doing the minimum to scape by or were fading. I was certainly considered weak for more than a decade - it was all an act. At the same time I was doing amazing things at work or with hobbies. Truly a double life.
MMXIV
And to think the weak witlesses, which are usually the most stable and able to function in the real world, are viewed as being contagious. This is because the core doctrine is so weak or corrupt that it requires constant indoctrination to maintain it.
To compare, my core doctrine is "No initiatory force, threats of force, or fraud is to be used against another person or their property". That is pretty basic, and very solid. No matter how "weak" I am, that core doctrine is going nowhere. And I don't require constant attendance to meetings or activity to spread it to keep this very solid fundamental core doctrine in place. It just plain makes sense, and doesn't come with a billion embellishments and interpretations. Nor does it unduly restrict my natural activity--materialism, sexual expression, and higher learning are not repressed and hence there is no constant trying to pick out what constitutes "initiatory force, threats of force, or fraud". It is just that simple.
The witlesses' doctrines are ever-shifting, repressive, and subject to constant interpretations. You need constant indoctrination to even believe it, and anyone that might be weak is bound to have a more lenient viewpoint. Unlike "initiatory force, threats of force, or fraud", there is significant ongoing argument of what constitutes "loose conduct". And now they are ready to expound on their newest weapon: Brazen conduct. Where is the line? You don't like one of the new Kingdumb maladies, because it is blatantly idolatrous or blasphemous--is that brazen conduct or loose conduct? What about couples holding hands during the prayer--is that now "loose conduct" and/or "brazen conduct"? If someone is a little too lenient in these areas, they might make everyone else "too lenient", and hence need to be approached with caution.
Additionally, there is always the pressure to do more field circus. You do 30 hours a month, why not auxiliary pio-sneer? You aux pio, why not do it all the time? What about regular pio-sneering? Or, going to Beth Hell? Anyone that thinks it is enough to do 20-25 hours a month of field circus because that is what they can comfortably and sustainably do is "weak". And, what about those return visits? While we no longer see "The Lord requires special pio-sneers to do 175 hours and 50 return visits a month, regular pio-sneers to do 150 hours a month, and publishers to do 60 hours and 12 return visits a month, we see witlesses being looked down on because they do not maintain about 10 hours a month or refuse to do more than they can sustainably do.
And yes, the witlesses do initiate the use of force, threats of force, and fraud and hence are against my core doctrine. This is blatant--they lie about Beth Hell and pio-sneering being such a blessing, and almost no one feels blessed once they get there. They lie about the end, and then lie again when nothing happens at the appointed time. They threaten with death threats (you will die at Armageddon, which is imminent). Some even use actual force, cutting them off from housing and/or employment and family if they break a rule. And this is quite blatant, unlike the vague definitions that require constant attendance to boasting sessions to keep "strong".
