What keeps a JW in the religion? A new angle.

by Hobo Ken 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  While considering some similarities we should not forget some clear differences between JWs and the hostages in Stockholm. The sympathy the captives expressed for their captors in Stockholm has been described as a rational psychological response in a situation where they had no opportunity to escape and acceptance of the situation promoted the best outcome in the circumstances. They literally did not have any source of food apart from what the captors gave them. They physically could not access sources of information about their situation other than what their captors told them. On the other hand, to the extent that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to look at alternative sources of information about the Watchtower organization, it is because they have been persuaded that it is not in their interest to do so, not because they are physically prevented. If Jehovah's Witnesses choose not to walk away from the organization, it is because of a decision they have made, whether because they believe it is the truth, or they fear the consequences of leaving, it is not because they are physically confined and the exit is closed.

  So with the hostages in Stockholm it was about coming to terms with a situation that could not be altered and making the most of it. With JWs on the other hand membership of the Watchtower is an active choice in a world of other possibilities.
• 

  dozy

  Interesting article.

  Pure inertia , social & family pressures , lack of information about the negative side & history of JWs , threat of shunning & disfavour of relatives , constant "encouragement" from the WTBTS - all of these play a part in keeping JWs involved. Once you become a member , it is actually extremely difficult to leave - the hurdle is set very high.
• 

  Hobo Ken

  @slimboyfat I'm not sure if you have read the article very carefully at all.

  I have to disagree with the statements you make.

  You state: "The sympathy the captives expressed for their captors in Stockholm has been described as a rational psychological response in a situation where they had no opportunity to escape"

  When actually the article stated the opposite to be the case:

  "Stockholm Syndrome is a term in psychology used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon where hostages have positive feelings towards their captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger"

  So far as I can gather You are implying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not held hostage and not physically stopped from leaving the organisation or having food withheld etc. But rather are both "persuaded" to remain and told it's in "their best interests" not to read "apostate" information. So is this why it's quantifyably different to Stockholm Syndrome? A little simplistic and obvious to say the least.

  I have to say that a short hostage drama in which physical parameters are present in relation to the victim are very different to a person who is free to do what they wish on any given day. But what we are discussing is the mental process and thought patterns here not the physicality of the situation. Please consider these points.

  Does a Witness have the freedom to go to a church and sit through a service to even ASSESS the "spiritual food" they have to offer?

  Does a Witness have the freedom to sit and openly read a book such as "gentile times reconsidered"? Which is basically information which the "outside world" not only has access to but considers to be historically and factually correct.

  Does a Witness have the freedom to leave the organisation because they choose to without any punishment or impact on their life?

  Does a Witness have the freedom to choose who to associate with based on their own assessment of that person be they family or not?

  Does a Witness have the freedom to choose what particular medical treatment they wish for themselves or their minor children?

  Does a Witness have the freedom to question the authority of the "faithful slave"?

  The answer of course to the above questions is yes. But will the person be allowed to remain a Witness if they excercised such freedom??

  The answer of course is a resounding NO.

  So while no one is a physical hostage in the organisation they most certainly are mentally. So perhaps the comparison is more suitably termed control. The hostage taker has a hostage but only because he has control.The Watchtower Society is a high-control organisation.

  This quote from the article sums this up:

  "I don't think it was a mistake that Don Cameron had the word "captive" in his book title.There are no literal bars and no physical location in which a Witness is held. So the prison is therefore a mental one constructed and maintained by the person , but the architect is of course the Governing Body via literature published by the Watchtower Society."

  You conclude by stating:

  "So with the hostages in Stockholm it was about coming to terms with a situation that could not be altered and making the most of it. With JWs on the other hand membership of the Watchtower is an active choice in a world of other possibilities."

  There are many on this forum who have come to terms with their situation within the organisation and feel they can't leave because of various factors even though they would dearly love to.

  Others have to "fade". Why?

  They feel it's possibly their only option to avoid being disfellowshipped such is their disdain for the Watchtower organisation.This coupled with a desire to have the basic right to retain their family. Understandably so.

  And as for your last sentence I'm sorry Slimboyfat but I simply do not believe that what you are saying is true. It may be an active choice for one who is first joining, but is it a FULLY INFORMED one? I think not. And as for those who I've just discussed it's harldy an "active choice in a world of possibilities."

  I couldn't disagree more with your sentiments. I don't know if you are a Witness or not but I feel you are trying to defend their position with some illogical fallacies.

  @dozy thanks Your post is in agreement with what I've just been typing.

  Matt
• 

  truthlover

  Very interesting discussion

  In my cong alone there are about 15 people who have faded - they can be invited to get togethers, get a slap on the back or handshake when visiting the hall at memorial time -only time you see them, witnesses have coffee with them, laugh and joke about what is going on in their lives, they walk the line--- and I have yet to hear of a shepherding call on various ones...they want the freedom but keep contact just in case..if not df'd or da'd- the pub nbr does not decrease-- how many congregations have similar situations?? What name would you give these ones- they are not Stockholm, nor fearful of any in authority that can alter their lifestyle...they just live life according to their rules
• 

  slimboyfat

  You surely understand there is a difference between 'feeling you can't leave because of various factors' and being physically imprisoned as in a hostage situation. I don't seek downgrade the pressure and trauma people may feel as Witnesses, but it is clearly comparable to confinement only in a metaphorical sense.
• 

  LongHairGal

  Hobo Ken:

  Your article is good. However, I do have to say that I was deceived when I came into the religion. They represented themselves as simply bible students and they claimed they had "no clergy class". So, I took this to mean that everybody was "equal". If I knew otherwise, I could have stayed in the Catholic church. I would have never joined the JW religion. They are just the same old story dressed up in a new package.

  Band on the Run:

  I know what you mean about how being a witness was sheer agony. I am a somewhat adventurous personality and am outspoken and I just did not fit in with these tight-lipped phonies. And, never mind about the correctness or incorrectness of the doctrines, just the culture and mentality of the religion by itself was detestable.

  Truth Lover:

  I am one of those people who live life according to "my rules". But, I am not doing anything "wrong". I live the same moral life I lived when I was a JW - the only difference is that I am a ten-year fader and am blissfully free from all the JW bullshit. I keep contact with a few friends. I attend the memorial for their sake until I move from the area.
• 

  Hobo Ken

  @truthlover You make a very good point. These people are part of a Conscious class of Jehovah's Witnesses who neither want to or feel able to completely separate themselves from the their identity as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In my opinion these ones have made a conscious decision to take things into their own hands and regain some kind of control of how their life plays out. Since they have taken this deliberate action it indicates to me they have good reason to "fade" from the organisation they once believed to be the "the truth" otherwise why leave? This is not to be confused with people who have just drifted away with no agenda.

  I would call them a Concious class.Ones who have relative freedom as you say to come and go and have moderate social contact with JW's without the stigma of shunning.

  I'm sure they don't all have a common reason for fading but one thing is for sure they will be viewed as a group by the Watchtower's leadership. And a dangerous group at that. In my view the org don't want people to be able to find a loophole such as this and exploit it. Those within the org who have contact with such ones may see that their life is quite a bit easier without all the workload a JW has to cope with. Also what's to prevent them from passing on dangerous questions and doubts or perhaps negative information about the Witnesses?

  I think that the Governing Body is very well aware of "faders" and action will be taken at some point to close this loophole. Of course "faders" still have an element of Watchtower control over them. They can't be seen doing the following things: Smoking, drunken-ness, celebrating xmas and birthdays ,so called "immoral lifestyle" etc etc.

  @slimboyfat of course I recognise the differences but the net result is the same: curtailment of freedom and being controlled by people you don't know. And without a proper case study I agree with you it's a metaphorical comparison but srtiking similarities exist noetheless.

  Matt
• 

  SouthCentral

  1) It's a guaranteed friend base all over the world.

  2) The bad J-Dubs have the best (FORMALS) parties.

  3) The GOOD J-Dubs parties are sooo sooo good they aren't even called parties; they are gatherings!!!!!!
• 

  Hobo Ken

  @southcentral Sarcasm?
• 

  ziddina

  Marking for future reading...