You CAN continue associating with wordly/disfellowshipped family members AND get a higher education

by Anony Mous 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  King Solomon

  You see the semantics? Most JW's don't understand the subtle word-play, where you almost need to be a lawyer to read between the lines.

  Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20)

  Note how they word it as, "God allows each person the freedom to choose" vs saying, "God allows each person to exercise their free will".

  The difference is, the first wording reflects the idea that God does NOT give man Divine Permission to ignore his Divine Will (which is automatically defined as a sin: ANY action counter to His Divine Will is considered a sin). So by saying God gives people the "freedom to choose", they're basically saying that humans similarly have the "freedom" to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but living after hitting the ground is up to you!

  Either way they word it, they believe there's a gun against everyone's head: do what you're told or you die. It's a death threat, pure and simple.

  No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family

  This is the OTHER side of the "freedom to choose" equation.

  The subject of that sentence is the person who feels pressured to worship in a manner that's not heart-felt.

  However, the words that aren't stated (but are well-known to be the case, even if unspoken) is that the REST of the family IS equally free to make the choice NOT to associate with the non-believer: they don't have to associate with the one who's questioning the faith (and hence, everyone elses). And even if one of the family members experience some remorse or guilt over shunning the questioning family member, THEY likewise don't have to choose between family or religious beliefs: they ALSO could be shunned as well, if the burden of making that choice is too much for them to bear. The Witnesses will put them out of their misery, and shun them, as well.

  So even if the doubting Thomas is not officially shunned (DF/DA) by the Society, the JW grape-vine will take care of weeding out of the undesirables from amongst the rank-and-file.

  Pretty slick (or actually, pretty sick).
• 

  compound complex

  Direct and Cross-Examination Questions in Child Custody Cases, WTB&TS, page 42

  "Be careful that they [JW children being questioned] don't get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they would show that the first things in life are service and going to the Kingdom Hall. Show hobbies, crafts, social activity, sports, and especially plans for the future.

  "Be careful they don't all say that they are going to be pioneers. Plans can be trade, getting married and having children, journalism, and all kinds of other things. Maybe you can show an interest in art and the theatre. They must be clean, moral, honest, but with interests you would expect from other young people."

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/126156/1/JW-Children-Lie-in-Custody-Cases
• 

  3dogs1husband

  I know someone who was "prepped" for a custody battle by the Caroline Wah....one of the many bread crumbs that lead to her exit.
• 

  cognisonance

  These two quotes:

  No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family

  This is the OTHER side of the "freedom to choose" equation.

  The subject of that sentence is the person who feels pressured to worship in a manner that's not heart-felt.

  However, the words that aren't stated (but are well-known to be the case, even if unspoken) is that the REST of the family IS equally free to make the choice NOT to associate with the non-believer: they don't have to associate with the one who's questioning the faith (and hence, everyone elses). And even if one of the family members experience some remorse or guilt over shunning the questioning family member, THEY likewise don't have to choose between family or religious beliefs: they ALSO could be shunned as well, if the burden of making that choice is too much for them to bear. The Witnesses will put them out of their misery, and shun them, as well.

  And:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/126156/1/JW-Children-Lie-in-Custody-Cases

  Are very, very interesting! That referenced tread is very long, but brings up the idea that sometimes we are convinced what we think is being said isn't being said after all since our biases or intuition – which can often be faulty – is at play. This idea is similar to how we preceive optical illusions. I'm taking a class in irrational behavior right now and it brings out that our eyes spent millions of years evolving to see what is really there physically, yet we still can be illusioned. Is it possible that we can be illusioned in our cognitive, concious thinking, something which is more abstract and certainly hasn't had as much time for evolution to tune as effectively as something like vision? Not only is this possibe, but we'd be more likely to be illusioned cognitively, than visually.

  At first glance, no one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family certainly sounds like a lie!

  But is that a lie? This is related to one of my other posts about why propagandize/appeal to emotion when criticizing JWs/WTBTS, where I challenge if we should be quick to assert (when it comes to statements like this) that the WTBTS lies. I'm not arguing that we can't find examples where they (representatives of the WTBTS) are lying, I’m sure we can, but this specific statement (the one in blue highlight), is it a lie? To define a lie, it is a statement that is intended to deceive or made with knowledge that it is not factual.

  I was DF'd over non-doctrinal grounds. I had the opportunity to return to the religion and enjoy association with my family and friends. However, I also did not believe the religion anymore (or any for that matter, I’m now an atheist). Thus I was presented with a choice between my beliefs (i.e. I don't believe the religion, I lack belief in the supernatural) and family (i.e. requiring me to either believe something I don’t – is that possible? - or to act like I believe).
  
  I’d like someone to play devil’s advocate here. Someone please tell me how I was not forced to make that choice? I’m having a hard time not seeing this as a lie. But I also don’t want to be quick and just assert that they are lying when it might be more nuanced than that, in a strictly rhetorical way. In short, I don’t want to jump to conclusions.
• 

  Eustace

  I was DF'd over non-doctrinal grounds. I had the opportunity to return to the religion and enjoy association with my family and friends. However, I also did not believe the religion anymore (or any for that matter, I’m now an atheist). Thus I was presented with a choice between my beliefs (i.e. I don't believe the religion, I lack belief in the supernatural) and family (i.e. requiring me to either believe something I don’t – is that possible? - or to act like I believe).
  
  I’d like someone to play devil’s advocate here. Someone please tell me how I was not forced to make that choice?

  That's a tall order.

  Let's see.

  Um...

  Well, you didn't have to choose between your family and your religious beliefs because you don't have any religious beliefs.
• 

  SkyGreen

  **WOW, just....WOW**

  marked
• 

  Eustace

  After he was reinstated, he said that he always missed the association with his family, especially at night when he was alone. But, he admitted, had the family associated with him even a little, that small dose would have satisfied him. However, because he did not receive even the slightest communication from any of his family, the burning desire to be with them became one motivating factor in his restoring his relationship with Jehovah. - Watchtower April 2012

  They just assume someone has a restored relationship with Jehovah because they get reinstated, but shouldn't it be obvious that if someone gets reinstated because they wanted to talk to their family again, they didn't get reinstated because of authentic love for God?

  And if someone gets reinstated because of authentic love for God, getting shunned wouldn't be a causative factor in the decision to get reinstated.
• 

  sosoconfused

  Does anyone have a link to this document PLEEEEASE
• 

  cognisonance

  Well, you didn't have to choose between your family and your religious beliefs because you don't have any religious beliefs.

  Hmm...

  You're right. It's not like I chose to become an athiest. I'm an athiest because I simply lack belief. Therefore, I had nothing to choose between. So when it comes to me, these words aren't lies (of course not all former members are athiests...)

  At the risk of moving the goal post... But what about my JW parents and friends?

  Here something just "happened" to me. I gained education about scientific matters that led me to lack belief in any metaphysical concepts. No choice involved to come to that position. My parents on the other had, they do have a choice. They can choice their beliefs (which means to shun me) or they can choose me (which betrays their beliefs).

  If no one should have to choose, then why is the WTBTS forcing my parents to choose via persuasively coercive mind control techniques? This quote maybe isn't a lie, but rather a hypocritical statement.

  Of course the article's context is talking about changing one's religion (again something I didn't do, I just stopped being religous and stopped being spiritual). My parents also aren't trying to change their relgion. Still, a statement about noone should be forced to choose between family and beliefs should be a concept that applies just as much to my parents situation as it does to someone that is switching religions.