The Outing of Faders, and the Epilogue of Sic Semper Tyrannis

by zed is dead 298 Replies latest members private

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Why aren't you putting SOME energy into questioning their motives. AAwas actions (or lack of actions) sound contrived to me. Why are you focussing on disproving the victims claims and not the offenders? When the offender keeps saying 'I'm sorry, but it wasn't MY fault'. Ulitimately it IS his fault, because HE was the leader of that organisation, and lack of leadership CAUSED this problem. Good leaders LEAD. Obviously people associated with that organisation felt they could do whatever they liked...which to me showed NO LEADERSHIP. Therefore...the Leader is at fault and responsible for the problems that arose because of lack of leadership.”

  still thinking,

  What you inquire of above is important stuff and deserves its own response.

  I spent considerable time assessing motive of decision-makers inside BBXB. I found there was lots of people with good intentions, and together they rushed into something and made serious mistakes in the process, with one of the more egregious ones being the exposure to harm because of how information was handled (Facebook et al). Unfortunately, good intention is not enough.

  It has not been a focus of mine to undermine claims of SST. Only yesterday did I realize there was something amiss about the claim after UnConfused suggested I’d overlooked details. When I went back and looked again, it dawned on me the claim did not include anything a JW should be disfellowshipped for. Only then did I share this observation.

  A thing that stood out to me about BBXB’s organization is something that’s fairly common in association structures (professional or trade) yet contrary to what’s common in commercial structures. BBXB’s president didn’t have much authority. In short, though Cedars was president of BBXB he did not have overriding authority. A mistreatment I see is thinking Cedars could have acted as president of a typical commercial structure when he was not authorized as president of a typical commercial structure. Cedars was charged as president of a association structure (like a professional or trade association).

  None of that means Cedars carries no responsibility for what was going on. He does. It only means his responsibility is not as I’ve seen so many portray it. Cedars was not in a position to have the Facebook group undone based on his say-so. In fact, based on my observation at the time, there was a great many things Cedars wanted to do that he was not allowed to do. But none of this excuses what was done under Cedars’ time as president of the association. I think he felt he could fix things more efficiently from the inside and that’s why he stayed on as president at the time as he did. He was in a position of leadership but was not in a position to steer. He was only in a position to influence steering. There were many sets of hands on the wheel at the same time. Many.

  Your statement says “the Leader is at fault and responsible for the problems that arose because of lack of leadership.”

  Based on BBXB’s structure at the time, I’d rephrase your notion to say the leaders are at fault and responsible for the problems that arose because of lack of leadership.

  When it comes to what was done, Cedars responsibility was equal to what others inside BBXB earned at the time for one simple reason: Cedars did not have disproportionate authority. In the end, in an important way, I think BBXB let Cedars down.

  My assessment is based on my firsthand experience. I don’t expect others with different experience to agree with it.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  3dogs1husband

  Marvin i am a lurker - not much of a poster, but i have allways enjoyed your blogs and research untill this bbxb started.

  you just stated " When all that crap was going down I spent an enormous amount of time trying to assess what was going on and advise accordingly."

  do you not understand for on second how that makes you come across as arrogant? even when totally clueless in a matter you still have to advise us??? we are done with uneducated men guiding us as our leaders. When i know NOTHING on a subject (as you clearly had no clue about fb) i use the tools available to me - google for one, and even asking and LISTENING, but i take a step back and learn i dont advise people - it really puts people off.
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  Just curious, at what point does a faded bear responsibility for their decision to post on, and participate in an "exjw" forum or to associate with other exjws that may be known as apostates?

  Faders desire to leave the wts, while trying to maintain friendships and family ties. It would seem obvious that choosing to fade runs the risk of losing these relationships eventually anyway. To fade and participate in exjw forums increases the likelihood of being discovered or outed.

  As I understand it, the force-adding on facebook was not an intentional attempt to out anyone, is that fair to say? It would be different if someone decided they were going to out Faders, sought their info, and then turned this info over to jws.

  Why can't the fader that accidentally gets outed, own who they are and the position they've taken? Why can't they accept the consequences of the course they chose to go down? Admittedly, they didn't choose this exact route or this particular time, but wasn't it inevitable anyway? I'm not seeking to be an apologist for Cedars or BXBB, but at the same time doesn't some accountability lie on the shoulders of the fader, seeking to leave jws and on jws for their stupid policies? I know about losing family, I've lost mine and my in-laws and all of my former friends, I know its tough and it hurts. I too was outed and was dfd, not due to BBXB, but someone else. I'm now thankful for that, I'm not bitter toward the individualcthay outed me. I've moved on. I'm sure its disappointing when the facade falls and you no longer get the best of both worlds, but get over it and move on, good riddance to the wts!
• 

  still thinking

  None of that means Cedars carries no responsibility for what was going on. He does. It only means his responsibility is not as I’ve seen so many portray it. Cedars was not in a position to have the Facebook group undone based on his say-so. In fact, based on my observation at the time, there was a great many things Cedars wanted to do that he was not allowed to do. But none of this excuses what was done under Cedars’ time as president of the association. I think he felt he could fix things more efficiently from the inside and that’s why he stayed on as president at the time as he did. He was in a position of leadership but was not in a position to steer. He was only in a position to influence steering. There were many sets of hands on the wheel at the same time. Many....Marvin

  Marvin...this reminds me of how people like to spread the blame when their President does something wrong...but give him all the accolades when HE does something right. Are you saying that in effect Cedars was just a figure head or there were too many leaders at the helm? Or a smiling fictional person in the position of president that held NO authority on important decisions? One has to wonder what the point of a leader is if there is a pressing matter that needs an immediate decision that cannot be agreed upon, to the detriment of the people who NEED that decision made.

  Just as every other President IN THE WRONG has stated..."mistakes were made" but not by ME.

  You also seeming to be adding in a lot of what you think Cedars felt. Are you a mind reader? Is this how you look at EVIDENCE? If that is the case, what about how SST felt? Are you taking his feelings into account since you seem to think how you feel about their feeling are good enough evidence for you to support Cedars position.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  still thinking,

  I thought the Facebook group thing should have been undone immediately because the potential for harm was present and needless.

  The potential harm I saw was of elders learning someone’s name was associated with BBXB (which is part of BBXB’s claim) which might lead to needless and troublesome inquiries from elders (presumably also part of SST’s claim). I say “potential harm” not because being listed on the web site would be damning, but because how a JW responds to this inquiry could make or break likelihood of expulsion. The best thing would be to say you don’t have a clue why your name showed up on somebody’s web site (Facebook group in this case) because you had never joined it or asked to join it. This would pretty much end the discussion. Only if that response were false would there be potential for harm. But in the case of SST, that response would be the truth. He never joined or asked to join that group. They listed him on their own and without permission.

  “And people have been harmed. Why do you find that so difficult to acknowledge?”

  I have acknowledge that people were harmed.

  “I understand you like to gather all the facts. But what evidence would it take for you to believe what SST has claimed?”

  First, I don’t need to believe SST’s claim to know what BBXB did was wrong and that it needlessly caused harm.

  Second, for SST’s claim to have veracity it would have to add up from the get go. That time is gone. The claim did not add up from the get do. Today we have a new claim of “digital proof” after it was pointed out the initial claim included no evidence that would have a JW expelled. When I’m presented with a claim and that claim takes the form of accusation, I’d be remiss not to examine that claim for veracity like I would any other accusation. SST’s claim may or may not be true. I don’t know. But I do know there is good reason to refrain from leveraging it to further an accusation.

  I think Watchtower has done lots of wicked things. But this does not mean I will leverage an unverifiable claim to underscore that wickedness. To do otherwise would only undermine efforts to help people see Watchtower’s wickedness.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  still thinking

  As I understand it, the force-adding on facebook was not an intentional attempt to out anyone, is that fair to say? It would be different if someone decided they were going to out Faders, sought their info, and then turned this info over to jws.

  The initial action may not have been intentional, I cannot say what the initial motive was...but the decision to leave it there, while people were pointing out to them the damage they could be doing while they 'think about it' IS INTENTIONAL. THAT is the choice that had...they chose to allow risk to people that had no choice. Many people didn't even know they had been added. There is no excuse for the delay in removing the fb page or removing ALL the members and starting again. INEXCUSABLE.

  I don't think I've read anyone claim that they did it intentionally. But there is no getting around the fact that they took far too long to remove the page. One day was too long once they realized the harm it could do.
• 

  still thinking

  But this does not mean I will leverage an unverifiable claim to underscore that wickedness.

  But you seem to be happy to believe Cedars unverifiable 'feelings'....the feelings of an anonymous person.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Marvin Today: "I went directly to the source as close as I could and pressed, and pressed and pressed."

  “Marvin Yesterday: "When I noticed this I wondered if this is the sort of activity complained of in this discussion that occurred under Cedars’ watch. Does it sound like the same sort of thing?"

  “Marvin I believe you to be fibbing based on your own words.”

  My reason for pressing was multifaceted. I had some private correspondence with individuals I know personally and have every reason to trust. Based on what they said, my feeling at the time was that if there was any potential to out faders the thing should be halted immediately. I also saw the storm at JWN and realized participants here I’ve interchanged with for years were saying the same thing. This only added fuel compelling me to help. I did this by pressing BBXB with hard questions, which led to my advice to stop the Facebook thing.

  I didn’t have to fully understand Facebook ins and outs to recognize potential for harm.

  Paradoxically, at the same time I was asking hard questions of BBXB members to help further the aim of many participants here, when I came here asking hard questions of things being said by JWN members I was rewarded with loads of personal attack, quipping and sarcasm from the very participants who’s goal I was fighting for—to stop the potential for harm.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  So were just exjws or Faders added? Or were active jws added too? What if an active jw, an elder had been force-added, would they be dfd? Or rather, was the outed fader, met with judicially because they were fading and thus invited such an inquiry, albeit implicitly? You see what I'm getting at? A fading jw runs this risk, when it finally comes to a head, why throw blame elsewhere. What they're mad about is that they lost their facade, fake life, and had the curtain pulled back. Just own it. Cedars needs to do the same in my opinion.
• 

  UnConfused

  I have no reason to believe you Marvin. I did, but feel I need to reevaluate your trustworthiness. The timing of your revelations sound contrived.