A protocol for awake JWs to find other awake JWs in the kingdom hall

by Island Man 11 Replies latest members private

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    A while back there was a thread about what sign(s) awake JWs can use to covertly determine who else is awake. The problem with giving any specific sign is that once it is posted online anyone - including lurking, still-in elders - can get wind of the specific sign and use it to draw out awake ones and get them to incriminate them self.

    How do we overcome this issue? I think one solution would be to use a non-specific sign. Instead of having a specific sign we can use a generalized question handshake protocol. That protocol might be something like this:

    You ask the JW whose status you are unsure of, an edgy "double-meaning" question (I'll explain what I mean by "double-meaning" shortly) that someone knowledgeable of TTATT would know the answer to, but which a sleeping JW is unlikely to be familiar with.

    If the person you're asking is awake they answer the question with a "double-meaning" answer that lets you know that they know TTATT. Then they, in turn, have to ask you an edgy "double-meaning" question and you have to give them an edgy "double-meaning" answer.

    What do I mean by "double meaning"? Do you remember that scene in the movie fiddler on the roof where two men are in a deep negotiating conversation, one speaking in reference to a cow and the other in reference to a bride, but neither of them realizing that the other is speaking about something different to what he's speaking about? That's kinda what we're aiming for, except in this context the bride is TTATT and the cow is an innocent alternative explanation. If you're both awake then you're talking about the bride. If the other person is still asleep on an elder with aposta-radar raised: "Oh no, no, no, I was talking about the cow. ha ha ha, so you thought I was talking about ... that is so funny!"

    So you have to decide in advance what edgy question you will use because you also have to make up a matching secondary innocent explanation to go along with it in the event that the person is a still-in JW and the question raised an alarm bell. You just use the innocent explanation to get yourself out of a jam if the question raises the radar of the sleeping JW or any elders.

    With this protocol, there is no one statement or question, that everyone is using. It would be different for everyone, so it's hard for elders to know exactly what to look for in advance to sniff out who might be an "apostate". Plus the innocent secondary explanation provides cover if you raise suspicions. Also the person being asked has to reciprocate with his own edgy question to prove to the original asker that he too knows TTATT. So both parties share the risk and provide evidence of being awake. Mutually assured awakeness. So here is an example:

    Awake JW [edgy question]: "Have you heard about the Australian Royal Commission finding 1006 cases of pedophilia being unreported by a certain religious organization?"

    Awake JW2 [edgy answer with reciprocal edgy question]: "I have heard about it, yes. Speaking of pedophilia, can you believe the nerve of Jackson?"

    Awake JW [edgy response]: "I know right, Talk about evil!"

    The same conversation with a still-in JW:

    Awake JW [edgy question]: "Have you heard about the Australian Royal Commission finding 1006 cases of pedophilia being unreported by a certain religious organization?"

    Still-in, oblivious JW: "No I haven't, which organization was it, the Catholic church? I bet it was the Catholic church."

    Awake JW [innocent secondary explanation]: "I'm not sure but I would think so. I met this guy on the street who somehow seemed to know that I was a witness, so we were talking and the subject of child abuse in the churches came up and he told me I should look into the Australian Royal Commission and the 1006 cases of unreported pedophilia by a church. He said he can't remember the name of the church but that it made the news in Australia. The governments are uncovering all the evil deeds of christendom. It's just a matter of time before the beast turns on the harlot."

    Now imagine if the first conversation was actually with an apostate-sniffing elder and you later get called into the back to be interrogated:

    Elder: "It has come to the attention of the body of elders that you've been asking certain questions about certain things that give us cause for concern about your associations. Have you been reading apostate information online?"

    Awake JW: "No! what troubling questions have I ever asked? Where is this coming from?"

    Elder: "Haven't you been asking about the Australian Royal Commission?"

    Awake JW: "That question? That's a troubling question? Since when is it wrong to talk about the problem of pedophilia in christendom? I heard from someone I met on the street about a church in Australia that was found by a commission of enquiry to have covered up 1006 cases of child abuse and I just asked brother elder if he heard about it and he told me yes."

    Elder: "You also said something about Geoffrey Jackson being evil."

    Awake JW: "Geoffrey Jackson? Ha ha ha. What does Geoffrey Jackson have to do with pedophilia? I was talking about the late Michael Jackson. Why would I be mentioning Geoffrey Jackson in the context of speaking about a church being found guilty of covering up pedophilia? I don't see the connection. I think there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding here, brothers."

    What are your thoughts and ideas?

  • PaintedToeNail

    Slick, real slick. It just might work.

  • paul from cleveland
    paul from cleveland

    When I was "in" the elders weren't dim. If anyone shared ideas that were even slightly apostate they were sniffed out and expelled before others in the congregation knew what happened. Of course it was usually young males that had converted on their own with no connections. Men that the elder body felt never quite fit into their mold and still had a mind of their own. It seemed like the elders looked for any excuse to reprimand, scold and finally expel them.The were never able to put on the new "Watchtower automaton" personality.

    In the congregation I attended, your example questions would be much to obvious.

  • Crazyguy
    Paul, my last hall the elders we're dumb as posts, one even told me he stopped thinking after he got baptized.
  • paul from cleveland
    paul from cleveland
    I might ask something like: "How have you been responding when someone at the door brings up ARC?" If they say "What's ARC?" or "Do you mean Noah's Ark?" then you know to back out of the conversation. If they give you a sideways glace and ask "How have YOU been responding?" Then you both know.
  • LevelThePlayingField

    I say go with it. From what I have read here, there's no way that it could come back on you. And to be frank about it, I don't think it would ever get back to the elders if you said it the way you did in the OP. I think that if the first JW was to report it to and elder, maybe, just maybe and elder might bump it by you personally, but not more than that. And if he did, all you have to do is say what you said, that you heard it on the street, no more than that.

    Done and said. I think the opening it up by way of asking about it through, :"have you heard about the Australian Royal Commission" is an excellent way in. I really do.

    Thanks so much for your thoughtfulness on this. I know there has been alot of discussion about it in the past. I think this one will be a way in. I will try it.

  • prologos
    getting together will open a pandora's box, not a horn of plenty.
  • smiddy

    Instead of saying you heard it on the street , say it was brought up in the D2D work while you were witnessing ,

    much more convincing.

    However not meaning to put a damper on your suggestion , their are very few congregations on the whole that have "awake" J.W.`s that come on sites like this , I think overall it`s a rarity ,Good luck with your suggestion .

    Any evidence to the contrary though , I would like to hear it.

    Just my 2 cents worth .


  • Island Man
    Island Man
    I only gave the Australian Royal Commision as an example of how such a protocol can work. My example might not be perfect, it's just for the sake of demonstration so you don't have to use that exact question in the OP. You can use a different TTATT subject and make up your own edgy question and innocent back story - which you should not share online, but use only when you have to, in person.
  • Island Man
    Island Man

    "Instead of saying you heard it on the street , say it was brought up in the D2D work while you were witnessing"

    Yes, that is a great idea. It definitely sounds more convincing that way. But watch out for the danger that the JW might ask you which house in the territory or offer to return to the person with you.

    I suppose you can say you were street witnessing - that makes it easy for you to say you can't get back in contact with the person you don't know exactly where they live (because you didn't visit them at their home) and didn't get any contact information. Thus you eliminate the possibility of the JW offering to do research and visit the person with you.

    Your innocent back story has to be somewhat unfalsifiable so that you don't put yourself in a situation where you can be caught lying.

Share this