Is this guy making a lot of mistakes?

rockemsockem

I watched this video just a bit and from what I saw he made a lot of fundamental misstatements on JWs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE5KQHf8fX0

Tameria2001

I didn't see any mistakes on his part, at least from when I was an active JW. I've been away for 18 years, so I don't know what their current teachings are, but when I was in, he is spot on.

rockemsockem

Maybe I heard it wrong but his definition of a cult was not right.

When he was talking about a cult, he went with a broad definition of the word. But he was not far off. According to Steven Hassan's BITE Model, a cult is Behavioral, Information, Thought, and Emotional Control.

https://freedomofmind.com/bite-model/

Listener

Rockemsockem, it's a long video, so I was wondering if you could mention a few of the comments he was making that you think are wrong, so that we can discuss them?

fulano

Sorry Rocky, no offense, but you can't expect us to look at a public talk trying to find errors.

alanv

He did say the 144000 calling stopped in 1935. Watchtower dont say that any more. He also said that JWs are not allowed to talk to ex JWs. This isnt true. Providing that the ex JW isnt finding fault with their org, then they can

rockemsockem

Alanv. These are some of the points I was talking about. He was not in left field but he talked like an expert and I noticed some things that were off. No big deal just thought it was strange. As far as cult goes he says it means a religion. I can find no definition of cult that says a religion. He says another definition of cult is an off shoot of Christianity. That would be a sect not a cult. He said Islam is a cult as its an off shoot of Christianity. I think he is messed up

Vidiot

alanv - "He also said that JWs are not allowed to talk to ex JWs. This isnt true. Providing that the ex JW isnt finding fault with their org, then they can."

JWs aren't explicity "not allowed" to speak to XJWs (I don't like using the terms "allowed" or "not allowed" in the context of the WTS... it's only semi-accurate, IMO).

They are, however, "discouraged" from it, to the point where if the elders find out about it, they'll give you "counsel", reduce your "privileges", lower your standing (by various means), and generally make your life miserable (particularly if they're vindictive loyalist Company Men)...

...until you either stop, or they turn you into an XJW.

Afterburn

Vidiot and alanv,

What someone choose to do does not mean that they do so without coercive consequences.

What someone is allowed to do is permitted free from any coercive influences. It is important to plug that fact into how you are both evaluating whether JWs are "allowed" to talk with ex-JWs.

If it is allowed, there is nothing perceived as wrong with doing so, and no one will pressure a different choice from any position of authority. When it comes to how Jehovah's Witnesses officially state ex JWs are to be treated, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. They wield the harshest legal punishment the Pharisees had available under Roman law: shunning. This was the penalty for the man born blind that Jesus healed.

Insight On the Scriptures states that this form of punishment was "a very powerful weapon" to compel conformity with the legal and religious opinions of the Rabbis and the Pharisees.

Vidiot is correct that they will "counsel" anyone they discover to be socializing with an ex JW beyond "necessary family business" and, if that "counsel" is not applied, they will investigate and convene a Judicial Committee. If the "counsel" continues to be ignored, they will announce that the person who has continued socializing is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In each case, the "counsel" takes the form of discussing the verse in 2 John that says, "... not even saying a greeting to such a man."

If this edict masquerading as "counsel" is ignored, they will apply the most extreme coercive force they have available ... it is the same as that wielded by the Pharisees.

Is this guy making a lot of mistakes?

Share this