JWs and definitions

by seattleniceguy 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • seattleniceguy

    Have you noticed how often Witnesses will define a word in a comment or talk, and then extrapolate incredible conclusions from the definiton? I always found this amusing. Sister Smart will raise her hand and say something like,

    I think that it is very interesting that the Society has used the phrase "relegate our service to a second place." Webster's defines relegate as "to send to a place of exile; banish." So I think what they're really saying is that if we give up our privilege of service, we could be exiled from the New System - banished, if you will, from life everlasting.

    At this point there will be impressed nods from everyone in attendance. Being a language nut, I always hated this technique. It was like smoke-and-mirrors intellectualism. It shows such utter disregard for the text. You've got verbs and objects turned all around, you're introducing ideas that aren't even present in the original text, all for the purpose of extracting some clever-sounding comment. Using this technique, you could take almost any sentence and reprocess it into JW-speak.

    Augh! Just had to get that off my chest.


  • ezekiel3

    IMO the most annoying comment is when a JW gives a long dissertation on a stupid word that everyone already knows.

  • Confucious

    I HATE THAT!!! It's usually like some 3rd or 4th definition down that they bring in to have some EARTH SHATTERING and PROFOUND MEANING TO.

  • dh

    agreed, i would hate that too because sister smart is probably totally air headed.

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan

    The distortion of words by jws is a foundation for confusion and contributes to their derailments of thought.

  • NeonMadman

    It was very common in my area for people to start their talks with a dictionary definition, like if the talk was about loyalty, their intro would be, "Webster's Dictionary defines loyalty as..." and then spin the talk from there (strictly adhering to the assigned material, of course). Once in a while, someone would try to extrapolate a new spin on the meaning, as you suggested. I used to find the whole method repetitive and annoying, and I referred to it as "the Gospel according to Webster".

Share this