Posts by djeggnog

posted

457
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
by UnDisfellowshipped in
1. watchtower
2. bible
trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.
djeggnog

@designs:
In Judaism all of the human family already belong to God, who else, and all are already taken care of and will be greeted at the gates of Paradise by Adam who will escort his children to Paradise or to a temporary correctional condition and then escort them to Paradise. The Jew who lives by the Torah goes straight in to Paradise or Gan Eden as does the Gentile who lives by the Laws of Noah. There we have our personal angels as attendants.
Well, if you've ever read the Bible with understanding, then you surely must know that these ideas are unscriptural, dumb really.
In the NT we are told No No only a very few gain Paradise and the majority of humanity end in Hell for all eternity sent there by Jesus. Judaism presents a much nicer solution, and Adam is much kinder than Jesus.
Not true. If you have ever read the Bible, it is clear to me that you haven't understood "NT" to deny the offspring of Adam, starting with Abel, the opportunity to live in Paradise. I mean, if you don't Jesus to have been lying when he promised one of the two men that hung alongside him on that fateful Friday, Nisan 14, 33 AD, that he would "be with him in Paradise" at Luke 23:43, then you would certainly have to believe that Abel will be among those that will be receiving a resurrection to life here on earth during the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ. In fact, the very NT to which you pointed as being the source of this idea of yours that "the majority of humanity [will] end in Hell for all eternity sent there by Jesus]" states at Acts 24:15 that "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." This means that Christians have hope that billions of people that have lived and died over the past 6,000 years will receive a resurrection, for all of those in 'hell," that is, those in Hades, those in the memorial tombs, will be given the opportunity to learn righteousness, and although the wicked will have been shown favor by having their lives to make them over according to God's will, some of them will refuse to learn righteousness. (Isaiah 26:9, 10)
BTW, you must know that Judaism is dead "for all eternity" and so is Adam, but do you?
@Chalam:
The scriptures actually say Jesus was begotten, not created John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5
You're right; none of these scriptures you cited say that Jesus was created. With the exception of Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, which scriptures you cited in your post for some reason, you're also right that these other scriptures do indicate that Jesus was begotten.
If you don't mind, please explain why you cited Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, when neither of these verses say a thing about Jesus having been begotten.
Acts 13:33:
That God has entirely fulfilled it to us their children in that he resurrected Jesus; even as it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my son, I have become your Father this day.'
Hebrews 1:5:
For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?
The words used is monogenés which means "[only] born" or "only child".
The Greek word _mo·no·ge·nes´_ is translated "only-begotten" for it refers to an "only" child, even as Paul describes Isaac as being Abraham's "only-begotten" son by Sarah (Hebrews 11:17), which Greek word is also used in describing the relationship of Jephthah's daughter to her father, she being described as "absolutely the only child" (Judges 11:34), in view of the fact that Jephthah had no other children. In describing Jesus at John 1:14, John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9, the apostle John refers to Jesus as being "the only-begotten Son" and "the only-begotten Son of God."
Jesus is Creator, not the created.
Then perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining why you reject the words of the apostle John at Revelation 3:14, where he describes Jesus as being (1) "the Amen," (2) "the faithful and true witness" and (3) "the beginning of the creation by God." According to this verse, why do you not conclude that Jesus didn't have a beginning, that he was God's very first creation, the beginning of God's creative works, if that is what the verse says?
@Ding:
From a trinitarian perspective, Jesus being both God and man, he is only one who is truly able to mediate between his Father (a distinct Person from Jesus) and human beings.
Why is it then that it was possible for Jehovah God to use the man, Moses, an imperfect human being, to mediate the Law covenant between Himself and the nation of Israel? What was it exactly do you think that made the man, Jesus, a perfect man, so inferior to Moses that he needed to be both "God and man" in order to mediate a covenant between Himself (as "God") and His anointed followers? And if the function of a mediator is to serve as a go-between that negotiates on behalf of two parties, how could Jesus be viewed as such if he is not only one of the two parties to the New Covenant and also the go-between? In a dissolution of marriage, when putting together the marital settlement agreement, which is a kind of covenant that divides the tangible assets of a divorcing couple, why doesn't the husband also serve as the mediator?
Having the husband be the mediator would certainly save a little money on the cost of hiring a neutral party to serve as a mediator of the settlement agreement between the husband and the wife, wouldn't it? The ex-husband-to-be wouldn't possibly try to leverage his interests against his ex-wife-to-be, would he? Or maybe the wife can be the mediator since there's no way that the ex-wife-to-be would likely attempt to leverage her interests against her ex-husband-to-be, now would she? Why would humans even bother to hire folks to serve as mediators in collective bargaining agreement for unions and professional sports teams when mediators aren't free, I wonder?
I mean, since you're saying stupid stuff, let's get totally stupid and just define the English language word "mediator" at 1 Timothy 2:5 in such a way that it is totally meaningless?
GOrwell:
How could the covenant be mediated if one party was the same as the mediator?
Good question. Like the word, "begotten," has a specific meaning -- it means "to generate" -- the word "mediator" used at 1 Timothy 2:5 also has a specific meaning, and it is synonymous with the word "negotiator," one who acts as a go-between as between two parties.
I don't see why being both God and man is a requirement of being "truly able" to mediate a covenant between God and men. All of the bi-lateral covenants between God and humanity in the Bible have been mediated just fine with a human serving as mediator. Why is a God-man a needed requirement for the new covenant?
Another good question. I also don't see why a God-man would be necessary.
If Jesus is begotten of God, wouldn't that mean that at some point in the past, he was unexisting? If Jesus has the same nature as God, I would think that would include immortality. Yet, Jesus did not receive immortality until after his resurrection. How can this be?
One could add that Jesus could not have possessed the divine nature when he was here on earth for a number of reasons, one of these reasons being that which the apostle Paul expressed at Romans 8:34: "Christ Jesus is the one who died" and in speaking about the resurrection of the dead, Paul also indicated with respect to Jesus' resurrection at 1 Corinthians 15:53 Jesus was "mortal," when he stated that "this which is mortal must put on immortality," which means that Jesus didn't receive immortality until after his death.
Gorwell wrote:
Jesus did not receive immortality until after his resurrection.
@brotherdan wrote:
The Bible never says this.
Really? Tell me this: If Jesus had immortality already, then it would not have been possible for anyone to have put him to death, now would it? Can someone immortal die, or do the words "immortal" and "immortality" mean something different in the English language than the equivalent words do in the Greek language?
It should be noted that, at 1 Timothy 6:16, the apostle Paul also described the resurrected Jesus Christ, as being "the one alone having immortality," and even the apostle John, at Revelation 1:17, 18, adds to this point in speaking about Jesus' death, saying that he was "the First and the Last" to be raised up and have immortality bestowed upon him by God. So if Jesus died, then he was a mortal human being and he couldn't have been immortal, but if it is after Jesus' resurrection that the Bible goes on to say that he became the one human being to have immortality, then how can you say that "the Bible never says this"?
@djeggnog
443
Generation Teaching - Everyone is speechless?
by Red Piller in
1. jw
2. friends
maybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized?

in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the wt.

one elder stepped down and was looked down upon.
djeggnog

@wasblind:
In the October 1, 2010 watchtower on page 31, the WTS claims to be empowered by Holy Spirit.
No, such a statement isn't made on page 31 or on any page within the Watchtower you mention, the one dated October 1, 2010; this is evident that this conclusion would be your take, for the article "Speaking in Tongues-Is it from God?" states under the subheading "Who Give Evidence of Having Holy Spirit?" the following:
"So those who truly have God’s spirit—and hence God’s backing—would show genuine love for one another. In addition, the third aspect of the spirit’s fruitage is peace. Thus, those people
who today have holy spirit would be committed to peace, earnestly seeking to rise above bigotry, racism, and violence."
It then asks the question:
"What do you think? With what group of people do you find evidence of holy spirit today? Who are manifesting the spirit’s fruitage, particularly love and peace, to the extent that they suffer at the hands of governments because of their refusal to bear arms worldwide? (Isaiah 2:4) Who are endeavoring to avoid the works of the flesh, such as fornication, even removing unrepentant practicers of such conduct from their midst? (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) Who are preaching in all the
earth the good news that God’s Kingdom is the only hope for humanity?—Matthew 24:14."
The article then concludes on this note:
"The publishers of this journal do not hesitate to say that Jehovah's Witnesses fit the Bible's description of the people having holy spirit.Why not become better acquainted with them and decide for yourself whether they truly have God’s backing?"
You said that in this issue of the Watchtower (from which I just quoted) that "the WTS claims to be empowered by Holy Spirit," which this article clearly does not do, but, instead, asks that you decide for yourself whether Jehovah's Witnesses is that group of people manifesting the fruitage of love and peace toward others, refusing to kill their neighbor, avoiding the works of the flesh nor allowing such works, that can lead to broken homes, abhorrent diseases and even death, to be practiced among themselves, while preaching God's Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. producing the truly have God's backing.
Concerning the Generation teaching on page 97 and also on page 200 In the reasoning book, it is written that the generation that was alive in 1914 will also see the complete destruction of the present wicked world.... With this recent change, that promise has been taken from one generation and given to the generation that overlaps.
What "promise" do you mean? No promise was made to anyone, but in 1985 when the book, "Reasoning From the Scriptures" was released, and also when this book was later revised in 1989, Jehovah's Witnesses did not understand at that time that Jesus' reference to "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 referred (1) to his anointed brothers that were alive in 1914 and (2) would include those of his anointed brothers living contemporaneous with the period of the sign of Jesus' presence until the great tribulation and the conclusion of the system of things, whose lives would overlap the lives of some of those of his brothers that were alive in 1914.
I also agree with Gary, when they use the word EVIDENTLY it shows that they are guessing when they come up with new light.
In the English language, the word "evidently" means "clearly apparent" or "unmistakably." For example: "I heard the guy say to someone on the telephone that her contractions were occurring at roughly 45-60 seconds apart, so EVIDENTLY he was talking about someone that was in labor." Notice that "evidently" as used in this example isn't so much a guess as it is used in describing something that is clearly apparent. Anyone that either says and repeats what @Gary1914 has said here regarding the way in which Jehovah's Witnesses use the word "evidently" would be someone that is ignorant of the fact that words serve a purpose in every language, and that any word can have one or more meanings. For you to be repeating what @Gary1914 said in his post makes you come off as being just as ignorant as he is as to the meaning of this word. Perhaps you would benefit were you to get a dictionary or take a remedial course in the English comprehension.
If there is anything in that book I may have missed maybe you can point it out[.] I have an [open] mind.
If you cannot accept the fact that what you read in a publication published in 1985 or 1989 cannot possibly contain what you may be able to read in a later publication published in 2010, since the understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses of the scriptures progressively increases over time, so that it is totally unreasonable to expect Jehovah's Witnesses to publish something we can to appreciate 2010 in any publication released prior to 2010. If you truly have an open mind, then you will take this point open-mindedly, and stop being unreasonable.
@Leolaia:
djeggnog.....The thing about Exodus 1:6 is that it states that that particular generation did come to an end of its own accord. The way the 1914 generation is defined now, it is indefinite; it could technically go on forever.
No, @Leolaia; I understand that this is what you believe, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. As I indicated in my previous post, at Exodus 1:6, Joseph's generation is described there as including his contemporaries, so this 110-year period -- the Joseph generation -- had a beginning and an ending; it began with Joseph's birth and ended with his death, and those that were alive during "the Joseph generation" were contemporaries of Joseph. Similarly, the period of the 1914 generation -- the generation of the sign -- has a beginning and an ending; it began in the year 1914 and ended at the conclusion of the system of things, and those of Jesus' anointed brothers that live during "this generation" are contemporaries of the sign.
The only way the generation could come to an end is if Armageddon comes; it cannot end of its own accord. That is because "the sign that became evident in 1914" is something the Society regards as ongoing and will continue to go on until Armageddon.
Correct.
It is purportedly as much in evidence [now as] it was in 1914. Compare also with the generation that must pass away before the Israelites entered the Promised Land (Numbers 32:13). That too is a generation with a definite end, and a cohort that was comprised of people of various ages who were alive at the time of the exodus and early wanderings (who "did evil" in God's sight). That generation lasted no more than 40 years, for the wilderness wanderings were no more than 40 years. That's how long it took for them to die off. Yet people like Joshua were alive at the same time as "that generation"; his life overlapped with that of Moses. But that doesn't make him part of "that generation" merely because Moses's life overlapped with his....
I understand the point you're making here, but you lost me. None of what you say here impinges upon the point I was making about "the Joseph generation," since, at Exodus 1:6, what is being described in this verse is a period of time greater than a generation of 40 years or even one of 20 or 23 years.
For example, the Bible indicates, at Genesis 2:17, how Jehovah told Adam that he would die "in the day" that he disobediently ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, and yet we know from reading 2 Peter 3:8 that the word "day" used in this verse didn't mean 24 hours, for "one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years," and we know from reading Genesis 5:5 that Adam died at the age of 930. In contrast, at Genesis 2:4, it is clear that the same words -- "in the day" -- doesn't mean either 24 hours, nor 1,000 years, but refers to a period of time greater than just 1,000 years in view of the fact that the apostle Paul stated at Hebrews 4:8-11, that "if Joshua had led [the people of God] into a place of rest, God would not afterward have spoken of another day," and, therefore Paul, who writes these words in 61 AD, some 4,086 after Adam's creation, is clearly urging Christians to "do [their] utmost to enter into [God's] rest."
Therefore, we who are now alive during Jesus' presence in 2010, some 1,950 years after Paul penned his words at Hebrews 4:8-11, know by our adding the 1,000 year Judgment Day to 6,036 years, that God's rest day is at least 7,000 years in length, and these 36 years represents the unknown period of time between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, after which the sixth day would have ended and God's rest day would have begun. (Gratefully, folks are still able to enter into God's rest.)
The Joseph analogy completely breaks down with the Watchtower chronology....
You lost me here since none of these things you mentioned have a thing to do with the Joseph generation, which generation, as I stated above, had both a beginning and an ending.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@daringhart13:
[1 Corinthians 7] is one of the most widely ignored chapters by JW's..........'sisters' can just stop having sex with their husbands without any recourse......no one will touch it with a ten foot pole. Then they wonder why the other party cheats or gets involved in porn. Then the sister shows up at meetings crying and everyone feels sorry for her. Meanwhile, very few publishers know that the guy have been in a sexless marriage for many years.
Because I don't believe you meant to write "2 Corinthians 7," I edited the quote (above) accordingly. Perhaps you might yourself be guilty of having ignored some of the things you have read in the Bible when you were actively associated with Jehovah's Witnesses (assuming here that you are no longer actively associated with them), but nothing in the Bible is ignored by those who are genuine Witnesses of Jehovah, including what things the apostle Paul states at 1 Corinthians chapter 7 regarding Christian marriages. If a brother should for whatever reason lose interest in paying the marital due he owes to his wife, he is free to do so. A wife should not leave her husband, but if she should decide to do so because, for example, her life or her spirituality is being endangered by her husband, or he refuses to provide financially for his family, then she would not be in servitude under such circumstances, for all Christians have been called to marital, domestic and family peace by God.
So what does this mean then for the Christian husband whose wife has departed? It doesn't mean that he is now free to behave as if he not married. No, but the Christian husband must live as if he were unmarried, that is to say, his change of circumstance as a married man does not permit him to act indecently toward his wife or to stop providing financially for his family. Of course, one's own emotional needs and desire for companionship will need to be given consideration. One's sexual impulses may intrude upon one's thoughts and actions, and have caused some to seek platonic companionship with someone of the opposite sex while separated from their spouse, and these sexual impulses can end up leading to adulterous unions and disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation. Perhaps in time the married couple will "come together again" and resume living together again, but while they may for a time be living as single persons, the two should never forget the other marital obligations they owe to one another as a married couple. (1 Corinthians 7:5, 11)
If a separation or even a divorce should occur, the full-time ministry can prove to be a refuge from feeling of guilt over things that you know that you were not able to control. Some married couples must deal with issues of which they were totally unaware before they decided to marry; for example, a wife may have had her heart set on having children, only to learn that she will be childless in this marriage due to some medical issue of her husband's. A wife may discover than sexual relations are difficult for her or may not be enjoyable due to his inability to satisfy her sexual needs or his unwillingness to do so, or for some medical reason that became apparent after the marriage day.
A sexless marriage need not be a loveless one, as there is plenty that one can do in the work of the Lord to keep one's mind from dwelling on feelings of loneliness or one's desire for sexual fulfillment. Procuring porn or seeking romantic companionship with someone other than one's spouse may seem like a good idea at the time, but such can adversely impact the marriage and one's spirituality. The Christian ministry can provide a beneficial outlet if one should be considering such things. (1 Corinthians 15:58)
But if one should separate emotionally from one's marriage mate or separate physically to dwell elsewhere as if he or she is unmarried, one's marital responsibilities toward one's mate -- to love and provide financial, spiritual and emotional support -- is all a part of the marital due, part of a husbands "loving their wives as their own bodies." (1 Corinthians 7:3; Ephesians 5:28)
Marriage may be a cause of joy and it may also prove to be a cause for anxiety as well as a trial, and such trials could lead to much "tribulation in the flesh." (1 Corinthians 7:28) Because the dynamic in one marriage will not be exactly the same as the dynamic in some other marriage, it is important that one not be comparing their marriage with what one perceives to be the ideal in someone else's marriage. (See 2 Corinthians 10:12) But by doing things to take our minds off our own problems, maybe focusing our attention on Bible study and on the Christian ministry, in time things could improve in our marriage, which may also allow time for any needed medical-related healing or other circumstance to be completed.
Oh well........its all Bible Ala Carte.....choose what we want, ignore what we don't. In my opinion, the JW's biggest sin by far....
I don't know what you mean by this. Those who are Jehovah's Witnesses in name only are not unlike those that are Christians in name only; they are really not Jehovah's Witnesses at all, not true Christians, and if Christians know "how to do what is right and yet does not do it," this would be a sin for them.
@djeggnog
28
DISCUSSION re Lifton's Mind Control Techniques
by Lady Lee in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in another thread i mentioned my you tube video regarding lifton's mind control techniques.

this is a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000.

(i've been saying 2001 but that is wrong) anyways djeggnogg had some comments abotu what he saw on the clip and what he knows about lifton's mnd control terchniques.. i am taking that part of the discussion to a new thread.
djeggnog

@Lady Lee:
That addresses the part regarding Randy [Watters'] application of the book to religion. Randy didn't make this up. It was Lifton's idea and it is valid for any group as a way to determine if they have crossed the line into being a totalitarian group
It seems that you have become one of Watters' disciples. I won't ask you why it is you've become a disciple of Watters, but I thought that I would post something here without comment that presents each of Watters' "eight "marks" in such a way that makes it quite easy to discern which ideas are Lifton's based on Lifton's book (in blue) and which ideas are Watters' own ideas based on Watters' book (in red). I believe a fourth or fifth grader -- that is to say, a 9- or 10-year-old -- would be able to discern that Watters users ideas gleaned from Lifton's book, and although these ideas are not Lifton's, but are ideas exclusively "made ... up" by Watters, I'll leave it to you -- since you're an adult! -- to judge as you will, and will return to this thread in a day or so.
[1] Milieu Control
This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[1] Milieu Control
"Milieu" is a French word meaning "surroundings; environment." Cults are able to control the environment around their recruits in a number of ways, but almost always using a form of isolation. Recruits can be physically separated from society, or they can be warned under threat of punishment to stay away from the world's educational media, especially when it might provoke critical thinking. Any books, movies or testimonies of ex-members of the group, or even anyone critical of the group in any way are to be avoided.
Information is carefully kept on each recruit by the mother organization. All are watched, lest they fall behind or get too far ahead of the thinking of the organization. Because it appears that the organization knows so much about everything and everyone, they appear omniscient in the eyes of the recruits.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[2] Mystical Manipulation
There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[2] Mystical Manipulation
In religious cults, God is ever-present in the workings of the organization. If a person leaves for any reason, accidents or ill-will that may befall them are always attributed to God's punishment on them. For the faithful, the angels are always said to be working, and stories circulate about how God is truly doing marvelous things among them, because they are "the truth." The organization is therefore given a certain "mystique" that is quite alluring to the new recruit.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[3] Demand for Purity
The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[3] Demand for Purity
The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience. One's conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group, as taught in its literature. People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship to the cult.
Universal tendencies of guilt and shame are used to control individuals, even after they leave. There is great difficulty in understanding the complexities of human morality, since everything is polarized and oversimplified. All things classified as evil are to be avoided, and purity is attainable through immersion into the cult's ideology.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[4] Confession
Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[4] The Cult of Confession
Serious sins (as defined by the organization) are to be confessed immediately. The members are to be reported if found walking contrary to the rules.
There is often a tendency to derive pleasure from self-degradation through confession. This occurs when all must confess their sins before each other regularly, creating an intense kind of "oneness" within the group. It also allows leaders from within to exercise authority over the weaker ones, using their "sins" as a whip to lead them on.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[5] Sacred Science
The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[5] The "Sacred Science"
The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult's ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions. Such an attractive system offers security.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[6] Loading the Language
The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[6] Loading the Language
Lifton explains the prolific use of "thought-terminating cliches," expressions or words that are designed to end the conversation or controversy. We are all familiar with the use of the cliches "capitalist" and "imperialist," as used by antiwar demonstrators in the 60's. Such cliches are easily memorized and readily expressed. They are called the "language of non-thought," since the discussion is terminated, not allowing further consideration.
In the Watchtower, for instance, expressions such as "the truth", the "mother organization", the "new system", "apostates" and "worldly" carry with them a judgment on outsiders, leaving them unworthy of further consideration.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[7] Doctrine over person
Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[7] Doctrine Over Person
Human experience is subordinated to doctrine, no matter how profound or contradictory such experiences seem. The history of the cult is altered to fit their doctrinal logic. The person is only valuable insomuch as they conform to the role models of the cult. Commonsense perceptions are disregarded if they are hostile to the cult's ideology.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[8] Dispensing of existence
The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[8] Dispensing of Existence
The cult decides who has the "right" to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. The leaders decide which history books are accurate and which are biased. Families can be cut off and outsiders can be deceived, for they are not fit to exist!
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
I have no control over who buys the interview. Therefore I have no idea who has bought a copy.
So you cannot get someone to make an audio copy of the VHS for you, @Lady Lee? Certainly there exists a computer savvy friend in your community that wouldn't mind doing this for you (or, better, showing you how to do this for yourself).
And just like I asked people not to post links to copyrighted WTS material on this site I am certainly not going to ask anyone to post links to other copyrighted material that quite frankly I consider to be far superior to WTS material. And since I have a VHS tape why do I need to pay for a digital version just to watch what I know I said.
My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I made that statement to you, @Lady Lee. I don't know if you would take offense were I to suggest that you relax, but, like I said, I think it to be "lame" to learn that you don't have an audio copy of your own interview. Maybe you know a kid that wouldn't mind creating one (using your VHS tape) and giving it back to you on a flash drive. My "frustration" over your telling me that you didn't have an audio copy of your own interview prompted me to say exactly I said to you, and I continue to think it lame that here we are in the 21st century and you're telling me you don't have a digital copy of your interview.
you know dj I have been more than willing to defend your right to post here but this attitude is really wearing thin. It comes across as sarcastic and condescending and I really thought you were above it.
I don't care how what I said came off quite frankly. I think you should already have a copy of your own interview. I don't want to have to buy a copy just to hear what you said, @Lady Lee. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, so sarcasm, condescending or however you wish to characterize my comments doesn't matter to me. I'm talking about communication and a bar to effective communication is someone not communicating with someone else during a discussion. Don't you have even a written transcript of your 85-minute long interview. @Lady Lee? If not, why not?
BTW, I don't care if you're upset with me that I said what I did about @Dogpatch's work; I regard it as being plagiarism even if you don't, ok? He took someone else's words -- and yes, he basically indicates that he had copied his remarks and made them his own, but they were not Randy's words, but Lifton's. This is discernible from just comparing what each man states in their respective books. I'd like to see him take any of J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books, and then go on and put together your own novel, give an attribution in to Rowling, and distribute his "Harry Potter" novel whether for free or for sale. I would anyone doing this as a plagiarist.
@Dogpatch:
What's the point?
What? Do you wish me to repeat what I've already said in this thread for your benefit. If so, the answer is no.
[Maybe] if you can give 4 or 5 main objections without all this effort to say that Lifton wasn't writing about modern day cults (duh!) I can answer them for you.
Why on earth would I do this? If I have objections to any opinion that someone might post here, I have no problem posting my own opinion here and any question(s) I think to be pertinent. Thanks for letting me know though.
Back then all the deprogrammers and exit-counselors knew each other. We met together regularly. How can you possibly know our real take on this unless you sat in and listened to these lectures for hours?... In 25 years [w]e have all gone on to gain a much better and more through understanding of such matters, and this is reflected in modern articles such as you will find at ICSAS's website. I have changed some of my thinking; we all have. But it doesn't make what we said wrong.
Why should I care about how "you guys" may have been spending your time over the past 25 years? I don't care, and I didn't say a thing to you or to anyone here to the effect that you, or any of the folks you mention in your post, were wrong, did I? If I disagree with you point of view, then in my mind you're wrong, but you are free to believe otherwise; I accept that folks that different points of view, that people may proffer different opinions on various matter with which I may or may not agree, ok?
You are also a coward hiding behind an icon - let's hear a little about you. Who are you? What experience have you had? Are you a JW? Or are you afraid that if you really expose your ignorance YOU will be vulnerable. Otherwise you have no case.
I'm the "clueless" one, the ignorant one here, but it is you that don't seem to have your own words. These are my own words, but I'm wondering whether these words I'm reading here in your post yours? So let me ask you this before I forget: Are these your words I'm now hearing or are they someone else's words you've pasted into this post so that I'm really speaking to someone else that isn't here to defend their original comments that you're here only embellishing? Send the person you're representing to this forum (if there is such a person!) so that this "coward" might converse with that person. I don't want to talk to someone that might just be this person's "proxy." Otherwise, to use your words (I'm assuming that these were your words), what's the point?
@djeggnog
28
DISCUSSION re Lifton's Mind Control Techniques
by Lady Lee in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in another thread i mentioned my you tube video regarding lifton's mind control techniques.

this is a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000.

(i've been saying 2001 but that is wrong) anyways djeggnogg had some comments abotu what he saw on the clip and what he knows about lifton's mnd control terchniques.. i am taking that part of the discussion to a new thread.
djeggnog

COPIED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD:
@djeggnog wrote:
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@Lady Lee wrote:
Well whether you believe it or not all I have is a VHS tape that was given to me shortly after the tape was done. Other than the person who owns the interview and the VHS tape (and who has made them into digital copies only available recently on the internet) I don't know anyone who has the digital copy. I was never sent one to replace the VHS tape. And I have never figured out how to copy VHS tapes to a CD.
Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe your statement to the effect that you do not have a digital copy of your interview, it's not that I don't believe that the only copy you have of your interview is on VHS tape, but what you have sought to communicate to me (or so it seems) is that you have no line to any of your friends here that has actually purchased a copy of the video containing your interview from whom you can ask to send you a digital copy, whether in .MP3 or .WMA, or .MP4, .WMV or .AVI format.
You indicate that it's "a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000," so why it is you want me to believe that you know no one on this forum that would be kind enough to send you just the compressed audio joint stereo portion of your interview (e.g., 11025/16 kbps [sample frequency/bit rate]) suggests you have no friends here that would be willing to do this for you is just lame. (I really just want to listen to the interview!)
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@Lady Lee wrote:
Well whether you believe it or not all I have is a VHS tape that was given to me shortly after the tape was done. Other than the person who owns the interview and the VHS tape (and who has made them into digital copies only available recently on the internet) I don't know anyone who has the digital copy. I was never sent one to replace the VHS tape. And I have never figured out how to copy VHS tapes to a CD.
Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe your statement to the effect that you do not have a digital copy of your interview, it's not that I don't believe that the only copy you have of your interview is on VHS tape, but what you have sought to communicate to me (or so it seems) is that you have no line to any of your friends here that has actually purchased a copy of the video containing your interview from whom you can ask to send you a digital copy, whether in .MP3 or .WMA, or .MP4, .WMV or .AVI format.
You indicate that it's "a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000," so why it is you want me to believe that you know no one on this forum that would be kind enough to send you just the compressed audio joint stereo portion of your interview (e.g., 11025/16 kbps [sample frequency/bit rate]) suggests you have no friends here that would be willing to do this for you is just lame. (I really just want to listen to the interview!)
If you don't mind I will take the comments about the interview to a new thread.
Ok.
@Curtains:
Plagiarism is when the source material is not referenced. Randy Watters clearly tells us where he got his material and he tells us how he is going to use the material. Adapting the paragraph headings to suit his purposes is not plagiarism because he has already told us he is going to do this.
This is not all the man does. First of all, do you have a copy of Lifton's book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"? Yes or no? Secondly, do you have a copy of Watters' book, "Understanding Mind Control of Jehovah's Witnesses"? Yes or no? If you cannot answer "yes" to both of these questions, then I'm curious how it is you can come back here and tell me how you compared the contents of Lifton's book with Watters' book and didn't find Lifton's "thought-reform procedure" to not essentially be what Watters has renamed "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults."
We're hijacking @yknot's thread, which isn't right. If you want, we can pick this up in the new thread that @Lady Lee started reference above.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@Curtains:
how do you expect your arguments to stand when you contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next. How can you accuse Watters of plagiarization when you admit that he does say where he got his information[?]
It's so very easy to do since this is what the man does. He takes Lifton's words, adds to them and makes them his own words. Watters doesn't quote Lifton and associate himself with Lifton's statements, but he plagiarizes Lifton by taking his words, his ideas, as if they were his own words and ideas.
Do you really expect us to accept your very incorrect definition of plagiarization?
"Incorrect?" I speak the English language, and I use the US English lexicon, so when I used the word "plagiarize" or "plagiarizing" in what I wrote, what I had in mind were the following definitions:
1. To take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech; of intellectual property; 2. The act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
By way of example, I'm now going to demonstrate what it means to plagiarize someone's words, and I'll do this by using a few of @Mary's words:
There are three elders that get to act as judge and jury and executioner in every case, and despite the repercussions that can be horrific if the same were doled out for one's perceived "sin" (like, for example, one not being permitted to speak with their own family members unless those family members and the disfellowshipped person were to be all living under the same roof), you don't get to bring an attorney with you to the Judicial Committee, nor will you be allowed the record anything that takes place during those proceedings, although some have reportedly been able to secretly record the proceedings. It's possible, too, that you may not even get to find out who it was that even brought against you the accusations you're facing. It's all so hush-hush.
What I've done here in the previous paragraph with @Mary's words is exactly what Watters has done in connection with Lifton's words, I've plagiarized them, since the thought is the same, the idea is the same, only the words are re-arranged. Notice, too, that my telling you that they were @Mary's words doesn't change the fact that the words I was plagiarizing in my post were @Mary's, not my own words. By my using @Mary's words, someone that should late come upon @Mary's words could reasonably conclude that @Mary and I are on the same page when we are not on the same page at all.
Note that I do not quote @Mary like this:
As @Mary indicated in her post, "[t]he 3 elders assigned to whatever your sin is, gets to act as judge, jury and executioner in every, single case. And despite the horrific repercussions that can be doled out for your perceived 'sin' (such as not being able to talk to family members that are not living under your roof), you are not allowed any legal representation ... [and] you are not allowed to record the proceedings and chances are." As a matter of fact, she points out that "you won't even know who it was that brought the accusations against you in the first place." Some of the posters here, @Mary also mentions in her post, "have managed to secretly tape record their Judicial Committees...."
Maybe this will help you to understand the difference between giving an attribution to someone you're quoting and taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own. Or, maybe you won't get it and will insist that you're right when you're not right.
@djeggnog
443
Generation Teaching - Everyone is speechless?
by Red Piller in
1. jw
2. friends
maybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized?

in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the wt.

one elder stepped down and was looked down upon.
djeggnog

@Red Piller:
Maybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized? in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the WT.... For this change I have had only one person in the hall talking about it to me. (Ironically, the one person who discussed it with me was upset at the way it was explained by a talk. Actually, the talk stayed to script and explained the current teaching.) I have not heard or overhead any conversations besides that one time. No buzz at all - like the other 2 times.
Well, here's a bit of "buzz" for you that may help you appreciate that not everyone is "speechless," even if some of the folks you know are, in fact, speechless at this time, for not all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are alike:
If you were a Catholic before 1970, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching of the Eucharist, which is that portion of the Mass when the Catholic priest says a blessing over the Host, that is to say, the bread ("the wafers") and the wine, and then invites the church to receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, where the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine are said to be miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. If you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses before 1995, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 had to do with those of Jesus' anointed brothers that saw the events that unfolded in 1914.
Now someone that is a non-Catholic might think the notion of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to its doctrine of transubstantiation to be a lie, that the bread and wine do not miraculously become transformed into Christ's literal body and blood, which would be your view, but this would not be view of Catholics that adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. However, it was in 1970, that Pope Paul VI stepped in and effected a change in the Eucharist, so that the Roman Catholic Church has now done away with the restriction that had been placed upon the priests inviting the church to partake of the wine that the priests alone had before 1970 been the only ones allowed to partake.
So now, in addition to the wafers, this change permits the offering of both the bread and wine to congregants as a regular part of Communion. I might add here that in 1987, some of the Lutheran Churches and the United Churches of Christ elected to offer grape juice as an alternative to wine for those attending the Eucharist ceremony to accommodate those in the church that wished to abstain from drinking alcohol.
It was after 1995 that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that "the generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 seemed to not have been with reference to Jesus' anointed brothers, but, rather, should be applied to the unbelieving Jewish contemporaries of Jesus Christ to whom he was speaking, and thereby, by extension, to the world that saw the events that unfolded in 1914. However, 13 years later, in 2008, an adjustment to our understanding of Matthew 24:34 rescinded the 1995 explanation, restoring the pre-1995 explanation until 2010, when the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that anointed would be contemporaries of the generation whose lives would overlap the lives of those that would see the beginning of the composite sign and those that would see the end, including the great tribulation.
What Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus meant by his reference to "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 is not a lie, but a doctrinal viewpoint held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the definition of a "generation" as a period of time and not limited to an average of 20-23 years is based on a Bible generation being described as a period of years, such as is the case with Joseph's generation, which covered a period of 110 years, which is the current viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise, what the Roman Catholic Church believes with respect to the transubstantiation is a doctrinal viewpoint held by Catholics, and even though in this day and age hardly anyone is willing to go on record in saying that they believe such a miraculous transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' literal flesh and blood occurs every day at Mass, this is the current viewpoint of Catholics.
More to the point, the following is the response that was given in a QfR article back in 1952 to the question: "Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?" [w52 9/1 QFR]
[T]he Bible ... gives no number of years for a generation.... [I]n the texts mentioning the generation [Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32]..., we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather... "the average lifetime of man." Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping....
[W]e could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation.
Since the separation of sheep from goats doesn't begin until "immediately after" the great tribulation (Matthew 24:29), and Jesus specifically stated at Matthew 24:34 'this generation would not pass away until all these things [that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 and 25] have occurred,' including the tribulation, then it would seem that just as Joseph's contemporaries were still living when Joseph died, then some of Jesus spiritual brothers would still be alive after the tribulation.
The fact that our current year of 2010 is 96 years removed from the year 1914 does not help one do any more than speculate as to the year when the end will come, for we arrive at the year 2024 when counting 110 years forward from 1914, for Joseph's siblings, Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (who were born in Egypt) as well as Joseph's nephews and nieces lived during Joseph's lifetime, making all of them contemporaries of Joseph.
Firstly, "the term 'generation' as used by Jesus [at Matthew 24:34] refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics." (wt95 11/1, p. 17, ¶6) Secondly, Jesus compared the generation in his day to the one in Noah's day at [Matthew 24:37-39], it seems clear that the people in Noah's generation paralleled the people in "this generation" which began when the sign of Jesus' second coming became manifest in the year 1914. (I would take note the use of the word "this generation" as they are used at Genesis 7:1.] Thirdly, even if though we are able to determine when "this generation" began, we would still be unable to calculate when "this generation" would come to an end since no one knows the "day and hour."
Having said this, should we give consideration to what Exodus 1:6 says regarding the death of Joseph, Jacob's/Israel's son, "and also all his brothers and all that generation," then based on how old Joseph was when he died -- 110 -- then his contemporaries would have been "all [of] his brothers" and Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both living when their father died.
In an article that appeared in the Watchtower, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," indicates that "[t]he word "generation" usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event." (w08 2/15, p. 25 [box]) Now we've got an example of that: Exodus 1, and verse 6. "Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers, and all that generation." In this same article, we also read: "As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day 'generation' of contemporaries that will not pass away 'until all these things occur.'" ( w08 2/15, p. 24, ¶15)
Just think about what's written there--it refers to Joseph and all his brothers as "that generation." Now ten of Joseph's brothers witnessed events before Joseph's birth and at least two of those brothers lived after his death. So while Joseph's contemporaries were of various ages, they were viewed as being a part of Joseph's "generation."
Now looking at the dates, Jacob at age 84 marries both Leah and Rachel in 1774 BC (after his uncle Laban does a bait and switch) so that his 11th son, Joseph, is finally born to Rachel in 1767 BC. (Rachel dies when Benjamin, Jacob's most beloved son, is born some six years later in 1761 BC.) Joseph dies in 1657 BC at the age of 110. Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous with the "sign" that became manifest (or "born") in 1914 would correspond to those that became contemporaries of Joseph at his birth, which would include not only Joseph's 11 brothers, but to Joseph's two sons and to his nephews and nieces that were alive when Joseph died, all of these being "that generation" (Exodus 1:6). Thus, these contemporaries of Joseph's generation would correspond to Jesus' anointed brothers, who from 1914 until now were all contemporaries of the sign, they all of them bearing witness to the composite sign.
The latest article that appeared in the Watchtower, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," stated, in pertinent part, the following:
[Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. [w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14]
There is but one generation of the sign with the anointed that saw the beginning of this sign and the anointed that will not pass away when the great tribulation comes toward the end of the sign. There is no reason for anyone to be attempting to force two [generations] into becoming a single generation since Jesus specifically spoke of "this generation," which is not two generations, but only one.
The only significant change here between the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1952 Question from Readers [w52 9/1, pp. 542, 543] and the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today [w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14] is that we have come to realize in 2010 that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 referred to the period of time that spanned the length of the sign of Christ's presence, which generation began in 1914 and will eventually come to an end, during which generation the lives of Jesus' anointed brothers as a group overlap.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

The reason I wanted to see the entire video is because the "sample" provided on the website to which your link pointed was about seven minutes in length, and doesn't discuss these eight criteria that you mention in the video, although you mention two of them and Robert J. Lifton. I am familiar with the article posted on February 8, 2009, on Freeminds.org, entitled "Eight Marks of a Mind-Control Cult," by Randall Watters, where he refers to the book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China," written back in 1961 by Lifton, but this book has nothing at all to do with cults. Not a thing. And, I might add here that contrary to what you and others have been persuaded to believe about Jehovah's Witnesses, our organization is not a cult nor are those associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether baptized or not, members of a cult.
The following are the eight (8) criteria that Lifton uses: (1) Milieu Control, (2) Mystical Manipulation, (3) Demand for Purity, (4) Confession, (5) Sacred Science, (6) Loading the Language (7) Doctrine Over Person, and (8) Dispensing of Existence. However, Watters changes (4) "Confession" to (4) "The Cult of Confession," and (5) "Sacred Science" becomes (5) "The 'Sacred Science'"; he also inserts the word "cult" in his definition of six of these eight items. Maybe Watters thought that no one would know that he had plagiarized Lifton's eight concepts to use in his own work. If you choose to ignore the fact that the man has piggybacked Lifton's work, and that Watters' ideas are no more valid than Lifton's, then you will have yourself become IMO a victim of mind control by Watters.
But Watters uses these eight criteria you mention in your video in his Freeminds.org article as if Lifton had endorsed Watters' remarks about the use of religion to cults, when the focus of Lifton's work was on totalism and the brainwashing of POWs in war. This is called "piggybacking" to make it appear that someone else has vouched for your work. Anyway, @Lady Lee, the following is a transcript of what you stated in your video, which I'd like to discuss with you at length if you don't mind:
[TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
There were eight major techniques or criteria that were used to control people's minds and get them to change, and it's really interesting to see how these eight criteria can be used to take a look at how cults control and manipulate their own members. What I'll do is I'll go through each one so that you get a better idea of what it is, as Lifton defined it, and I'll see what I can do about applying it to how cults use it, and specifically how the cult I was in -- the Jehovah's Witnesses -- use it.
Now a lot of groups will use one or two of these on occasion, of the eight criteria. Unfortunately groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses use all eight, and they use them all the time so that people do not have free will. Two of the things that are required for consent: The first is that person must know, have full information of what is involved in the cult, and second is that they have to have the real freedom to say "yes" and "no," and the reality is most cults do not fully disclose all of the rules to prospective members. They wouldn't say to somebody, 'Well, if you join as Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll never be able to celebrate holidays again, and if a family member leaves the group, you'll never be able to talk to them again.' The fact that there isn't that full disclosure, a lot of people are basically manipulated into thinking they're joining something different than what they actually get. And the other thing is, with all of the guilt and the rules, and the idea that all of this information comes from God, then the person's not really free to say "yes" or "no."
The Witnesses will say they're not a cult, but any cult will say they're not a cult, and one of the things that a lot of groups say, 'Well, we're not a cult, because we don't follow people around, you know, people are free to come and go as they please. They've got jobs, they've got lives, they live in their own homes. But the very nature of mind control is that they don't need somebody following you around to monitor whether you're following the rules or not. They teach you to monitor your own behavior and your own thoughts, so you become afraid of doing things because somebody else might see you, but also afraid of your conscience. Then the only way to relieve that guilt is to tell somebody, and the people that you often tell are the elders and the leaders of the cult, or the elders in case of Jehovah's Witnesses, so your membership is no longer about love of God or a love of doing what it right. It becomes about fear of breaking rules. They lose their individuality.
They also lose their ability to think. You don't say, 'Well, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense.' You just accept that that's the way of things. I'd say about 80-90% of my friends had been abused before they became Witnesses, and so, and this sets up a particular dynamic with the love bonding (?). People who have been abused and, you know, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, well, people who come out of cults experience what has been defined as post cult trauma syndrome, basically the same thing with a spirituality element that -- and this is why women stay in abusive relationships.
It's also why people stay in abusive cults, because there's this constant kind of dangling the carrot, that if you're good enough you will get everything that you've promised. And there's nobody to talk to, and even if you go for therapy, very few people are going to understand it. I went to a therapist; I was able to talk to her. But I knew it was way over her head. She didn't have a clue what I was talking about, really heavy-duty fears planted in there. I know as an adult I didn't allow myself to think about those issues, but, you know, here I am, reading it to my children.
Despite the denials of the organization that abuse doesn't exist within the organization, I'd say it's probably rampant because, you know, who do you go to, if you're, you know, it's all old boys' gang, even, you know, within the congregations. They're only going to report what doesn't reflect badly on the organization. Let's face it: If an elder is or any brother in the congregation is abusing his family, it's not going to appear too great if it hits the media. My one time mistake, which turned out to be a rape, wound up being, you know, reason for disfellowshipping, and his 15 years like doesn't, there's not even a note in his files about it.
And this whole issue of bloodguilt that they instill in people, that if a wife does not fulfill her sexual obligation to her husband, if he commits adultery, then she's responsible, and people would say, 'Oh, you have such a wonderful family. When I get married, I want a family just like yours.' And I want to be sick, but I'm just like know, 'Oh, well. Thank you very much.' And, again, you know, that pretense in not showing people what was really inside of me, 'cause that would have been totally inappropriate and not allowed to show that I was having problems, severe problems.
I think it's really important for people to get counseling, and sadly it's really hard to find. Very, very few people understand the dynamics of abuse, never mind the dynamics of spiritual abuse. There needs to be crossover there, where the two, you can being to see the psychological impact of something that comes from religion. Spiritual abuse can be emotional, physical, psychological, sexual -- it can be any of those -- but there's an added element of using a higher power, higher authority, god, however that is defined by a group. Whether it's the individual saying, 'I am god,' or, you know, like the Witnesses, the governing body is the mediator between people and god. So there's this added element of spirituality or higher power that is used to control and manipulate people, and in doing so, it robs people ultimately of their spirituality because if somebody's controlling it, then you don't have your spirituality any more; someone else has it.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
Watters explains in his article on Freeminds.org that Lifton's book was a treatise on "the effects of mind control on American prisoners of war under the Communist Chinese." Watters uses Lifton's work in this book in making a connection of it to Jehovah's Witnesses, by asserting how Lifton had outlined eight major factors that can be used to identify whether a group is a destructive cult or not, but Lifton work focused on effect of war on prisoners, like those Iraqi prisoners held in Abu Gharib prison, and not on whether or not "a group is a destructive cult or not." Lifton also wrote the books, "Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima" (1967), "Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans-Neither Victims nor Executioners" (1973), and "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" (1986), and notice the theme in each of Lifton's books are about psychological behavior or brainwashing used in wartime environments.
I wanted to point out to you that the fact that Lifton was used by the Hearst family, along with Dr. Martin Theodore Orne as defense witnesses back in 1976 to help explain Patty Hearst's psychological behavior -- the mind control used on her during her association with the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) -- serves to illustrate that Lifton's eight points weren't the focus of Lifton's work on the methodology of brainwashing. The fact that Watters uses these eight points in his Freemind's article to push an anti-Jehovah's Witness agenda is telling, since, were you to actually read Lifton's book, you would see for yourself that Lifton wasn't talking about how religion might be used to brainwash anyone (unless Watters would be willing to make the argument that Lifton had argued in court on the witness stand that religion was used by the SLA to brainwash Hearst). You have to be able to see Watters' agenda at work here; it's nonsense.
Despite the above, Watters goes on to write in his article that "[a]ny authoritarian religion should be held up to the light in order to determine just how destructive their influence is on their members," as he then goes on to plug his book, "Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses." Quite frankly, there is no connection between Watters' book and Lifton's many books, and it was disingenuous on his part to piggyback his own ideas about cults to Lifton's work, including the use of Lifton's own phrase, "thought-terminating cliches," in applying this phrase to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Watters' plagiarization of Lifton's "thought-reform procedure," which Watters calls "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults," and he urges you to read his Understanding Mind Control book instead of Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China." There is no connection whatsoever between the two books, but you would find this out for yourself by comparing the contents of Watters' book with the contents of Lifton's book.
BTW, I am posting this here, not to hijack @yknot's thread, but just to explain my reason I had asked you for a link to your video, and to let you know that I read the three articles you posted (which answers some questions and raises more of them). I have not asked you any specific questions in this post, because I suspect you would think it more prudent to start a new thread.
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@djeggnog
169
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9) You are in the same position as was that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:22, when he told her that "You worship what you do not know." Jesus goes on to say at John 4:23, that "the true worshippers" of God would be those that be worshipping "the Father with spirit and truth," for God is "looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Contrary to what you may believe to be the case, your faith is not in God and His word.
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
I cannot accept your misappropriation of [Galatians] 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him? And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.
I didn't "misappropriate" anything, but I'll answer you this: To "know" [Greek _ginosko_] means to "come to know," "to recognize" or "to understand completely. To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth."
You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest. The Bible indicates that those of you that refuse to accept God's word and yet desire to discuss the meanings of certain words are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4) Consequently, I'm going to withdraw from this thread.
Will the Sodomites be resurrected?
Since I haven't withdrawn from this thread yet, I decided to make a few remarks regarding this off-topic bash-JW-every-chance-you-get digression of yours:
1.Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8
2.No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338
3.Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479
5.Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20
4.No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31
6.No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30
7.Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179
8.No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179
I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.
This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches.
How so? This question as to whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected is not a primary doctrine of the Christ, and so it is not a primary doctrine of the faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It represents one of many questions that Christians discuss in connection with their study of the Bible. It may not be a topic in which you have an interest, and the only reason you might pursue this question is because one of your Bible students has asked you the question.
The answer to any Bible question depends upon when it is asked, for what things Jehovah's Witnesses came to understand by the early 60s, Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 30s simply may not have understood in the same way. Our answer to any Bible question is based on our then-current understanding of the Bible. These modifications to which you refer here are decided upon by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, to the contrary, they are made by Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom have submitted these Bible questions for consideration, along with the scriptures that led them to a conclusion different than what had previously been understood, so that their might be a correct response given to them based on the information that is known at that time.
Just because a particular issue of the Watchtower may include an article in it that provides our latest understanding of a matter does not mean that that matter is not still being discussed after that Watchtower has been published, for we cannot know whether what is determined to be the correct explanation at one time will prove to an incorrect one, rendering the discussion of it in a particular Watchtower article to be premature and an interim response to that question when a subsequent issue of the Watchtower should include in it a different response to that question than had previously been given in a previous issue of our periodical.
For some Bible-related questions, it has taken many years of studying the Bible to discover the answers to them, for as you point out in your post, until 1988, this question regarding the Sodomites had been in flux since 1879, and that's ok since we are confident that whether or not we and others will gain everlasting life isn't going to be determined by a pop quiz on whether the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal account, or how do we reckon that the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy ended in 1914, or whether or not the Sodomites will receive a resurrection after Armageddon. Everlasting life is based our taking in knowledge of Jehovah and his Christ (and, of course, our acting in harmony with that knowledge), nothing more.
However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings.
The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible. Doctrinal changes or refinements in our doctrinal understanding of matters are often made to our beliefs when appropriate to do so, such as when, prior to 1979, we believed that Jesus had only given the apostle Peter two keys, so that a couple of study articles appeared in the October 1, 1979 Watchtower in which we all came to learn that there were three keys given to Peter by Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses left our ranks, believing that this information should have been brought forward much earlier than it was since behind the scenes it was being discussed among Jehovah's Witnesses, so when these Watchtower article finally did appear, it didn't benefit those that had moved on in a disgruntled state.
Thankfully, some of these disgruntled ones have since returned, but they learned, as should we, that there is no need for anyone to be running ahead of God's organization. Sure, the ones that left our ranks were right; the Sodomites will not be resurrected. There were three keys given to Peter by Jesus, not two. They were right. But arguments over doctrines aren't usually resolved overnight and can sometimes take a bit of time, since all of the information that bears on a particular topic must be given due consideration before the governing body can make a decision. In this way, we are able to all speak in agreement, teaching the same things, and "be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Various creeds developed as doctrinal changes were made in the Universal or Roman Catholic Church during the fourth century AD. For example, in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea, at which the Trinity doctrine was formally adopted, the statement that the Son was "of one substance" with the Father was added to an earlier creed, and at the Council of Constantinople, the statement that the holy spirit is "adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son" was added, so doctrinal changes are not anything new. Didn't Pope Paul VI, back in 1966, modify the abstinence requirement imposing a dietary restriction for Catholics against eating meat on Fridays, so that eating meat on Fridays was no longer to be viewed as being a mortal sin (that is, except on Good Friday)?
Now this doctrinal change isn't a scriptural one, but my point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't the only Christian denomination in existence today to make them. Maybe you also accuse the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as putting its faith in men and not the Bible, and that's ok. In this case, you're being consistent. In the same way as you expressed it here, @Vanderhoven7, doctrinal modifications made by the Roman Catholic Church always act as a corrective to change what Catholics believe as well, and this despite, in their case, what the Bible actually does teach. But so what? If you do not wish to accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, go join another religion. If you do not wish to accept the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, go join another religion. What you should decide to do would be your choice to make.
After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God.
You're wrong; the Bible is was written for the benefit of all mankind. I don't follow your conclusion here.
Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts.
Again, your view here is wrong. The Bible was written by means of God's holy spirit and the Bible cannot be replaced by anyone or anything; it is God's word.
No matter how many [times] "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn. But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)
Yes, you are. Stop it. <g>
@djeggnog