Cofty - I recall the letter was posted here but can't find it searching atm. I am sure WIFiBandit can point you in the right direction.
konceptual99
JoinedPosts by konceptual99
-
38
Can Katie Kitten get up to 100% UK coverage with our help?
by slimboyfat invery good idea for activism in the uk.
they've already contacted over 60 congregations about not destroying evidence the government may require, which must be about 5% of congregations in the uk.
getting near to 100% shouldn't be out of reach.
-
-
-
38
Can Katie Kitten get up to 100% UK coverage with our help?
by slimboyfat invery good idea for activism in the uk.
they've already contacted over 60 congregations about not destroying evidence the government may require, which must be about 5% of congregations in the uk.
getting near to 100% shouldn't be out of reach.
-
-
konceptual99
The letter is from the elders' area on jw.org and is leaked by awake elders still in. It is a letter that is sent every year.
As the videos make clear, the letter itself is old news, it's basically a housekeeping matter. Also, information related to child abuse cases is not included as there are specific instructions in keeping certain information related to these cases.
As case, after case after case has demonstrated however, elders do either mistakenly destroy information related to child abuse, destroy data because they think a case is not considered to be child abuse and other circumstances.
The letter from the UK Inquiry body is telling organisations not to destroy documents. The British Branch have not made elders aware of this. They have sent any instruction qualifying the general instruction. Either they don't know about it or are maintaining a position of plausible deniability. Should the matter come up in the Inquiry then they could claim that elders did not see the letter and their instructions did not cover data related to child abuse cases. In this circumstance an elder would be on his own.
Under UK charity law the trustees are responsible for the actions of the charity. Since each congregation is a charity and the elders are trustees then individual elders can be held accountable for wrong actions by the charity. To this end the British Bethel is acting highly irresponsibly by not informing elders of the letter and it's implications.
Unfortunately the implications of this shall be lost on the vast majority of elders which makes the whole exercise even more critical for the sake of any victims who may be affected by naivety of local elders and the duplicitous and callous attitude of the WT Legal Department.
-
38
Can Katie Kitten get up to 100% UK coverage with our help?
by slimboyfat invery good idea for activism in the uk.
they've already contacted over 60 congregations about not destroying evidence the government may require, which must be about 5% of congregations in the uk.
getting near to 100% shouldn't be out of reach.
-
-
konceptual99
There you go SBF -
38
Can Katie Kitten get up to 100% UK coverage with our help?
by slimboyfat invery good idea for activism in the uk.
they've already contacted over 60 congregations about not destroying evidence the government may require, which must be about 5% of congregations in the uk.
getting near to 100% shouldn't be out of reach.
-
-
-
38
Can Katie Kitten get up to 100% UK coverage with our help?
by slimboyfat invery good idea for activism in the uk.
they've already contacted over 60 congregations about not destroying evidence the government may require, which must be about 5% of congregations in the uk.
getting near to 100% shouldn't be out of reach.
-
-
-
5
Mind Games and Con Artists
by konceptual99 ini made a post on another thread but think it deserves a space of it's own.
the latest new scientist magazine has a great article on how and why people get taken in by con artists.. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2073748-mind-games-how-con-artists-get-the-better-of-you/.
there is a great section on the use of emotive stories to gain mental traction.
-
-
konceptual99
I made a post on another thread but think it deserves a space of it's own. The latest New Scientist magazine has a great article on how and why people get taken in by con artists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2073748-mind-games-how-con-artists-get-the-better-of-you/
There is a great section on the use of emotive stories to gain mental traction. There have been numerous comments here that the depth of study and knowledge that Witnesses seemed to pride themselves on has been replaced by far more simplified content that appeals to the emotions, especially with the broadcasts and videos.
Instead of giving people strong faith through doctrines that are clear and defendable, weak doctrines are being whitewashed with emotive videos that tug on the heart strings. From the research presented in the article it would seem this simply mirrors proven techniques to gain the trust of people.
For those that don't have a subscription here is the section:
Spinning a good yarn
When psychologists Melanie Green and Timothy Brock decided to test the persuasive power of storytelling, they found that the more a tale transports us into its world, the more likely we are to believe it. In one study, Green and Brock gave volunteers different types of short story to read, which contained some omissions or parts that didn’t follow. For instance, “Murder at the Mall” is based on a true account of a Connecticut murder, in which a little girl called Katie is brutally killed in a busy shopping mall. Her assailant was a psychiatric patient let out on a day pass. After reading the story, participants answered a series of questions about the events, the characters, policies about psychiatric care, and the like. Then came the key question: were there any false notes in the narrative, any contradictory statements or things that didn’t make sense? Green and Brock called this “Pinocchio circling”. They devised a scale to measure how engrossed a reader was in the story and found that the more a tale transported people into its world, the more likely they were to believe it – and the fewer false notes they noticed.What’s more, the most engaged readers were also more likely to agree with the beliefs the story implied, in this case relating to mental health policy. It didn’t matter what they believed before the story; the tale itself created a new, strong set of views. And that’s what Gibson’s story did. It shows that you can believe yourself to be a hard-nosed sceptic, only to learn of Gibson’s ordeal and say, “maybe there’s something to this”.
Paul Zak, a neuroeconomist at Claremont Graduate University in California, has observed a similar phenomenon in his work on the power of stories in our daily interactions. He has repeatedly found that nothing compels us to receptivity quite like an emotional, relatable narrative. In one study, Zak and his colleagues had people watch a film where a father talks about his child. “Ben’s dying,” the father says, as the camera pans to a carefree 2-year-old. Ben has a brain tumour that, in a matter of months, will end his life, he says. But he has resolved to stay strong for the sake of his family. The camera fades to black. Watching the film prompted about half of the viewers to donate money to a cancer charity.
Why? Zak monitored people’s neural activity as they watched the film, specifically the levels of certain hormones. Many of them released oxytocin, a hormone that has been associated with empathy, bonding and sensitivity to social cues. Studies show that when people release this hormone they reliably donate to a stranger or charity even when there is no pressure to do so.
Then Zak changed the story. Now Ben and his dad were at the zoo. Ben was bald. His dad called him “miracle boy”. But there was no real story arc and no unequivocal mention of cancer or of the boy’s chances of survival. The people who watched this film were less engrossed, their oxytocin levels remained low and they donated little or no money.
Narratives like Ben’s, and Gibson’s, are particularly strong because they appeal to your emotions, rather than logic, and emotion is the key to empathy. It causes our brains to release oxytocin, making us more generous – with our money, our time, our trust, ourselves. The better the story, the more we give. The better the con artist, the better the story.
So as much as we would love to call Gibson an outlier, that’s simply not true. As long as we continue to be swept up by emotional stories, of tales of redemption, of overcoming odds, there will be a Belle Gibson ready and waiting. After all, what’s better than a good story?
-
42
A sincere message to those from the organisation monitoring my posts....
by stuckinarut2 inso, i know there are some from my congregation or from bethel who monitor my posts..... maybe you're looking for something to catch me out?.
just a question: rather than trying to find fault with me, have you stopped and looked into the issues or facts about the organisation that caused me to come to a place like this forum??.
facts are there for anyone to find nowadays....one just has to be willing to pull their head out of the sand.....
-
-
konceptual99
Interesting post joe...
My thoughts on your thoughts...
I think the exodus by the youth just reflects a malaise amongst older ones that are stuck in with a far harder exit path. The same things that older ones are questioning are also being questioned by young people and the answers are less and less plausible.
Take evolution v creation. When I was 18 there were far less ways of verifying the claims of the society. Now so many claims can be easily checked and debunked. In spite of various pseudo scientific publications from the org most discussions about evolution v creation will boil down to "we just have to trust Jehovah". Why the hell should a student at school have to defend a position that man has only been here for 6000 years in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary purely on the basis of "faith"?
The continued "last days" has many questioning things. When I was 18 we were within the broad definition of a genuine generation. Now the argument has no scriptural basis and boils down to "we just have to trust Jehovah". Young ones do not have the history of change but they know the last days have been going on for a hell of a long time.
Just these two points illustrate the fact that so many of the claims of Witnesses ultimately boil down to "we just have to trust Jehovah". The only way to bolster this is through appeals to emotion which is what you see with the broadcasts and videos. Instead of giving people strong faith through doctrines that are clear and defendable, weak doctrines are being whitewashed with emotive videos that tug on the heart strings.
This approach is actually well described in an article in the current New Scientist Magazine.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2073748-mind-games-how-con-artists-get-the-better-of-you/
For those that don't have a subscription here is a very interesting section:
Spinning a good yarn
When psychologists Melanie Green and Timothy Brock decided to test the persuasive power of storytelling, they found that the more a tale transports us into its world, the more likely we are to believe it. In one study, Green and Brock gave volunteers different types of short story to read, which contained some omissions or parts that didn’t follow. For instance, “Murder at the Mall” is based on a true account of a Connecticut murder, in which a little girl called Katie is brutally killed in a busy shopping mall. Her assailant was a psychiatric patient let out on a day pass. After reading the story, participants answered a series of questions about the events, the characters, policies about psychiatric care, and the like. Then came the key question: were there any false notes in the narrative, any contradictory statements or things that didn’t make sense? Green and Brock called this “Pinocchio circling”. They devised a scale to measure how engrossed a reader was in the story and found that the more a tale transported people into its world, the more likely they were to believe it – and the fewer false notes they noticed.What’s more, the most engaged readers were also more likely to agree with the beliefs the story implied, in this case relating to mental health policy. It didn’t matter what they believed before the story; the tale itself created a new, strong set of views. And that’s what Gibson’s story did. It shows that you can believe yourself to be a hard-nosed sceptic, only to learn of Gibson’s ordeal and say, “maybe there’s something to this”.
Paul Zak, a neuroeconomist at Claremont Graduate University in California, has observed a similar phenomenon in his work on the power of stories in our daily interactions. He has repeatedly found that nothing compels us to receptivity quite like an emotional, relatable narrative. In one study, Zak and his colleagues had people watch a film where a father talks about his child. “Ben’s dying,” the father says, as the camera pans to a carefree 2-year-old. Ben has a brain tumour that, in a matter of months, will end his life, he says. But he has resolved to stay strong for the sake of his family. The camera fades to black. Watching the film prompted about half of the viewers to donate money to a cancer charity.
Why? Zak monitored people’s neural activity as they watched the film, specifically the levels of certain hormones. Many of them released oxytocin, a hormone that has been associated with empathy, bonding and sensitivity to social cues. Studies show that when people release this hormone they reliably donate to a stranger or charity even when there is no pressure to do so.
Then Zak changed the story. Now Ben and his dad were at the zoo. Ben was bald. His dad called him “miracle boy”. But there was no real story arc and no unequivocal mention of cancer or of the boy’s chances of survival. The people who watched this film were less engrossed, their oxytocin levels remained low and they donated little or no money.
Narratives like Ben’s, and Gibson’s, are particularly strong because they appeal to your emotions, rather than logic, and emotion is the key to empathy. It causes our brains to release oxytocin, making us more generous – with our money, our time, our trust, ourselves. The better the story, the more we give. The better the con artist, the better the story.
So as much as we would love to call Gibson an outlier, that’s simply not true. As long as we continue to be swept up by emotional stories, of tales of redemption, of overcoming odds, there will be a Belle Gibson ready and waiting. After all, what’s better than a good story?
-
21
This idiot just embarrasses me.
by joe134cd inyup a mentally diseased apostate.. http://youtu.be/e7qmypu7mxo.
-
-
konceptual99
I know people who are in some of the congregations he has targeted in Kent. I also know people who were at Excel when he gate crashed the convention last year.
He has some very valid concerns and he and his family have been at the blunt end of typical elder stupidity. He is, however, viewed as a nuisance and basically ticks every box for the stereotypical "mentally diseased" apostate.
I applaud the guy's courage and tenacity in keeping going. I would never argue that such direct action could never motivate anyone to investigate Jehovah's Witnesses more deeply. On the other hand he has built such a reputation for being a PITA in the Kent area that his message is being drowned out by the overwhelming story that his is a bitter and twisted nutter.
I think Freddo has hit the nail on the head. Perhaps now is the time for this guy's story to be presented in a different way that can counteract the extremely negative view of him that has been developed over the past couple of years.
-
43
jw deny rumours moving UK HQ to Chelmsford project has collaspe
by Aleph inhttp://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/jehovah-s-witnesses-deny-rumours-uk-headquarters/story-27899763-detail/story.html.
t. .
-
-
konceptual99
No this is exactly what young JWs are encouraged to go for, yes real skills. All those examples you said. engineers, architects, doctors,
Ok, let's put this in context. I would agree that the organisation is not against people gaining "real" skills, including those in the STEM industries. What is disingenuous however is to make out that the organisation supports young people gaining a degree level education at University.
1. get baptised at as early an age as possible (11-13 is great)
2. aux pioneer regularly through school
3. at 16 do a course that will provide a lead into part time work at 18
4. at 18 enter part time work and regular pioneer
5. From there move to Bethel, construction, long term pioneering
6a. If you are male aim to be an MS at 18/19 and an elder before 30
6b. If you are female - keep on knocking on those doors
7. Get married and continue in some kind of full time service
8. Perhaps do part time study for further qualifications IF you have time
Agreed - they like engineers and architects but the route they want is someone that does it through on the job training. So, you become an architectural technician, work on drawings for years in a practice and gain experience, perhaps some further qualifications. They want people who can produce engineering drawings, not Fellows of the Royal Society who did 7 years and opened their own practice.
How about a mechanical engineer. They would be happy to see a young person do a plumbing a gas fitting qualification, work in the industry for a while, whilst pioneering ideally, and then move into the construction teams but they would never support anyone who wanted to go to uni for 5 years to train.
The instructions to elders are clear. If an appointed man supports his child in pursuing a university education then it calls his qualifications into question. Which, in reality, normally means deletion.
You can point to some very qualified people that either are at Bethel or support the organisation at a high level but these people either came into the organisation later in life or pursued a university education in spite of the anti-degree culture in the organisation and have then been courted by the organisation.
When you look at the examples of well qualified people in the publications and videos they NEVER are ones who were brought up as Witnesses. They always became a Witness during or after their education.
The GB do not want their young people attending university. It's a plain and simple fact.
-
67
Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?
by paul from cleveland inis it just me?
-
-
konceptual99
Yes, it was triggered by Cofty's series of topics but not just his. I couldn't articulate the uneasy feelings I had every time I saw "Evolution is a Fact #" until I saw the thread "How do you feel about the expression "The Truth"?" I realize it's the same feeling.
I'm still trying to find the words... Closed minded arrogance? I'm right you're wrong? You're stupid if you don't believe like I do? These descriptions aren't exactly representing my feelings but they are something along these lines.So if we had a series of threads with titles like:
- The Earth Orbits the Sun Thanks to Gravity is a Fact
- The Earth is an Oblate Spheroid is a Fact
- Our Vision Can Only Detect a Small Part of the Electro-magnetic Spectrum is a Fact
then would you be quite so offended?
I understand the argument that statements worded like this could be viewed as dogmatic and condescending however it sounds to me like you are getting flustered because the statements refer to evolution. I think if it was any other less emotive subject then you would be fair less concerned.