With the JW definition of lying then the next question is "who determines who is entitled to know the truth?". Of course, as per Terry's post, this is the prerogative of the individual. It is of course worse than that since it will ALWAYS be the organisation in the driving seat. So, when it suits the organisation to lie then they will and when they are investigating the actions of their adherents (e.g. in a JC) then they will state that the elders are entitled to know the truth therefore denying the individual the right to the same choices the organisation can make.
konceptual99
JoinedPosts by konceptual99
-
17
Gems From the WT
by Slidin Fast injust noticed this gem of a definition in the current (no 1) wt.
"lying.
saying something false to someone who is entitled to know the truth.".
-
-
-
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
This is exactly the point.
It is an exercise in futility to try and blind the R&F with pseudo intellectual "scholarly" works any more and they know it. So much can be debunked. They are hanging onto 607 and 1914 by the fingertips at the moment but being hit not only by the amount of evidence for their dates being 20 years out but also the fact that bugger all has happened in 100 years.
The amount of info debunking large amount of WT doctrine (especially JWFacts) allows anyone who can their mind past the cultural firewall of anti-apostate rhetoric to fully examine the history of why JWs preach what they preach now and see it's a procession of failed prophesy.
The only way now is through emotion and making the R&F care less and less about doing any research at all. The more top down the meetings become, with spoon fed presentations and streamed talks from Command Central the less and less chance there is of R&F members even caring about doing any research.
-
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
Nope, not KK! I'm not female and nowhere near as funny. I just find her brand of activism very appealing and possibly the most underrated visible exJW out there. I wish she had the reach of some others out there.
I am off to get my pack to send to the elders at the congregation I attend as it's something that anyone, in or out, here in the UK can do if they want.
-
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
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5689196006080512/wts-checklist-elders-destroy-evidence
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5635606893821952/verify-audit-checklist-destruction-files
lots more, including the letter in these threads.
-
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
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. -
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?