Posts by TonusOH

22

How Many Of You Knew Something Was Really Wrong Growing Up JW? What was Your First Clue?

by Sea Breeze in

this is directed to born-ins.

around age 10 or 12 is when it first hit me.

i started asking questions about how the world worked and i really wanted an honest opinion from my parents.

TonusOH

I was born and raised in it and bought into it for a long time. I think what finally began to make me stop and think was when they would admit that obedience was more important than being right, using examples of people who were removed as apostates, only for the organization to adopt their views later on. And they would say it directly- the important thing was obeying the organization, more than being right about Biblical interpretation. Even though I told myself that this was right and okay, there was apparently some level of my brain that could not make that square peg fit into a logical round hole.

Even so, I think I fought it until I finally came to the realization that I didn't believe in God. At that point, with the presupposition removed and giving myself the permission to think freely, lots of what they taught fell apart. It was at that point that I started to read stuff like CoC and learned that they'd been hiding all of their dirty laundry from us, and there was an astounding amount of it.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

A prostitute is defined as someone who exchanges sex for money. To the extent that the term has a negative connotation, it is because the act itself of offering sex for money is usually seen in a negative light. I occasionally will use the colloquial term "hooker" although that term does imply more than just the business transaction and unfairly blames the woman who is offering something that men are willing to go to the street and pay for. I avoid the term "whore" since it takes that implication to another level, though I may occasionally refer to a person as a whore if I think it's an appropriate descriptor (ie, someone who offers up their dignity on the cheap- see "politician").

The term "sex worker" seems to be an attempt to legitimize the profession, if you will. If we believe that prostitution is damaging and harmful to the people who are involved in it (frequently not of their own will), then legitimizing it with a less offensive description would seem to be harmful to them as well. I would not refer to enslaved or compromised people as "workers" in any other context, after all. I believe that there are contexts in which the term sex worker is appropriate, but using it to sanitize prostitution doesn't seem like one of them.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Debra: ...you not only regularly jet off to Thailand to cheat...

Just to be clear, Evans told Kim that he had been seeing prostitutes for years, but not that he was traveling to Thailand to do it. The implication is that he was paying for sex in Croatia (and possibly the UK) for years. The trip to Thailand was, ostensibly, for his mental health. Treating his mental health apparently involved 'dating a sex worker.' Some may question the wisdom of getting your life in order by leaving your family at home to date a strange woman who sleeps with men for cash, but I guess we don't know what it's like to be poor, put-upon Lloyd Evans.

In any case, I am sure he will try to use your post to claim that everything said about him is lies, so I think it's good to clear things up, and also to remind everyone of what he admitted to. And to also remind everyone that he's an inveterate liar and the stuff he admitted to has almost certainly been watered down and the reality is even worse.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Reading that, you'd never have guessed that this all started when he admitted that he was buying sex behind his wife's back and heading on an extended holiday to Thailand, a holiday that did not include the same family that he is suddenly very concerned about.

20

Hello I’ve just discovered that my religion is false just

by Chickenlips in

jw
friends

just wanted to say hey.

i’m in australia.

i’ve just woken up… i’m disfellowshipped and finding it hard without family although i do have one sister who isn’t interested in the truth, so that’s good… at least i can talk to her.

TonusOH

My advice: start to reach out to people around you and getting to know them. It's not just the loss of family and friends that hurts us when we finally get away from the organization; it's also the indoctrination that causes us to push non-JWs away. Get to know people, make friendships based on more than just religious upbringing, and keep reminding yourself that they're ordinary folk, just like you. It can be a huge help in dealing with the sense of loneliness and loss.

If you are still religious and believe in God, there may be a local Christian church that can help you to ground yourself by providing friends and a small but supportive social community. The JWs really do warp our sense of social structure, which makes it painful to leave. But once you have a support group, life can be very enjoyable! Good luck.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Toblerone5: Preocucupied with SPITTING?

The rest of it reads "...into the wind."

34

1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today

by enoughisenough in

i am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.

i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.

in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.

TonusOH

DJW: though no one had asked me if I wanted to be a ministerial servant.

When I was named an MS in 1995, they took me to a small room before they made the announcement, and asked if there was anything that would prevent me from serving in that capacity. I wonder if I could have refused the role at that moment? I guess I could have, although I was very happy to be granted the 'privilege' at the time. But that meeting, just a few minutes before the announcement, was all the notice that they gave me.

I guess they want it to be secretive; they didn't want anyone telling people that they were going to be named. Why that would be an issue, I don't understand. Wasn't everyone excited about having more 'capable men' in the congregation?

34

1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today

by enoughisenough in

i am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.

i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.

in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.

TonusOH

I was baptized in 1986, so I took the new "oath."

As for the legality of it, please notice that your oath involves you 'understanding' that the JWs are "God's spirit-directed organization." Tell me... which court would recognize that? Or how would you convince the court that the WTS is in fact God's spirit-directed organization?

That's not going to happen. This is not a legally-enforceable contract. The wording was changed because the GB wanted to insert itself between the individual and God, which is what they have been trying to do for decades. They're not claiming a contractual authority, they are claiming a divine one. No court would accept that claim as part of any litigation.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

BettyHumpter: Still why would you even include that?

I'm thinking that there are a couple of reasons:

1. He can't help himself. As you noted, He seems incapable of leaving well enough alone and giving concise answers. I think he wants so desperately to 'win' every interaction he has, that it frustrates him if he only gives a short answer. The fact that giving more information just gets him into more trouble doesn't occur to him, because he seems convinced that he's the smartest guy in the room.

2. Some of the damning evidence against him is the pictures on his own phone, which his wife apparently sent to someone else, who then posted them publicly. Who knows how many other photos (or possibly video) might be just a button click away from showing up online? I think he's trying to stay ahead of the issue just in case any more embarrassing content becomes public.

He won't listen to good advice because the only person he trusts is himself, and he is turning out to be so UNtrusthworthy that even that is turning out to be a mistake.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

So his latest approach is to blame the Croatian court system for failing to move quickly enough and, what... provide the evidence he refuses to provide? I mean, his reply is in response to being asked for examples of defamation, does he think it's the court's job to do that?

You might get the impression that his bluster is an attempt to hide the fact that neither he nor the court seems to have anything to reveal. Evans is not shy about going after people when he thinks he's got the goods, and he is adamant that he'll fight like hell to protect himself and his reputation, but when challenged directly to provide examples... he's suddenly a paragon of self-restraint? Right...