Jehovah’s Witnesses former members tell court they were subjected to ‘total control’

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:07 PM, Anna said:

shall rephrase it: many believe the Bible to be authority from God, but only a few actually believe it enough to change their lives to live by it, even if it is a inconvenience to them.

Another broad brush stroke. It also depends on which parts of the Bible Christians are able to live by and how those parts are interpreted and applied to modern life.

Quote

You know you can leave the congregation and stop going to meetings any time you want don't you? Usually without any "repercussions" I say usually, because as long as you don't flaunt an outwardly "hedonistic life style" as you call it, and tell everyone at the strip club you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then most likely no one will "bother" you. Again, I know quite a number of ex- Witnesses who were never disfellowshipped and who have been living out of wedlock and celebrate Christmas for some time now. The whole point, as I mentioned before, and as I am sure you know, is to keep the Christian congregation clean. Once someone leaves and over time is no longer known as a Witness in the community, keeping the congregation clean is no longer applicable as they are no longer associated with it. A far cry from the claim of "total control" indeed.

As I said before, your observations in your own congregation may not be representative of other people's personal experiences. There is testimony after testimony of JWs who have tried to leave and quietly live their lives, but a comment or action that was incompatible with the Org's position on something was noticed by a relative or friend who then reported it and set the judicial wheels in motion. I personally know cases myself. Just two examples: a man who hadn't associated in the congregation, had been inactive for many years, and no longer even believed in God, was disfellowshipped for sleeping with his girlfriend (he wasn't 'flaunting it' - a JW relative found out and told the elders); an inactive couple who had not associated for a couple of years were spotted with holiday decorations in their home and the husband was disfellowshipped.

Just because some 'faders' manage to avoid 'bother,' it doesn't alter the fact that anyone who doesn't formally leave, and still maintains relationships with JW relatives and friends, has the congregation's judicial 'sword of Damocles' suspended above their head. This was brought out in Stewart's and Jackson's exchanges at the ARC (Transcript Day 8, p. 15980-1).

Quote

Well this is assuming they are still living under his roof of course, and are a part of his household which he "presides" over. I don't see a chain of coercion here if you believe Jesus's words about putting the Kingdom first, and agree with the Bible's qualifications for elders.

I don't see the connection between allowing one's kids to attend college and poorly 'presiding over one's household.' It's the opposite. A good, responsible father will encourage his children to achieve their educational potential. But the Org disapproves of him doing that and may call into question his qualifications for eldership - even though there is no scriptural basis to do so. And an elder's adult children, even if they are living in the same household, can surely choose for themselves how involved in congregation activities they want to be without that reflecting on their father's ability to serve as an elder.

Quote

Indeed, it's difficult since the whole of society is geared to self pursuit. In this environment it is not easy to follow Jesus's command: Then he went on to say to all: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself  and pick up his torture stake day after day and keep following me".

What does that even mean? In that case, barely anyone follows Jesus' command - including JWs. How many have 'disowned themselves' like Jesus, and become his 'footstep followers' spending their whole lives without a home, constantly traveling, teaching, and healing the sick or feeding the hungry? Compare Matt. 8:19, 20; Mark 6:53-56 (Gospels, passim.). Jesus' earthly ministry was over in a flash. Christians generally have to spend their many decades of life making a living, raising families, paying the rent/mortgage, etc. 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

depends on which parts of the Bible Christians are able to live by

I don't understand what this means.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

your observations in your own congregation may not be representative of other people's personal experiences.

Quite true. Although this goes for everyone in every congregation (and everyone else) unless some kind of controlled survey is done.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

anyone who doesn't formally leave, and still maintains relationships with JW relatives and friends, has the congregation's judicial 'sword of Damocles' suspended above their head.

There is an element of truth in this because "once a JW always a JW" is a reality of life. However, there is nothing particular sinister or unusual about someone who enjoyed a privilege receiving a sanction from the community that bestowed it, if they behave in a way that demonstrates disrespect (in the eyes of that community) for that privilege. For some examples see here: Lost privilege 

"Having cake and eating it" is an unfortunate metaphor that is echoed here. At least John Lennon had integrity, even if you don't agree with all he stood for. (Notice a hook here).

On another note, I have even known of unbelieving partners or parents to suffer discriminatory treatment because of the association a relative may have or have had with Jehovah's Witnesses. And that not just under a Nazi type regime.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't see the connection between allowing one's kids to attend college and poorly 'presiding over one's household.' It's the opposite.

You haven't thought about this statement although I understand what you mean by it. There could very well be an issue of poor family management in connection with college attendance. It will depend entirely on the circumstances. What is wrong is to say that college attendance and poor family management are synonymous in all cases.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But the Org disapproves of him doing that and may call into question his qualifications for eldership - even though there is no scriptural basis to do so.

This is rubbish regardless of missapplied Soc letters to elders. All elders qualifications should be reviewed regularly. A negative review where "children" are seeking higher education will depend on the attitude and conduct of those "children", and the same as regards the father.

My son-in-law went to college and gained a BA in an academic disciplne with absolutely no problems depite severe dyslexia. He then pioneered, and got married to my daughter. Then able to gain reasonable employment, he sought further vocational qualifications with success

He now is able to provide well for his family and serves as an elder. There were no sanctions imposed on any part of his family during this period.

But then, my observations may not be representative of other people's personal experiences.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Jesus' earthly ministry was over in a flash. Christians generally have to spend their many decades of life making a living, raising families, paying the rent/mortgage, etc.

Perfectly valid pont here. I mean it's pretty clear that following in Jesus footseps just does not mean doing what he did. Otherwise there would be literally millions of people hanging on stakes everywhere if they wanted to be true Christians.

I think @Anna just meant that there are sacrifices involved if want wishes to follow a dedicated Christian course. This may well include the pursuit of a secular vocation and the academic path to that goal. Paul's estimation of such things as " refuse" was all very well for one who "wore the T-shirt" as it were, it is true. But, nevertheless, many have made that sacrifice willingly and have not regretted it. Likewise there are many (like my son-in-law) who have done otherwise, not regretted it, and more importantly, have not been sanctioned for it.

However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!

 

 

 

 

 

[Anna]

17 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

There is testimony after testimony of JWs who have tried to leave and quietly live their lives, but a comment or action that was incompatible with the Org's position on something was noticed by a relative or friend who then reported it and set the judicial wheels in motion.

Yes, so the stories go....I have read them too on apostate websites and would not vouch for their reliability. On the other hand, the experiences I know of, I know of personally. There are many more than those I have mentioned, from more than one congregation, and more than one country. 

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I think @Anna just meant that there are sacrifices involved if want wishes to follow a dedicated Christian course.

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant, as I am sure @Ann O'Maly realized I cannot possibly mean living exactly as Jesus did, including wearing similar clothes (where would one draw the line anyway?) I must admit, though, the vision of millions hanging on stakes made me giggle, despite the gruesomeness of it. But just by way of an example, the other day we watched a movie (The Intern) about a mother who had built a successful business, but as her company grew, she started realizing it was taking up more and more of her time and was infringing on her relationship with her husband, (who was a house husband) and child. In fact their marriage did suffer, as the husband embarked on an extra marital affair. In the end she decides her career is not worth more than her marriage or her young daughter. She is about to give the reins of her business to a new CEO, BUT, and this is the point, the turn of events that transpire is that her friend Ben encourages her NOT to give up her position as CEO and her husband “realizes” that in order for his wife to be truly happy and fulfilled, she needs to carry on with her business and tells her he will support her to stay as the head of her company. Ding ding...happy ending. This is not the only movie where the hero or heroine pursues THEIR own interests, often at the cost of the interests of others, and apparently the “noble” thing for the others is to encourage and support them in their selfish pursuit and self fulfillment. This is completely the opposite to what Christ taught. Christ taught we should put his interests first.  Paul confirmed this when sending Timothy to the Philippians:  “For I have no one else of a disposition like his who will genuinely care for your concerns. For all the others are seeking their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ”. (Phillip. 2:20-21)

In fact this ME attitude is a “sign of the times” as in the past  many put their own wants on hold in order to take care of an aged parent or some other responsibility. But today, self sacrifice is definitely not the way to go.   

So a brother or sister pursuing a career in order to realize self fulfillment and gains for themselves is not putting "Kingdom interests" first. However, if such is done with a theocratic goal in mind, or if such is balanced in a way where "Kingdom interests" do not suffer, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone doing that to be sanctioned. I have not known it. I have a similar experience to Eoin. My mother, a very faithful sister, encouraged my husband at the time to go to college to get some kind of qualification. He got a degree in engineering while a ministerial servant. (edit: oops, sorry, I already mentioned this once, but wasn't sure whether I actually posted it, or merely thought about posting it, haha)

I think that's all I need to say as Eoin pretty much covered everything else very well, but one more thing I will say:

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!

I second that!

[JW Insider]

On 4/30/2017 at 0:44 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!

As I've also stated before, there is no "total" control. There is a measure of control, and many feel it strongly, and many don't feel it at all. Some who feel it strongly, appreciate it. Some don't. Some who don't feel controlled in the least, may actually be the most "controlled." I think, too, whether we are uncomfortable with it, is probably a matter of who we feel to be in control. If we have trust that Jehovah is in overall control, no matter what the current situation in our congregation is, then we are likely to feel good about that kind of control. If we give too much credit (aka, blame) to the human leadership, then we are likely to feel less appreciative of certain kinds of control. Where control is discipline, most of us realize that 'whom Jehovah loves he disciplines' and  ¹¹  True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful;* yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11)

Some measure of control can therefore be a good thing. This assumes that we have humbly accepted human leadership, and are willing to be obedient to those who take the lead. It's not a good example, but I know a regular pioneer who believes in evolution. She has admitted it to my daughter and another JW friend, who are her best friends. (It was also obvious from schoolwork they did in high school together.) ...[edited to remove second example]...

I also think that the organization has changed significantly (for the better) since the time, about 35 years ago, when persons on the Governing Body even recommended that beliefs we keep to ourselves should also be grounds for disfellowshipping. One member of the Governing Body recommended that Bethelites stop doing "deep Bible study," and a cleaned-up version of his words make it into the Watchtower around the same time. At a meeting of Bethel elders, the same GB member even suggested that everyone take a "loyalty oath."

This was a time when some people might remember "total control" but it doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't mean there won't be a controlling elder here and there who always pushes a judicial committee to agree with him, and who always gets his way. There are many cases of injustice, and some never get appealed because they basically just create an atmosphere of toxicity that an offended person might not want to go back to. I'm pretty sure we all know of Witnesses who have moved from one congregation to another due to feeling an atmosphere of toxicity or they say "there was no love" in their previous congregation. I think it usually refers to a bad experience that colors their entire view of a congregation, even if others in the same congregation feel plenty of love. For some, an experience can clearly color their entire view of the entire organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

But I think that plenty of the complaints are actually carry-overs from ex-JWs who lived through the experience of a few decades ago, or just happened to be treated in this way more recently. I think that they hold onto their anger against the Witnesses due to the shunning practice, which they are sure they do not deserve. The basic issue is the loss of the love of family and relatives when a person feels that they can't associate any more. This is a much different experience than those who are disfellowshipped for a breach of conduct and know that it is only to help them get back into the congregation with a clean slate. 

[Evacuated]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

obeservations

Did I say that?? obviously a lack of control there!

[JW Insider]

"obeservations" -- reservations at a restaurant for gluttons?

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know a regular pioneer who believes in evolution. She has admitted it to my daughter and another JW friend, who are her best friends. (It was also obvious from schoolwork they did in high school together.) ...[edited to remove second example]...

What's the purpose of these examples?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

persons on the Governing Body even recommended that beliefs we keep to ourselves should also be grounds for disfellowshipping.

Minority Report precogs needed to make this work.

[JW Insider]

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What's the purpose of these examples?

They are surely examples that show there is no total control. After baptism people make decisions for themselves, and admit them to others, even if these would risk their fellowship and their "position." 

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Minority Report precogs needed to make this work.

Not really. I was thinking about these very same types of issues when I gave the two bad examples above. The Service Department (Correspondence) received plenty of letters where people asked if it was OK not to believe certain things. Brothers Malone and Pruitt, both of whom were in Correspondence, (and attended the same congregation that I did) mentioned a wide range of questions that came in from brothers and sisters afraid to mention their belief to the local elders. Examples:

• Is it OK to believe that all the creative days were not exactly 7,000 years long?
• Is it OK to believe in 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem?
• And, my favorite, "Is it OK to believe in evolution, at least while I'm still in school?" 

[TrueTomHarley]

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 

• Is it OK to believe that all the creative days were not exactly 7,000 years long?
• Is it OK to believe in 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem?
• And, my favorite, "Is it OK to believe in evolution, at least while I'm still in school?" 

Is it okay to celebrate Groundhog's Day?

[Evacuated]

55 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

They are surely examples that show there is no total control.

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

questions that came in from brothers and sisters afraid to mention their belief to the local elders.

I am amazed to hear these stories. I shudder to think how these people would survive if they didn't have the truth. Surely reasoning and extending on Ps 4:4 and James 1:15 shows we have freedom of thought but are accountable for actions. That seem's like ABC to me???

But then, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Hearing the recent Gilead graduate relate how they endeavoured to go through baptism questions with 30+ candidates at a time in Russia.................................

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

• Is it OK to believe that all the creative days were not exactly 7,000 years long?
• Is it OK to believe in 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem?
• And, my favorite, "Is it OK to believe in evolution, at least while I'm still in school?" 

Did these come just from the US?

My favourite is:

*** w62 5/15 p. 320 Questions From Readers ***
● Is there any objection to a dedicated Christian minister’s belonging to a nudist group or living at a nudist camp or resort?—M. D., United States.
 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is it okay to celebrate Groundhog's Day?

Go-pher it!

[bruceq]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Go-pher it!

LOL