From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 24 JUL 92 11:51:53 EST


In article <1992Jul24.021230.12499@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
>In article <1992Jul23.171952.6592@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
> 
>> [...]
>>         Posting private mail without permission is wrong; and by posting
>>     Andreas's mail, Corey has probably made many Witnesses decide that from
>>     this point onward, we simply won't write to him in private for any
>>     reason, lest he post, and possibly twist, our private words in public.
> 
>Perhaps Corey shouldn't have posted Anreas' actual words, since this was private 
>mail, but if he had simply paraphrased what Andreas had said, wouldn't there be
>greater potential for 'twisting' his words? The fact that we saw *exactly* what
>Andreas wrote means that there is no disputing that Andreas pulled out of the 
>discussion for the extremely weak reason that Corey was an apostate. This is
>something of a telling indication of Andrea's intellectual integrity.

        Corey's point wasn't simply to expose what Andreas's personal
    policy was.  In his posting, Corey wrote that this was the purpose of
    his posting:

         >This must be posted to show what the JW's do when they encounter
         >arguments they cannot rebutt.  According to Andrea, I am an
         >'apostate', apparently because I had the "truth" and I rejected
         >it. ...

         >Well, that just about sums up the Witnesses for you right there. 
         >I find it interesting that they make such a big deal about being
         >open-minded in the field service, (that is, the people they preach
         >to must be open-minded). However, they turn right around and
         >censor all opposing viewpoints.  

    His second sentence reports the truth of Andreas's own conclusions, but
    his first sentence and his concluding paragraph establishes his overall
    purpose, which is to accuse ALL Jehovah's Witnesses of
    behind-the-scenes 'dirty tricks' which will "censor all opposing
    viewpoints" -- which is something he thinks we all do when we
    "encounter arguments [we] cannot rebutt."

        Instead of writing back to Andreas privately and telling him what
    he thinks of him, he justifies the castigation of all Witnesses based
    on the reaction of *one* Witness to him -- which was, again, just to
    remind you, a reaction that was conveyed in private.

        Regardless of what Andreas' remarks tell us about his integrity,
    the fact that Corey has chosen to violate a rule of electronic
    communication which was known to him tells us something about *his own*
    integrity.  At the risk of being trite, everyone knows that two wrongs
    don't make a right.

>What are you going to be posting to him privately that you are so frightened he
>might make it public? What dark secrets will you be revealing to him that the
>rest of us can't be privy to? I agree that posting private mail without
>permission is bad form, but your paranoia is very odd, and it sounds like a
>very weak reason to shy away from talking to your ex-brother.

        It's not a matter of whether I am "frightened" that Corey might
    reveal something in public that I say in private that is the issue --
    it's whether Corey can be trusted to respect the 'rules' of private
    conversation.  If I say something to Corey in private, I don't believe
    it's unreasonable to expect that he will consider what I write as
    personal, and meant for him only.  If I want a public audience [or am
    willing to take the heat of one], I'd post in public (which is what I
    did).

        Just because the medium is electronic doesn't give him the right to
    toss the distinction between public and private conversation out the
    window.  Posting private mail, as he did, is rather like uninvited
    eavesdropping in reverse -- i.e., exposing a private conversation to
    'prying eyes and/or ears' in public after the fact.  The bottom line is
    that Corey committed a 'breach of trust,' regardless of his reasons,
    and regardless of whether you [or others] were happy that he did it
    anyway.

>>         Why is it that it takes "GUTS" to hold to convictions that are the
>>     antithesis of Witness beliefs and practices, but you [or others] don't 
>>     acknowledge that it ALSO takes "GUTS," to the same degree, if not more
>>     so, to hold to Witness convictions?  Instead our ability to think is
>>     catagorically assumed to be nonexistant, having been replaced by a
>>     so-called 'cult mentality.'
> 
>All I'm saying is that it is very hard to step back from a deeply-held belief,
>look at it objectively, listen carefully to arguments against it and then
>accept that it is wrong. I respect anyone who can fight against social and
>intellectual inertia, regardless of the belief they then adopt  

        Fine ... and my point to Corey was to suggest that the process of
    stepping back and taking a look at something objectively DOESN'T stop
    (or shouldn't stop) after the first look just because that look
    revealed negative arguments.  I asked him whether he had then attempted
    to determine whether he made any attempt to discover whether a rebuttal
    to the negative arguments was even possible [and so far have heard no
    reply ... though yes, I can imagine why, if Corey feels that I've
    jumped on his case].

>>         But hey, guess what again?  If NO ONE wanted to talk to me anymore
>>     or listen to anything I had to say, I'D get a clue, and either figure
>>     out what was wrong with me personally or with what I had to say, or
>>     else, as a final step in my self-analysis, find some reason to convince
>>     myself that it's everyone ELSE who has the problem, and then find
>>     another audience.  If I was convinced that *I* was not at fault, I'd
>>     simply be resolved to be happy with my convictions, and not sweat
>>     (overly much) how *other* people feel.  That's PART of being
>>     intellectually honest and holding true to one's convictions.
> 
>Actually, quite a few of us are happy to talk to Corey and listen to what he
>has to say, so Corey doesn't seem to have the problem you describe. 

        Again, fine ... but you've missed the point.  What Andreas said and
    what I said in reply to Corey had NO application to all of you
    non-Witnesses out on the net who feel that YOU are "happy to talk to
    Corey and listen to what he has to say."  Despite what Corey has said,
    there's no truth to the notion that ANY Witness will make ANY attempt
    to censor what Corey writes so that you folks won't be able to read or
    hear it.

>                                                                    The people
>who seem to want to stuff their fingers in their ears and shout 'I'm not going
>to listen to you, you evil apostate, but you'll be sorry when Jehovah's Kingdom
>comes!!' when he tries to tell you why he thinks your sect is a load of
>bollocks are, surprise, surprise, people like yourself.

        People like myself?  Show me where *I* have done that.  All I did
    was confirm the general truth of what Andreas said, which was if Corey
    wants to CONTINUE to gripe about and bad-mouth Jehovah's Witnesses,
    he'll find that that his Witness audience will soon dwindle to nothing.
    If he wants to talk about his feelings and situations *without* having
    to bad-mouth us at every step of the way, he just *might* find more
    open [Witness] ears than he ever imagined were ready to hear.

        Why should I, or any other Witness, for that matter, be all that
    thrilled with hearing yet another disgruntled ex-Witness tell us that
    he thinks our "sect is a load of bollocks?"  Do you suppose that we
    haven't heard that before, and that we don't think we'll ever hear it
    again?  If something comes across the radio or TV that I've heard many
    times before and consider of no value, do I need to hear the whole
    thing again (or even most of it) before feeling that I've heard enough
    before I shut it off?  Or if a program which I don't care for as a rule
    comes on, even though the episode is new, do I need to see the whole
    thing out of 'fairness' before I can justify shutting it off?

        Now please note that this isn't the same as saying that I'm
    shutting off something I HAVEN'T heard before, or have absolutely NO
    CLUE as to it's contents, as a knee-jerk reaction.  

        *I* have never said that I am unwilling to hear what Corey has to
    say [as of this point in time].  But that's NOT to say that after some
    point, the jist or drift of the conversation may not convince me to
    change my mind about FUTURE exchanges.

>>         I don't claim to have checked every reference myself; but I did
>>     just recently check a specific reference that Steven J. Edwards
>>     included in a posting of his.  The reference was to an article in an
>>     issue of Scientific American.  I read it for myself and posted my own
>>     conclusion -- and my underlying reasons for concluding -- that the
>>     quote was NOT dishonest.  If you want to begin a dialogue with THAT
>>     quote, just let me know.
> 
>Okay, you've got my E-Mail address. Go for it.

        Just so I know for sure, did you come across that posting of mine?

> 
>>         My point to Corey was to question whether he did his OWN
>>     investigation, or whether he just accepted the critical claims in the
>>     'canned arguments' that he's read so far.
>> 
>>         Is what the WB&TS writes *also* 'canned'?  

>Good lord? Are you suggesting the JW's would churn out the same old cliched
>bullshit that the anti-evolutionists have been peddling for the last century or
>so? What an  idea!

        All I meant was that it was prepared ahead of time, in writing, and
    thus obviously isn't extemporaneous, off-the-cuff, and adaptable to the
    moment.  What's written is written, and therefore must be digested
    accordingly.

>>					I suppose you could say
>>     that; but *I* believe that they usually do a pretty good job of
>>     accurately labelling what's 'in the can.'  *I* find no fault in what
>>     they write --- but then, I'm not actively seeking to PROVE fault.
>>     I have INVESTIGATED claims of falsehood, but I do my best to keep from
>>     being prejudiced from the bias of someone else.
> 
>Why aren't you actively seeking to prove fault? Examining your own position
>with  the same rigour and intensity that your opponent would use is a very
>useful way of maintaining intellectual honesty.

        That's like asking me why I'm not actively seeking to prove that my
    wife is committing adultery behind my back, or that my children, young
    as they are, are truly rotten to the core, or that my close friends are
    really plotting to stab me in the back the first chance they get and
    are only using their relationship with me for selfish ends.

        The relationship I have with these people has been established
    throughout my course of life; and that entire course of life has
    instead given me every reason to trust and love them.  The same is true
    for my relationship with my 'spiritual family.'  My entire course of
    life [as I view it as a whole] has only been edified and upbuilt by my
    studies and my relationship with those in my religious organization. 
    Although every Witness I know has his or her faults -- just as I have
    my own -- *I* have never been harmed to the point that I feel the need
    to begin a crusade to actively find fault.

        Peter once asked Jesus,

                "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against
                me, and I forgive him?"

    Jesus DIDN'T say "only give them one strike, and then they're out."  He
    said:

                "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy 
                times seven." (Matt 18:21,22 RSV)

    The point being (according to the footnote in the Oxford Annotated RSV)
    that "forgiveness is beyond calculating."

        Now, I'm NOT saying that the 'sins' of a religion can't EVER amount
    to be so much that no one could EVER justify changing their religion;
    for clearly people leave one religion to become Jehovah's Witnesses all
    the time, just as people cross other religious boundaries all the time.
    But rather, in my OWN case, I have never felt that the 'sins' of my
    'brothers' ever exceded the proverbial limit of "seventy times seven."
    What I'm effectively asking Corey is whether he's got Peter's original
    attitude, or that of Jesus.

> 
>> >        I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of
>> >out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs,
>> >errrors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
>> >to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious detail if you 
>> >wish.) 
>> 
>>         Well, I'll tell you what; I agree to go through them with you, but
>>     ONLY one at a time, with the preference of doing so privately and as
>>     time and resources permit.  If you dump them all at me at once like you
>>     did to the people who came to your door, forget it.
> 
>How about we do it, one point at a time, on talk.origins, then we should get a
>lot of useful feedback by experts in the appropriate fields. Good idea?

        One reason I'd rather NOT take it to talk.origins is that my goal
    [at the moment] ISN'T to get into a debate about creation and
    evolution, but rather to prove that the WBTS is NOT being dishonest in
    it's quotes [in the book in question].

        It's not that I don't believe that establishing the truth of
    creation or evolution is important; it's just NOT the pressing issue of
    the moment (as I see it).  The issue at hand is one of honesty, not of 
    scientific fact.

        Just to make it clear what I mean; just to be hypothetical, the
    WBTS COULD be wrong about its view on creation due to other factors
    (like faulty logic or a sincerely, but nevertheless faulty
    interpretation of all the facts) -- but it could STILL be right about
    its use of the quotes in question [i.e., they do NOT distort the
    fundamental truths underyling the quotes].

        My goal would be to vindicate the overall integrity of Jehovah's
    Witnesses.  It's NOT to debate whether we're correct on some particular
    matter of interpretation (for many sincere people and groups can make a
    major mistake due to human imperfection without being morally or
    spiritually dishonest and corrupt).

>>					It's
>>     true that you probably got them thinking; but you also have to admit
>>     that you set them up, because there's no way that they, as j-random
>>     Witnesses showing up at your door, would have been prepared ahead of
>>     time to go over all of your counter-evidence in detail.  You silenced
>>     them by steam-rolling them.
> 
>Hang on a second! These bozos turn up on my doorstep at an ungodly hour on a 
>Saturday morning and tell me they have a book that proves evolution to be a 
>big lie. I say that I'm pretty sceptical about that, and they challenge me to
>prove anything in the book was wrong. So I did. If they weren't prepared to 
>back up their little book, then they were very stupid to challenge me in that
>way. I did not steamroll them, they had plenty of imput into the conversation,
>and it wasn't as though I was prepared myself in any way. If anyone intended
>to do some steamrolling it was the JW's, who weren't expecting to talk to someone 
>who knew what they were talking about, and were hoping to steamroll them into 
>believing their pseudo-scientific crap. 

        OK ... you've got a point.  I'm not too proud to say "sorry"; it
    was wrong of me to insinuate that you were planning aforehand to trap
    them.

        I'm sure they DID show up on their own accord; but you invited them
    in of YOUR own accord to confront them with your reseach [presumably
    all in one shot].  (You could have said, "Go away ... it's too blasted
    early!")  When you did your research, you had the luxury to do so at
    your own leisure, outside the bounds of a confrontational situation
    with another person.  I doubt very much whether there was any
    opportunity to 'give and take' during their visit.  You gave and they
    took.

        Had you not already had it, they would have left you with a book to
    read at your convenience.  Did you leave them with a copy of your
    research so that they COULD actually rebutt what you said?

>>         Although you are obviously being sarcastic, what you say touches on
>>     a fundamental truth, that feelings of 'brotherliness' HAVE to extend
>>     both ways in order for them to work.  Based soley on what Corey has
>>     posted in public, what reason do any of the Witnesses looking on have
>>     for having "dear" feelings toward Corey?
> 
>It's part of your religion isn't it? I believe a certain fellow named Jesus had
>a little to say on the subject of forgiveness and continuing to preach even
>though others revile you etc. By writing him off either because he's an
>apostate or because you think he's rude is not much of a witnessing for Jehovah
>to a heathen like me. It makes you people look petty, narrow-minded and
>intellectually bigotted. 

        Jesus had a lot of things to say about a lot of people.  Much of it
    had to do with their attitude and their whole approach to 'the truth.'
    For some he could justify an extraordinary amount of kindness and
    forgiveness.  For others he could justify stinging castigation and
    unconditional condemnation.  For others still [like those who were his
    closest followers], he could be kind to at one time but stern with at
    others, since he was, after all, their Lord and Teacher -- thus meting
    out to them that which was best for them at the moment.  For the
    latter, how he dealt with them set the pattern for how they should deal
    with their brothers in the future.

        True Christian love isn't limitted to sickly sweet kindness and
    milk-toast mildness all the time.

>>         There's a vast difference between WHAT a person has to say and the
>>     WAY in which he says it.  At the root of apostacy is ATTITUDE, not
>>     knowledge.  You might make a case that knowledge [or certain kinds of
>>     knowledge], all by itself, has a neutral quality to it that ought to
>>     allay anyone's fears about confronting it; but I'd like to see you make
>>     a case that anyone is OBLIGATED to listen to what someone else has to
>>     say if that someone has an extraordinarily negative attitude toward
>>     those whom he is attempting to address.
> 
>This from a Jehovha's Witness!!! You people go and talk to people who have a 
>negative towards you all the time. Do you go door-knocking Mark? Most of those
>people don't want to know you right? But you still talk to them. Why is Corey
>different?

        It's one thing for me to present them with an opportunity to
    converse with me, but I have no power to stop them from slamming the
    door.  Those who REALLY 'don't want to know me' let me know right away,
    and I do not insist that they listen just because I would LIKE them to
    hear me.  It's their house, their door-step, their life, their time.
    If I get 'kicked out' for whatever the reason, I don't take it
    personally ... but then, I really DO try my best not to be a jerk when
    I knock on someone's door.

        Although we do our best at our Kingdom Halls to train ourselves in
    how to speak with others, not every Witness is as polished as polished
    can be.  SOME Witnesses probably DO come off in a way that truly earns
    them a door slammed in their face -- but it's certainly not WBTS
    policy for us to be that way.

        Initiating a conversation about religion with a total stranger
    requires that the initiator show kindness and genuine interest in the
    well-being of the one approached.  If Corey can't do that when he
    approaches other Witnesses to tell them what he thinks about our
    religion, he doesn't deserve a hearing any more than the rudest of
    Witnesses deserves a hearing at some random person's door step.

                                                                -mark.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc