From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (#Walter Smith)
Subject: What Mark says the Jehovah's Witnesses do
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:54:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

>In article <1992Jul23.171952.6592@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>Mark Sornson writes:
 
>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."
 
Mark, intentional or not, you are greatly distorting this whole subject.
In my experience, Jehovah's Witnesses profess to be very open-minded.
In fact, that is a big part of their "pitch", for lack of a better word.
They challenge people in their door-to-door work to be open-minded,
and consider whether or not the person's long-held religious beliefs
and faith are true.  This stance of open-mindedness and willingness
to examine beliefs is a big part of the Jehovah's Witnesses
"public face".   And along with their abstainence from holidays and
blood transfusions, that's all most people see about them.
 
But if someone internal to the group were to challenge the beliefs
of Jehovah's Witnesses in the same way Jehovah's Witnesses do to
others, what would the reaction be?  Most people who are only
vaguely familiar with the group might expect the questioning to
be welcomed, just as in the door-to-door work.  But the fact is,
Jehovah's Witnesses who question some of the teachings of the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the 'parent' publishing
organization) will find themselves in a much different situation.
If they don't accept the pre-canned answers to their questions,
and continue to question some beliefs, they will find themselves
shunned, called an "apostate" (which in Jehovah's Witness lingo
is about as bad as a person can get, like a dog eating his own
vomit), an "evil slave", etc, and will likely find himself thrown
out of the group for admitting to believing "wrong" things.
 
What Corey did was to show a piece of that "private face" that
Jehovah's Witnesses don't tend to show the public.  That "private
face" is noteworthy, because it is so different than the "public
face" they show others, because it differs so much from the
challenge they pose to potential converts door-to-door, and
because it is basically ugly and vicious.  The *fact* is, Andreas'
reply to Corey was exactly what a "good Jehovah's Witness" is
taught to do to someone who says the things Corey said.  What
Andreas said may have been ugly and vicious, but it was an accurate
portrayal of the internal Witness approach in action.
 
Now, if Andreas' email had been an actual private conversation, there
might be some cause for your anger.  But it wasn't a "private
conversation", it wasn't a conversation at all; it was a kiss-off
letter.   No reply was desired, or likely would have even been
read.  The appearance here is that you are simply uncomfortable
because the Jehovah's Witnesses "private face" has been shown
in action here for everyone to read, and it wasn't pretty.
You've had to imply that Andreas did something wrong, without
actually saying he did.
 
>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.
 
Mark, what things did Corey say that amount to "bad-mouth"-ing you
every step of the way?   Don't you think you are *way* over-exagerating
what he said?  I realize that's a great way to discredit your critics,
but it isn't very honest.  How is Corey's claim that Jehovah's
Witnesses will probobly censure him any more "bad-mouth"-ing you every
step of the way, than the constant bad-mouthing of all other faiths
by Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society?   Yet, when
people don't listen to your message, condmening all other faiths in
the world but your own, you label them as "goats".  Corey's message
to Jehovah's Witnesses is like a tap on the shoulder compared to the
slap in the face Jehovah's Witnesses try to deliver to the other
churches.   Yet we're "goats" for not accepting your message?  Mark,
who's really the goat?
 
>    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.
 
Let's be straight here, Mark.  What are Jehovah's Witnesses taught
to do with "apostate" literature?  If Corey were to send you a
book he read, showing scholarly dishonesty within the Watchtower's
writings, what would you, as a Good Jehovah's Witness(tm) be
expected to do with it?  Read it and bring it to the elders for
a group study?  Hardly...you would be expected to throw it away,
without even opening it.  I once gave a book to a Witness at work
called "Jehovah's Witnesses answered verse-by-verse", since we
had been talking about different interpretations of various
scriptures.   The book looked at many of the scriptures that are
interpreted by the Witnesses in a "different" manner, and gave
alternate meanings for them from the Witness ones.  Well, he
wouldn't even open it.   His hand shook just holding it, and
after reading the cover, he gave it back to me.   That is what
a Good Jehovah's Witness is taught to do; to "knee-jerk" shut
out any "opposing" views.  Give "the truth" to others, but
don't have them be teaching you anything.
 
>    *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.
 
In other words, you'll talk to him as long as you think you have a
chance to convince him he is wrong and you are right.  Once you find
that he is sincere and rooted in what he believes now, you'll
terminate the exchange.  Can't be wasting your time on someone you
can't convert....
 
>    Peter once asked Jesus,
>
>            "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against
>            me, and I forgive him?"
 
Now there's a passage you and Andreas may want to try taking to the
heart.
 
>    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.
 
This is really rich.  THEY showed up on his doorstep, not with just
their own ideas, but with a book written specifically to make people
not believe in evolution.  A lot of research by the Witness organization
went into the book, research done at the leisure of the Jehovah's
Witnesses.  THEY came expecting to GIVE, and have Corey TAKE; THEY
sought out the confrontation by coming uninvited to his house, to
confront his beliefs, and sell him on theirs.  But that's OK to you,
because they are Witnesses.  However, they run into Corey, who knows
about the book they are using on him.  He returns their information
with some of his own.  Ah, but that's "steamrolling"...same shoe,
just the foot is different, Mark.
 
 
>    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?
 
This is a far more significant question than Mark probobly realizes.
Another former Jehovahs' Witness, Carl Olaf Jonsson, did just that
once.  He had confronted someone door-to-door (while still a JW)
with 1914; he believed in the Witness' significance for that date.
Like Corey, the person at the house knew more than expected, and
ended up making Carl question his own view of the dates.  He ended
up doing extensive research into it, and wrote a paper about it,
which he submitted to the Witnesses headquarters.  He still was
a Witness, and had no desire to be anything else.  yet, because
his paper disagreed with the official Witness stance, he was
disfellowshipped, meaning he would be shunned by all Witnesses;
just like with what Andreas said to Corey in the email, he was
to be internally censored.
 
===================================================================
Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc