From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: A correction is in order (was JWs Child Custody booklet ...)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:38:18 GMT

Mark Sornson posted quite a lengthy article, that touched on a number of
subjects, very little which had to do with the Child Custody booklet
under discussion.   As the post was appx. 101% flame and -1% content,
I wasn't planning to respond to it; not because I wanted to prove
to "Mark and to all the net that, in the face of extreme provocation",
that I'm a "better Christian" than he; just that at a first reading,
I didn't see anything that left room for a useful reply.   Mark said
at the beginning of his post:

>        This is a reply to Walter Smith, and is thus almost guaranteed to
>    only generate heat, but no light.  My apologies in advance to the rest
>    of you.  

And certainly did his best to fulfill his prediction.   At least he did
aknowledge that his reply was "extreme provocation"...

Then after re-reading his article, I found a few things I wanted
to respond to, and then a co-worker who had read the article said
some sort of response was in order, so here goes nothing...:-)

Mark said he was interested in "helping people get the most balanced view
of Jehovah's Witnesses that I can help them acquire", and in giving 
them "the true Witness position on telling the truth in court".  Well,
the catch-22 is obvious.  If the JWs are told to give untrue testimony,
it is quite naive to think they would admit to such a thing.  And,
if "opposers" (or, as Andreas put it, the anti-christ) say that they
try to hide the truth from the public and the courts, that cannot be
taken at face value, either; the JWs can just claim (as they do) that
it is Satan persecuting them.  

What is needed is information, so people can see the facts for themselves,
and make up their own minds.   Now, the JW's legal department is apparently
not interested in sharing this booklet with the public, and Mark Sornson
seemed a bit consterned that I had managed to get hold of the booklet
through "unofficial" channels.  
Red flag #1.  

After posting the original article, the one about the Kansas judge
ruling that the booklet recommended "untrue testimony under oath",
some JWs said the booklet didn't even exist, and I was making the
whole thing up.  I was challenged to produce the booklet.  So, I did.
I then began reproducing parts of the booklet that I felt did what
the judge said, along with excerpts from other JW literature,
showing that what they were told to say publically in court did not
jive with what they were really taught; the apparent goal of the
differences being to make the JWs look less fanatical, and hence
less potentially harmful to the child and the relationship between
the child and the non-JW parent, should the JW parent succeed in
gaining custody.

Now that a non-JW has called the Watchtower Society's legal dept,
and verified that the booklet does exist and is put out by them,
I'm seeing a new set of tactics.  First, there is Andreas' "out-
of-context" approach, a tried-and-true way of changing the focus
of a conversation.   Next, we have Mark's approach; distraction
through inflammatory and provocative speech.  And I give him credit,
he did a good job.  He started out by saying how I've "thrown this
whole matter up in the face of the 'public'", and how there
was nothing he could or wanted to do about it; yet, Mr. Sornson
still managed to have quite a bit to say...It's ironic to me
that producing the booklet, (as I was challenged to do)and sharing the 
parts that I felt did just what the judge claimed, is 'throwing it up 
in people's faces.'
Red Flag #2.

Mr. Sornson then proceeded to go on a roll, saying how I had "no reservations"
about using "abusive speech" against JWs, as well as "perhaps other behavior
as well", how I "twist and abuse the truth about Witnesses" to suit my
own "bias and prejudice", how I'm not "the center of the universe",
how I have "an almost SUPERNATURAL ability" to write false things about
the JWs, [the implications being fairly obvious there...], and then
going on about my wife and her family situation.  Mr. Sornson seemed
to recognize that my wife's family is our business and not his, BUT,
(gotta love that word "but"...) he felt it appropriate to bring it up anyways:
"Your relationships are obviously your business and not mine, but..."

Well, I'll be the first to admit I'm frequently "blunt" in what I say.
When God was handing out tact, I thought he said tacks...I'm also
highly emotional, and capable of being provoked...I never claimed to
be a "better Christian", I just try to do the best I can.  I'm
curious, Mark, what exactly you had in mind when you said "perhaps other
behavior as well".?  

In all his rantings, however, Mr. Sornson had nothing to contribute to
determining the accuracy of the judge's opinion; the subject at hand.
In 3 typewritten pages, *nothing* to allow people to make up their
own minds.  
Red Flag #3.

Mr. Sornson did make some comments that provide insight on his way of
thinking on this sort of situation; a way of thinking that seems
to be the general way Jehovah's Witnesses look at people and situations.
Note the pattern in what Mark is saying:

>I don't have a PRAYER of ever having you see things my way
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>By not wasting my time arguing with you, I have plenty to gain elsewhere, 
>with others.                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>The day you become one of Jehovah's Witnesses is the day that I'll feel 
>it'll really worthwhile saying anything further to you.

Suddenly, this isn't about "telling the truth", or giving people the
facts so they can make up their own minds.  Its about "what have I got
to gain", "how can I make people see things MY WAY", etc.  Become 
'one of us', and then you'll be worth talking to again. 
Red Flag #4.  

Dropping the "Christian veneer", now your approach to all this makes
perfect sense, in light of your apparent goals.  Forget trying to
calmly discuss things in a public forum; there's too many people
there to scrutinize what you say for accuracy.  Call the public
discussion "arguments" and "fights", thus justifying your avoiding them.
Then, turn around and advertise for people to write you about
the *exact same subjects* privately, where you don't have to 
worry about people analyzing what you say.   Sure, "facts" and
"truth" may get pushed under the rug that way, but you've definitly
got a better chance of getting people to think what you want them
to, and to "gain" converts if possible.
 
Mr. Sornson also commented on a previous article I had written.  Since
Mark and the other JWs here get so indignant when "opposers" say
things critical of their group, I think they need a little reminder
now and then of just how scathingly critical their group is of
EVERY other group.  A recent Watchtower article (which happened to
be about Mormons) was a prime example, so I posted it.  The article
could just as easily been anti-Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Amish, you
name it, this one just happened to be about Mormons.  I felt the
things the Watchtower writer was saying in criticsm of the Mormons
(that their flexible approach to evangelizing constituted a lack
of integrity towards God) were absurd enough to not be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, some people were upset by them.   Mark was sure to
include that in his article in his effort to distract thru provocation.

Well, I think I've said quite enough for now.   Mark, I still think
your advertising for people to write to you privately about how
I'm misrepresenting all this is cowardly.  I'll leave you with your
own words on the subject, that you spoke (in anger) to me:

> If you have something to say about
> what I have written, say it to me directly. 
                                         
Remember?  And:

> For once, show a little integrity, will you?
   
Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc