From: sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Re: A correction is in order (was JWs Child Custody booklet ...)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 10 APR 92 15:24:56    


        This is another reply to Walter Smith, it being a reply to his
    reply to me.  I know I'll hate myself in the morning for it, but it
    seems appropriate to attempt to close just this one loop of discussion
    in public.

In article <1992Apr10.173818.25963@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...

>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.

        Despite my better judgment, here's my reply to your posting about
    the nature of the advice given by the Society to those who are
    testifying in divorce court procedings.

        In the first place, since you don't have direct knowledge of which
    portion of the material the judge considered to be evidence that
    the Watchtower Society deliberately instructs Witnesses to be
    misleading, you can only guess; and you are obviously guessing based on
    the things that push YOUR particular 'hot buttons.'  You AREN'T simply
    passing along what the judge said, you are editorializing on your own.

        Now, the passage you quoted was this:

>Direct Examination & Responses for young witnesses
>
>Evidence of young people:
>    This can be used to show that they are normal.  Identify and
>interview young people from local congregations who have been
>raised as Jehovah's Witnesses and, in the eyes of the presiding
>overseer, are spiritually minded but also enjoy the normal healthy
>things that young people do.  They don't have to be competitive to
>enjoy sports.  Be careful that they don't get the impression that
>they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they
>would show that the first things in life are service and going
>to the Kingdom Hall.  Show hobbies, crafts, social activities,
>sports, and especially plans for the future.   Be careful they
>don't all say that they are going to be pioneers.  Plans can
>be trade, getting married and having children, journalism, and
>all kinds of other things.  maybe you can show an interest in art
>and theater.  They must be clean, moral, honest, but with interests
>that you would expect from other young people.

        Point 1 is that those "young people" chosen to testify should have
    genuine interests in the things they are testifying about.  Sure, they
    are 'hand picked' as good examples, but that's because they ARE
    "normal" in the eyes of non-Witnesses AS WELL AS being "spiritually
    minded" in the eyes of the Witness congregation.  Since they REALLY DO
    HAVE the interests which they will be testifying about, they definitely
    WON'T be lying about them.

>               Be careful that they don't get the impression that
>they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they
>would show that the first things in life are service and going
>to the Kingdom Hall.  

    	In your comments you said:

>What jumps out at me is the awareness on the part of the JW writer
>that they want to portray a different set of values and goals
>to the court than they would to other members of the group.

        Since the purpose of the instruction given by the Watchtower
    Society IN CONGREGATIONAL SETTINGS is to impress upon each Witness the
    significance of Jesus command to "seek first [God's] kingdom and his
    righteousness" (Matt 6:33 RSV), having faith that all each one's basic
    material needs would be granted by God to those who did so, the Society
    only fittingly encourages all to set the HIGHEST of spiritual goals.
    Naturally, the highest spiritual goals a person could set for him- or
    herself include making the ministry a full-time part of their life. 
    Those who do so follow the course of Jesus himself, and all of the
    apostles and other prominent NT figures who literally 'pioneered' the
    Christian message in the virgin territory of the world.

        The Bible's message to Christians is about the promise of the
    future, not the material concerns of the present world, which in many
    passages, the Bible says will 'pass away' (eg. cf. 1John 2:17). 
    Therefore, it directs all professed followers of Christ to put
    spiritual goals first, to the greatest extent possible.

        Of course, what IS truly possible for an individual to do will
    vary, and Jesus himself showed that he didn't expect EVERY follower of
    his to be 'apostolic quality,' especially in the literal amount of how
    much of their life they could dedicate to his service in particular. He
    said of those who responded to the truth (as those who were "good
    soil"):

        	"As for what is sown on good soil, this is he
    		who hears the word and understands it; he indeed
    		bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold,
    		in another sixty, and in another thirty." (Matt 13:23 RSV)

    This saying has more than one implication, but the one that fits this
    discussion is that it's simply not true that EVERY CHRISTIAN (and thus
    every Witness), is EXPECTED to put forth the "hundredfold" fruitage of
    full-time, pioneer service.  However, it's certainly well within the
    pattern set by the Christian Bible writers for the Society to encourage
    every Witness, young or old, to put forth the effort to serve God in a
    capacity that corresponds to the "hundredfold" that Jesus spoke about.

        Point 2 is that the spiritual values and goals of Jehovah's
    Witnesses make little difference to worldly courts [just as they make
    little difference to you].  Therefore, the Society quite naturally
    directs the defense counsel to emphasize those things which worldly
    courts DO think are important.  Jesus once said,

        	"... do not throw your pearls before swine,
    		lest thy trample them under foot and turn to
    		attack you."  (Matt 7:6 RSV)

    We value our spiritual goals as "pearls," but clearly the evidence
    accrued from years of experience is that the non-Witness world in
    general does not see our goals this way.  With all due respect to the
    US courts -- and with no offense intended to anyone, including you,
    Walter -- our collective and personal experience has shown just how
    true Jesus words are, and that there are times which call for us to
    'keep our pearls to ourselves' -- which in the case of court testimony,
    may well mean emphasizing some other valid, and truthful aspect of our
    lives.  Putting our 'spiritual pearls' first to outward appearances may
    well get them trampled on, which is EXACTLY what is happening in the
    courts, and Witnesses are being unfairly attacked and hurt in the
    courts because of the bias of certain courts and opposition lawyers.

        You also wrote:

>If the kids were in a demonstration at a JW assembly, they
>would be expected to say that serving as a JW is the first
>thing in life, that their plans for the future are to be
>full-time door-to-door JW workers instead of going to college,
>etc.  But in court, because they want to portray JW children
>as being brought up "normal", with "normal" values and aspirations.

        Possibly because you are looking so hard to find fault, you have
    missed a very simple truth, which is that demonstrations at Witness
    assemblies are either:

        	1) 'fictions' in the form of little 'skits' which 
    		    simply demonstrate a suggested course of action 
    		    (like pioneering) and its value, or

        	2) testimonials by Witnesses who ACTUALLY HAVE chosen
    		   to pioneer.

    Those who testify in court are obligated to speak what THEY ARE
    ACTUALLY FEELING, as individuals.  Therefore, the Society is making
    sure that those who testify, especially if they are young, don't get
    the FALSE IMPRESSION that they are SUPPOSED to say they want to
    pioneer -- because they were hand-picked, as good examples, to testify
    -- if that's NOT what they really want to do.

        By and large, those who pioneer full-time are in the minority among 
    Jehovah's Witnesses.  It takes a LOT of self-sacrifice to do so; and a
    basic truth is simply that MOST Witnesses either aren't able to
    pioneer, or they don't have the desire to do so.  They are, of course,
    encouraged to cultivate that desire; but real life is real life, and
    the vast majority of Witnesses only put forth "sixty fold" or "thirty
    fold" fruitage -- and some even just the so-called "widow's mite"
    because of their circumstances.

        *I* have never pioneered; in fact I went to college; but I
    certainly can see for myself how the Society's counsel for all
    Witnesses to be as involved in spiritual pursuits as possible
    corresponds to the basic counsel in the Bible itself for Christians,
    and that those who enter the full-time ministry reap greater spiritual
    rewards than those who don't.

        We don't have a double standard, as you imply.  Our standard is the
    Bible itself and its standards; and the goals it holds out for
    Christians to pursue are high.  But those standards don't necessarily
    conflict with ALL of the 'worlds' standards of what 'normal' and
    'balanced' are.  Those who are chosen to testify in court HAVE career
    goals that are not as lofty as being pioneers.  Therefore, they aren't
    lying, or being misleading in any way.

        You quoted a good many Watchtower articles that made it clear that
    the Society is doing what it SHOULD be doing, as a faithful steward of
    the Christian message, and as a 'shepherd' of the flock, namely
    encouraging all Christian Witnesses to keep the BIBLE's advice in mind
    to put spiritual things first and believe what it says about the
    temporary nature of the present world's system.

        I can't help but notice that you haven't once quoted the Bible,
    either the NWT or any Catholic edition, to prove that what Witnesses
    teach and practice with regard to our ministry and outlook on the
    nature of the world is in any way in conflict with the Bible itself. 
    All you have proved is that what we teach is in conflict with your own
    worldly standards.

>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.  

        I'm HARDLY concerned at all with how you got the material, Walter,
    so you can put Red Flag #1 back in your pocket.  I called the Society's
    legal department myself the other day, and they mentioned in passing
    that they are aware that it's in circulation among Witness critics. 
    Really, it's clear to me that you sought out a copy, not because you
    need it for its intended purpose, but because you want to use its
    contents in some defamitory way (which you've more than adequately
    proved).

        The Society makes it available only to those for whom it is
    intended.  There's nothing immoral about that.  Personally, I think it
    wise for them to not purposely give it to those who would only twist
    its contents against them.

>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.

        You obviously don't get my previous point, that I didn't jump into
    the forray before for the simple reason that I really don't like
    exchanging postings with you, Walter.  By your actions and attitude,
    you've soured me on ever wanting to talk to you, in particular, ever
    again.

        I posted what I did because I felt it necessary to point out that
    Andreas, another Witness, was misrepresenting the truth (albeit
    innocently) about the material in question, and that HERE IN THE US, a
    good many Witnesses are well aware of it's existence, and that there is
    NO 'conspiracy' to cover it up.

        You take me to task for not wanting to debate you in public because
    I don't want to dance to your tune.  What I said is still true, that
    you brought the matter up in public, and chose, it seems, to debate
    almost exclusively in public, where you are assured of an audience that
    will agree with you.  My posting, directed to you, was an explanation
    of why I chose not to debate with you in public.

        Red flag #2 is your Red Herring #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..."

        Walter, countless number of times, YOU have made the effect that
    the beliefs and practices of Jehovah Witnesses have had on your family
    the FOUNDATION of your postings.  "Oh look how they are treating my
    wife and her daughter," you say, in effect.

>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".?  

        To be blunt, I feel that if I stick to my policy of not arguing
    with you any further, your behavior will be a moot point, as far as I
    am concerned.

>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.

        Rantings, eh?  Et tu?

        With this posting, I have now supplied a cursory summary of MY
    interpretation of some of the facts.  I hated to do it because its YOU
    I'm debating, Walter, and I know that you have it in you to make me
    regret every word I say to you.

        My offer is still valid, that if people REALLY care about this
    matter, they can write to me, and I'll do my best to supply them with
    whatever they need to REALLY help them make up their minds.  Generally,
    I enjoy all the e-mail I get, even if we never reach agreement.  If I get
    no e-mail, that'll tell me

        	1) no one really cares about this whole thing, and 
    		   isn't NEARLY as hopped up about it as you are, or
    		2) no one really cares about MY views, or
    		3) everyone already feels they know what they need to know.

    I don't waste my time, and I avoid further aggravation from you.

>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.  

        When it comes to a matter like THIS, if I wasn't interested in
    seeing those whom I speak to come to agree with me, what POSSIBLE
    reason could I have for entering in to a protracted discussion?  I
    value my time, Walter;  you only waste it.

        By your many postings, you provide insight into your OWN way of
    thinking.  You make your OWN "pattern" pretty clear.  That's why
    virtually NO Witnesses want to talk to you any more.

>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.  

    	Fortunately, your opinion of me is of little concern.  If I'm out
    of favor with you, that's good news to me.

>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?

        And I still feel the same way.

        							-mark.