Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2013 10:46:50 GMT -5
I would venture to say that anyone that wants controls put on them and their group are people that are fearful and not trusting of their own ability to stay safe. They literally want to be told what to do, rather than working it out for themselves. It is safe and safe is of utmost importance. My thoughts are this. We need to venture out of our comfort zones in order to grow. But until we feel safe, we can't do that. So the process of silencing people who ask uncomfortable questions serves a very real purpose for those who need to feel safe. It is just another step on our journey to self realization? jmt I've often thought that is the reason people, no only accept being told what to do, but actually want to be told what to do.
It keeps them from having to make decisions on their own.
Not making decisions themselves gives them the perfect excuse if something turns out wrong.
I also think that behind all evangelism is the more people can get others to believe as they believe, it makes them feel more sure that their belief is right!
They can say, "Well look all of these people who also believe it, therefore it must be true!"
It is also why they feel so much antipathy towards anyone like myself, an atheist, who dares to not believe!
It reveals the doubts they, themselves, often have.
It shows the cracks in the foundation of their skillfully constructed system.
They are fearful that their house of cards will tumble down they will be forced into "thinking for themselves."
I believe that some people are uncertain about certain matters and they lack the confidence to make an appropriate decision concerning such matters; so, they approach the workers for moral guidance. Sometimes the workers themselves are not certain as to the correct answers and they very often use the easy way out by asking that you pray hard about it, and that God will eventually reveal it to you.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 26, 2013 16:56:39 GMT -5
I've often thought that is the reason people, no only accept being told what to do, but actually want to be told what to do.
It keeps them from having to make decisions on their own.
Not making decisions themselves gives them the perfect excuse if something turns out wrong.
I also think that behind all evangelism is the more people can get others to believe as they believe, it makes them feel more sure that their belief is right!
They can say, "Well look all of these people who also believe it, therefore it must be true!"
It is also why they feel so much antipathy towards anyone like myself, an atheist, who dares to not believe!
It reveals the doubts they, themselves, often have.
It shows the cracks in the foundation of their skillfully constructed system.
They are fearful that their house of cards will tumble down they will be forced into "thinking for themselves."
I believe that some people are uncertain about certain matters and they lack the confidence to make an appropriate decision concerning such matters; so, they approach the workers for moral guidance. Sometimes the workers themselves are not certain as to the correct answers and they very often use the easy way out by asking that you pray hard about it, and that God will eventually reveal it to you. Which is probably not a bad thing really. It only you that knows what is 'best' for you. So it should be individual insight or intuition that works best for each. Those who believe in God can go to God for their revelation and those who do not can figure out what is best for them based on their knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 27, 2013 1:01:05 GMT -5
Yeah, it's the "position" you have with the 2x2s that matters the most in the meetings. Funny thing, by creating the hierarchy within the meetings, it's tougher for newbies to grasp or even want to participate. With the lower birthrates, you have a situation where you want your "place," but your "place" is tougher to recognize because there aren't that many to care about your "position" or even able to acknowledge it. Maybe the place is tough to recognize and cannot be acknowledge because it really isn't there and no one really cares about any fictional place or position. Riiight. How long have you been out of the meetings, again?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 27, 2013 1:03:30 GMT -5
Maybe the place is tough to recognize and cannot be acknowledge because it really isn't there and no one really cares about any fictional place or position. Riiight. How long have you been out of the meetings, again? About 20 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2013 7:52:15 GMT -5
Riiight. How long have you been out of the meetings, again? About 20 years. I think a more relevant question would be how long you were in the meetings. Being unaware of the politics indicates a short duration.....or a very non-political person. If the latter, that's a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on May 27, 2013 9:32:30 GMT -5
I think a more relevant question would be how long you were in the meetings. Being unaware of the politics indicates a short duration.....or a very non-political person. If the latter, that's a compliment. Perhaps. But I am beginning to wonder if perhaps it might not be wise for all to take a step back and explore the phenomena described by cognitive scientists as "confirmation bias". "Confirmation bias" is the tendency to seek out and interpret evidence in ways that confirm what we already think. Perhaps some experience the meetings as a community of common belief and find that the "politics" are of marginal interest or concern. Others may find the meetings to be a hierarchical political entity that suppresses their individual aspirations. Viewed through this lens, one need be neither a "short-timer" nor "politically-naïve" to set aside "politics" as a relevant feature and focus their energies on the fundamental purposes of the communal experience.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on May 27, 2013 11:17:09 GMT -5
Hmmm seems we're all unanimous on the subwoofers! The whole house seems to shake when one goes by, how can they actually be in the car! If I'm included in your little group of subwoofer haters, you'll have to accept the fact that I have one installed in my car, my pickup and there are three in my house! I happen to play and love organ music. Trying to play serious organ without adequate bass response is similar to asking a worker to preach without any reference to Jesus. If you think about it, you don't really hate subwoofers. It is the abusers who use them inconsiderately to abuse both themselves and others. You could draw a parallel with preaching, i.e., love it or hate it, depending upon whether its admonition is to encourage a 'reasonable service' or demand an unreasonable service.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 27, 2013 11:25:04 GMT -5
I think a more relevant question would be how long you were in the meetings. Being unaware of the politics indicates a short duration.....or a very non-political person. If the latter, that's a compliment. Perhaps. But I am beginning to wonder if perhaps it might not be wise for all to take a step back and explore the phenomena described by cognitive scientists as "confirmation bias". "Confirmation bias" is the tendency to seek out and interpret evidence in ways that confirm what we already think. Perhaps some experience the meetings as a community of common belief and find that the "politics" are of marginal interest or concern. Others may find the meetings to be a hierarchical political entity that suppresses their individual aspirations. Viewed through this lens, one need be neither a "short-timer" nor "politically-naïve" to set aside "politics" as a relevant feature and focus their energies on the fundamental purposes of the communal experience. Perhaps. Perhaps my entire family was kicked out of meetings because I made the "mistake" of taking care of my family rather than listen to the elders and the workers who didn't have a clue. The reason that the overseer gave for my family being removed from meetings was "too many kids were making the people of the meeting nervous." Perhaps I was mistaken in the email that I received from the overseer when I asked what meeting that I could attend (there were others nearby) and he replied "they were all full" and that there was no place in his state for my family and I to meet. Imagine that. In the meantime, my family and I are invited often to come attend other denominations churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, etc. But nope, we are happy 2x2ers (happy with the true aspects of the fellowship- and will continue to speak out against the abuses against our family and be an advocate for others that go through the abusive, cultish, aspects of our fellowship) and aren't going away. It took another overseer, a friend of mine, to create a meeting for my family and I- and even then- the workers didn't live up to their promises. By the way, my overseer friend confirmed with a specialist that what I had been telling the elders and workers, was 100% correct, and that I didn't have a real choice about even going to a gospel meeting if the friends and workers didn't understand the condition. I told my friend, the overseer, that is was like a living nightmare. He replied, "Yes, that is what the specialist said too." The entire thing was a political decision. From my parents, to the elder, to the workers involved. My parents and elders, who have a higher "place" in the fellowship, lobbied 2 overseers. They got what they wanted- the overseers to shun my family. Along with all of the other workers. I have emails to prove what I am writing is true. Along with a reputation and testimony of always telling the truth. This the workers know, and they should be ashamed. Do you think that Edgar is lying in his posts about how despicably his family was treated by the workers. His story is almost identical to mine. Special meeting time has gone and went. Not one worker called to setup a visit. Not one worker emailed or wrote to check in on my family. I still am in contact with the honest overseers and appreciate their continued support, but they are really powerless because I am not in their field, but their support is appreciated nonetheless. I can give you more examples if you would like them. You have seemingly tried to lump me in with TS in the past and label me as a crank pot. My professional colleagues would be most surprised by that. Let me ask you this, has anyone sent you a personal message about my family or TS, or emailed you, or sent you a letter, or phone call, or any other type of communication? If so, then that in and of itself proves the political process involved. Many others that post on this board- folks like Rational, Scott, Linford, and others have mentioned the PM's or emails that they receive about TS or myself. The ones about myself and family were ALL false (once someone was kind of enough to let me know what was being said). I have spoken with Rational by phone. Scott by phone. Linford by phone. Person to person. Direct. Why can't the worker's handle issues in the same manner or seek to establish communication rather than making life-changing decisions for people based on hear say and politics?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 27, 2013 13:23:00 GMT -5
Hmmm seems we're all unanimous on the subwoofers! The whole house seems to shake when one goes by, how can they actually be in the car! If I'm included in your little group of subwoofer haters, you'll have to accept the fact that I have one installed in my car, my pickup and there are three in my house! I happen to play and love organ music. Trying to play serious organ without adequate bass response is similar to asking a worker to preach without any reference to Jesus. If you think about it, you don't really hate subwoofers. It is the abusers who use them inconsiderately to abuse both themselves and others. You could draw a parallel with preaching, i.e., love it or hate it, depending upon whether its admonition is to encourage a 'reasonable service' or demand an unreasonable service. What is this "sub-woofing" preaching? I noticed your earlier comment, but wasn't sure what you meant. (Yeah, stereos aren't my strong suit - I enjoy music, but I think I have the same hearing problem as my family - some sounds are amplified for us, but we can't hear (and can't pronounce) other sounds. It's minimal, but it does keep me from enjoying a full stereo system.)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on May 27, 2013 13:58:32 GMT -5
Perhaps. But I am beginning to wonder if perhaps it might not be wise for all to take a step back and explore the phenomena described by cognitive scientists as "confirmation bias". "Confirmation bias" is the tendency to seek out and interpret evidence in ways that confirm what we already think. Perhaps some experience the meetings as a community of common belief and find that the "politics" are of marginal interest or concern. Others may find the meetings to be a hierarchical political entity that suppresses their individual aspirations. Viewed through this lens, one need be neither a "short-timer" nor "politically-naïve" to set aside "politics" as a relevant feature and focus their energies on the fundamental purposes of the communal experience. Perhaps. Perhaps my entire family was kicked out of meetings because I made the "mistake" of taking care of my family rather than listen to the elders and the workers who didn't have a clue. The reason that the overseer gave for my family being removed from meetings was "too many kids were making the people of the meeting nervous." Perhaps I was mistaken in the email that I received from the overseer when I asked what meeting that I could attend (there were others nearby) and he replied "they were all full" and that there was no place in his state for my family and I to meet. Imagine that. In the meantime, my family and I are invited often to come attend other denominations churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, etc. But nope, we are happy 2x2ers (happy with the true aspects of the fellowship- and will continue to speak out against the abuses against our family and be an advocate for others that go through the abusive, cultish, aspects of our fellowship) and aren't going away. It took another overseer, a friend of mine, to create a meeting for my family and I- and even then- the workers didn't live up to their promises. By the way, my overseer friend confirmed with a specialist that what I had been telling the elders and workers, was 100% correct, and that I didn't have a real choice about even going to a gospel meeting if the friends and workers didn't understand the condition. I told my friend, the overseer, that is was like a living nightmare. He replied, "Yes, that is what the specialist said too." The entire thing was a political decision. From my parents, to the elder, to the workers involved. My parents and elders, who have a higher "place" in the fellowship, lobbied 2 overseers. They got what they wanted- the overseers to shun my family. Along with all of the other workers. I have emails to prove what I am writing is true. Along with a reputation and testimony of always telling the truth. This the workers know, and they should be ashamed. Do you think that Edgar is lying in his posts about how despicably his family was treated by the workers. His story is almost identical to mine. Special meeting time has gone and went. Not one worker called to setup a visit. Not one worker emailed or wrote to check in on my family. I still am in contact with the honest overseers and appreciate their continued support, but they are really powerless because I am not in their field, but their support is appreciated nonetheless. I can give you more examples if you would like them. You have seemingly tried to lump me in with TS in the past and label me as a crank pot. My professional colleagues would be most surprised by that. Let me ask you this, has anyone sent you a personal message about my family or TS, or emailed you, or sent you a letter, or phone call, or any other type of communication? If so, then that in and of itself proves the political process involved. Many others that post on this board- folks like Rational, Scott, Linford, and others have mentioned the PM's or emails that they receive about TS or myself. The ones about myself and family were ALL false (once someone was kind of enough to let me know what was being said). I have spoken with Rational by phone. Scott by phone. Linford by phone. Person to person. Direct. Why can't the worker's handle issues in the same manner or seek to establish communication rather than making life-changing decisions for people based on hear say and politics? With regrets, I admit to having no understanding as to the meaning or intent of this response to my earlier post. I am pained by the experiences you describe. My experiences have been different from your own. In my opinion they both have equal validity, as do the personal experiences of others. If you care to expand on your objections to my earlier post I would be happy to discuss our respective points of view either on this thread, via PM's or by telephone should you wish.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 27, 2013 14:30:32 GMT -5
With regrets, I admit to having no understanding as to the meaning or intent of this response to my earlier post. I am pained by the experiences you describe. My experiences have been different from your own. In my opinion they both have equal validity, as do the personal experiences of others. If you care to expand on your objections to my earlier post I would be happy to discuss our respective points of view either on this thread, via PM's or by telephone should you wish. You are one of the posters to whose posts I look forward to because they are usually well reasoned and thoughtful. My reply back to you was in regards to the minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning. Those that have been hurt by the fellowship are probably the very people that come to these discussion boards. That is why that I think one sees a greater number of the horror stories of the fellowship and less of the experiences of folks such as yourself. Up until about 4 years ago, I was a happy camper in the fellowship, and one that doubted the veracity of the horror stories of the fellowship. Having been wrung through the ringer at the hands of those at the very top of the org chart of the fellowship has caused me to repent of my doubt. Edgar Massey's story seems to mirror my own. I can full well understand how Edgar is in no mood to want to water down the abuse for the sake of the facade of the 2x2s. These issues that people raise MUST be handled so that they do not continue to linger for year after year. I do not think that the posters on this board, for the most part, are seeing things that they expect to see in regards to how they were treated. I certainly never saw the train coming that ran over my family and I. I appreciate your forthrightness and direct approach. I do not expect you to understand my point of view, when I cannot understand why we have had to experience what we have as a family by the fellowship. I do know that I now feel 100% called to be an advocate to those in similar straits.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 27, 2013 15:27:33 GMT -5
Hmmm seems we're all unanimous on the subwoofers! The whole house seems to shake when one goes by, how can they actually be in the car! If I'm included in your little group of subwoofer haters, you'll have to accept the fact that I have one installed in my car, my pickup and there are three in my house! I happen to play and love organ music. Trying to play serious organ without adequate bass response is similar to asking a worker to preach without any reference to Jesus. If you think about it, you don't really hate subwoofers. It is the abusers who use them inconsiderately to abuse both themselves and others. You could draw a parallel with preaching, i.e., love it or hate it, depending upon whether its admonition is to encourage a 'reasonable service' or demand an unreasonable service. Yes, that would be what I 'hate', though that's probably too strong a word. I really don't like the vibration that shakes the house when they go by. Do understand their worth though.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on May 27, 2013 15:52:46 GMT -5
You are one of the posters to whose posts I look forward to because they are usually well reasoned and thoughtful. My reply back to you was in regards to the minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning. Those that have been hurt by the fellowship are probably the very people that come to these discussion boards. That is why that I think one sees a greater number of the horror stories of the fellowship and less of the experiences of folks such as yourself. Up until about 4 years ago, I was a happy camper in the fellowship, and one that doubted the veracity of the horror stories of the fellowship. Having been wrung through the ringer at the hands of those at the very top of the org chart of the fellowship has caused me to repent of my doubt. Edgar Massey's story seems to mirror my own. I can full well understand how Edgar is in no mood to want to water down the abuse for the sake of the facade of the 2x2s. These issues that people raise MUST be handled so that they do not continue to linger for year after year. I do not think that the posters on this board, for the most part, are seeing things that they expect to see in regards to how they were treated. I certainly never saw the train coming that ran over my family and I. I appreciate your forthrightness and direct approach. I do not expect you to understand my point of view, when I cannot understand why we have had to experience what we have as a family by the fellowship. I do know that I now feel 100% called to be an advocate to those in similar straits. Sacerdotal, thank you for your prompt response. I was both confused and concerned by your earlier post. I have reread my earlier post several times and, in all honesty, I am unable to discern any “minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning.” I recognize that my writing style is not always the most transparent but I do have a pretty firm grasp of my intentions and I can assure you that minimization of anyone’s personal experience was not my intent. If you could specifically point out what you read in my post that suggested minimization to you that would be very instructive for me. I agree with you that many who have experienced hurt come to these discussion boards. I also agree with you that there seem to be more experiences of those who have experienced pain than there are of positive experiences in the fellowship. It would be my hope that no one would doubt the veracity of any of the personal experiences recounted on these boards. It is less clear to me that “these issues that people raise MUST be handled . . . .” Perhaps some of these issues ought to (should, would, could) to be handled but it is improbable that they MUST be handled. It is difficult to constructively address any of these issues in generalities, I believe they would have to be addressed with great specificity and clear intentions. Indeed, I did not understand your initial response to my earlier post. I did not (and still do not) see the linkage between what I posted in response to Clearday and what you posted in response to my post. But we can set that aside for a moment and I can say that I also do not understand why you or your family have had the experiences you describe in your post. Personally, I think that it is praiseworthy that you feel called to turn your own experiences toward the relief of the suffering of others. The one thing that I would suggest is that you not demonstrate your compassion by diminishing the positive communal experiences of those who view the fellowship differently from yourself. Again, thank you for your prompt and honest response to earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 27, 2013 17:31:22 GMT -5
You are one of the posters to whose posts I look forward to because they are usually well reasoned and thoughtful. My reply back to you was in regards to the minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning. Those that have been hurt by the fellowship are probably the very people that come to these discussion boards. That is why that I think one sees a greater number of the horror stories of the fellowship and less of the experiences of folks such as yourself. Up until about 4 years ago, I was a happy camper in the fellowship, and one that doubted the veracity of the horror stories of the fellowship. Having been wrung through the ringer at the hands of those at the very top of the org chart of the fellowship has caused me to repent of my doubt. Edgar Massey's story seems to mirror my own. I can full well understand how Edgar is in no mood to want to water down the abuse for the sake of the facade of the 2x2s. These issues that people raise MUST be handled so that they do not continue to linger for year after year. I do not think that the posters on this board, for the most part, are seeing things that they expect to see in regards to how they were treated. I certainly never saw the train coming that ran over my family and I. I appreciate your forthrightness and direct approach. I do not expect you to understand my point of view, when I cannot understand why we have had to experience what we have as a family by the fellowship. I do know that I now feel 100% called to be an advocate to those in similar straits. Sacerdotal, thank you for your prompt response. I was both confused and concerned by your earlier post. I have reread my earlier post several times and, in all honesty, I am unable to discern any “minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning.” I recognize that my writing style is not always the most transparent but I do have a pretty firm grasp of my intentions and I can assure you that minimization of anyone’s personal experience was not my intent. If you could specifically point out what you read in my post that suggested minimization to you that would be very instructive for me. I agree with you that many who have experienced hurt come to these discussion boards. I also agree with you that there seem to be more experiences of those who have experienced pain than there are of positive experiences in the fellowship. It would be my hope that no one would doubt the veracity of any of the personal experiences recounted on these boards. It is less clear to me that “these issues that people raise MUST be handled . . . .” Perhaps some of these issues ought to (should, would, could) to be handled but it is improbable that they MUST be handled. It is difficult to constructively address any of these issues in generalities, I believe they would have to be addressed with great specificity and clear intentions. Indeed, I did not understand your initial response to my earlier post. I did not (and still do not) see the linkage between what I posted in response to Clearday and what you posted in response to my post. But we can set that aside for a moment and I can say that I also do not understand why you or your family have had the experiences you describe in your post. Personally, I think that it is praiseworthy that you feel called to turn your own experiences toward the relief of the suffering of others. The one thing that I would suggest is that you not demonstrate your compassion by diminishing the positive communal experiences of those who view the fellowship differently from yourself. Again, thank you for your prompt and honest response to earlier posts. It is posts like this, yknot, that make you one of my favorite posters. Let me answer by saying that I realize that I am very sensitive to the issues with the fellowship constantly being watered down as if they are benign or non-exisitent or all in a person's mind. Therefore, when I read your post in reply to Clearday regarding the politics of the fellowship, and your idea that perhaps people are seeing bias because they are looking for bias (not your words- but how I interpreted your words- if that will help you to understand why I replied the way that I did), then that, in my opinion, is minimizing what those who have been affected by the political process of the fellowship have suffered. For example, when I was a worker. Certain of my companions had the bad habit of only visiting the wealthy or "well thought of friends". It had more to do with the "well thought of" than wealth. For the "well thought of friends", we would stay with them for supper and the night- in some cases- a couple weeks. For the "iffy" friends- they might get a visit at a relatives house for dinner. (Really, we would only meet one lady at her mom's house. She called my companion out on that- how come so and so just down the road got to have us for 2 weeks, while she didn't even warrant a visit to her house. The overseer gave some BS answer- but the real answer was because her husband didn't profess, and they were poor.) We had other "iffy" friends that were upper middle class- both government scientists- but they didn't get visits because, well, they were scientists and had the bad habit of asking questions and they didn't worship us as workers- as in, take everything we said as the truth, just because we said it. At the time, I can honestly say that my companions and I were skeptical of the "spiritual hardiness" of these professing scientists because they asked too many questions. Really, we thought less of them and they had a lesser "professing" status, simply because they asked questions. This probably doesn't answer your question- but a political process does exist- with some workers and friends- and I very much believe, but to a lesser extent, there are some workers who do not subscribe to labeling the friends in such a manner. I just didn't like the implication, as I read it and understood it, of your post that seemed to indicate that people were only seeing a political process because they were conditioned to believe that one existed.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 27, 2013 18:43:03 GMT -5
Hmmm seems we're all unanimous on the subwoofers! The whole house seems to shake when one goes by, how can they actually be in the car! If I'm included in your little group of subwoofer haters, you'll have to accept the fact that I have one installed in my car, my pickup and there are three in my house! I happen to play and love organ music. Trying to play serious organ without adequate bass response is similar to asking a worker to preach without any reference to Jesus. If you think about it, you don't really hate subwoofers. It is the abusers who use them inconsiderately to abuse both themselves and others. You could draw a parallel with preaching, i.e., love it or hate it, depending upon whether its admonition is to encourage a 'reasonable service' or demand an unreasonable service. Do you have a pipe organ in your house, Ronhall? Or an electronic equivalent? Allen?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on May 27, 2013 21:08:17 GMT -5
This probably doesn't answer your question- but a political process does exist- with some workers and friends- and I very much believe, but to a lesser extent, there are some workers who do not subscribe to labeling the friends in such a manner. I just didn't like the implication, as I read it and understood it, of your post that seemed to indicate that people were only seeing a political process because they were conditioned to believe that one existed. I understand your point sacerdotal and respect your candor. My intended meaning was different than the way you interpreted my meaning, “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate” (Cool Hand Luke, 1967). I regret not making my case more clearly. By way of clarification, there is a growing body of evidence in the sociological, psychological and neurosciences literature demonstrating the occurrence and consequences of “confirmation bias” in human information processing. I have found the most powerful demonstration of the phenomena to be an examination of my own habits. The books and articles I read, the television programs I watch and the internet sites I search and the people I enjoy hanging out with. It requires both a conscious and concerted effort on my part to broaden my sources of input information to articles, programs, internet sites and people that express viewpoints significantly different from my own worldview. I often start out finding the task difficult and unpleasant. But I must hasten to add that as I broaden my sources of input information I always learn something new (about things or ways of thinking that I had never thought of before) and not infrequently I have found that I actually make small but important adjustments to previously held convictions and beliefs. There remains one additional issue in our exchange today that continues to puzzle me. Perhaps the most concise statement of the issue is your statement in the last paragraph “ – but a political process does exist – “. This puzzles me because the statement almost seems self evident. Perhaps the key to understanding lies in the manner we each use the word/concept “political”. From my perspective, “political” refers to the art of influencing people (even on an individual level). I believe that any group activity (even, “. . .when two or more of you are gathered in My Name . . .”) will have a political dimension. I cannot think of an example of a group activity in which there would not be a political dimension. As a consequence of this perspective, I think of political processes as being either constructive, benign, irrelevant or harmful. I think of political processes as being essential for non-kin groups to function and prosper but I also acknowledge the very real possibility that political processes can interfere with group coherence and cause harm to individuals within the group. I would argue that each instance needs to be analyzed independently and that it is difficult to draw broad generalizations or conclusions. I will be interested in your understanding and use of the concept “political process”.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2013 4:11:09 GMT -5
Sacerdotal, thank you for your prompt response. I was both confused and concerned by your earlier post. I have reread my earlier post several times and, in all honesty, I am unable to discern any “minimization of what the victims are experiencing in their shunning.” I recognize that my writing style is not always the most transparent but I do have a pretty firm grasp of my intentions and I can assure you that minimization of anyone’s personal experience was not my intent. If you could specifically point out what you read in my post that suggested minimization to you that would be very instructive for me. I agree with you that many who have experienced hurt come to these discussion boards. I also agree with you that there seem to be more experiences of those who have experienced pain than there are of positive experiences in the fellowship. It would be my hope that no one would doubt the veracity of any of the personal experiences recounted on these boards. It is less clear to me that “these issues that people raise MUST be handled . . . .” Perhaps some of these issues ought to (should, would, could) to be handled but it is improbable that they MUST be handled. It is difficult to constructively address any of these issues in generalities, I believe they would have to be addressed with great specificity and clear intentions. Indeed, I did not understand your initial response to my earlier post. I did not (and still do not) see the linkage between what I posted in response to Clearday and what you posted in response to my post. But we can set that aside for a moment and I can say that I also do not understand why you or your family have had the experiences you describe in your post. Personally, I think that it is praiseworthy that you feel called to turn your own experiences toward the relief of the suffering of others. The one thing that I would suggest is that you not demonstrate your compassion by diminishing the positive communal experiences of those who view the fellowship differently from yourself. Again, thank you for your prompt and honest response to earlier posts. It is posts like this, yknot, that make you one of my favorite posters. Let me answer by saying that I realize that I am very sensitive to the issues with the fellowship constantly being watered down as if they are benign or non-exisitent or all in a person's mind. Therefore, when I read your post in reply to Clearday regarding the politics of the fellowship, and your idea that perhaps people are seeing bias because they are looking for bias (not your words- but how I interpreted your words- if that will help you to understand why I replied the way that I did), then that, in my opinion, is minimizing what those who have been affected by the political process of the fellowship have suffered. For example, when I was a worker. Certain of my companions had the bad habit of only visiting the wealthy or "well thought of friends". It had more to do with the "well thought of" than wealth. For the "well thought of friends", we would stay with them for supper and the night- in some cases- a couple weeks. For the "iffy" friends- they might get a visit at a relatives house for dinner. (Really, we would only meet one lady at her mom's house. She called my companion out on that- how come so and so just down the road got to have us for 2 weeks, while she didn't even warrant a visit to her house. The overseer gave some BS answer- but the real answer was because her husband didn't profess, and they were poor.) We had other "iffy" friends that were upper middle class- both government scientists- but they didn't get visits because, well, they were scientists and had the bad habit of asking questions and they didn't worship us as workers- as in, take everything we said as the truth, just because we said it. At the time, I can honestly say that my companions and I were skeptical of the "spiritual hardiness" of these professing scientists because they asked too many questions. Really, we thought less of them and they had a lesser "professing" status, simply because they asked questions. This probably doesn't answer your question- but a political process does exist- with some workers and friends- and I very much believe, but to a lesser extent, there are some workers who do not subscribe to labeling the friends in such a manner. I just didn't like the implication, as I read it and understood it, of your post that seemed to indicate that people were only seeing a political process because they were conditioned to believe that one existed. I didn't read yknot's remarks about 'confirmation bias' as intending to deprecate your experience. Confirmation bias is a universal phenomenon although not universal or uniform in intensity. The effect works very well within the friends' group. The need to keep confirming certain sacred cows makes the friends blind to those on the margins, as it does to a lesser or greater extent in any Christian group, or any social group for that matter. But I'm afraid that you don't get a free pass on your own use of 'confirmation bias'. I think you exhibit a degree of confirmation bias in your analysis of worker visits above. It's not that you've said anything untrue or incorrect. Confirmation bias involves filtering particulars to support a general assertion. And I do agree with your general thought that the workers and friends 'rank' their members using fairly common standards, and this can have horrendous effects. I myself couldn't live with the reduced status accorded to someone in a 'divided' home, and I believe that 'divided' home thinking is nonsense. I certainly heard my share of nonsense about it. But regarding worker visits there is more to the story that you've left out. Workers should stay more with the friends best able to provided for their physical needs. That way they are less of a burden on friends who can't as easily provide for them. I also think they should socialize more with people they really 'like'. They should be able to choose friends the same as you or I do, and visit those friends more. Their pastoral/ shepherding work needs to be approached with equanimity however, but your examples don't show that they don't do so. One visit per year per family, perhaps a meal, should be more than enough in my view. Special needs might require more visits.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 28, 2013 7:57:21 GMT -5
But I'm afraid that you don't get a free pass on your own use of 'confirmation bias'. I think you exhibit a degree of confirmation bias in your analysis of worker visits above. It's not that you've said anything untrue or incorrect. Confirmation bias involves filtering particulars to support a general assertion. And I do agree with your general thought that the workers and friends 'rank' their members using fairly common standards, and this can have horrendous effects. I myself couldn't live with the reduced status accorded to someone in a 'divided' home, and I believe that 'divided' home thinking is nonsense. I certainly heard my share of nonsense about it. But regarding worker visits there is more to the story that you've left out. Workers should stay more with the friends best able to provided for their physical needs. That way they are less of a burden on friends who can't as easily provide for them. I also think they should socialize more with people they really 'like'. They should be able to choose friends the same as you or I do, and visit those friends more. Their pastoral/ shepherding work needs to be approached with equanimity however, but your examples don't show that they don't do so. One visit per year per family, perhaps a meal, should be more than enough in my view. Special needs might require more visits. Ah, Sir Wyatt, you must have missed the part where I said that it had to do more with what we considered as "spiritual hardiness" than wealth. The government scientists were wealthy. We didn't stay with them. Why? They weren't considered to be spiritually hardy. They did indeed ask questions of us, as scientists are want to do, and it put us into the uncomfortable position of having to answer them. Not always spiritual topics- maybe politics (they were more liberal than conservative- most workers are very conservative), and we would be put on the defensive having to justify our sacred cows. "The divided home thing" is not nonsense. You are using your own experience and extended it on to all. As a worker, it wasn't the divided home that was the issue- it was what the spouse in the divided home thought of us that mattered. If the spouse was friendly- then great. If the spouse was skeptical of us- then not so much. Just as with the government scientists that professed- nothing really mattered for the visit other than how much "love" we felt from the participants. Basically, with the exception of 2 companions, worker visit privledges are given to those who: 1) Were known to be highly esteemed friends with a history of providing for the workers. usually old time friends. Usually with money. They worshiped the ground we walked on. 2) The other friends that attended gospel meeting regularly and that invited us often 3) The friends that weren't so hardy about going to gospel meeting- but that seemed friendly to us 4) The friends that had to get at least one meal in every 6 months to say that we visited them. (the government scientists were in this group.) I could probably break it down even more. But one would have to be willfully blind to not see that worker favor is gained by showering the workers with affection. I can give you example after example of that. This is why people on this board refer to those friends as "sycophants". It is a good term. I am sure that there is a non-spiritual reason behind this that you and I can dissect (as well as others). But it really comes down to the Proverb (He that wanteth friends showeth himself to be friendly.) It is a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours arrangement. But let's not pretend that it is Christlike. As I have written, 2 of my companions didn't follow this practice. And for that, they have my gratitude. They went to where the need was- which many times were to the people that were hostile to us- for they understood- that those were the people that needed the visits.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on May 28, 2013 8:40:16 GMT -5
For what its worth.....I'm inclined to add this;
Just last week a lady that is now a single mom with a son in her home that doesn't profess, and a teenage daughter that does.....came to me in private, and in tears. She explained how the entire year, the workers never stayed in her home (sister workers). This lady has been through the mill with what her ex-husband has put her through (long story). She has stayed solid, never quit coming to meetings, and raised her kids on her own. She asked me if I thought it was because she had a TV in her home. She explained how the workers had spent weeks with so-and-so family. Not even one night with her.
I didn't try to give her a reason, but rather advised her to e-mail the older sister and simply ask her why they hadn't come. I told her to ask in a very non-confrontational manner. Explain to them how that her daughter really needs all the encouragement she can get, and how nice it would have been for her.
She said she was going to do this.
So this was just last week that this lady approached me on this. What SD explains above is not uncommon, but more the norm.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 28, 2013 9:29:34 GMT -5
For what its worth.....I'm inclined to add this; Just last week a lady that is now a single mom with a son in her home that doesn't profess, and a teenage daughter that does.....came to me in private, and in tears. She explained how the entire year, the workers never stayed in her home (sister workers). This lady has been through the mill with what her ex-husband has put her through (long story). She has stayed solid, never quit coming to meetings, and raised her kids on her own. She asked me if I thought it was because she had a TV in her home. She explained how the workers had spent weeks with so-and-so family. Not even one night with her. I didn't try to give her a reason, but rather advised her to e-mail the older sister and simply ask her why they hadn't come. I told her to ask in a very non-confrontational manner. Explain to them how that her daughter really needs all the encouragement she can get, and how nice it would have been for her. She said she was going to do this. So this was just last week that this lady approached me on this. What SD explains above is not uncommon, but more the norm. Unfortunately, I do not think that the lady will get a straight answer. I once sat across from a lady, just like the lady you mention, who in tears wanted to know why she didn't get ANY visits. All of the visits for her and her family were setup at her mom's house- usually for a lunch with the workers. My companion, a man in his late 50s, gave some kind of BS answer. His answer was so bad I can't even remember what he said, it didn't really matter, it wasn't the truth. It was just some excuse and I remember being really uncomfortable with that conversation and us having to dance around whatever the "real" reason was. This lady did have a teenager daughter, late teens, that had a baby out of wedlock. And she then professed. My companions felt that she wouldn't last in the fellowship. There was no "joy" at her professing. And we didn't talk about her professing to other people- as the norm whenever someone professed. This "issue" was unrelated to the "no visits" for the lady and her family- as they had been going on for years. It is an interesting political phenomenon. All my life I have seen worker visits used by some friends as a source of pride as to their standing in the 2x2 fellowship. Someone that gets a lot of visits- highly esteemed by the workers, while someone that received zero visits- scum of the earth within the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 28, 2013 10:30:23 GMT -5
I've known 2x2 women to break down in tears because they did have a visit with workers. The workers couldn't have cared less about their troubles.
Sometimes, it's a true blessing that those in pain don't have worker visits. Those kind of worker visits are tough to get over.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 28, 2013 10:55:21 GMT -5
One thing I know about worker visits: Workers used to come as a matter of course; there are some now who do not visit unless they are invited.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2013 11:51:53 GMT -5
Ah, Sir Wyatt, you must have missed the part where I said that it had to do more with what we considered as "spiritual hardiness" than wealth. The government scientists were wealthy. We didn't stay with them. Why? They weren't considered to be spiritually hardy. They did indeed ask questions of us, as scientists are want to do, and it put us into the uncomfortable position of having to answer them. Not always spiritual topics- maybe politics (they were more liberal than conservative- most workers are very conservative), and we would be put on the defensive having to justify our sacred cows. I must not be expressing myself very clearly. I understand that it's not purely a matter of wealth, and I stated in my previous post "I do agree with your general thought that the workers and friends 'rank' their members using fairly common standards, and this can have horrendous effects". And those "common standards" are why they may not visit the government scientists very often. But the "common standards" are just one element in the decision matrix. I merely stated that if the workers wanted to spend extra time where they were physically most comfortable then in my own view, they should do so. I didn't mean that they necessarily followed my hypothetical lead on this. But still, in analyzing their behaviour I do believe that physical comfort is a minor factor. You should reread my post, as you are taking my comments as gainsaying your position, which is not what I'm doing. What I'm saying, in effect, is that the implicit rules around treatment of a divided home make little sense. I didn't mean that those rules do not exist. I'm painfully well aware of them existing as they were a major component in our own departure from the meetings. What you have outlined here is a bit of a social pecking order based on a religious pretext, and indeed, it is palpable and exists. But it does not make up the entire complex of decision making on the part of workers in general. Some workers will be more susceptible to the social component than others. And, people set priorities implicitly within their social context without really thinking it through as you have done. It's only when we look at why they did what they did that we come up with a pecking order as you did. And it actually takes years of observation and insight to see the social forces that are operating under the surface. But I would like you to consider two things: (1) Social group factors are not the only decision motivators; there are others. (2) Members of any social group are subject to behavioural patterns implicit within that social group - a pecking order, so to speak. Social climbing, social status and so on, are factors everywhere in life. The above description on worker visits is not Christlike, but I've certainly witnessed many workers doing many Christlike things that are 'out of the box'. I think of those workers who are always there at the bedside when someone is terminally ill, to cite just one small example. And what I call 'the box' is always there, in every church. It's part of life and not just part of the friends. (The only difference is that the friends have a bad case of it, in part because they think they are not susceptible to such things. Some of my acquaintances characterize them as a 'Pharisee' church; I wouldn't go quite so far myself but I can see where they're coming from.) . So I'm not sure why you don't consider them to be part of the group in the same way that the more sycophantic members are.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2013 11:56:30 GMT -5
I've known 2x2 women to break down in tears because they did have a visit with workers. The workers couldn't have cared less about their troubles. Sometimes, it's a true blessing that those in pain don't have worker visits. Those kind of worker visits are tough to get over. Don't you think those '2x2 women' have a problem though? Like, what's the big deal about a worker visit. I always did enjoy them, but I more thought of it as doing our bit, and we were quite happy to do our bit. But I know there were years when we got a rush visit to "fit us in at the end". Okay, no problem. (However, towards the end our home was skipped which I read as a signal we were on the outs, but that's another story, entirely.) I don't want to be insensitive to those who attach number of days of worker visit into their personal sense of self-worth. But that's a sad state of affairs if it matters that much.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 28, 2013 12:04:45 GMT -5
I must not be expressing myself very clearly. I understand that it's not purely a matter of wealth, and I stated in my previous post "I do agree with your general thought that the workers and friends 'rank' their members using fairly common standards, and this can have horrendous effects". And those "common standards" are why they may not visit the government scientists very often. But the "common standards" are just one element in the decision matrix. I merely stated that if the workers wanted to spend extra time where they were physically most comfortable then in my own view, they should do so. I didn't mean that they necessarily followed my hypothetical lead on this. But still, in analyzing their behaviour I do believe that physical comfort is a minor factor. You should reread my post, as you are taking my comments as gainsaying your position, which is not what I'm doing. What I'm saying, in effect, is that the implicit rules around treatment of a divided home make little sense. I didn't mean that those rules do not exist. I'm painfully well aware of them existing as they were a major component in our own departure from the meetings. What you have outlined here is a bit of a social pecking order based on a religious pretext, and indeed, it is palpable and exists. But it does not make up the entire complex of decision making on the part of workers in general. Some workers will be more susceptible to the social component than others. And, people set priorities implicitly within their social context without really thinking it through as you have done. It's only when we look at why they did what they did that we come up with a pecking order as you did. And it actually takes years of observation and insight to see the social forces that are operating under the surface. But I would like you to consider two things: (1) Social group factors are not the only decision motivators; there are others. (2) Members of any social group are subject to behavioural patterns implicit within that social group - a pecking order, so to speak. Social climbing, social status and so on, are factors everywhere in life. The above description on worker visits is not Christlike, but I've certainly witnessed many workers doing many Christlike things that are 'out of the box'. I think of those workers who are always there at the bedside when someone is terminally ill, to cite just one small example. And what I call 'the box' is always there, in every church. It's part of life and not just part of the friends. (The only difference is that the friends have a bad case of it, in part because they think they are not susceptible to such things. Some of my acquaintances characterize them as a 'Pharisee' church; I wouldn't go quite so far myself but I can see where they're coming from.) . So I'm not sure why you don't consider them to be part of the group in the same way that the more sycophantic members are. Thanks for the further clarification.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2013 12:05:43 GMT -5
For what its worth.....I'm inclined to add this; Just last week a lady that is now a single mom with a son in her home that doesn't profess, and a teenage daughter that does.....came to me in private, and in tears. She explained how the entire year, the workers never stayed in her home (sister workers). This lady has been through the mill with what her ex-husband has put her through (long story). She has stayed solid, never quit coming to meetings, and raised her kids on her own. She asked me if I thought it was because she had a TV in her home. She explained how the workers had spent weeks with so-and-so family. Not even one night with her. I didn't try to give her a reason, but rather advised her to e-mail the older sister and simply ask her why they hadn't come. I told her to ask in a very non-confrontational manner. Explain to them how that her daughter really needs all the encouragement she can get, and how nice it would have been for her. She said she was going to do this. So this was just last week that this lady approached me on this. What SD explains above is not uncommon, but more the norm. Once you are in a "divided home" you slide down the social pecking order considerably. I was in that situation for about 4 to 5 months, and my conclusion was that my contribution would be better appreciated elsewhere. And that has certainly been the case, although we're back to "undivided". Incidentally, when I used the term "divided home" around non-friends who know us, people tend to laugh out loud. They think it's funny that our home should be considered "divided". Of course, this lady's home really is divided and no laughing matter, I'm sure. I would recommend she not limit her spiritual experience/ fraternization to the friends.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2013 13:14:18 GMT -5
I am assuming that you posted under a different name in the past. I am fairly certain I have not knowingly communicated with anyone who posts under the name of sacerdotal. Perhaps. Perhaps my entire family was kicked out of meetings because I made the "mistake" ....<snip> .... is what the specialist said too." Isn't it possible that, while things happened as you have recounted, that another observer might have depicted it differently? I am not condoning the actions of those involved but it seems much of it is social/familial problems and would have happened regardless of the religious affiliation. As you said, it seems like there are a many sides and factors to this story. I am not sure that anyone thinks you or Edgar are lying but the questions seem to be centered on your interpretation of the events. I do not think you can be certain that every piece of communication people have received is false. That being said, I do not recall receiving any communication regarding sacerdotal.Perhaps because they are just human and trying to please as many people as possible without going too much against the influential people upon whom they rely for support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 14:18:35 GMT -5
I've known 2x2 women to break down in tears because they did have a visit with workers. The workers couldn't have cared less about their troubles. Sometimes, it's a true blessing that those in pain don't have worker visits. Those kind of worker visits are tough to get over. Don't you think those '2x2 women' have a problem though? Like, what's the big deal about a worker visit. I always did enjoy them, but I more thought of it as doing our bit, and we were quite happy to do our bit. But I know there were years when we got a rush visit to "fit us in at the end". Okay, no problem. (However, towards the end our home was skipped which I read as a signal we were on the outs, but that's another story, entirely.) I don't want to be insensitive to those who attach number of days of worker visit into their personal sense of self-worth. But that's a sad state of affairs if it matters that much. I think you missed the gist of this post by a mile or so. Of course these women have problems, that's the point of the post. They have problems, the workers visited, and indicated they "couldn't care less about their troubles". Clearly they expected (appropriately) that their worker guests would at least show they cared even if they weren't capable of helping, and they got none of it. So yes, in those cases, no visit would have been a blessing but the actual visit was nightmare. It could only have gotten worse had the workers listened, then blabbed about it to others in the local meetings.....that has happened far too often.
|
|