Response to Marvin Shilmer

Before I get into my full response, I would like to bring something to the attention of my readers (especially to Mr. Shilmer). While I do moderate to prevent hate speech and links to porn sites and such, I try my best to allow most comments. That privilege can be abused however!

1. If you wish to write Tears of Oberon a book, then please just send it in an email instead of trying to stuff thousands of words into the comments section. I will always try to respond to you privately, and will occasionally post the reply on my blog if I deem it significant or interesting enough (as I am doing in this post).

2. Please make sure that your comments are actually relevant to the article you give them on! The comments I am about to respond to, given by Mr. Shilmer, have nothing to do with the article on which they were posted whatsoever. Indeed, they seem much more like a previously written, generic rant against Witnesses that was simply hijacked and forced to be a response to my article.

Moving on…

Seeing as how I strive to be a fair man, I will give Mr. Shilmer’s comments first, unedited and in their entirety. I will do a line by line commentary afterwards.

Marvin Shilmer has left a new comment on your post "The Mind of the Opposer":

Opposer or Sufferer?

What of individuals whose primary concern is that the society they love and are an intimate part of is being dangerously misled and abused in the face of unanswered questions of positions or teachings?

What we are taught:

As Witnesses were are taught the importance of answering questions. Failure to answer questions suggests either we do not have answers or do not want to disclose the answers. Refusal to answer questions understandably prompts suspicion and stirs further searching.

What we feel:

When questions are legitimate and important and there is repeated failure to answer or refusal to answer, then what is a person supposed to think and feel? An honest person will be disappointed. This is made worse if the disappointment at the hand of an intimate associate. If the individual has a deep spiritual bond with the one failing or refusing to answer, then a deeper disillusionment is likely. Deep disillusionment inflicts severe pain and leads to feelings of betrayal, which will manifest itself one way or another.

What to do:

The healthy way of dealing with feelings of betrayal is to talk openly, freely and as often as necessary with a confidant who can help in the here and now. But if that confidant is unable to help by providing needed answers, what then? Also, if the sufferer knows his confidant is obliged to report divisive talk for investigation, how free is the sufferer to express themselves without threat?

What is going on:

More than a few Witnesses have found themselves in just such a predicament.

Witnesses are injured by Watchtower’s repeated failure to answer legitimate questions and, instead, telling them to wait with no end in sight. Injury is more acute when answering a question is essential to a current teaching that is communally enforced. If we have no sound answer for a why a particular teaching is valid then why is it communally enforced as though it were valid?

Witnesses are also forced to be extremely selective about whom they share their concerns with because the consequence of being wrongly branded a “cause of division” is very real and very threatening in the atmosphere Watchtower has bred in the Witness community.

A typical Witness is serious minded; strenuously seeks answers; is dedicated to doing right themselves and for others, even if it means harsh shunning. These traits are strong and lifetime influences. A person with these traits finding themselves in circumstances described above will find the pain is only made worse because a deep part of their person needs answers and wants to do the right things.

Yet to find healthy relief these individuals must somehow speak to someone! Otherwise they burn inside until, God forbid, their grief boils over in an unhealthy way and they either break down emotionally or begin thinking of ways to inflict harm on others, or both.

What folks do:

Most people seek healthy ways of relief. They find ways of sharing their concerns and will do so until their concern is either satisfied or dies. In contemporary society, this means a lot of these sufferers will share their concerns online. The internet is widely accessible and relatively safe from an immediate threat of being punished wrongly as “a cause of division”.

It is important not to confuse a sufferer with an opposer. Sufferers are hurting. Sufferers deserve every assistance we would want extended to our own person were we the one in pain. Sufferers need help.

What we can do to help sufferers

As an individual in the Witness community, we should encourage our fellows to freely share their feelings and questions without fear or threat of reprisal. We should offer honest answers at all times, and avoid adding to personal suffering by refusing to answer questions that are relevant and important to the subject. We should answer straightforward questions with straightforward answers. This is the loving approach.

If we are mature and educated we will also encourage sound thinking and personal responsibility, along with helping sufferers understand the inadequacies that are unavoidable in any brotherhood or community.

The goal is to help reduce a brother’s suffering where and when we can, to encourage sound thinking and actions, and at the very least to help an individual avoid unhealthy actions as a result of suffering they experience.

My observation of persons in the online community professing themselves as a Witness is that they often confuse a sufferer with an opposer. When this happens it is very unfortunate because it is so needless. It is easy enough to learn how to recognize one from the other with fair certainty.

Opposers do not accept answers that meet every criteria of well known and recognized logical constructions. Sufferers, on the other hand, once they learn conventions of logical deduction and inference, embrace answers that meet every criteria of well known and recognized logical constructions. Hence one need only learn accepted conventions of logical construction and they have an unbiased tool at their disposal to objectively determine the disposition of a person engaged in conversation, not to mention the same tool is remarkably powerful for one’s own personal edification whether a subject is spiritual, emotional or intellectual in nature, or something else.

Marvin Shilmer

And he was really expecting me to approve all of that for the comments? But regardless, his side has been given and his voice has been heard, and now it is time to go back and break it all down.

Opposer or Sufferer?

What of individuals whose primary concern is that the society they love and are an intimate part of is being dangerously misled and abused in the face of unanswered questions of positions or teachings?

Right off the bat, he is setting himself up as the ‘good and innocent Witness’ whose only concern is the ‘well being’ of the Society and the Witnesses’ in general. This is what Byron Wilson described as a “redeemed Crusader” type.

"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth." Bryan R. Wilson, Apostates and New Religious Movements

It is a rather clever and well thought out introduction though—I will give it that much. Mr. Shilmer hopes to gain the trust of his readers quickly by giving his writings a thin veil of Christian love and concern. But anyone who has had extended dealings with Mr. Shilmer knows what a load of poppycock that is—his hatred and loathing for the Witnesses, and especially the Society, extends clear down to his core.

I would also like to point out that there is a distinct reason for using the term “sufferer.” If I myself were to publically criticize a government official and bash him into the ground, then I would naturally open myself up for quite a bit of counter-criticism. Aww, but if I sent an innocent child to do the criticizing instead, then who would dare counter-attack them? They would be publically ostracized. On a similar note, Mr. Shilmer has adopted the title “sufferer” solely for the purpose of deflecting any thoughts of ill motive or criticism. “Oh! He is just an innocent victim! He is in pain! It’s not his fault! He couldn’t possibly be held accountable for his own actions!” That is the response that Mr. Shilmer wishes to elicit out of his readers. But alas, it is nothing more than a thinly disguised appeal to emotion, and should be taken with a healthy grain of salt and a raised eyebrow.

As Witnesses were are taught the importance of answering questions.

I agree with this statement. Questions pertaining to the Bible and God are quite important to have answered.

Failure to answer questions suggests either we do not have answers or do not want to disclose the answers. Refusal to answer questions understandably prompts suspicion and stirs further searching.

Well that may be true for Mr. Marvin Paranoid, but normal people generally do not assume that they are being lied to or that the answers are being deliberately kept from them just because the person they ask says that they do not know the answer. And of course, that is merely a general hypothetical. When it comes to the Bible and God, Witnesses have access to most of the questions that they actually need, either through the literature or through other Witnesses. They may not know everything in the world (and who does?), but what they do know is still leaps and bounds beyond nominal Christianity, and is sufficient for living in harmony with God’s will and purpose as outline by the Bible.

When questions are legitimate and important and there is repeated failure to answer or refusal to answer, then what is a person supposed to think and feel?

And there he goes again trying to sneak the whole “refusing to answer questions” point in the back door by just casually attaching to the tail end of a more accurate statement (that they may not know the answer). It is also interesting to note that Mr. Shilmer has as of yet not bothered to give any actual examples of these ‘unknowable’ questions’.

But in answer to the actual question: A non-paranoid Witness, when not able to receive a sufficient answer, will

1. Go and find either a different brother or sister to ask,

2. Seek a publication or resource that may contain the answer

3. Humbly concede that the question is up in the air and is possibly not knowable at present, and move on with their life.

An honest person will be disappointed.

An honest person will also be humble. Einstein was among the greatest minds who ever lived, but even he conceded that he did not and could not know everything that he wanted to know. He could have been disappointed yes, but his humility helped him keep his focus.

This is made worse if the disappointment at the hand of an intimate associate. If the individual has a deep spiritual bond with the one failing or refusing to answer, then a deeper disillusionment is likely. Deep disillusionment inflicts severe pain and leads to feelings of betrayal, which will manifest itself one way or another.

Refusing, refusing blah blah blah. I am going to start marking out those phrases, because

1. Witnesses don’t “refuse” to answer questions unless you are either insincere in asking or its none of your business.

2. Tears of Oberon, in his personal experience, has never had any brother or sister “refuse” to answer sincere and legitimate Bible questions. In every case the brother or sister asked has made a diligent attempt to find an answer—and if they did not manage to find a sufficient answer, then they told Tears of Oberon as much.

The statement also becomes a giant load of horse hockey without the “refusal” bit tacked on. Mr. Shilmer is seriously trying to convince us that we should feel betrayed, disillusioned and hurt just because one of our friends doesn’t know the answer to a question? And what exactly does he mean by “will manifest itself in one way or the other”? If my friend doesn’t know the answer to a question I give him, does that mean that I’ll go on a shooting rampage or have a mental breakdown? Please forgive me while I laugh out loud!

The healthy way of dealing with feelings of betrayal is to talk openly, freely and as often as necessary with a confidant who can help in the here and now.

Oh ok, so now all of a sudden we’ve been “betrayed” because someone couldn’t answer a question. That makes sense…

But if that confidant is unable to help by providing needed answers, what then?

Answers to what! After 250 words he still hasn’t bothered to define that for us yet, even though the answer to the above question is quite dependant on exactly what the person is expecting out of their ‘confidant.’

Also, if the sufferer knows his confidant is obliged to report divisive talk for investigation, how free is the sufferer to express themselves without threat?

Yes, that would be quite a bad confidant now wouldn’t it? Good thing that the statement obviously isn’t aimed at Jehovah’s Witnesses though, because not one I know of would act that way, nor are they taught to act that way. If someone were to come to Tears of Oberon with sincere questions and wanted to keep our talk confidential (which happens more often than you think), then Tears of Oberon would do the research and answer to the best of his ability while at the same time respecting the person’s privacy. I can research and answer questions just fine, so why would I need to talk to the elders about the situation? Some though are not as experienced, and may recommend that the person go and speak with the elders simply because the elders tend to be a bit more knowledgeable of the Scriptures—there is not harm or “threat” in that. However, it sometimes becomes apparent during the course of our discussion that the person is not really interested in finding answers at all, and simply wishes to either fight or prove himself right and others wrong at any cost, e.g., Mr. Shilmer and his desperate attempts to prove that perch are not really fish. That is the only reason why I would talk to the elders about someone—because I gave them all the answers, but they rejected them and insisted on a course of contentiousness, divisiveness and unreasonableness. One of the only other reasons is, naturally, if the person poses a physical danger to themselves or to others, e.g., threatening self harm or suicide. Safety should always trump confidentiality.

More than a few Witnesses have found themselves in just such a predicament.

I give my own experience as a response. As a youth going through the angst of my teenage years, I naturally had quite a few problems. I chose, interestingly enough, a young woman as my confidant (those who are in emotional pain can end up picking just about any type of person). I told her about many things, including my recent troubles with apostate thoughts. But honestly, who was she to answer difficult questions about life and pain and apostasy? She was a teenager just like me! So when she told me to go to the elders in the congregation with my problems, did that mean that she wanted to have me punished or labeled as a “cause of division”? Bull! She was my friend back then, and I can thankfully still consider her my friend today. She wanted me to have genuine help, but she felt inadequate due to her experience and age. She recommended I go the elders because she knew that they could help me where she couldn’t—and help me they did with just about everything! And guess what? They didn’t treat me as a “cause for division” just because I had problems and questions! The difference was that I was sincere and was willing to listen, where others might have only gone to argue and prove themselves right. It is a difference of attitude! For instance, Mr. Shilmer’s attitude is always negative and critical when it comes to the Witnesses—he will always imputes bad motives first and then work from there. But I did not assume ill motives on the part of that sister, and am fortunate for that choice. I trusted in her good intentions and received the help I needed.

Witnesses are injured by Watchtower’s repeated failure to answer legitimate questions and, instead, telling them to wait with no end in sight.

“Watchtower’s repeated failure to answer questions” is an unproven, unsupported and all around untrue assumption on Mr. Shilmer’s part. But if we wanted to make it accurate, then it should really read, “Watchtower’s repeated failure to acknowledge the superiority of my own ideas over theirs and bow to my never-ending criticisms.” Mr. Shilmer has actually been answered numerous times—he simply refuses to accept the answers he is given because he just oh so hates being wrong (again, the biggest support for my statement is the “perch are not really fish” argument I had with Mr. Shilmer over a year ago, which I will post in the near future for kicks and giggles)

Injury is more acute when answering a question is essential to a current teaching that is communally enforced. If we have no sound answer for a why a particular teaching is valid then why is it communally enforced as though it were valid?

Examples?? Again, none whatsoever from Mr. Shilmer. He spouts nothing but broad and vague accusations that sound good to other opposers, but have no hope of being successfully backed up with evidence.

Witnesses are also forced to be extremely selective about whom they share their concerns with because the consequence of being wrongly branded a “cause of division” is very real and very threatening in the atmosphere Watchtower has bred in the Witness community.

And we have officially jumped the shark ladies and gentlemen! Christian love and concern has been kicked out the door to make room for hate speech, wild accusations and pejoratives galore! It only gets better from here.

1. Someone who is a “cause of division” is one who actively and deliberately attempts to turn the brothers and sisters against each other. A perfect example of this would be Mr. Shilmer himself and his attempts to spread paranoia, bitterness and “feelings of betrayal” that often don’t even exist before his interference.

2. Someone with a ‘legitimate’ question can talk to anyone they want to find ‘legitimate’ answers. They are not “causes of division” until the meeting the criteria of point 1.

3. “bred” is a pejorative term, and is only used by Mr. Shilmer for the emotional effect. It is the same effect that a phrase like “big corporation” has on the average individual, i.e., it carries socially negative connotations.

A typical Witness is serious minded; strenuously seeks answers; is dedicated to doing right themselves and for others, even if it means harsh shunning [disfellowshipping].

Exposing wrong doing often does and should lead to some form of punishment. If my friend starts doing drugs, should I really go and tell his parents, even though they will likely punish him severely? Of course I should! The punishment in that case would of course be loving and intended to correct my friend’s course and save him from further harm. Disfellowshipping serves the same purpose, and is intended primarily to correct wrong or dangerous courses by acting as a “wake up call” so to speak. Paul used such congregational punishment effectively again the man alluded to in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and 2 Corinthians chapter 2.

These traits are strong and lifetime influences. A person with these traits finding themselves in circumstances described above will find the pain is only made worse because a deep part of their person needs answers and wants to do the right things.

The “right things” are those which are in line with Jehovah’s will, standards and purpose. If the Witnesses follow Jehovah’s will, standards and purposes, then they are in line with the “right things” and the person should stick with them. If the person has a question that cannot be answered, that still does not change the fact that the Witnesses are in harmony with Jehovah’s will, standards and purposes now does it? As I mentioned above, our human limitations prevent us from knowing every little detail—if you think that there is anyone out there who can give you all the answers to every question, then you are a delusional fool. However, we can know the important things for sure. To quote ThirdWitness:

If the Trinity is false, and hellfire is false, and God's name is important and must be sanctified, and worldwide unity is a must for God's people, and nationalistic killing is condemned by God, and God's kingdom is not something in your heart but a real government that will restore earthly paradise, and Jesus did not sacrifice his life as a god/man but rather as a perfect man, then are Jehovah's Witnesses God's organization? If not then who is?

1. Fact: God is not a Trinity. JWs teach the Biblical truth about the Trinity, thus worshiping the only true God, and preach that truth worldwide. All other worldwide religion's teach and worship the god-dishonoring pagan and demon-inspired Trinity.

2. Fact: Hellfire is a lie. JWs teach the Biblical truth about hellfire and preach that truth worldwide. All other worldwide religion's worship the god-dishonoring sadistic and cruel god of the pagans.

3. Fact: God's name Jehovah is of the utmost importance and should be proclaimed far and wide and sanctified. JWs teach the Biblical truth about God's name and preach that truth worldwide, even calling themselves JEHOVAH'S witnesses. All other worldwide religion's see no importance in His name, some even removing the name from God's own word.

4. Fact: God's kingdom in the hands of Jesus will restore earth to a paradise. JWs teach the Biblical truth about God's kingdom as the only hope for mankind and preach that truth worldwide. All other worldwide religion's claim the kingdom is in your heart, the earth will be burned up, or some other similar teaching.

5. Fact: Jesus gave his life as a ransom as a perfect man not a god/man. JWs teach the Biblical truth about Jesus and the ransom and preach that truth worldwide. All other worldwide religions point to a false Jesus that did not really provide a ransom since it was not an 'eye for an eye' but rather a god/man for a man, thus there is really no salvation since the ransom was not really paid.

6. Fact: this good news of the Kingdom and all of the above must unitedly be preached worldwide. JWs teach and preach these Biblical truths unitedly worldwide. No other religion on the face of the earth does that. Even within their own religion they are disunited, sometimes even killing one another in times of war.

7. Fact: Jesus said a faithful and discreet slave would provide the food at the proper time. Only JWs are providing that food as shown above worldwide.

Yet to find healthy relief these individuals must somehow speak to someone! Otherwise they burn inside until, God forbid, their grief boils over in an unhealthy way and they either break down emotionally or begin thinking of ways to inflict harm on others, or both.

Mr. Shilmer confuses emotional pain and depression with theological and doctrinal confusion (perhaps or perhaps not deliberately). The two are neither correlated nor causal. Depression can be a perfectly natural condition that stems from such things as physiological problems, family problems, loneliness, deaths, ect. Depression also isn’t treated by discussing doctrine—it is treated through heart to heart talking about the root problems and by showing loving interest and empathy (I personally don’t like the idea of using drugs to cure problems of the heart unless absolutely necessary, but that is simply my opinion and nothing more). And as long as we are talking about nothing but straight depression, then I agree with Mr. Shilmer’s above statements.

It is important not to confuse a sufferer with an opposer. Sufferers are hurting. Sufferers deserve every assistance we would want extended to our own person were we the one in pain. Sufferers need help.

I never once confused, as you say, a “sufferer” with an opposer in my original article. In fact, I feel that I defined the term “opposer” quite well. However, you seem to want the opposite of what you actually state, which is odd to me. You do think that opposers are sufferers, yet you simply want to create sympathy for the cause of the opposer/apostate by painting them all as innocent victims who have no responsibility for their actions whatsoever, and whose problems were entirely caused by the Witnesses and the Society. That, I believe, is the real purpose of your little essay.

If you actually bother to read my articles and quotations however, you should have noticed the point repeatedly brought up that the source of many of the “sufferers’” sufferings actually stem from the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM), and not from the Witnesses or the Society. You seem to conveniently ignore this in your quest to pin all of the world’s woes on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Extracts From: Melton, Gordon J., Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory, 1999

Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions. Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms among ex-members, the process of leaving the group.

Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample.

The Lewis and Bromley study became a landmark study in shifting the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions from the religions to the coercive activity of the anti-cult movement. In the wake of this study (and other works that confirmed its findings), treating former members as people in need of psychological help has largely ceased. The lack of any widespread expressed need for psychological help by the tens of thousands of former members of new religions in the succeeding decade has itself become the strongest evidence refuting the early sweeping condemnation of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.

Onto the next point.

What we can do to help sufferers

As an individual in the Witness community, we should encourage our fellows to freely share their feelings and questions without fear or threat of reprisal. We should offer honest answers at all times, and avoid adding to personal suffering by refusing to answer questions that are relevant and important to the subject. We should answer straightforward questions with straightforward answers. This is the loving approach.

Witnesses already encourage and practice these things, so it is a moot point.

If we are mature and educated we will also encourage sound thinking and personal responsibility, along with helping sufferers understand the inadequacies that are unavoidable in any brotherhood or community.

Apostate code-talk for, “we should expose and attack the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and then convince others to do the same thing.”

The goal is to help reduce a brother’s suffering where and when we can, to encourage sound thinking and actions, and at the very least to help an individual avoid unhealthy actions as a result of suffering they experience.

Agreed.

My observation of persons in the online community professing themselves as a Witness is that they often confuse a sufferer with an opposer. When this happens it is very unfortunate because it is so needless. It is easy enough to learn how to recognize one from the other with fair certainty.

It only becomes easy to spot the difference through raw experience. I’ve had my fair share of arguments and fights over the years, and can sniff out insincerity like a good huntin dog can smell a coon from a mile away. It is true though, that there are those who are simply hurt or confused by apostate lies and really do want answers. I have had the privilege of speaking with and helping several of them as well.

Opposers do not accept answers that meet every criteria of well known and recognized logical constructions. Sufferers, on the other hand, once they learn conventions of logical deduction and inference, embrace answers that meet every criteria of well known and recognized logical constructions. Hence one need only learn accepted conventions of logical construction and they have an unbiased tool at their disposal to objectively determine the disposition of a person engaged in conversation, not to mention the same tool is remarkably powerful for one’s own personal edification whether a subject is spiritual, emotional or intellectual in nature, or something else.

The kind of formal logic you speak of is a two-edged sword. Yes, it can help some while engaging in an argument or while doing research; but it also has the tragic side effect of deluding and blinding those who put too much trust in it and fail to recognize its limitations.

Words to live by: a skilled logician is never wrong about anything, because he can argue any truth into a lie and any lie into a truth. One who can make the truth anything that they want it to be—how powerful, and yet how sad that ability really is.

Tears of Oberon