Posted by AF [AF] on November 09, 1999 at 18:17:29 {4Hfg918T5g1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: *****Apology posted by Friend on November 09, 1999 at 15:21:14:
:: Isn't it so that elders on judicial committees are required to judge people's motives purely by their actions? To claim that it's wrong for other people to do that is hypocritical.
: And where have I labeled wrong your choice not to accept Greg’s apology? Please, show us all. I would really like an answer to that!
Oy vay! Here we go again! Why do I continually have to prove the obvious to intelligent people?
I said to you:
When Greg gives evidence of being sincere, he'll be taken seriously. Until then it's self-serving damage control.
You responded:
What you are attempting here is to read Greg’s motives. . . The problem is that on occasion each of us has made that same mistake of trying to absolutely read motivations, and more so than most want to admit.
Then I responded as above:
Isn't it so that elders on judicial committees are required to judge people's motives purely by their actions? . . .
The point is that you yourself agree in principle that it is right and proper to judge people's motives by their actions. As an elder who has participated in numerous judicial decisions you also agree, right? If not, then I wonder what you think you're doing as an elder. After all, the Flock book states clearly, "Elders must be able to discern genuine repentance on the part of the wrongdoer. [p. 114]
When you tell me that it's a "problem" and a "mistake" for me to try to read Greg's motivations based on his actions, you're certainly telling me that it's wrong not to accept his apology! And when you tell me that it's wrong for me to do exactly what you have done numerous times, must I not conclude that you're being a bit hypocritical?
If I've got this all bollocksed up, please do explain.
: As for Greg’s actions, yes, I pretty much agree with what you said and it is for those actions that he apologized.
I don't agree that Greg's words constituted an apology. They were a pretense of an apology designed to accomplish exactly what the Society did with its pretense of apology about 1975. I agree that Greg is sincere in a certain way, but he's also extremely cynical in that he knows that giving such an appearance will be accepted by plenty of JWs as sincere even when he knows it's a pretense and a political maneuver.
: As for whether a JW judiciary would accept his apology, I think they would. The fact that he offered an explanation for his actions need not take away from his apology. He apologized for his actions and offered an explanation for what happened. That he also shared his views on other issues is of no consequence to his apology. As long as his views are expressed genuinely then they represent honesty on his part.
I completely disagree with your conclusions. Note some of the things that JW elders are supposed to consider in determining how to deal with an accused person, according to the Flock book:
Was his confession voluntary, or did he have to be accused by others before confessing? [p. 113]Was his reluctance to speak more a result of deep shame than of lack of repentance? [p. 113]
Above all, does he show true repentance and manifest a heartfelt desire to avoid repetition of the wrong? [p. 113]
How would you answer those questions in Greg's case? Consider the third question in light of Greg's posting under the handle "AP". Is he trying to fool H2O participants? Obviously not. Then who is he trying to fool? And if he's not trying to fool someone, then why the use of a new handle not seen before on H2O?
The Flock book has some very good comments on determining repentance:
There is good reason for you to weigh careully claims of repentance when the individual has shown himself to be guilty of hypocrisy, lying, or making deliberate efforts to deceive. [p. 113]
Are not these things exactly what Greg did to embarrass himself? Why do you discount them when I bring them out?
: I will not be drawn into an argument on this issue.
Too late. You're going to respond to this post.
: I can see that you only have regard for your own views.
No, I simply regard my views on this as correct.
: It is fine that you hold your own views in regard (I do the same thing), but holding the views of others with such disrespect as you are here demonstrates bigotry.
Bigotry? Not at all. I'm very disappointed that you'd make such an argument. Clearly stating that one's views are correct is not bigotry. And demonstrating that one's views are correct by reference to authoritative sources that one's opponents cannot deny is certainly not bigotry.
: Unfortunately you hold your own views of Greg’s apology in deference compared to others holding dissimilar views.
There's nothing unfortunate about it. Greg's "apology" is a farce, pure and simple.
: Fortunately there are others who can say that they respect your views even though they disagree with them. One day maybe you can so same.
I have plenty of respect for certain views that I disagree with strenuously. But one must draw the line at an astounding display of dishonesty and self-justification. Extreme displays of such require extreme measures of apology -- and of repentance -- in order to be cancelled. Do you not agree? Greg Stafford is guilty of attempting to deliberately deceive an entire discussion board. Only a bare "I'm sorry" unaccompanied by reams of self-justification and attacks upon perceived opponents is sufficient to cancel this in the eyes of honest people.
You don't think I respect other views? You have no idea, then. I mentioned on this board that James Penton and his wife stayed with Julie and me for a few days last week. Jim is a sincere Christian and we've had intense discussions over the years about various aspects of faith and Christianity. I disagree with some parts of his faith and he disagrees with and is unhappy about my lack of Christian faith. Jim has done some things that got people pretty pissed off at him, even some very sincere fellow Christians. But that hasn't lessened my respect for the man. You know why? Because despite his faults, I perceive him as fundamentally honest. That's because, while he's made mistakes, I can see clearly that it has not been done with an obvious intent to deceive. He feels the same about me and my views. I can say the same about many others with whom I share disagreements.
Now I'd like to comment on another thing you said, which touches on somewhat philosophical notions:
What you are attempting here is to read Greg’s motives. You have tried the same with me on past occasions and were wrong. You have even called me dishonest when I know I was/am not dishonest! I know that because better than you I know my own motivations. Whether you agree with them is beside the point. The problem is that on occasion each of us has made that same mistake of trying to absolutely read motivations, and more so than most want to admit. In that case we should accept individuality in regards to apologies and move on. Doing otherwise interferes with more important issues and circumstances.
I learned a very long time ago that people generally do not know their own motivations. Yeah, they may know some, but not the majority. I certainly don't know what motivates me to do many things. Far too many people try to justify their actions after the fact by claiming that their motivations were such and such, but most often they're fooling themselves. A wise man once said that people do what their heart desires, and then search for logical justification for their actions. I've observed that to be true most of the time, and certainly in my own case. Those who fail to recognize this basic fact about human beings are doomed to repeat the errors inherent in gross self-deception.
I certainly perceive myself as basically honest, and I can back that up by actions. I can post my name, address, phone number and much other personal information without fear of getting hurt. Why no fear? Because of experience. People tend to respect and honor honesty. In fact they move toward it. Can you say that you have no fear? Can Greg? No! In fact you guys are absolutely scared to death to talk honestly and openly with others about your spiritual problems. Both of you are scared to death to talk to me in person. Why is that? In your case doesn't it go well beyond your understandable desire not to be compromised? Isn't it more a fear of being confronted in person with someone who refuses to accept less than full honesty in important matters?
I don't expect a reply, but you ought to think about these things.
AF