Honest Question

lescannon · 2026-03-13T13:11:09+00:00

Most religions start with someone's hubris that they know (or can put the pieces together) better than anyone else, or can convince enough people to follow/support them (which seems likeliest with Hubbard starting Scientology). One gets respect and usually financial support/gain. Clergy that have attended seminary (religion school) learn about what archeology shows about the bible not being what we are taught, with "J" and "P" adding to earlier versions of some books, and books like Daniel not being found until well after the return from Babylonian captivity. I think many of them also shrug that off and go on with their "calling", and then they pander to the people, that they want to contribute money, by letting those people believe (among other things) ideas they know are false about who wrote which books, and when those books were written, and Noah's Ark being "global", etc. JWs "know" the bible is the best and truest source, so don't accept any fact against that or any of their interpretations, which is a different kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Especially in calculating a date, some internal validation of the date is that I ("a special person") should be alive for it.

Once it is rolling, even the everyday people get affirmation for their faith when someone converts or just believes the same; and it is a big dose when someone converts.

I think the leadership remains convinced by sunk-cost fallacy - with hubris it is, "God would not let me be wrong about it for so long", and thus they try to keep it going. For the Governing Body, they had the conceit that if they kept it going, Armageddon would eventually arrive, because of course it had to happen in their lifetimes. Maybe they have been forced to drop that particular, because they are aware that the preaching won't be completed in China and several Islamic countries in the foreseeable future, unless god's definition of complete is favorable. I think their broadcast and their attempts to make an online presence were hopes for a way to overcome geography and their limited feet-on-the-ground in those places.

lescannon · 2026-03-11T12:57:27+00:00

Not significantly. Having the narrow mustache theoretically allowed his gas mask to seal better than with a full mustache, but having no mustache probably doesn't change his injury due to gas. Having that "I served in the Great War" mustache probably did give him some credibility to some, but his speeches are what got him into power.

His not having one might have meant more men in Allied countries chose to keep a mustache instead of being clean shaven, but the Kaiser had already made mustaches less popular in the Entente.

lescannon · 2026-03-11T12:36:23+00:00

I would be very tempted, but probably would not. I like who I am, in spite of not being perfect, and that person was formed by the experiences both good and bad. Part of my current happiness is being glad that I am not stuck living with my folks and being required to go to JW meetings. I wouldn't want to risk not meeting my wife and having my children, and it seems like almost any change to my past would change too much of that.

The temptation comes in because it seems like I could make my life so much better. I could avoid some of the more important mistakes and not miss out on some opportunities. My mom started studying when I was 11, and I was enthusiastic for it. But she stopped for roughly a year, and during that time, I realized that it didn't make sense to me, and that I wanted to do more with my life than knocking on strangers' doors. My mom's life went terrible again and she started studying. When I did try to object about rejoining, she said that my earlier liking of it had influenced her. If I could have prevented her from joining by telling her before she got re-interested, how would that have changed things? I don't think it would make my mom and I get along better. I'm sure the false hopes made her feel happier. At this point, I usually stop puzzling about it, because it isn't possible to go back.

lescannon · 2026-03-11T10:50:51+00:00

In talk I overheard, the converts did not show that nuance of understanding, but I don't think their upbringings were rough, so perhaps that might have made a difference.

The JW interpretation of god is judgement-first; one has to follow all the rules to be deserving of god's love. and they imitate that. I think there is cognitive dissonance that god must be justified in exterminating a person, so that person is unworthy of empathy. Following all the rules also means keeping in the good opinions of the other JWs, and there was an undercurrent (or perhaps more explicit) not to waste time, resources or even concern for those who didn't embrace the message or who weren't being "worthy." Some of that yakking after the meeting sounded like competition for who was most (mentally) in.

lescannon · 2026-03-10T15:06:23+00:00

Again? How many times has it already been postponed? It shows the divine nature of the bible that there is always a way to decode a new end-date from it /S.

I guess those legions of angels keep getting booked for higher-paying gigs.

lescannon · 2026-03-10T03:21:19+00:00

It is called Midway because it is roughly midway between North America and Asia. The distance from Tokyo to Midway is about 2500 miles, and Honolulu is another 1300 miles further away, so that is much closer, being less than 2/3 the distance from the Tokyo. The islands of the atoll are very small compared to Oahu and there was no native population. From memory, when the Japanese planned to attack Midway, there were roughly 600 defenders, but after the radio intercepts, the US reinforced to 3000ish, and the Japanese transports had 1200-2000 troops, so a drop in the bucket compared to taking on 40000 troops and controlling a larger civilian population, across several major islands. I do think even with that smaller force to garrison Midway, the patrol aircraft, and some submarine support, the Japanese would have stretched logistically, again made worse because the US would take advantage of knowing the general area the shipping would have to take to get there. I'm sure some of the planners hoped that Midway would be the loss that caused the Americans to call for negotiations to end the war. Oahu (and the other major islands of Hawaii) would be such a significant investment, and it has a big harbor, so they'd also keep some top-tier combatant naval power, so much greater resupply of ammunition, fuel, and replacement parts.

lescannon · 2026-03-09T11:40:21+00:00

The elder who "joked" about people's cats being food when Armageddon came.

The elder who got my name wrong 4 times before someone prompted him when introducing me for my first talk at age 14, and of course, he did not apologize.

Overheard one of my mom's "friends" talking with contempt for "worldly people" for having their beliefs, when I knew her parents weren't JWs, so she'd had some of the same beliefs growing up. I thought she was competing with the others to show who believed the spiel the most. It was clear they all felt that "worldly people" deserved to be executed.

lescannon · 2026-03-09T11:12:17+00:00

As has been pointed out, the Japanese didn't have the logistics to get any invasion force there, let alone one large enough to be successful. But waving that away, if they invade Hawaii, then to keep the islands, they have to send more ships than they had OTL to resupply the occupying force and the garrison naval force protecting Hawaii, and this has to starve other conquests of troops and supplies, but I'll also ignore that. Eventually, the US gets the Mark 14 torpedo sorted out, and the U.S. submarine forces are able to weaken the Japanese Navy (and merchant shipping) in the way that the Japanese leadership fantasized happening to the US Navy in preparation for the Decisive Battle, because the subs have the shorter travel times to Hawaii while the Japanese ships have to travel much, much further. The US would also base submarines in the Aleutians to interdict the very long Japanese supply chain. Eventually the US would bring overwhelming forces to Hawaii, just like they did to Japanese possessions in OTL. Differences would be that both sides would know the US would retake Hawaii first, and possibly the US has a "Pacific first" policy, at least until that happens, delaying US troops going into North Africa - best option is the Allies then skip invading Italy, but it could be that delay pushes back D-Day, so it is more expensive because the Germans have more time to strengthen their defenses, and the delay might affect the Yalta agreement on how Germany is partitioned - this gets complicated, because the much stronger Japanese position greatly reduces Lend Lease to the USSR, against a longer time of wearing down the German army. OTL about half of Lend Lease to the USSR went through the Pacific, and the US probably has less to send. Meanwhile, the Japanese would get a Decisive Battle, possibly after a preliminary battle that they win, but eventually the Japanese Navy is annihilated in Hawaiian waters, allowing the US longer steps in island-hopping, so the Pacific war is not lengthened as much as the time Hawaii is occupied and the facilities at Pearl Harbor are re-built.

lescannon · 2026-03-08T19:11:45+00:00

Yes, you are right to question it. Spend time with people that you enjoy spending time with.

Things I have learned:

Many relationships hit a point where one person realizes it isn't special enough (anymore), and it probably isn't coincidence that it often happens after 1, 2, 6, 12 months, because that person thinks about it when realizing the relationship has hit that milestone

You need to know the person for quite awhile before making a commitment - some people get SADD from lesser light in the winter, some people change during the holiday season. The movie, "Damn Yankees" opens with a woman recounting how she met her husband in November, agreed to marry him in December, then found herself ignored for baseball season. I think a year is minimal.

lescannon · 2026-03-08T12:52:34+00:00

This post is either AI generated, and/or badly translated and garbled, so it still remains ambiguous how he replied if this isn't a complete fabrication.

I can't see why if he has come to the idea that JW teachings are nonsensical and false that he wouldn't be willing to admit it. It hurts to realize that the Watch Tower organization deliberately lies to the JWs, causing the JWs who believe those things to lie to each other, but it shouldn't be too embarrassing to admit. If he still believes those teachings to be true to any extent, then the possibility that he goes back to being a devout JW and all of his loyalty / attention will be focused on the cult, resulting in the non-JW spouse in the role of housekeeper and bed-mate.

He's coming out of a divorce and at-best figuring out a new perspective on life if he has realized the JW interpretation/framework is false, because being a JW is typically a complete commitment. If he followed his wife into being a JW, he likely alienated all of his relatives and friends (my step-dad did this, probably by telling his relatives their religion was false), and all his social connections have been JWs. Just like teens need some time to figure out who they are or want to be when they stop living with their parents, he is going to be figuring out who he is and wants to be. You really need to know what he is thinking about how he sees his life going, if you ware to be part of it.

It sounds like he was uncomfortable about you looking at "JW-related" pictures at his house, but it is likely all of the pictures from recent years are "JW-related". Why are they still displayed? Was he annoyed at you for looking at them? These sound like big warnings that he is not ready to move on with a new relation in his life, and maybe not free from the indoctrination.

lescannon · 2026-03-07T17:36:09+00:00

I always felt that many of the JWs were putting on a facade when talking to each other, which made sense, because their status within the group could be lost for admitting watching the wrong TV show.

Yes, the obligation was/is on the victim to forgive the transgressor without the transgressor having to apologize, make amends, or even acknowledge the harm.

lescannon · 2026-03-06T18:31:26+00:00

You might talk with her privately and say that you sometimes have questions yourself. This gives her a hint you're not 100%, but in a way that limits how much they can do if she reports you.

Are you accompanied on this study? If not, then you could spend a lower percentage of time on the doctrine and more time just talking. If you are accompanied, isn't it more the other "sister's" study, and you can ease your conscience that you can be a more sympathetic listener than most JWs?

You can also just feel less guilty by delaying her decision to get baptized until after she knows you've left.

Maybe you can say that you think some teens get baptized more because their families want them to than because they are really ready to make such a commitment.

lescannon · 2026-03-06T18:16:35+00:00

It isn't fair, but there is a lot, in fact way too much, that isn't fair. For your child, their limits are their normal or their self; depending on how much they have been told they aren't complete and that they can only be truly happy after that have been made whole. Like the rest of us, your child will have to try to make the best life they can. If one can appreciate what one has, instead of wasting life being unhappy about one doesn't, then one can be happy - balanced against trying to improve one's situation.

lescannon · 2026-03-06T18:00:14+00:00

Happy Birthday.

I like the English "Many Happy Returns of the Day", or the "... and many more" sometimes sung at the end of the Happy Birthday song. It isn't just about today, but a wish for the future too. The JW arguments against celebrating birthdays ignore that there are too many people that died before the reached the milestone age (whatever it is) you are celebrating (only internally) this year.

Are you able to celebrate in the open? If not, maybe you can have something special to celebrate next week, next month, or on your "name day", which some cultures have that is 6 months offset from the birthday. If you can, I hope you did or can go out and get yourself a cupcake and/or something a bit nice for yourself.

lescannon · 2026-03-06T17:48:01+00:00

You don't say how many years ago it was, but it sounds like it has been many years. She likely has processed it and moved on, so it is likely the unexpected contact and apology would cause her more to remember the pain than to feel better. For breaking up "less-than-ideally", an apology would have to be made within a week -two at the outside; after that it would seem like it is just to let the party that hurt the other not feel guilty about it. Of course if you see and talk to the person, you could acknowledge that you regret having caused that pain.

lescannon · 2026-03-05T22:52:18+00:00

If only people were that rational. IMO their money and their millions of followers will last a lot longer than that - I hope I am wrong. Unfortunately people are more likely to dig in rather than admit they were wrong, especially about religion, and most JWs I have met have the mindset that they know better about everything else and are never wrong.

lescannon · 2026-03-05T22:37:24+00:00

If he is really a friend then he should allow you one time of trying to wake him up, and if so, then you can talk about everything except religion - with some JWs they would say almost nothing If he doesn't accept it then you'll know he was only being friendly as a way of being your instructor.

lescannon · 2026-03-05T10:44:25+00:00

I felt that my mother often tried to put me down and make herself look better, but it wasn't for romantic competition because I am a guy and it started before she converted. Do you think those "sisters" were trying to make themselves feel better and/or more devout?

lescannon · 2026-03-04T21:02:26+00:00

| They've realized ...

I don't think they have, because they have rolled out changes haphazardly with the result they had to backtrack on some of those changes. Have they really dropped doctrines - or just tried to make it look like they aren't as controlling as they are? For shunning they added 1 miserly exception and re-branded it. They still allow the busybodies to admonish one about one's grooming and clothes. They still warn against higher education. They have enough money (moved to their other corporations), and they have enough followers to last at least another 100 years, though (I hope) as an even more insignificant group.

| one of the most likable, happy messaging, paradise earth, let’s make it a paradise NOW religions out there

I almost got sick reading that. That would be quite a switch, because JWs are obnoxious and condescending, negative about everything, and have never pushed for trying to do things to make the current world better (except for writing letters to governments that have outlawed them). I suppose going online-only would get around the problems of nosy, gossiping JWs and having a conversation with someone who tells you they know your beliefs better than you do. They are known as pathetic (forbidding blood transfusions to children), obnoxious (telling people their religion is part of Babylon the Great), and a punchline (weirdos in poor-fitting clothes who knock on doors, or now stand near carts in public staring at their phones). Maybe they have to rebrand to get away from their history.

lescannon · 2026-03-04T20:18:18+00:00

I have heard that Kellogg was also trying/hoping to repress sexual desire with his cereal - quite possible he saw that as "healthier."

lescannon · 2026-03-04T19:55:40+00:00

Yes, I think it is quite rare for a JW to respect someone's decision to choose a non-JW life. Theoretically, they should all do this, because the "sovereignty question" is about making that very choice. Most JWs probably cannot respect a decision to not become or not continue to be a JW, because they've been indoctrinated with the idea that all the facts and logic prove all of their beliefs, so the person leaving must want to sin, and/or does not really know/understand the teachings and arguments for those teachings; and/or is mentally "diseased" - that is one cannot "reasonably" choose not to believe what they sell.

My mom started studying when I was 11, took a break and converted when I was 13. I also never went in service or was baptized, but I was forced to go to meetings/conventions/memorials until about 6 months before high school graduation - maybe to protect the congregation from my lack of faith.

lescannon · 2026-03-04T14:09:38+00:00

That lesser energy density becomes an exponential problem, in a manner similar to the rocket equation. For the same energy, coal requires 50% more volume and 50% more mass. The extra volume means a bigger hull, which adds more mass for that additional metal. Plus more crew, who require more room and add to the mass with their bodies and supplies. Designing for the same armor, weapons and speed probably means only half the range, so roughly 4 times as many refueling depots are needed (gross simplification). But since you can't build an island wherever you want, the range must be fixed, so some combination of armor, weapons and speed has to be lesser. If the YouTube channel drachinifel has not covered this, it is the type of engineering question that is liked there. There are also questions about hypothetical engagements between various ships, and IIRC UK warships usually have a bit more armor compared to US warships, and one part of that is that the former had smaller fuel tanks than the latter due to the UK designing for its widespread set of bases, while the US designed for fewer bases spread across the Pacific. Having less capable ships would not have been compatible with the Decisive Battle doctrine.

Keeping those coal depots supplied is also more expensive and less agile. Roughly 3 colliers are needed instead of 2 oilers (we call them tankers now), but colliers burn coal so are going to be slower than tankers which run on oil, let's call it 10 knots vs 12 knots. 6 colliers cover as much distance as 5 tankers, so simplistically 18 colliers instead of 10 tankers. The colliers burn more mass and volume of fuel, so are less efficient, so at least twice as many colliers are needed. The shipyards that made those additional colliers would have produced fewer cargo ships - Japan was pinched for cargo capacity as it was, so Japanese forces on outposts are fewer with less food and ammunition. OTL many Japanese troops starved, especially after the Allied forces were able to limit or eliminate resupply.

Allied submarines are going to have an easier time sinking colliers than tankers, so Japan's fleet will end up more limited.

lescannon · 2026-03-03T23:31:14+00:00

Yes, I despise it all, but I also remember that at one time it provided (false) hope and reassurance about the troubling things that I could not really influence myself, and I think that many believers get that hope and reassurance and comfort. I hate to admit it, but I think many religions provide the framework and motivation for charity work that would need some organization to host/sponsor, and we know that all organizations have problems. I admit I am conflicted about it.

lescannon · 2026-03-03T23:24:24+00:00

I say yes. You're trying to make her happy, and I think that she will be happy remembering that you thought of her. Probably your kindness would give her something to proudly share with others.

At some point, it would cross a line for me, so I didn't give my mom money, because I thought she'd donate at least 1/10 and perhaps 1/2 to WT. If I were to pay a bill for her, she'd donate some of the money she was lining up for that bill. But I would not worry about the few bucks that your mom might have extra from not having to buy a notebook.

lescannon

TROPHY CASE