Messages By: bar_b_qued

I was raised a Jehovah's Witness also in the 60's from the age of two years old. I was not only "a good little JW girl" but I was loyal and faithful and believed with faith and conviction what I was taught.  

I had my share of playground incidents and some left me running in tears from the yard. But I see it as no different than  some other issue they would have teased me over on another day. And they did. I was a short , fat, red-head with freckles and a first name that had a popular rock song after it and a last name that Huckleberry hound made famous. I had  a good healthy dose of constant teasing in my life. The times it was over my religion were only a part of the whole.  

Being a Jehovah's Witness was nothing like being in this kind of atmosphere and had none of the all-encompassing factors that this group did/does. 

To compare the two is self-serving and diminishes the trauma of the members who have left this "Family" 

All religions have their frauds. You cannot  find a religion that does not have  some bad people in it because all religions have people in them and not all people behave well. I will not argue the level of offense the Witnesses may have  committed, but I will argue whole heartedly including them into the same mesh with this "Family". To say they are nearly comparable is to take away from the very real experiences these brave souls are sharing with us and  healing themselves from. 

That's just my take on it. 

(By the way? I left the Witnesses in  the late 70's of my own volition and have half my family still in it.) 

I read all the links I have been given here- completely. (After I discovered pages 2 and 3 -blush) 

I have to say, I do believe there are regional disparities that may explain the difference in experiences?  

How can  some individuals experience such a horrific time and others in the same "religion" have  an  exact opposite experience? 

I believe it is a matter of certain groups functioning differently. I do not think all of these people are liars! I was raised a Witness as I said before. I have known a lot of other Witnesses. There is a difference between one congregation and another. There are even differences within the same congregations. I have seen this in other churches also. (I spent a long time looking)  

I do believe that not every outcropping of this 'religion' have behaved  in identical manners.  

After having read the letters that are sent to their missionaries, however, I believe the foundation is the same and can easily see where the deep depravity comes from. 

It is planted there. I guess the interpretation is left to the individual communal groups? 

Actually, that is not a guideline they go by. At least they never did. I have even been told by my family members that they even lightening up on some of the rules they had when still when I left. 

The only time they really discourage contact with family members that are not Witnesses is when that person has been excommunicated or left on bad terms. They do have a thing called  being "publicly reproved" which only means the elders state they do not approve of the open behavior the person is engaging in but cannot kick them out as they are not baptised. Some congregations take this as  deeming the silent treatment, but it is not what it is supposed to mean. It is supposed to mean, "When see that guy smoking, or notice that single girl is pregnant, don't think we think it's okay."  

I have heard of times they discourage contact with family members that are trying to get you to leave the Witness organization, but many companies and clubs have a form of that. Heck, even Amway does that! 

Yes, we are overmedicated. 

Yes there is a such thing as a chemical imbalance. 

Yes it is often mis-diagnosed. 

Yes, kids who don't need them are getting drugs for the convenience of the care givers. 

Yes, some kids need the medication to function well as they can. 

I think the biggest problem is the missed drug of choice. All of the additives in our foods that are driving everyone stark raving bonkers. 

A very good read that is a s timely now as it ever was is "The Food Sensitivity Diet" 

I highly recommend it before drug treatment is tried. It also can work very well in conjunction with drugs so as to facilitate them and not make them work so hard to undo what we do to ourselves. 

Another great source, but an awkward read at times. "Psycho-Nutrition" by Carlton Fredericks. 

Some times it is as simple as toasting your bread first to  break down the glutens. All depends on you. A simple food rotation diet may reveal no need for drugs. Or it may reveal  you actually do need them. Most people benefit by just going on a diabetic  diet. 

There are a lot of options available and no one answer for all people. Just like the RDA is not tailor made for everyone. Some need more zinc, some , less iron.... But to say any of us knows for the next what is the one answer? 

Sheer arogance. 

I understand what you are saying. 

In my own family my older sister tried to tell us ( after we were in our early 20's) that we had been in an abusive household. 

I didn't agree. I knew my dad was strict, but... 

As I look back now, I see what she meant and I feel so bad for her as it was harder on the oldest a little better for the next and so on. Until the last two had it damn good, actually. I was the middle child. 

I can see how one can have experienced ongoing abuse and yet not know it. Or at least refuse to identify it as abuse.  

I guess I should have suspected something when at 19 I entered counseling and when the counselor asked me how was my childhood I responded that it was great and I was always a happy child. Then I promptly broke out into unexplainable tears? I was baffled and could not for the life of me tell him why I was crying. 

Duh... 

I sent a reply to this, but I guess I messed up somehow because I do not see it here. 

I will try again, maybe this is better because I will be briefer this time. 

Badtrip, you wrote: Are you saying that it is arrogant to tell people about the side effects of drugs and make them aware of the dangers?  

No, not at all! I am sorry, I can see that I worded that badly. I meant that I thought it was arrogant for any one person to think that they hold the one and only solution for any other person. 

Isn't it also arrogant to assume that the underlying problem is purely physical or due to diet?  

I agree, it would be. I was not trying to say that. It is what worked for me and I was expressing it as another option.  

Are you denying the psychosocial and event-related context of mental illness?  

No, I understand what you mean, and I agree. However, this can be a vicious cycle where it is hard to pick what is the cause of the effect, ad naseum. 

I think it would be a good idea to recommend counseling as a primary help to people.  

I do not. I understand your point, I think. But when a person's head is muddled, whether it is the flue, or drugs, or tension...whatever, they can't  think clearly and as long as they are muddled, no amount of speaking to them is going to help. When my children have worked themselves into an unreasonable state I do not try then to reason with them. It only irritates them and frustrates me and  it is hard to show love when it is being blocked. I wait it out and then go over things with them.  

I don't discount the role of hormones, additives, etc. in making us ill. But I do find it hard to take all this talk about people fixing their problems with chemicals 

I understand. I think we agree more than it may seem. I am not anti-drug, perse', I am anti-try that first. 

Your argument that some kids need the medications, there is a chemical imbalance, etc. conflicts with basic principles of natural healing which you seem to advocate in your food comments.  

Please do not let me confuse you on my stance because I am badly wording things. I think the chemical imbalance is a label we have made for a situation that is difficult to explain. I do think people can be born lacking certain enzymes (Science seems to prove this out) and these are critically important for all sorts of proper function. Not only digestion, but mood, perception and physical handiness. I  have found that there is often a more natural cure  for many individuals. For others, we  cannot find a more natural cure and must depend on what we have found until we find the better alternative. I see no reason to allow suffering because brand A is not available.  

I am curious which one you believe more, the drug company argument of a chemical imbalance, of an Adderol deficiency in the brain, etc., or the additives are harmful argument. It seems to me like if you believe food additives are harmful, then synthetic drugs manufactured to alter the mind should also seem harmful to you. I believe additives are more harmful than I believe that drugs are effective, or always needed. I actually think the synthetic drugs are hands down more risky and harmful than the very symptoms they seek to cure, actually. But there are times when they are a better alternative and the answer to prayers for a person in turmoil.  

By the way? I read somewhere in here that someone ( it may have been you) was wondering if my statement about someone having the one answer for everyone was  aimed at anyone in particular? It was not. I do not think anyone here  has actually stated that. I was responding from a Pavlovian stance on that statement. My apologies to any that may have been offended. 

I just don't think these kinds of mixed marriages often work well. 

(That's mostly a joke) 

Animal lovers  tend to do better with animal lovers and those of us less inclined to share too much of our personal space with the sub species ( I am so gonna get it for that) should stick with others that do not feel overly inclined to invite the four legged  lovelies into their entire lives in an all encompassing manner. 

Just a thought.  

If you hate smoke don't marry a smoker, If you love the  beach don't marry a die hard snow bunny. 

Seems obvious enough.