Disassociation versus disfellowshipping is an interesting discussion for several reasons. Morally, one thing matters: both are procedures put in place by the WTS to impose shunning. That is the bottom line.

1. Both are mechanisms of the WTS.

2. Both operate under rules established by the WTS.

3. Both are used to impose shunning.

4. In terms of blood use, both require the judgment of a committee of WTS appointed elders. (This is not a “judicial” committee. “Judicial” committees are those used in procedures that might lead to “disfellowshipping”)

Everything else is smoke and mirrors designed to fuel legal arguments and accommodate social and/or political perceptions. Discussions here and elsewhere inevitably swirl around two topics. 1) Legal arguments that one poses versus the other, and 2) how to cut through WTS assertions about the two so society can see both for what they are, the same thing: procedures to effect shunning, shunning that is instigated and imposed by the WTS through its appointees.

On the legal front, disassociation is designed to add a dynamic (or frustration) to the question of liability arising from defamation. Slander or not, people’s character can be assassinated by certain circumstances, and that brings civil liability in most developed lands, usually irrespective or laws designed to protect freedoms of worship. When assertions arise of character assassination, disassociation is designed to place an additional weight of evidence onto the accuser. If a judge (or jury) buys this scheme—which sometimes is legitimate—then the accused is forced to show evidence that his or her actions would not have inevitably resulted in the same defamation. That is the additional weight of evidence. In the case of accepting a transfusion of blood, if the only persons knowing of it are legally bound medical professionals and congregational elders, then the idea of inevitability disappears in practical terms. This is the legal Achilles heal, but it only refutes the one aspect of inevitability, it does not win the suit. To win the suit a person must evidence that character assassination is a fact and that the WTS or its appointees are responsible.

To illustrate, cases of inevitability are pretty straightforward in cases of JWs joining an army. This is an action that would inevitably become known regardless of any congregational announcement or leak in confidentiality. These sorts of actions are perfect candidates for the legal argument of inevitability in cases of defamation. Adding to this is the fact that when a JW joins an army there is no judgment related to repentance; disassociation is automatic. This is not the case when a JW accepts a medical transfusion of blood. This act could be done under the authority of medical confidentiality. Leaks must then come as a result of confession, leaks in medical confidentiality, or else congregational snoops. If defamation arises from breaching medical confidentiality or congregational snoops, then those responsible for enacting the procedure of “disassociation” become legally liable for that defamation. If the legal argument of inevitability disappears then the playing field is leveled back to what it would be for disfellowshipping.

In the end, the problem boils down to this: assuming congregational elders act as told, in most developed lands the gain is no more than getting rid of a false legal argument called here inevitability. Because laws protecting religion’s freedoms are usually strong, legal suits over shunning are notoriously hard to prevail in. As long as a religion’s practices are reasonably well known then, unless a principal in the affair acts outside established norms, they can pretty much do as they please. The WTS’ norms on shunning are reasonably well known to JWs.

I will leave the aspect of social/political perception for someone else’s elaboration; a perception the WTS hopes will enhance its public relations.

I believe other posters have done a good job addressing this subject. I thought it deserved its own thread.

:: If defamation arises from breaching medical confidentiality or congregational snoops, then those responsible for enacting the procedure of “disassociation” become legally liable for that defamation. If the legal argument of inevitability disappears then the playing field is leveled back to what it would be for disfellowshipping.

Ah so. Elders, watch out. Another opportunity for you to be left slowly twisting in the wind.

Based on the volume of my personal hotmail, I am aware there are many individuals in authority who observe these threads with intense interest.

You who are taking a prayerful look at your relationship to God, his Word, and to the organization, I respectfully urge you to take the time to work through this very thoughtful and carefully reasoned post, and others like it. You have a choice.

This is not an arcane subject like the Higher Powers adjustment that could be waited upon for decades. Or even the "adjustment" on alternative service in which lives were ruined but not lost. This policy is about life or death, today, for countless persons for whom "accepted fractions" and "alternatives" will just not medically work to save their life. And remember the innocent children, who have no voice at all--silent lambs whose lives may be in your hands.

Speaking of PR, didn't I read somewhere that an official spokesman for the Society termed elders "untrained volunteers"?

Earnestly,
Maximus

Hey Maximus,

This was brought out by one of the WTBTS lawyers in defense of their position on child molesters in a newspaper article under SilentLambs site. I forget which article, however.

The lawyer was very cold basically giving the impression that it may happen, but it really wasn't the WTBTS's problem. It was a local problem. "And if the elders call us for direction, they get the right information." (paraphrased.) Thus, the "untrained volunteers" getting the blame if a child is molested and a wrong decision is made.

waiting

Bump to the top ...

M

Maximus et al,

These threads leave me drooling, they are soooo tantalizing. I get the impression that there's a lot going on beneath the surface that would be fascinating to know about. Do keep us posted.

up

Hey Ozzie,

A couple of years ago, I asked an elder I knew well about this and other matters that had "wording" changed. Such as, not announcing why a person had been df'd. At the time, I was still active and didn't even know of the term 'disassociation.'

His response? "Because they kept being sued, that's why! Satan is after the Society in any way he can. It's just words - they have to protect themselves."

So....it's ok to change "words" to stay out of court. Such as disfellowshipped to disassociated. "It's just words" - the locals know that no real change has taken place.

waiting

Welcome back Maximus. It's good to see your armed and armored image back on here again.

COMF