What if you simply IGNORED being disfellowshipped and continued as before?

by Terry 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  As I see it, spending countless hours at the meetings with the hope of helping someone at random realize TTATT is about as effective as spending countless hours in the door-to-door work to convert a complete stranger.

  Let me try to be less general and more specific.

  This issue is MUCH BIGGER than your example.

  I know of a JW mom who had a 14 year old daughter who was kidnapped, pillow case thrown over the child's head, mouth duct-taped and then carried off by an 18 year old JW brother. The older boy molested the 14 year old. When this came out in the light of day the elders sought NOT to contact the police but to suppress the facts to keep the lid on.

  Now listen carefully...the JW mom contacted the police anyway.

  Elder harassment ensued and a witch-hunt directed toward both the victimized child and the mother for reporting molestation to the police.

  Both mom and daughter were disfellowshipped.

  This sort of abuse, reckless endangerment and violation of trust on the part of Elders is not as uncommon as we might think.

  An innocent person in such a situation is being victimized TWICE.

  If wrongly disfellowshipped WHY GO ALONG with these monsters just because it is THEIR policy?

  Evil is possible because good people do nothing.

  This mother DID do something and the elders were arrested!
• 

  wisdomfrombelow

  Terry,

  Your specific case is much different then the scenario that you mentioned initially. They no longer state publicly the reason why someone is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses so the rank and file are left to wonder. On another note, "innocence" is relative. Not related to your case but people can be kicked for smoking when under duress, for having a child through artificial insemination, for making personal decisions about medical treatment and for not blabing about a sin someone else did that they were aware of. Since no one knows the reason WHY, people don't have enough information to decide anything for themselves about how they feel about the case. When you hit them "in the pocket book" it has a lasting affect on those who did the injury.
• 

  Terry

  For those seeking reinstatement, the only recourse is to swallow their pride, grovel before the judicial committee, and then serve the term of their sentence (disfellowshipped state) which the committee will deem appropriate.

  Appeal directly to the Society is not unusual. Especially when the offending and wrong-headed Elders are thick as thieves in your city.

  I personally know an active JW father who has intervened in 5 disfellowship cases and got the Society to over-rule each time!

  First of all, he is never intimidated by anybody. Secondly, he makes them put up or shut up by showing him the exact scriptures they are basing their assertions on.

  Turns out--the wrong DF cases are based on the Society's writings and NOT the bible (surprise! surprise!) and the over-ruled elders discover

  just how flimsy that can be. The Society must back down when pressed over how "scriptural" a ruling is IF the person presenting the rebuttal is really intelligent and cogent. Not always, but, sometimes you win against "city hall."

  Let's not forget that MOST of us aren't any good at all at FACING OFF with the elders because we are busy being emotionally overwrought which

  makes us defensive and angry and rebellious which plays into the stereotype of Apostate.

  I proposed this thread as a kind of neutral non-real world mind experiment and then fell in love with my own idea as though it is practicable.

  I doubt few could pull it off.

  But--having said that--IN PRINCIPLE I'd love to see it enacted by somebody who could bear up and do it justice.
• 

  Quendi

  I am enjoying this exchange, Terry, so don’t think I mean to antagonize anyone. When I use the word argue, I don’t mean that in an adversarial sense but in the sense one would put forth a position or proposition, nothing more.

  Taking the word in that sense, you are arguing from a moral perspective based on the notion that this is a religion which claims its methods rest on moral grounds. If that were the case, then I’d support you, but only to a certain extent. Your mentioning MLK and the civil rights movement has no relevance to this discussion. King and his followers used the Constitution as the support for his movement. In other words, there was a written code that had already established certain rights and precedents to leverage against the Jim Crow laws he sought to overturn. Furthermore, you are using the practice of civil law and applying it to a religious venue. That makes the example entirely invalid. Civil rights have no more bearing on Witness proceedings than Islamic sharia law would. Barack Obama’s election is also completely and entirely immaterial to your argument.

  So it is with Jehovah’s Witnesses and their disfellowshipping procedures. True, anyone can appeal a decision to be disfellowshipped and, like you, I know of those who have successfully done so. But those appeals would have no basis in any secular court—nor should they. And we both know that more often than not, these appeals are summarily denied, often without any explanation or exposition.

  The WTS uses its own translation of the Bible and its own warped perception of what it teaches to justify its judicial proceedings. The Society has that right, a right which cannot be abridged or abrogated. As for your contention that a person knows or understands before entering a religion being irrelevant, I disagree with this. Here’s why.

  In this forum we have stated time and time again that it is important to do a thorough investigation before getting into anything serious. None of us did this when we were approached by the Witnesses; otherwise we would have never gotten baptized. We lacked all the facts to make an informed decision. That is also true of those of us who were “born in.” However, once we were in, it was incumbent upon us to get informed and remain so. Most of us failed to do that as well for various reasons. But once we became informed, we knew what the consequences would be. That being the case, it was up to us to prepare for the worst.

  You are right to say that few have the ability to withstand the withering and debilitating examination that goes with a judicial committee. That is most unfortunate, and you are right to accuse the WTS and its officers of doing great and lasting harm to many.

  However, approaching other Witnesses with the aim of forcing them to break disfellowshipping rules and protocol as you advocate will only end with the disruptor being banned from all congregation meetings. Also, nobody is saying that elders don’t routinely violate confidences in judicial proceedings. We all agree that these proceedings are flawed and indefensible. But your contention that these wrongs justify taking steps to disrupt or weaken the congregation’s structure is equally fallacious.

  I go back to what I stated in my last post. We are commanded to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ Disrupting congregation gatherings by hostilely confronting elders, pressuring others to acknowledge our presence with in-your-face greetings, and infringing on their right to choose their association inside or outside the kingdom hall is not seeking or pursuing peace. It is unkind, unloving and unchristian. Asserting otherwise is sophistry, “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning” as one dictionary puts it. Why do I say this?

  We say that we have no wish to imitate the WTS way of relating to other people. Yet this method does exactly that. We aren’t raising awareness of evil as the civil rights protestors did. Instead, we are inflicting a measure of the pain and emotional distress the organization has given us upon its followers. While it may give us some satisfaction to see others writhe in discomfort when we intrude upon them, we aren’t winning friends and influencing people. We’re doing the exact opposite. Is this what Christ would have done? Not even the most reprobate WTS officer deserves that.

  “Return evil for evil to no one,” the Bible says. That is why I say that if we’re going to associate with Witnesses, we should follow their rules. If we can’t then we need to completely withdraw from them. This organization is not going to reform itself. It won’t become “kinder and gentler.” It seeks only to manipulate and control everyone within its reach. If we are disfellowshipped, then we shouldn’t want to associate with it or its followers any more than we need. If we are seeking reinstatement and have exhausted our appeals, then follow its established protocols. The sooner we do so, the sooner we can recover our lost family and friends. Then we can do what others have done: fade quickly and quietly. I hope this clarifies my thinking on the matter. Terry, I look forward to your response, my friend.

  Quendi
• 

  moshe

  You act as if NOTHING has changed.

  That is what flummoxed the JWs at my old KH- I just acted like normal- it drove my wife batty, too. I was supposed to act like an untouchable and step to the other side of the street when I saw JWs coming my way- stay out of their aisle in the supermarket. They were the ones who had to get out of my way, they had to leave the supermarket, if they didn't want me to say, hello, to them. It takes a willing victim for shunning to work-

  However, going to the KH was another story- I knew their public invitation was only conditional , if I played by their rules- anything else would have caused them to call the police-
• 

  Terry

  So it is with Jehovah’s Witnesses and their disfellowshipping procedures. True, anyone can appeal a decision to be disfellowshipped and, like you, I know of those who have successfully done so. But those appeals would have no basis in any secular court—nor should they. And we both know that more often than not, these appeals are summarily denied, often without any explanation or exposition.

  DON'T think I don't understand what you are saying. It is common sense, surely.

  I'm probably arguing (in the discussion sense) from another angle and a different level of discourse.

  What are "rights" and where do the stem from?

  Human equality. One life is as valuable as another. Life is sacred.

  I'm alive and you are alive and the next person is alive. So, we have rights.

  Human rights stem from a very practical source. Humans have certain needs in order to continue living and to prosper.

  Without being able to meet our needs we perish. So, we have a RIGHT to act in defense of our personal needs to survive and prosper.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have a real moral problem. They don't value human life qua life...and consequently deny human rights.

  It isn't about LIFE it is about LABELS with them.

  By labeling somebody a goat they deny them basic human rights.

  By labeling a skeptic an Aostate they deny them basic human rights.

  Remember: JW's say DFing leads to DEATH at Armageddon. So, depriving a person of LIFE by DFing them is the equivalent to EXECUTION.

  If we keep that firmly in mind---we might wake up to what is REALLY AT STAKE.

  A Judicial Committee meeting is LIFE or DEATH.

  You cannot allow false accusations and plenary power to deprive you of your LIFE. You must not recognize the power of arrogant men to EXECUTE YOU.

  Now do I make my position a bit more accessible to understanding?

  The Jews under Roman rule couldn't put anybody to death.

  JW's under contemporary laws of the land cannot stone you.

  So, the elders kangeroo court you into submission and YOU EXECUTE YOURSELF by compliance!!

  Do we human beings have the right to question authority or don't we?

  Do we have a right to rational discourse or don't we?

  Just because we join a religion doesn't mean we forego the USE of our brain forever---does it?

  "Hey Elder, my life, future and family depend on my making informed decisons. I have questions. You should not try and deprive me of that human right just because you feel threatened by it!"

  By railroading a person inside the religion who has doubts and questions-- the elders are devaluing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  FORCING THIS HUMAN RIGHT ISSUE OUT IN THE OPEN might wake others (with doubts, too) up to what is really going on.

  Elder judges are exercsing power without morality.

  By treating their immoral valuation of you and their death sentence as unworthy of compliance YOU CHALLENGE their morality publicly without outright DISRESPECT.

  I'm advocating defusing the death sentence aspect by treating the "pronouncement" as an error of judgement by clueless and arrogant men.

  In what way are you still a SHEEP if the committee labels you a GOAT?

  A sheep follows the true shepherd.

  The elders are false shepherd. So, you follow Jesus Christ by clinging to the flock.

  Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave? And who is the Evil Slave?

  The Evil Slave abuses power over others.

  Jesus LEFT THE 99 to go after the stray.

  The Evil Slave drives out the 1.

  If you call the police and report child molestation after the Elders tell you to keep quiet are you a reviler?

  Yes--to them!

  But, who gets arrested? THEY DO.

  What is the alternative? Keeping your lip zipped?

  NO! You are doing the MORALLY RIGHT thing.

  So, you get DF'd.

  Should you ACCEPT YOUR FATE?

  NO!

  THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHTS CROSSROADS.

  Others inside the congregation are watching and deciding. They are--in effect--having their own morals tested.

  Your public treatment puts their integrity to the test.

  Otherwise...it is all swept under the rug of secrecy and the festering injustice contineus. Business as usual.
• 

  moshe

  Terry is right about the moral issue at play here. If you think the JWs disfellowshipping & shunning rules are morally right, then do nothing and let them carry on as always.
• 

  RayPublisher

  @ Moshe - You said: " If you think the JWs disfellowshipping & shunning rules are morally right, then do nothing and let them carry on as always."

  Outstanding point!! These people only have the power over us that we give them. If all of us that are "cast outs" speak to JWs and say hello, refuse to shun or shy away from them, we take away their power as Terry and Moshe suggest.
• 

  redvip2000

  Certainly, this course of action brings debatable value. We all know that for the majority of JWs, something like this would cause them to think that "Satan is more active than ever" - even sending apostates to disrupt their meetings. This would, yet again, support the idea that world is out of get them, and would probably benefit their cause.

  The real value here, is purely for entertainment. To make a parody of the obnoxious and unchristian Watchtower rules and treat them for what they really are....a joke. Mature?...probably not Appropriate? ...doubtful. Entertaining? ....Hella ya
• 

  Terry

  Let the following enter the mind of any who would think the elders have any room to quibble about allowing a DF'd ex-member to attend:

  The official secret Watchtower approved policy for shielding pedophiles has consisted of simply keeping and eye on them and NOT warning the congregation specifically. The police are not called. The fear of contamination is very hush-hush.

  Why would any ordinary DF'd person not be entitled to the SAME CODDLING??

  Think about that one for awhile!