by atypical 25 Replies latest jw friends
About four weeks ago one of my relatives had the announcement made that he is "no longer one of Jehovah's witnesses". From what I'm hearing the shunning began immediately. In fact his friends had a get together with him the night before the announcement as a final farewell.
atypical you stated are they are expecting everybody to draw ;a specific ;conclusion, from something that wasn't exactly announced, and then enforce the punishment. - YOU BET THEY DO.
Technically, when they announce so and so as no longer one of Jehovahs witness they should become as Jesus described, when his disciples asked how to treat those ones who no longer followed him, as a tax collector, as one of the nations.
Now ask yourself how DID Jesus treat the tax collectors ? He ate with them, he NEVER shunned them.
This is something the JWs cant get their heads around, in other words, they should obey the law of Christ not the law of the WT.
If I recall correctly, the change was discussed in this thread.
Nope, there was never an talk or anything to explain this change. And here's how it was explained to me, treat a person like that the same you would a DF'd person. And an active JW would risk "no longer a JW" if they associate w/ a person that is "no longer a JW."
3. How can they discipline anyone for associating with someone who is disfellowshipped if that was never technically announced?
I think they call it the gossip mill...you'll know who not to associate with...oh...you'll know...
lisa
My DA is pending right now.....why you might ask? Well, the elders can't seem to decide if I will need to be shunned by my father. One says no, he should still be aloud to talk to me, even if I don't live at home, and the other says the shunning should be done. Such harmony.
IMHO I believe they did it because too many people are disassociating themselves so that would make people start asking ...'Why are all these people leaving? What do they know that I don't?'
You guys are either too damn rusty or you never learned the rules properly
Their announcment policy has been in effect for quite some time. If you'll read your 1981 Sept. 1st and Sept 15th watchtower study articles concerning disfellowshipping, you'll see the current policy there.
The term "disassociated" is a term they use to save their ass from legal troubles. Joining the Army is an example meriting disassociation. If they were to disfellowship and announce it that way, the government will have their arse.
If they verbally make a statement they no longer wish to be a Jehovah's witness....or show by "their actions"...such as joining another faith, the same term is applied. This also saves them legal trouble to avoid "cult" labeling and accusations that the witnesses hold their flock in bondage and prevent departure for any who wish to depart.
The article plainly tells witnesses these "disassociated" ones are to be treated THE SAME AS ONE WHO IS DISFELLOWSHIPPED.
Gumby
The article plainly tells witnesses these "disassociated" ones are to be treated THE SAME AS ONE WHO IS DISFELLOWSHIPPED.
Gumby, you apostate bastard. Aren't you keeping up with the Big J's firey, multi-eyed wheelchair? Nobody gets DF'd or DA'd anymore. Now they just announce that "John Doe is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".
DF? DA? That's "old light", my friend. Get hip to the times!
(It still makes me wonder what they call them. You used to get a quick whisper, "He's disfellowshipped". What do they quickly whisper now?)
Dave
Now they just announce that "John Doe is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".
I'm callin your bluff you fellow bastard. As far as I can remember....which ain't real far.....they've announced your above quote for quite sometime......nothing new. We need some documentation and my stuff is still packed away.
Gumby
