Why wouldn't they reinstate them?

by hamsterbait 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • hamsterbait

    I am just thinking about all those DF over issues which are now notorious for flip flopping.

    When the WT has to change on the 607 thing - that is coming up I am sure - will those who disagreed with 607 be reinstated without further ado?

    Does anybody know of people DF for taking transplants who are reinstated now after the flop, or would it be a flip?

    When the now obviously imploding blood policy finally changes, how likely are those shunned for having a transfusion to be forgiven without them being the ones who have to grovel to the reptiles in Brothel?

    What about those reinstated for oral contacts when these were no longer banned, after they were scripturally divorced then uscriptuarally oh, it could go on.

    HB (of the "Holds Breath" for nothing class)

  • vitty

    No, it wouldnt make any difference, because they were running ahead of the organization and THAT is all that matters in the end

  • Dr Jekyll
    Dr Jekyll

    I doubt it will happen even if those DF'd were proven to be right all along.

    The official line will be that those ones showed a rebellious spirit and ran ahead of the organisation. Their crime will be that they ignored the word of the slave class.

    I still think it stinks though

  • Wolfgirl

    I agree with the above. It's stupid, isn't it?

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    I am not a jw.

    When I asked an elder this question..... Hypothetically speaking.... Back in 1975, say I did not believe that the world was going to end in that year, and I did nothing to pick up the pace, or I refused to push the extreme urgency of the end of the world, using only the bible as my preaching tool. Therefore I was DF'd and my marriage and family fell apart, lost my business and all my friends thru the shunning policy. After the world DID NOT end, would you go back and fix my family? find all my friends, put my business back together? Restore my reputation for being in the TRUTH™?

    His answer?
    well, no, most likely the person would not want to come back. As for df'ing in the first place, loyalty to the organization is more important (than the truth)


  • SickofLies

    Indeed, I agree with everyone here. The number one concern for a cult is loyality to the orginazation, its not about what the bible says or about what's right or wrong, because in their eye's the GB is God's representative on earth and like the pope what they say goes above and beyond what the bible says.

  • Mary

    It's embarassing for the GB when a lowly R&F can see something years or decades before them, because it's proof that they're not being guided by any Holy Spirit, but rather, they're just plucking this crap out of a hat:


    w83 1/15 p. 27 Armed for the Fight Against Wicked Spirits ***

    Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: "This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe." This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous? 20 Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: "Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: "Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?" No, we cannot!

    Question on par. 20. (a) Of what is independent thinking an evidence? (b) What will help us to avoid placing our own views ahead of the organization’s?

  • luna2

    Yup...question mother and you're out on your ear. Doesn't matter what's true or right, only that you questioned and that's not allowed. They don't want people who make waves or aren't willing to choke down their doubts and go along with the other sheep.

  • dozy

    In reality - has anyone been disfellowshipped for outspoken lack of belief in one ( & one only) doctrine? If this was so , I would guess that they would have excellent grounds for reinstatement if the doctrine was revised. For example , those witnesses who accept the "Truth" but cannot accept the blood doctrine - if this was downgraded to a conscience matter then I would expect a straighforward reinstatement "amnesty".

    A far more typical example is Raymond Franz. His belief structure is very different than when he was a witness - he now disagrees on numerous points of doctrine. I guess a revision on 607 (for example) would have little effect.

  • willyloman
    If this was so , I would guess that they would have excellent grounds for reinstatement if the doctrine was revised.

    Boy, your experience is a lot different than mine. But then, I only spent 30 years in the organization where I learned that loyalty to organization = loyalty to God and that we were being tested every step of the way and that running ahead of the organization means you flunked the test.

Share this