Statistical effect of disassociating the inactive

by AuldSoul 59 Replies latest jw friends

  • rowan

    Should they do that, and my family gives me the ultimatum, I'll agree to go back with the condition that we study and discuss each chapter of COC.

    If they still want me to go back, I can choose to get "reactivated" and be a royal pain in the butt for the elders, with the ultimate passive aggresive mode that THEY have helped me perfect during the years.

    Should they dissociate me, I would become a VERY active opposer. I will not picket, but I PLAN for as many members of my community to learn about the reality of JWs, using various effective methods I have learned on this forum.

    So, beware WTS. Your time with screwing with my life is over. I am in control now. I hope to live to see your demiss. And this is the feeling of thousands.


  • Borgia

    BB, a very good distinction you make there. Although I agree with AS that the stage has been set. Please, read the org book that happened to see the daylight. It is possible, based on the regulations set out there, to dispose of disordely people. It is not necesary to have sinned grosly and unrepentantly.

    If so desired, yea, they need to elaborate further on the strategy. Like Blondie said: nothing indicates dramatic developments, however, the mechanism are in place.

    Metatron did a thread on that one. I made some comments on the warming up of the issue. It could be done, you know.



  • AuldSoul

    A 3-month warmup.

    During that time, drive focus to the closing of the door of the ark (don't make direct comparison, but have that thought contextually in the neighborhood).

    Emphasize how long Jehovah dealt with his people Israel before punishing them for abandoning him, how he tried to get them to come back repeatedly, then let them go, disowning them.

    Let the insinuation settle that the door closing would start within the organization itself. People will have to choose inside first, a sifting, a refining. Maybe point out that the door closing was a symbol only to those in proximity to the ark, who had AMPLE opportunity to go in prior to the flood, after all the door was WIDE OPEN.

    Then, announce that the door will close. All those who "come to their senses" (return out of desire to keep family/friends or from fear) could be likened to Lot, who responded at the last minute and who "responded to the urgent call to flee to a place of safety."

    Too bad for those still outside. And the axe can fall within a year, and most JWs would go along with it just fine.


  • under_believer

    My theory is still that they're going to start charging for the literature again.

  • AuldSoul

    Oh! I just realized something ... it strikes me that some may have the idea I think this is something to do with a big announcement. I do not. I agree with blondie and others that say it will require some time to get this change accepted by the R&F.

    I think this will be coming within the next two years, because they will have to find SOME way of plugging the holes in the bottom of the Modern-Day Ark. Experience has taught them fear works well. They will use this option to stop the exodus that is, even now, well under way.

    I am watching the young people and a tiny percentage are staying, long term. They know they can't sustain that hemorrhage indefinitely, and eventually the exodus will begin to siphon more out. They have to apply pressure to stop the bleeding.


  • Gill

    Since we bad apostates are now able to talk to eachother whenever we feel like it , over the internet, there is less and less fear in young ones in leaving the bOrg. They may be able to make older ones afraid to be inactive, who have not yet got themselves onto boards like these, but the younger ones are internet savvy. A large amount of them know the truth about the 'troof' and cannot be scared by threatened shunning.

    Disassociating threats may work on a few, it may even be a good idea, but soon there will be a minority on which this will work. They'll have to start threatening pretty soon to get any effect.

    We discussed the effects of being officially DA'd by the local cong, and found that neither of us could care less. This was something that even a year ago could not be said. Now, the biggest reaction they might get is a yawn and then reap the whirlwind when we go public exposing them.....everywhere.

  • metatron

    I remain skeptical for these reasons:

    1) They almost did something like this, by accident, in England, if memory serves me. I don't think the results pleased them. Many elders

    took it upon themselves to DA people who didn't respond to shepherding.

    2) Such a move could interfere with "church tax" disbursal in some countries ($$$)

    3) It could cause indirect legal problems in various cases such as child custody and it could set a dangerous precedent that being one

    of Jehovah's Witnesses is not voluntary.

    4) Far from "setting the stage" for this, they would have to figure out how such ones get "re-instated".

    5) They would greatly worsen hypocrisy and create a whole new problem of "paper Witnesses"!


  • metatron

    and here's two more reasons:

    6) it could easily drag congregations -and elders - down into a low morale state much worse than at present. Imagine trying to "encourage"

    the friends with images of growth in the "ministry" during the Service Meeting - with announcements of who isn't a Witness anymore

    persisting meeting after meeting, month after month, year after year. This looks like sociological suicide to me.

    You could end up creating a feeling that "everybody's falling out of the truth these days, why bother?"

    7) such a policy would contradict the Watchtower's habit of avoiding objective reality and the image of failure. (more about that

    in a future post)


  • AuldSoul


    I haven't researched sufficiently to know the impacts of several of your reasons, like the charitable status being at risk. But, for at least two of your reasons I don't think they would be in any danger.

    4) Far from "setting the stage" for this, they would have to figure out how such ones get "re-instated".

    When I let them know I no longer wished to be a JW they told me whenever I wanted to return to just let them know. Voluntary. Simple. If that is the portion that would affect charitable status, the disassociation versus disfellowshipping would solve that problem. It already does solve that problem. No difference in announcement or effect, but a clerical difference and a distinct difference in the reacquaintance procedure.

    They have established (legally) the criteria by which someone must show they are voluntarily being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Technically, since preaching is a primary criterion they could already disassociate inactive ones without affecting the voluntary nature of association at all. If someone isn't preaching, they aren't a volunteer witness for Jehovah. That one is already "on the books."

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    I don't think this will happen. I could see them encouraging the rank and file to distance themselves even more from inactive witnoids, but formally disassociating them for being inactive? It could happen, but I'd really like to know what this idea is founded on.


    Agreed. I believe this is already the unwritten policy most places. Almost the day we quit going it happened to us. I have just been contacted by certified letter to attend a JC in my honour. I wonder if this is part of the 'cleaning' process that is underway now? I know for a certainty that my case was/is being pushed by the CO who just visited here, so it could be that Crooklyn is making a move to this direction. I have always puzzled at the idiocy of the idea that we must 'kick you out because you dared to leave'. I think the whole thing is done to reinforce the elder's idea of power and control when they have lost it with those individuals. Power play. Jeff

Share this