i can not get a grip on the whole "no longer a JW" annoucements...

by ?me? 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BluesBrother

  Nice one ?me?.... you are right saying that according to the faith, only Jehovah can decide who is or is not one of his witnesses. I must remember that line for when the inevitable happens to me .

  Jgnat.. I know that you have mentioned before that your husband is not allowed in "Service".. I find that strange since according to what I used to follow anyone who met the basic requirements was obliged to share , even if they could not be a M/S , or even under 'restrictions' in the meetings. Still, I hear lots of surprising things on this board...
• 

  JWdaughter

  In the early 80's I was disassociated. I was never baptised. I don't really understand what the difference is, since I believe that baptised JWs have been DA'd also. Anyone with some insight? I have been wondering if they just thought I was baptised. . .?
• 

  heathen

  JWdaughter-- They have a way of DAing people that they feel are trouble in the org. They call it marking people as bad association, you may not even get formal notification that they do it but pretty sure they did the same to me even tho not baptized , just a study . They are very sneaky and are big time back biters . They will even follow people around in order to see what they do when they aren't at the meetings . They are liars and manipulators . They even want to tell people when they are ready for baptism instead of just baptizing them to begin with. The bible says nothing of a six month indoctrination period but in fact shows people being baptized on the very day they heard the good news of the kingdom. So if you hear the word pharisee being mentioned in regard to the WTBTS you know it's because they make man made rules and force others to obey. That from a religion that says it does not go beyond what is written .
• 

  Oroborus21

  actually, i own the trademark on "Jehovah's Witnesses"

  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=hm1qcj.2.1

  lol, just kidding no one does now...

  you have a good point. what they mean is that one is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses (organizationally speaking)...JWs get the point.

  the baptismal questions revised and as presently used as you know supposedly make the point that one is agreeing to be recognized as a member of the worldwide association of JWs (aka the Organization)...

  and yeah a big reason for changing up the DF or DA announcement is due to concerns about liability (as small as these might be)...

  -Eduardo
• 

  ?me?

  thanks for the responses. i actually started a topic that people liked, or atleast responded to . well i will be off to the meeting shortly to see what interesting topics (not) are discussed.

  of course i know the wts's hardcore feelings on matters, just trying to reason around them...
• 

  loosie

  Well its kinda of like when you get FIRED.

  The company annouces that Mr. Smith is no longer employed by ABC company.

  They should just change the announcement , so it reads "Bro, Smith is no longer employed by the WTBS."
• 

  xjwms

  Loosie ..... GOOD ONE

  Bro Smith is no longer allowed to give us MONEY, ... or any of his TIME or any else of VALUE

  Stupid announcements, as if this is the highlight of the service meeting.

  .
• 

  Jeffro

  willyloman:

  I understand your frustration, but remember: These are people who would stone you to death if they could get away with it, for nothing more than having the audacity to question their rules. In modern society, this announcement is as close as they can get to killing you.

  That is 100% right on the mark! Note the exact words of their beloved Watchtower magazine (15 November 1952, p 703):

  We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine.
  
  Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

  That's right, they can't kill them "even though" they are family members!! The implication there is 'since they're family, you'd think we'd be able to kill them'. Sickening!
• 

  jgnat

  Bluesbrother, I know, I know. Blondie's checked out my story backwards and forwards and concluded that we have some rogue elders up here. Most recently a brother told my hubby that he can informally witness all he likes, he just can't participate in door-to-door work. Not a formal publisher. No stacks of Memorial invitations. Not on the association list. So he's a witness but he's not. Hubby remains confused and rejected.

  I swear, these guys don't want him in their club.
• 

  willyloman

  JW daughter - I see that no one answered your question, so here's the scoop:

  For a time in the late 70s, early 80s, the WT Society laid down a guideline that publishers who were not baptized would be considered "upbaptized associates" and an announcement would be made to that effect so the rest of the herd would know you were "authorized" to go out in Field Service, although not formally dunked (yet). The requirement was that become such, you had to answer a couple of questions to assure the elders that you were living your life "in harmony with bible principles' and that it was your intention to become a JW in time.

  If such a person got into some "trouble" which, in the view of the elders, required some judicial attention, the case would be handled "judicially" the same as if you were baptized. If they found you "unrepentant" (which is dub for "guilty"), they would announce you are "no longer an unbaptized associate."

  Perhaps that is what happened to you when you thought you were "disassociated." Or perhaps I have the words slightly wrong - it's been 25 years!. I can remember when such an announcement was made, everyone at the hall viewed it as a "disfellowshipping." The average dub is often confused by the society's official buzz words, so there is always confusion. Perhaps for this reason the Society dumped this whole process after a few years, after which you were either baptized or you weren't, no in-between.