by sweet pea 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In January 2003, "UnDisfellowshipped" provided a list of statements on this topic from WTS publications (see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/44010/1.ashx )
With permission, I have prepared a PDF file of that posting, and have included subheadings.
I have placed it at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/STOP_Talking_to_Your_Family_OR_ELSE.pdf
Doug
This is a very hard line organisation on shunning because they have a lot of rotten false doctrines which they can't afford to see criticised as they are very easy targets to shoot down. So they are very tough when it comes to shunning ex members who can reveal all these fallacies and cause the collapse of their credibility and prestige. I can't see them changing in this sector.
Hi Doug,
Love the article of yours on shunning. Wish there was a way to shorten it up a bit, it would make great anti witness literature! I've tried to compile something but then you always have to leave out some really damning quote. Decisions, decisions.
The only way they're going to change the shunning policy is if ex-Witnesses were successful in sueing the WTS in court. So far that hasn't happened. Barbara Anderson had a very strong case but the U.S. court system simply ignored the horrific results and injustice for the individual and reiterated about the "Rights" of the religion itself to enforce it's own rules. The same thing happens here in Canada.
I find it ironic that a couple of years ago, the Islamic Sharai Law was struck down here in Ontario, no doubt because it was seen as backwards, barbaric and dangerous, yet the government doesn't see that the extreme form of shunning practiced by the Witnesses is no damn different.
Neither the Governing Body or their henchmen lawyers give a damn about doing what's right. They don't care how many families are destroyed or how many people commit suicide over the shunning policy. The only thing they care about is dollars and cents. Until someone successfully sues them in court, their policy on shunning family members is not likely to change any time soon.
If they drop their loving provision of shunning former members while I am still on earth the local JW's are going to get a very large dose of Truth about the Troof.
The GB can't afford to drop the shunning... it would decimate their ranks.
There was a re-think of the disfellowshiping procedure back in 1974. This is what the Watchtower had to say:
Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that "leaven" is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such "leaven." Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
There was a re-re-think of the procedure years after that. Note the Kingdom Ministry of August, 2002(with thanks to Reexamine.org):
*** Kingdom Ministry August 2002 pp.3-4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped ***
Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped
6 In the Immediate Household:Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities? The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: "If in a Christian's household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities." Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.9 Relatives Not in the Household: "The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home," states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum," in harmony with the divine injunction to "quit mixing in company with anyone" who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.--See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.
Mary, the GB doesn't just change things because of pressure from the Courts. And they are not totally motivated by dollars and cents. Your uber-cynicism isn't totally realistic. They are not Microsoft's Corporate Board, they are a body of men who believe that they are a 'slave class' that Jesus has entrusted his spiritual talents to and that they have a responsibility to increase those talents, come hell or high water. Money is a way of doing that - it is not the be all and end all of their existence.
In the past we have seen fairly substantial tweakings of doctrine without any of these 'Corporate' factors being apparent. If everything they do hinges on the Courts or money then why on earth do some GB members apparently want a change right now, assuming the rumour is true?
Where did you hear this rumour from Sweatpea? (where has she gone?). How many GB members wanted the change? What was the final vote? Anyway you can find this out?
I'm rather surprised this rumour has received such little attention from the board.
Like any well run corporate the Watchtower Society will do whatever they think will best increase growth. Unfortunately cults are generally not very well done.
Disfellowshipping is seen as a way to promote growth, it makes people scared to leave, and d/f'd ones so lonely they go back. However, it is now proving counter productive, as once disfellowshipped many break free from the indoctrination (with a lot of help from the internet) they are less likely to go back. It also is creating bad publicity that is preventing new converts joining. If the GB are in touch they will eventually see that they need to drop d/f (as the Seventh Day Adventists did in 2000) if they are going to continue to grow.
My prediction is that the JW religion will either become more paranoid and cult like start to loose more and more members, or open up and be less cult like and more mainstream.
JWFACTS
This is a similar conclusion that James Penton reached in his book, Apocalypse Delayed:
"The future for Jehovah's Witnesses as they now exist - despite continued growth - does not seem bright. In the long run they will have to change and moderate to survive, and that will probably mean that they will settle down to becoming just another denomination among denominations."
Thats interesting Pahpa. The WTS seems to be heading in both directions similaneously at the moment. There is internal paranoia, with increasing warnings against the internet, education and apostates. At the same time they have jw-media.org disseminating information to paint Watchtower doctrine in the most positive (if not somewhat dishonest) light. Similarily the Watchtower will soon be coming in 2 editions, the public edition with pleasantaries for the placing, and the internal edition with study articles full of loaded language. The tactic at the moment appears to be to soften external opinion, but tighten control internally. That is very worrying, as they are trying to increase recruits but make leaving even harder.
