interesting... I didn't know the adventists dropped their shunning doctrine in 2000.
thanks, JWfacts.
Shunning Policy
by sweet pea 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
choosing life
Mary,
I agree that money is a huge motivating factor when deciding to make changes or not. This is obvious from the example of changing to the donation arrangement when the tax man was coming. Also by the example of calling their religion a cultural group to be able to own property in Mexico, when religions were forbidden to own property.
The second factor is, of course, maintaining and increasing membership. They desparately want to be treated like a valid Christian religion, but need to maintain their persecution complex. Quite tricky at times.
I can't see them stopping the shunning any time soon. If anything, I think they will clamp down harder with the "witness only" edition of the Watchtower. If Witnesses could actually have and voice a dissenting view without the threat of disfellowshipping, the floodgates would be opened. How would they ever gain the absolute fear and control they so much enjoy at this time again?
When they change things and say they are a conscience matter, after a while the Witnesses even forget it was ever different. How many know of the ban on organ transplants or vaccinations now? How many refuse either because of their conscience? Goes to show that it was never their conscience to begin with.
-
choosing life
JWfacts,
How did the adventists drop their policy on shunning? Do you have any info on how they did it and kept their members or what logic they used?
-
jwfacts
Barry, who comments here from time to time is the best person to ask. He mentioned it on a previous thread. Apparently, they never excommunicated in the past, but the shunning was not as severe as with JWs. As of 2000 they stopped formally excommunicating as well.
Scripturally there is no formal process spelled out. If a person is actively participating in wrongdoer and people are aware of it then they should avoid the person. It is that simple. The examples Paul gave were of incest and John was of an Antichrist. There is not set of rules of numerous disfellowshipping offences, with a person being judged by a judicial committee. More ridiculous is that you can talk to the wrongdoer even if you know about it until the "announcement" and must not talk to them until the "announcement" that they have been "reinstated". Disfellowship, jc, disassociated, reinstatment - none of these words appear in the Bible and are loaded cult language.
-
Crumpet
So, to fellowship with another means accepting the other person as on an equal standing with oneself, being interested in and entertaining his views, sharing these with an open and favorable attitude.
Devils avocado - Thanks for posting that article which I havent actually read before since it was published before my birth. This above particularly struck me as vile - just the whole doctrine of looking down on others which encompasses the entirety of the borg. So ugly. So mean. So discriminatory.
Para 21 was also of interest. Explains the liberty some feel to observe very harsh - no communication whatsoever dfing like all my family do (and Highlanders) and how some still see their kids every week for a family meal and the dfing really has no effect on family relationships whatsoever.
If they were to drop it they would only do so IMO by saying that this is a conscience matter and anyone who openly associated with Dfed family members would be quietly and unofficially added to the bad association list and not invited to socials. They have ways and means of keeping up policy whether its official or not - we know this from their pedophilia polices and the changeable blood and transplants issue.
-
tijkmo
they wont drop it cos it has a semblance of 'biblicality' (made up word - in the grande tradition of stickability or sticktoitiveness etc)
but they might amend it..
but i know several jws who would be upset if they did soften it in any way