Any Answers to Some Questions?

by sammielee24 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  Am I correct in asserting, that according to the way that the Jehovah's Witnesses discipline their members, that baptism is the only way that you are one of Jehovahs Witnesses?

  A person committing an offence that results in disfellowshipping, must be a baptized JW in order for the punishment to occurr?

  A person who is disfellowshipped or disassociated is announced to the congregatin as 'no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses'?

  By this sentence, can we safely conclude that the WTS has declared publicly that you are now equal to any non baptized person in the world? If this is the case, can we conclude that in the case where the WTS has declared you to be stripped of your inclusion in the group ie not one of Jehovahs Witnesses' that they have now, by default and observing their own classification of punishment for those baptized vs non baptized, removed from you, the status of being a baptized JW.

  You are no longer a JW = no longer baptized. Is this a logical conclusion?

  sammieswife.
• 

  unique1

  It is a logical conclusion, but JW's are not what anyone would call logical.
• 

  Terry

  The big change came in 1968 with the release of the the little blue book THE TRUTH THAT LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE.

  A program of baptism in 6 months began. Before that you had people that just hung around (unbaptised and unenlightened) for years and years on the edges without going out in service and missing meetings.

  With the "get baptised in 6 months" deadline it was a case of shit-or-get-off-the-pot.

  Along with 1968's policy change came the spectre of 1975 and the Armageddon scenario.

  After 1975 came and went the policy continued as a means of controlling who got in and who could get kicked out.

  It really doesn't matter which word you use when JW's don't want to be around you: Disassociated or Disfellowshipped is part and parcel of the same status. You are dumped.
• 

  sammielee24

  It really doesn't matter which word you use when JW's don't want to be around you: Disassociated or Disfellowshipped is part and parcel of the same status. You are dumped

  Terry, that is what i understand - and that is okay.

  Now, following that policy - that I have now been dumped, turfed, my membership revoked means that technically, if I am no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses, then I can no longer be considered as baptized. Their rules. They have publically revoked my baptism by announcing that I am no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses. That's still okay - if they were making a public statement that '.xxx is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses in good standing', it would be different, but the announcement implies something quite different.

  Now - here I sit as a non JW - on the same level as a worldly person. My family is allowed fellowship with their worldly relatives. Should that not include any person that the society has turfed out publically, since they, by their own actions have technically removed the baptism by da/df status? Once a person is no longer considered a JW, they should be treated just like any other person in the world, especially family members. If an Elder or committee of Elders, harasses either the former baptized member or their family by directing them to shun those family members, could that not be construed as invasion of privacy, and depending on the depth of the harrassment, a cause for a legal notice to cease the harrassment? If Elders continue to announce to family and others, that a person is an apostate or affix some other label to them, that causes harm to them - after they are announced as no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses - is their action now not that of a member of the clergy, but as a member of the public. In other words - to defame, harrass or invade one's privacy when one is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses, is cause for legal recourse is it not, since the laws of membership within the religious organization no longer apply to the individual?

  sammieswife.
• 

  Zico

  A df'd person is lower than a worldly person in the JW view. Shunning people isn't as much a punishment for those who are disfellowshipped (or Disassociate) It's more of a 'protection' for people in it. The Society is afraid of ex-JWs, they're not as afraid of worldly people, who rarely care about religious affiliation, and know little about the JWs.
  
  'In other words - to defame, harrass or invade one's privacy when one is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses, is cause for legal recourse is it not, since the laws of membership within the religious organization no longer apply to the individual?'
  
  Courts won't get involved in religious cases, even if you have a good case. Barb Anderson had a superb case, but she didn't win because it could be linked to religion. I don't think it would be worth planning to do.
• 

  jaguarbass

  It's a logical conclusion, but the devils in the details.
• 

  sammielee24

  Zico - my issue is this.

  A df'd JW has his membership revoked by the society. Ignoring the religious aspect now - since a JW that has been excommunicated is no longer a JW - the rules of engagement must be off.

  If an Elder spots my mother talking to me and makes a visit to her regarding her bad association with me - that Elder is trying to apply his right to practice his religion on to me. He is infringing on my rights as a free and unyoked citizen, a member of the community and a member of my family - perhaps a much needed support to my family. My mother may choose to listen to these Elders but to invade my privacy, to harrass her based on my actions is really harrassment.

  Another point - if the rules publically assert that I am no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses - then there can be no reinstatement rules. My sister is a worldly woman yet in order to become one of Jehovahs Witnesses she must only get baptized. Once I am no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses then I am in the same category, therefore, there can be no application of separate rules because the religion has reduced me to the same level as a worldly person by their own admission.

  In essence - every disfellowshipped and disassociated person has in reality had their baptism revoked by the society, since membership in the society is directly linked to that action. For this purpose, it should be argued that there can be no application of any rules forced on returning members that are different for new members.

  sammieswife.
• 

  greendawn

  Shunning people isn't as much a punishment for those who are disfellowshipped (or Disassociate) It's more of a 'protection' for people in it.

  That's precisely what the JWs claim but in fact this sort of extreme shunning has to do with protecting the interests of the FDS by preventing the criticism and exposure of their doctrines and policies something they passionately resent.
• 

  Terry

  Now - here I sit as a non JW - on the same level as a worldly person

  Not so fast!

  You know where the bodies are buried. A worldly person doesn't.

  Meaning what?

  Meaning you are now potentially dangerous to the organization.

  In Biblical metaphor you are a gormand of dog vomit!

  A so-called "worldly" person hasn't returned to their own "vomit".