in the april 15th watchtowerstudy ed why is the article about how loving dissfellowshipping is curiously missing from simplified addition ?

by poopie 18 Replies latest jw friends

  • poopie
  • Watchtower-Free
    Good catch
  • SAHS
    Perhaps they want the simplified edition to be a little more “public friendly”; i.e., a bit less scary – and not quite as much give “new ones” the message “RUN!”
  • FadeToBlack
    Is it usually one for one? I mean same articles, just 'simplified'? If so, I wonder if any JW's will notice and then ask why...
  • pixel
    Maybe they could not find any simplified word to describe how horrendous the DF "arrangement" is.
  • sir82
    Does the simplified version normally carry the non-study articles? I don't know, I've never been arsed to take a look at it.
  • steve2

    They could easily do a simplified version just by quoting the kinds of things some parents say to their kids before bashing them. Here is a selection of universally recognized "justifications" for mistreating naughty children - which can be easily adapted for naughty witnesses at risk of getting kicked out :

    • "This will hurt Jehovah more than it will hurt you - so you ought to be ashamed of yourself";
    • "Your ungrateful attitude leaves us no choice";
    • "One day you will thank us for this";
    • "No pain, no gain"
    • "Until you say "Sorry" there will be no dessert"
    • "There is the easy way...and then there is the hard way. You choose";
    • "You have brought great shame upon your parents";
    • "You show by your actions that you deserve to be kicked out"
    • "Until you come crawling back on your hands and knees, and give us proof you have learnt your lesson, you are no son/daughter of mine"
    • Then there is the grand-daddy of them all (reserved for reprobates beyond salvation (in other words, apostates): "Do not ever darken my doorway ever again".
    • Come to think of it, it is understandable why they would not want a simplified version of their disfellowshipping policies: Which ever way you frame it, it looks very off-putting and goes against the "happy, happy, happy" image is trying to create.
  • Island Man
    Island Man
    Perhaps Watchtower plans to send the simplified edition in places like Russia where the authorities are scrutinizing the extremist nature of Watchtower literature. Wanna bet Russia would only get the simplified edition?
  • Island Man
    Island Man
    Or maybe an article about disfellowshipping sounds really horrible when the subject is put in simple words without the ability to use bigger, euphemistic words for the purpose of sugar coating.
  • nonjwspouse

    My take,

    The study edition disfellowshipping article attempt at an example of "loving" by slapping into reality.

    This article states :

    To illustrate: Imagine a
    hiker who succumbs to exhaustion
    on a cold winter day. He
    begins to suffer from hypothermia,
    and he feels drowsy. If he
    falls asleep in the snow, he will
    die. While waiting for a rescue
    party, his companion occasionally
    slaps him in the face to keep him
    awake. The slap may sting, but it
    could well save his life. Similarly, David recognized
    that a righteous person might need to give
    him painful correction for his own good.
    In many cases, disfellowshipping provides the
    discipline the erring one needs. After some ten
    years, Julian’s son, mentioned at the outset,
    cleaned up his life, returned to the congregation,
    and now serves as an elder. “Being disfellowshipped
    brought me face-to-face with the consequences
    of my lifestyle,” he admits. “I needed
    that sort of discipline.”—Heb. 12:7-11.

    Now in reality a person suffering from hypothermia needs warmth and care. The "slap" in reality to any person who is doing something that is in reality harmful to themselves or others, will suffer the natural effect of the action. ex: doing drugs will drain the person's finances, and health so the person is unable to support themselves, gets sick, loses a job, etc. A family member, friend etc, can take the person to dinner, buy them a warm used coat, be available for talking, but not provide money to support the bad choice of drugs. Loving is to show love and be available for the right choices. But not to supply the means for the bad ones ( usually money or lying to cover up for them) . Even a person who is verbally abusive can be shown love in letters reminding them family love is strong, but the abusive behavior is not acceptable or tolerated. In a loving reality, we do not abandon, not "lovingly" take away the warmth to the hypothermic person while waiting for help to arrive, and at the same time slapping them ourselves. The person's own actions have consequences of their own to their own personal lives. Family members should not rescue them from those natural consequences, because that is how we as people learn how to live a better life. But to have a group of men in Brooklyn impose the unnatural consequences, of un-natural, unloving, abandonment when a person is at their lowest, needing emotional support and guidance, or in the case of the JW cult, when a person is merely disagreeing with those same men in Brooklyn, is sadistic, mental abuse.

Share this