The Term- Disfellowshipped -no longer used???

by annalice 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • free2beme

    No matter how a congregation may announce it, it is still used in the Witness language.

  • OnTheWayOut
    So they stated that they do not DF for accepting blood. Instead, wheen someone took blood, because they violated the rules, they were simply said to be "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

    These guys are the Bill Clintons of religious groups. They look for those word loopholes.
    They use any quotes out of context. They forge ahead with changes claiming they are
    new light instead of corrections to mistakes.

  • oldflame
    What is accomplished by disfellowshipping? It keeps Jehovah’s holy name clear of reproach and protects the fine reputation of his people. (1 Peter 1:14-16) Removing an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation upholds God’s standards and preserves the congregation’s spiritual cleanness. It may also bring the unrepentant one to his senses

    But this excludes pedofiles ! I cannot think of a more filthy sin than this yet they protect them. Makes no sense to me what so ever ! PIGS

  • Farkel

    The WTS is moving ever so slowly towards disassociation as opposed to disfellowshiping. Of course, this is all for legal (no scriptural reasons). In fact, the term "disfellowshiping" is not even in the Bible, is it?

    The WTS could not disfellowship dubs who joined the army when I was growing up, and I know one fellow who did that. They announced from the "platform" (hahahahahahahaha) that the fellow I am talking about who joined the army "by his decision no longer wanted to associate himself with Jehovah's Witnuts." This was my first experience with "disassociation." Had they DFd him, the US government would have crucified the WT ass for treason or some other relevant crime.

    "Disfellowshiping" is punishment for religious crime and is something that the victim did not choose. "Dissacociating" is a "choice" that the victim makes, whether voluntary or not.

    I see the latter taking more and more precedence over the former. It is merely a legal matter. Either way, the victim is fucked by the WTS.

    In practice, there is no distinction in the punishment meted out between DFing and DAing.


  • Gopher

    The country where JW's had to look like they were allowing "free choice" for their members to have blood transfusions was Bulgaria.

    But it seems their 'free choice' was a choice between taking the blood and getting DA'd, or not taking the blood and retaining membership in the congregation. Some "choice".

    Now with the new style announcement (xxx is no longer one of JW's), the difference between DF'd or DA'd is irrelevant (as others above said).

  • justhuman

    Yes it is true. I got disfellowshipped one year ago, and the judical comitee said to me that they will announced that I'm no longer a JW.

    The reasons I believe they are legal issues. By announcing that you are disfellowshipped they put the Org that is breaking family ties, and other ties. So you can sue them(at least in Europe)that they have destroyed your family. But announcing that you are no longer a JW, they get rid from the emparasing accusation that through disfellow policy they are breaking ties.

    Although the result is the same for the "no longer JW" since the person is under the same status like the disfellowshipped one.

    Again the GB is trying to get way "clean" from the results of disfellowshipping, that we all know how tragic are.

  • thom

    If I remember correctly, the country where they said they do NOT disfellowship for taking blood is Bulgaria. Maybe around 1999 or 2000? I'm not sure.

  • thom

    Yes, I found this about Bulgaria:

Share this