Shunning policy from the 1920's

by tsar_robles 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • tsar_robles

    I found this post in You tube:

    "In the meantime the brother may merely be treated in the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or Gentile, withholding the special rights or privileges or greetings or voting opportunities that belong to the church as a class separate from the world" (WT 3/1/1919, p. 69).

    Can anyone in this forum validate this quotation? thanks!

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    they are real.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    let me try this again:

  • steve2

    The gloss of compassion in the 1920s' shunning policy was an unintended left-over from Russell's softer-edged take on scripture. But, boy-oh-boy, did Rutherford's stiff-bristled broom soon sweep away the little slither of compassion that temporarily snuck past the then-new Chief Censor.

  • jwfacts

    That quote is correct. The current form of disfellowshipping did not originate till the 1950's. Russell instituted that the congregation would hear matters of discretion, not closed bodies of elders, in line with the advice of Mat 18:17. The person was not shunned but treated as a worldly person. Studies Series VI - The New Creation p.289 onwards goes into detail on how to treat wrongdoers. discusses this under the heading of "historical development."

  • glenster

    An early example of Russell acting that way is that he wrote advising others that it would be improper to say things like "Good
    morning" to Maria.

    In a letter of July 9, 1896, Russell wrote: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me
    say, under the circumstances it properly devolves upon you to make the advances
    on the line of social amenities between us. It would be improper for me to take
    the initiative in the matter of amenities such as, 'good morning,' 'good night,
    'etc." (Exhibit 2, Superior Court)

    Reviewing the evidence, Justice Orlady ruled in Mrs. Russell's favor with
    barely concealed anger:

    "The indignities offered to [Mrs. Russell] in treating her as a menial in the
    presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind and that she was
    under the influence of wicked and designing persons, fully warranted her
    withdrawal from his house, and fully justified her fear that he intended to
    further humiliate her, by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her
    sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated
    aspersions on her character and her mental condition, nor does he intimate in
    any way that there was any difference between them other than that she did not
    agree with him in his views of life and methods of conducting business. He says
    himself that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and perfect moral
    character. While he denied in a general way that he attempted to belittle his
    wife as she claimed, the general effect of his own testimony is a strong
    confirmation of her allegations.

    "In an analysis of the testimony it is quite difficult to understand the view
    of the respondent in regard to his duty as a husband to his wife. From his
    standpoint he doubtless felt that his rights as a husband were radically
    different from the standard imposed upon him by the law, and recognized by all
    the courts of this country.... His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced
    such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to
    the jury that his conduct toward her was one of continual arrogant domination
    that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a
    burden and make her conditions intolerable."

  • tsar_robles

    thank you all of you guys! I guess there's always something new to learn from 'mother' lol

Share this