Inactive ones are not JWs

by gone for good 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  gone for good

  Phizzy -

  You have hit the nail squarely on the head!

  This is the distinction I hope to make - that people who have intentionally abandoned the religion, are purposefully mislabelled by the hounders as inactive.

  They are not present tense inactive, they are done, faded, escaped, past tense GONE, present tense free persons.

  The fact that many of these people are hassled years after reclaiming their own freedom, is a violation of their rights to religious freedom.

  The old quotes I am hoping someone can find substantiate that the act of abandonment is or can be the most powerful demonstration of the exercise of a religious freedom.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  campaign of hate - "Wouldn't be surprised if they soon they start treating inactive ones like they are did- fellowshipped. Perhaps they will automatically disassociate anyone who is irregular for 12 months."

  In my very first post here four years ago, I asked if that specific scenario was at all possible.

  Most here were skeptical.

  x

  I'd say we we're a lot closer to that now then we were then, though...

  ...partly because I've come to suspect that the WTS wants to prune the R&F down to just a million or so hard-core loyalists.
• 

  gone for good

  OneEyedJoe-

  You are correct - it was a long time ago- a real bombastic quote from one of the old guard.

  I've seen it within the past year and, now I need it staight from the magazine likely Watchtower.
  
• 

  pronomono

  I've had a few elders say from the platform "You can't really call yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you aren't witnessing."
• 

  gone for good

  Vidiot -

  I suspect Phizzy is correct in the reasoning that the label inactive (but still a JW) gives them the imagined perpetual control they want.

  They think they can fill that box with inactive, for years after the person has reclaimed their freedom, and eventually DF or DA them as an act of ecclesial authority.

  The example of Norman Hancock may well become our model.
  
• 

  konceptual99

  I get your point goneforgone but as far as the JW machine is concerned they don't care.

  If someone fades to avoid DA/DF they are still seen as fair game if they ever get back on the radar, either as someone who needs to be DF'ed cos the elders can't stand someone playing the system, or as a lost sheep who could be reactivated. Anyone who remains in a locale and is well known by the congregation who does things that would normally require a JC to be formed stands a good chance of being hounded at some point.

  If their argument is that they have a right to religious freedom and just want to leave then the JW line is clear - just disassociate yourself. No one is stopping you. Everyone knows that the only way of minimising the social consequences is to fade. Even then it's not certain how individuals will react.

  The desire to judge is strong. The fear of those who have left is even greater.

  I don't see anyone is going to buy some human rights argument since there is no one stopping anyone from just stopping coming or formally saying they are stopping. Even arguing about the social and family consequences has little traction from a human rights perspective it would appear.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Goneforgood, i don't know if this is what you are looking for, but the following quotes give some historical background, and substantiates where the idea comes from that being inactive means that a person is no longer a JW

  from Preparation by Judge Rutherford pg 326:

  Jehovah does nothing toward the destruction of the enemy in secret. His faithful witnesses must give this warning in the name of Jehovah, and their failure or refusal so to do would be evidence of their unfaithfulness and lead to their own destruction.

  and from Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers, 1945 - pg. 8:

  It is discretionary with an individual as to whether he will serve the Lord, but, once having made a consecration to do God’s will, obedience to Jehovah’s commands becomes mandatory. It is a matter of life and death.

  You can find both those publications here:

  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/historical-publications.php

  
  
• 

  Heaven

  
  
• 

  blondie

  gone for good...the WTS plays both sides. I found the quote above when an elder said I wasn't one of jws....and I'll try and look for one of those "not one of Jehovah's witnesses" is what I'm going to search the CD by.

  As to labeling jws inactive and treating them like df'd officially, I don't see that happening soon. Every jw has a member of their family that would qualify.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  gone for good...the WTS plays both sides. I found the quote above when an elder said I wasn't one of jws....and I'll try and look for one of those "not one of Jehovah's witnesses" is what I'm going to search the CD by.

  As to labeling jws inactive and treating them like df'd officially, I don't see that happening soon. Every jw has a member of their family that would qualify

  Yep, they play both sides - if they're trying to guilt people into not pressuring inactive ones back in then inactive folks are still part of the fold and need encouragement. If they're trying to guilt people into staying in and doing more, then inactive ones are as good as dead.

  As far as them changing the policy, I can see it happening for precisely the reason you gave. Forcing a little bit more of a commitment from everyone (since they're probably already slightly shunning their inactive relatives) is a great tool to get them to show increased loyalty. The more they sacrifice for the cult, the more loyal they'll be.