Worldly Shunning

by 156 Replies latest jw experiences


    I hear quite a bit of criticism about Jehovah's Witnesses enforcing 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. While Jehovah's Witnesses have a formal system of maintaining the organization's core values; egocentric, self-worshiping secularists have an informal system of rejecting those of whom they have nothing in common with.

    Most major religions have believed in the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world of physical objects and bodies governed by causal laws, the world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational methods. Some religions posit a personal god (or gods); others believe in impersonal supernatural forces. (See George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, chapter 1.) Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.

    The dominant forms of religion in our culture posit a personal god, a Supreme Being, who created the world, is omnipotent and omniscient, imposes moral duties on man, and expects worship. Those who accept this idea have the burden of showing why such a hypothesis is necessary. In this regard, Objectivists are atheists because the arguments for the existence of such a being are not sound. Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.

    Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them - values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Trade, in this broad sense, is the only proper basis of any relationship—including relationships with members of our families.

    Many people are indoctrinated with the belief that we must automatically love family members simply because they are family. This is the view expressed in bromides like "They're still family" or "Blood is thicker than water." This view is not compatible with the trader principle, since we may not gain any values from certain family members, and hence may not love—or even like—them.

    There is a distinction between the family that we are born into and have no choice about—parents, siblings, relatives—and the family we can choose for ourselves—a spouse. Since the former relationships are unchosen, it would be a rare coincidence if we could truly love each member of our family for who they are. The likelihood of being born surrounded entirely by people with whom we share core values is not very high. Affection for our family members would be a genuine reflection of shared values only if we could imagine feeling this affection even if they weren't family.

    I've known many who are rejected by certain family members after becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Religion and politics are very divisive. Considering the fact that you can get reinstated, the formal system seems better than informally cutting someone off. This “informality” doesn't allow for any dependable way to be reunited with friends or family.


    As for me, I have a disfellowshipped mother I associate with.

  • miseryloveselders

    Alice, I need to ask you a personal question. I've been meaning to ask you for a while since you started posting. I also need to apologize for speaking flagrently to you on this board in the past. But, I have a question. What do you think of KFC's grilled chicken? Do you think it tastes equally or even better than their original recipe or the crispy? It's been bothering me for quite a while now. Let me ask you this too, while we're at it, since KFC changed the grease they used for health concerns, do you think the original recipe is still as good now as it was back then? Be honest with me Alice.

  • mrsjones5

    I shun chitlins and I can do that cuz I'm worldly.

  • thepackage

    Not true in my case. I became a JW and all my family still spoke with me. While I was a JW a spoke with DF people. I never really pai attention to the whole DF thing duirng my 20 years as a JW. I spoke to whom i wanted too becasue they where my friend. Now that I'm out i have several freinds who are cuurently active JW ( a few Elders) that still call, emial, adn meet me for a beer even though they know I dont' beleive in their religion and have expressed over and over to them it's a CULT. Why they still talk to me and hang out at the risk of getting in "trouble", maybe because i always was a true friend to many JW and i didn't base my friendship on whether they where JW or not.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    At 15 a friend of mine was given £500 and told to leave home and not to darken his father's doorway until he accepted the Truth. His crime? Questioning doctrine.

    His father has never met his wife or children.

    Was he 'maintaining the organization's (Plymouth Bretheren in this case) core values'? 'rejecting those of whom they have nothing in common with'?

    Bearing in mind that the Plymouth Bretheren are Trinitarian, believe in the immortal soul and consider that the Watchtower has been led astray by Satan the devil, who wanders about like a roaring lion trying to deceive people and lead them off into destruction, does the fact that they have a formal system for reinstatement, providing that the shunned person agrees to give voice to believing their doctrines, make their religion acceptable to you, and/or God?



  • wasblind

    Yes aka "rachel" your mother got disfellowshiped just to get away from you.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    As for me, I have a disfellowshipped mother I associate with.

    I have often heard JWs use examples of JWs behaving normally, but there is always something they are not telling you about their situation. Often it is a simple as that person is actually out of step with the organisation, but their family is influential in the hierarchy of their cong and have been allowed to get away with it.

    Your own website makes it clear that you should only be contacting your DFd mother for essential family business.

    The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man." —1 Corinthians 5:11.




    "Your own website makes it clear that you should only be contacting your DFd mother for essential family business."

    It depends on the situation. In your case I would have to convince you that a supreme being exists and go from there. This can be accomplished if you're not disfellowshipped.

  • sherah

    Most inactive JW's have no problem associating with DF'd persons whether it's family members or on forums full of ex-JW's. They justify not following the GB's instructions for hypocritical reasons. The shunning begins when the inactive JW get 'righteous' regularly attends meetings and FS.

    Misery, i've heard great things about the KFC grilled chicken. I'm a veg so i don't partake.

Share this