by WingCommander 64 Replies latest jw friends
LWT:
If a person is merely inactive and no longer wants to be shunned (if your theory is correct), does he knock on a few doors and have his "status" changed? What is the reinstatement process?
Is an announcement made that a particular person is now inactive? Will an announcement be made when a person has been reactivated?
My reply: Exactly. It would be counter-productive. Many who are inactive still believe in the org and feel guilt. Df them and many will give up entirely.
WC:
Again, I'd like to emphasize that I didn't say it would be a DF'ing offense, but merely seen as the person DA'ing themselves, much like if a JW accepted a blood transfusion, they would be DA'ing themselves and henceforth shunned. The hardline, ultra-fanatical, crazy-cult era of Governing Body 2.0 has begun. Let the hard fist of oppression land squarely upon the jaws of the downtrodden and weak rank & file.
My reply:
ALL dfings/Da'ings now carry the message 'so and so is no longer one of JWs'. A person seen as da'ing themself is not seen as such by the people..the announcement is identical.
I'm outta here..time will tell. At this point it is speculatory...maybe right maybe not.
The thing is, if being inactive is to be a disfellowshipping offence, wouldn't that be stated as such in the new elder's book just released?? What would be the point of releasing a new guidebook for congregational discipline without mentioning it, as it is bound to come up in every congregation, if that is what they were planning?
The WT knew the contents of the new elders' book would be leaked/copied.
It will be harder to corral them with the spoken word.
I'm with Wing Commander on this one.
Syl
I have to side with some who are saying - so what's different, and I say it from personal experience. When my lack of hours led to a report showing only a couple hours, and the arrival of a new harsher elder, all "priveleges" slowly melted away. Not that these were much, helping behind the magazine counter, and reading at the book study and the watchtower. And what was worse for me, the PO (yes it was a few years back) was to uncomfortable about it all that he did not approach and talk to me about it, the "privileges" just disappeared. When I eventually confronted him to see what was going on i found that it was just that the time reports were to low. Because the reasons for the low hours included numerous issues that I was dealing with I tried to talk to him to the point of practically pleading for compassion. But to no avail. Each response, including a couple of shepherding type calls pushed for by me. simply led up to the last one in which I was told that I had lost my "freedom of speech". Yup, tell the brother that you are trying to push for more time time preaching that he has lost the "freedom of speech" Anyway I should not really complain because it really was the beginning of the end for me, and now I don't have to hand in a report at all. So it's all good.
They won't DF people for not going out in service for fear of losing the guilt money these people keep giving them. My Father is one of these people.
I don't see anything different in that talk. On the other thread, references were given that show the WTS believes that in order to live up to your dedication (to the WTS) that one must engage in the public "preaching" work. If you're inactive right now, you likely have no "privileges" with the exception of commenting. I've seen inactive ones or ones who rarely make any meetings being removed from the TMS without being told although that's probably not WTS procedure. As others have mentioned, I've also see inactive folks labeled as bad association and avoided at least on a social basis. Not shunning but probably more in line with how Paul wanted df'ing to be practiced. Marked if you will but without the official marking talk.
If the question is whether GB 2.0 will be more hard-lined, I think we'd really have to wait and see if they decide to appoint any additional members and who those members are. Also key would be whether the hard core guys such as Losch emerge as the new "boss".
I think it could easily go to a much more hardcore stance about certain things as GB 2.0 wishes to get back to their roots or go back to the good old days when JWs were fully engaged. I can see them thinking that's the answer. The other option would be to go a little more mainstream which has been discussed at length.
But in terms of considering one DA'ed because they're inactive, it really seems counterproductive and unnecessary. These folks are already treated poorly without official sanctions. So, what advantage would it be to place sanctions on these people?
By the way, if a person hits inactive status, per the "Shepherd the Flock of God" book, page 52, paragraphs 16 & 17, a short time inactive person (short time not defined but likely less than a year) may be assigned to work with an "experienced publisher" and reactivated without the Service Committee assigning a person to study with that person. A long time inactive person (not defined) will need to go through a process similar to what a person who is a first time publisher i.e. does the person meet the requirements set forth in the Organized to Do Jehovah's Will book, pags 79-81. And, someone would probably study with them (and get to count the time, yeah!)
Now why would the WTS publish 2 pages of information in their brand new elders book that reinforces the standing procedure (page 50, paragraph 12) that states an inactive person should be assigned to a service group (change in terminology from book study group) only to scrap it before many elders have even seen the book or been through the KM school? It just doesn't make sense.
I don't see this as anything new. It has always been the case that inactives were marked as bad association.
Much of it comes down to local interpretation and enforcement. As with the identical judicial cases that can get different results depending on the janitors on the JC, other organizational directives get embraced or ignored depending on the local BoE and CO. Right now there will be wide variation on how the "higher education" directives are interpreted. Sanctions against the inactive will require a new stack of non-scriptural directives.
Botchtower always prefers the hardline, but the real dirty work is left to the locals. When the hardline is taken, there is the expectation of some benefits and some consequences. As things are in my local area, an increasing hardline will produce no benefits and many consequences. It's now become impossible for the elders to "guilt" people into doing things, simply because they already know that if they do more, it still won't be enough... so why bother? If the hardliners want to knock themselves out, they can do it by themselves.
