[The JWN servers seemed to have been down when I was reading this thread, so all I could do is post responses to the posts I had copied from page 1, and these are my responses]
@flipper:
The WT society has their OWN definition of what's considered " lawless ". Anything that's considered a disfellowshipping offense in the Jehovah's Witnesses is now considered " lawless ".
You named things like "murder, robbery, extortion, rape, child abuse, war and terrorism," and except for war, which is immoral when God doesn't command such, all of these things do constitute lawlessness, but name something that you believe wouldn't constitute lawlessness. Just so you know, any disfellowshipping offense would constitute lawlessness; there are no exceptions to this, not one.
In the Feb. 15th WT once again the WT society uses a word " lawless " and proceeds to beat rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses over the head with it through guilt and fear tactics to convince JW's NOT to associate with allegedly " lawless " DFed ones.
You are referring here to the article, "Do you Hate Lawlessness?" and you came away from reading it with it using "guilt and fear tactics" and to beat what you are referring to "rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses" over the head so that they might be convinced "NOT to associate with allegedly 'lawless'" disfellowshipped persons. No one is allegedly disfellowshipped and all disfellowshipped persons are guilty of lawlessness. Wait! I already said this, didn't I?
On pg. 31 paragraph 15 it states, "Do we share Jesus' view of those who have become set in their LAWLESS course ? ... 'Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has [disassociated] himself from the Christian congregation ? What if that one is a close relative who no longer lives at home? ' Such a situation can be a real test of our love of righteousness and of our loyalty to God." So initially here - WT society is laying the groundwork saying NOT to socialize with DFed or DAed ones as they are " lawless ".
There is no "groundwork" being laid here. You are the one emphasizing here the word "lawless," not the article itself, for disfellowshipped individual are disfellowshipped for taking a lawless course. There isn't anything new here; no foundation need be laid and isn't being laid by what appears in this paragraph except your emphasis on the word "lawless" to make your specious point.
Next- they make it more personal. It continues in the next paragraph, "Consider the experience of a sister whose adult son at one time had love for Jehovah. Later in life, however, he unrepentantly chose to practice LAWLESSNESS. Hence, he was disfellowshipped from the congregation. Our sister loved Jehovah, but she also loved her son and found it extremely difficult to apply the scriptural command to avoid associating with him. An elder helped her to realize that Jehovah understood the pain she felt. The brother invited her to think about the pain Jehovah must have experienced when some of his ANGELIC SONS rebelled. The elder reasoned with her that even though Jehovah knows how painful such a circumstance can be, he REQUIRES that unrepentant sinners be disfellowshipped. She took the reminders to heart and loyally upheld the disfellowshipping arrangement." O.K. It's important to note here that this elder used mind control tactics to INFLUENCE the mother to not associate with her DFed son. By comparing a DFed person to an " angelic son of God ( or demon ) " that rebelled - the elder is using FEAR and GUILT to impress upon the mother the alleged seriousness of NOT associating with her DFed son. It's an insidious , manipulative way to control the JW mother. Sick, in my opinion.
You are taking what appears in this paragraph rather personal it seems to me for this particular paragraph relates an experience involving the adult son of one of Jehovah's Witnesses, his mother. Her son is not a child, but he is her child, which is why the point is being made since there is going to be natural affection felt by a mother toward her son, period and the paragraph says so. That her inclination was to continuing associating with him as she might have before he was disfellowshipped is the reason this elder asked her to try to imagine the pain that Jehovah felt when the angelic sons of God rebelled. God gave them life, too, and so they were just as dear to Him as this mother's son was to her, but no comparison is being made in paragraphs 16 or 17 between those demons and this woman's son as to suggest that she ought to view her son as a demon. He wasn't trying to impress upon this mother "the alleged seriousness" of her not associating with her disfellowshipped son. He was merely saying that just as Jehovah surely loved these angels that had taken a lawless course, he knew that she likewise loved her son that had taken a lawless course. That's it. There's nothing "manipulative" about this elder's observation and he didn't use fear or guilt as you stated in your post.
You talk about this elder's using "mind control tactics" to influence the woman, but he merely drawing a parallel between God's attitude toward lawlessness and what her attitude ought to be, but nothing he said to her had any power to control anyone. I have often (in the past) reasoned with my children about the folly of their getting into the car of any coworker that they have observed drinking alcoholic beverages during their lunch hour. I have taught them to reason with the driver to let one of them drive back to the office instead, or, in the alternative, take the initiative to take the driver's keys away so that they do not end up in a car accident due to their being inebriated.
Now at no point did my reasoning with my kids on the matter constitute controlling any of their behavior, as, first, they are not under my control now, and, second, they make sound decisions because I've taken the time to reason with them about such things. They are free to take a chance that nothing will go wrong, but they are smart enough to know not to get into a car driven by someone that has been drinking, period.
Do your kids engage in sexual relations to their boyfriend or to their girlfriend? Do any of them use any form of birth control when engaging in premarital sexual relations? Do they practice "safe sex" through the use of condoms? Are any of them sterile due to having contracted chlamydia during their teenage years, so that they are unable to have children or are not able or willing to get married for fear they might unintentionally pass on human papilloma virus (HPV), or some incurable disease like Herpes simplex or Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (HHV-8) to their spouse, or maybe unwittingly affect their child with a loathsome disease at some point during the marriage, should they marry? Not my children. My children know that in Christ there is no such thing as "safe sex."
Are you one of those parents that believe that premarital sex with someone you love and that loves you can be a wonderful thing? I'm not and hopefully you're not either. Did you know that premarital sex constitutes lawlessness when God has said "abstain from ... fornication"? (Acts 15:29) My children know this and hopefully yours do, too. You may have been disfellowshipped for quite awhile, but you are still a human being, even as I am, and in this respect we are the same, so let's reason together on this, @flipper.
Some parents will go as far as to have an intervention and lock their own children up for their own good when they are struggling with drugs and feel a need to force them to fight their drug addiction. Putting one's own kids away for their own good can be worse than shunning them and avoiding them because they've stolen jewelry, appliances, electronics and money to support their drug habit, even incarcerating them, and refusing to drive hundreds of miles to see them for months or even years at a time, but parents do this everyday to their own children as a consequence of their lawless acts. But temporary estrangement from one's children while they are in a disfellowshipped state is so much worse than temporary estrangement through their incarceration or commitment in a rehabilitation center for a few months or years, right?
In finality the next paragraph drives the point home to other JW's. It states, "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or [disassociated] one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome. However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoer enough to do what is best for him or her." Huh ? "Your loyalty to Jehovah [i.e. WT society] may increase the likelihood that the disciplined one will repent and return to Jehovah. " Translation : If you kick a person enough when he or she is down and they lose ALL their friends - they will have no OTHER alternative than to return to Jehovah's Witnesses and tow the line under WT society control !
What you are saying here is just spin. Paragraph 18 in this article says, "Your loyalty to Jehovah...," and does not say "Your loyalty to the Watchtower Society..." so you are the one doing the kicking here, kicking the WTS because you refuse to believe that when the "earth and the works in it" are discovered, a "new heavens and a new earth" will take its place, and any of our friends that are swallowed up with the "earth and the works in it" shall have forever perished since only "righteousness is to dwell" in the new earth. (2 Peter 3:10, 13) Only eight people survived the destruction of that ancient world of Noah's and maybe only a few million will be numbered among the survivors of "the heavens and the earth that are now" (2 Peter 3:7), so what other alternative is there other than death? Personally, I'd rather tow Jehovah's line and let you perish while calling this "line" with your last gasp "WT society control."
So I find in this that the WT society is doing what ALL cults do by requiring members to NOT have contact with former members of their cult by use of fear and guilt tactics . Bottom line is the WT society doesn't want JW's being influenced by TRUTHFUL information that DFed or DAed people may bring to them. so they scare rank and file JW's $hitless thinking these DFed ones are " lawless " or " evil". In reality JW's or DFed or DAed ones should probably shun WT governing body members who allow lawlessness INSIDE their organization by failing to DF child molesters or turn them into police as child abuse is considered a " lawless " offense in our normal society. But NOT inside the Witnesses. The things the WT society considers priorities are very unacceptable and skewed.
In civil society, at least here in the US, when someone has been incarcerated for a crime, the parolee is typically ordered to shun all criminals who have likewise been incarcerated; they are not to associate with any known criminal at any time, whether the criminal be male or female. If a man has been convicted of pedophilia, not only must he register as a sex offender, but if he is going to be living with a relative, even his own sister or brother, as long as they are under the age of 18, cannot also live in the same home, which often means his choice of housing accommodations are limited to those relatives having no minor children living in the household, whether related or not. I know you think this is horrible, but I hate sex offenders of all kinds, especially rapists, so I don't have a problem with shunning them and they may be required by law to shun me. Of course, I'm talking here about man's law and not God's law @flipper.
This article had nothing at all do with child molesters, but since you are really just pounding sand here, I might as well point out that anyone that seeks to molest the children of Jehovah's Witnesses are reported to the authorities for criminal prosecution, contrary to what you are saying here. I don't care what you think; I know what it is I do and I am able to speak for me. If someone you know has escaped criminal prosecution for child abuse, because of being shielded by a family member that is serving as an elder, for example, this isn't the first time I have heard of such "escapes," but we get them, even if it takes 5, 10, 15 or 20 years to do so, because we never forget. Also, elders pass away or obtain new assignments elsewhere, and new ones are appointed in their place, but we do get them. You've never been an elder so you can only repeat the stories that other elders have told you, and if you are repeating the stories that others, who are not elders, have told you, these would be second- or third-hand stories, which we call "hearsay," since these folks weren't sitting on a committee hearing these repugnant cases, so then you cannot possibly know for sure what the truth is and what has been embellished, can you? If I should hear the story of the molested child victim firsthand, then I will believe the victim and report the crime, but I may need to wait until I learn about another child victim in another congregation to take theocratic action against the individual. BTW, an individual can be disfellowshipped in absentia while they are doing time for the crime; one does not need to be present, but I'm thinking you already knew this.
Nuff said.
No, please, say more, @flipper. I love reading your posts. More than anything you hate shunning, although non-Jehovah's Witnesses promote this practice systematically. Go molest a child and you may find you like Jehovah's Witnesses, since while you will never, ever work in close company with a child for the rest of your days in this systems of things, we will not forever shun you for your past behavior. In the world once you are a registered sex offender, you're on the list for the rest of your life, but while you will also be on our list for life, too, you will not be treated as a sex offender when you're reinstated, that is, as long as you don't make the mistake of being alone with a child.
@TastingFreedom:
What you said below is soo true. They are getting crazier every day:
Hardly. Who exactly is "getting crazier"?
@Mary:
Ya......a certain former poster comes to mind..............
Who is that? What did he or she say?
@flipper wrote:
By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or [disassociated] one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome.
@bennyk wrote:
Except, of course, that because of the Watch Tower Society's secretive "star-chamber" judicial policies, you may not even know what 'attitudes and actions led to that outcome'...
What "'star-chamber' judicial policies" do you mean exactly? Please be specific.
@im stuck in:
How disheartening. This stuff has got to stop. I hope that lawsuits are begun around the world. Many have got to stand up to them. To put that kind of pressure on [families] just makes me sick. I know that is one Watchtower study I will not attend. I would not be able to sit there and listen to the hurt and pain handed out .
What's so disheartening? @flipper distorted the article and made it about he and the horse he likes to beat while in mental anguish over his disfellowshipped state. I get it, but why don't you get it? What lawsuits? Who should be standing up to whom? Why don't you stand up to "them," whoever "them" is. What kind of pressure is being put on families? You're going to skip one Watchtower study? Why not skip all of them? Evidently you care more about @flipper's spin that what the article actually says, for the article in this Watchtower, dated February 15, 2011, "Do You Hate Lawlessness?" doesn't say what @flipper said, which you would know if you took the time to read the article, especially the paragraphs he quoted (paragraphs 15-18).
There's no "hurt" or "pain" in this article, but you won't know this until you read the article for yourself. Or, you can just go with @flipper's take on the article and skip all of the rest of the study articles for the rest of the year, since @flipper doesn't agree with any of these articles that appear in the Watchtower because the WTS published them. Ask him yourself; he'll tell you. Do you ever think of yourself as being @flipper's disciple? Follow his lead and that's what you are.
I am getting sicker of it by the day. They are so afraid that they will lose people and the sad thing is that we and they know that it has nothing to do with spiritual reasons only to protect the cult. They have no right to tear [families] apart that is purely unchristian, that is not the love that Jesus spoke of. That is hate!
Sick of what exactly? Why did you read @flipper's spin? That's your fault. You believe saving the spirit in the congregation from leaven isn't a valid reason to disfellowship anyone? (1 Corinthians 5:5) You believe that there aren't "spiritual reasons" for our taking such an action when repentance is lacking? (Matthew 16:19; 18:15-18) You think it to be "unchristian" for Jehovah's Witnesses to do what we can to protect the flock by permitting unwholesome influences from creeping into God's organization? (Acts 20:28) You think we disfellowship because we are afraid that we will lose people? The disfellowshipped individual is already lost, so we disfellowship so that he or she will realize the gravity of their sin, repent and seek reinstatement. Contrary to what you believe, we don't lose people that want to be found.
So, to use @flipper's example, someone molests a child in the congregation and that individual is disfellowshipped and shunned while disfellowshipped. Let me see if I understand what you're saying here: By our action, we have torn that family apart, and you believe disfellowshipping and shunning to be unchristian, correct? Do you believe we disfellowship and shun because we hate the individual or because we hate the sin that the individual committed?
I could go on but I will stop because it will just make me madder.
I wish you would go on. You are like @flipper's clone and I enjoy reading his posts.
@Reopened Mind:
One of the characteristics of a cult is that they redefine words. The WT has the audacity to call it the "pure language".
I found the words "pure language" at Zephaniah 3:9. What words have Jehovah's Witnesses redefined?
Is smoking lawless?
Yes.
Is celebrating birthdays, mothers day, fathers day, Christmas, etc, lawless?
Yes.
Is taking a blood transfusion lawless?
Yes.
These are disfellowshipping offenses.
Yes, they all of them are, and this is because each of these things you mention violate "the law of the Christ" (Galatians 6:2), which law commands Christians 'to love our neighbor as ourselves' (James 2:8), to "quit touching the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17), to stop working out the will of the nations in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries "to the same low sink of debauchery" (1 Peter 4:4), and to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20). To be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one must not intentionally and unrepentantly commit such lawless acts. No one can force anyone to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses; one does so voluntarily. One can be all that one wants to be in this world if that is what one chooses to be.
Didn't Jesus himself associate with a Samaritan woman and a tax collector, both considered "lawless" by contemporary Jewish standards?
So you believe to have been a renegade for ignoring the prejudices that existed among the religious leaders during the first century AD that viewed Samaritans with disdain and tax collectors as repugnant, right? By "contemporary Jewish standards," they weren't lawless, for Pilate was the governor of Judea and Barabbas was "lawless." By such standards, why even Jesus was viewed as "lawless," for according to Jewish law, not God's law, Jesus "made himself God's son" (John 19:7), even though Jesus was "without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) This is a ridiculous argument; you ought not make it again.
@flipper wrote:
In finality the next paragraph drives the point home to other JW's. It states, "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or [disassociated] one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome.
@Reopened Mind wrote:
You have to differentiate between hating the person and hating what he has done. To do that you must TALK to him to explain what it is you disapprove. By shunning you show that you hate the person.
I see. So you would never shun the person that happens to live in your neighborhood, nor would you order your own children to stay away from that menacing man in your neighborhood that is known in your community as a registered sex offender that has molested children, because that would be hating the person and you would especially not want your children to hate that guy, right? They should instead talk to the guy and let him know what you disapprove. Be kind to the man, right?
To the contrary, I might not even know the person, but I believe shunning sends the message that I hate what the child molester has done. But you have a weird view of shunning. But now I'm wondering how many pedophiles you invite over to your home for dinner?
Often time there is a problem which needs professional help which the elders are neither qualified to give or recognize. My husband was an elder and he often lamented that he didn't know how to help the brothers and sisters. He has told several to seek outside professional help.
When your husband was elder, he had a manual that directed the body of elders to contact Brooklyn if they needed assistance, but that manual also provided specific instructions on what he was to do under certain circumstances. If he still has a copy, even if it is an older manual, get it, read it, since at no time is an elder to even try to provide professional help to someone that may be suffering from a mental illness of some sort or someone that seems to be a sex-crazed lunatic. What you are saying here is hearsay because you clearly do not have personal knowledge of what elders are directed to do.
Such articles make my (non-transfused) blood boil! They really have no business telling us to have no contact with df family members. They are overstepping their own principle of headship.
What on earth does disfellowshipping and shunning disfellowshipped family members have to do with the headship principle?
@Will Power:
u n b e l i e v a b l e
What exactly is so "unbeliveable"? The article in the February 15, 2011 Watchtower or @flipper's spin?
@MrFreeze:
Yup, they view them as demons. There are many DF/DA ones that become apostate and an elder told me that me looking at apostate teachings was like talking to the demons.
That elder was speaking nonsense and sharing with you his own opinion. The article doesn't say that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to view disfellowshipped persons or disassociated persons as demons. This may be what @flipper said, but @flipper has an ax to grind against the WTS, so you should reserve judgment until you have checked what his "book review" against the February 15, 2011 Watchtower article actually says. The man started this thread with his own spin on this article, and you would be foolish to take @flipper's word for what this article says.
@man in black:
It is amazing how they skew the definition of lawless to fit their own mold,,,,, thanks for posting this !
The definition of "lawless" and "lawlessness" is sin. The apostle John wrote at 1 John 3:4 that "everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness." He adds: "So sin is lawlessness." Jehovah's Witnesses define "lawless" and "lawlessness" as "sin." When anyone does anything that is not becoming to a Christian, that is sin.
When someone masturbates in their car when they are out in field service or smokes a (marijuana) joint in one of the Kingdom Hall bathrooms or finds ways to touch a sister's behind, when a married brother finds ways to visit a single sister at her home to bond with her children, exchange foolish romantic barbs and/or receive sexual intimacies without going "all the way," or when someone has made it a habit of making unseemly, obscene gestures or telling obscene or risque jokes, these things would not be becoming to a Christian.
All of these things would constitute lawlessness, which means all of these things constitute sin, for they don't befit holy people, and no fornicator, no unclean person, no idolater will be permitted entry into either the heavenly realm or the earthly realm of God's kingdom. (Ephesians 5:3-5)
@flipper:
TASTING FREEDOM- Isn't it incredible the things the WT society finds acceptable ( like breaking up family's and not reporting child abuse ) - yet they find UNACCEPTABLE people saving their lives by blood transfusions ? It's incredible.
I don't do this. I've never broken up a family nor have I not failed to report child abuse. Who is it that has broken up a family, but the one disfellowshipped for his or her unrepentant sin? Who has not reported child abuse? What parent would fail to report such crimes to the authorities when they first come to learn of them? I know of none. Often if they should occur when the child is in school, a report has already been made by school authorities, but it seem you're accusing elders of covering up cases of child abuse. If the parents of an child victim has already taken steps to report such child abuse, are you suggesting than an elder should also make a report? Why can't elders be percipient witnesses that assist the authorities in prosecuting sexual predators, which they usually are? Do you believe elders are to interfere in any way with the parents' responsibility of raising their own children? Or, do you believe the parents' responsibilities toward they own children comes to an end should child abuse begin?
BENNYK- Exactly. In the secret " star chambers " as you said- we NEVER know what really goes on that makes elders DF people. One person may get off, another may get DFed. It's usually contingent on how good they kiss up to the elders.
I agree with you in one respect: You will never know the circumstances that lead to some people being disfellowshipped and some people not being disfellowshipped. Why should you know everyone else's business? Because someone is disfellowshipped doesn't mean that we should embarrass that individual by telling you the basis upon which the decision was made. Maybe the disfellowshipped person was already married, but separated for many years, and was deliberately dating someone while yet married, which constitutes loose conduct. If the elders are handling the matter confidentially, why do you have to know all of the specifics? Why must you engage in gossip and speculation?
IM STUCK IN- I agree. It's getting to the boiling point in my opinion also. WT society is desperate to keep their " end game " going so they become MORE controlling to dominate JW's intruding into their personal lives- including WHO they associate with. I agree- let the lawsuits begin.
What lawsuits? So you see this as being about money?
REOPENED MIND - WT society certainly DOES change the meanings of words indeed. Look at what they did to the word " generation " - they virtually created a NEW definition for it ! They are doing the same thing to " lawless " here in this article. These articles make my blood boil too. WT society has NO right telling people to associate or not with DFed relatives. Thats good your husband recommended JW's to get professional counseling. He sounded like he was a caring elder.
How do you know what's "good"? If you've never been an elder, you're just speculating, aren't you? The word "generation" hasn't been redefined by Jehovah's Witnesses, but we have interpreted the verses in which the word has been used based upon the way it has become apparent over the years that Jesus used it. As for the words "lawless" and "lawlessness," they mean one thing: sin. Contrary to what you are saying here, this isn't a new definition.
MR FREEZE- Wow. An elder told you reading apostates teachings was like talking to the demons ? Intense ! Problem is- the demons are in Bethel !
What do you mean? In what way are any of the Bethelites "demons"?
@carla:
Is it my imagination or do they seem to take this course every year around this time? They seem to gear up for the month of April and the reject Jesus memorial and time of sanctimonious self righteousness? Like in Nov they have a campaign to give all your worldly belongings to the wt in your will? Wait 'till summer and before the dc's and they all become complacent for awhile. It all seems to come and go in cycles that jw's themselves are unable to see. At least to me it appears that way, a long repetitive series of cycles. A series of seasons of complacement and zeal interspersed with short bursts of 'I don't give a shit' only to be replaced with a renewed short lived zeal.
It was hard to know how to respond to your post because you come off as functionally illiterate. Seriously, I failed to see what any of what you said in your post, at least the parts I could comprehend, had to do with this thread. You are completely off topic. No one was discussing "cycles" in this thread, but you.
@ablebodiedman:
I guess being lawless depends entirely on who a person thinks makes the laws!
You guessed wrong. If you sin, you're lawless; that's it. (1 John 3:4)
Who do I think makes the law? Jesus Christ!
Irrelevant.
Here is a law or command from Jesus Christ:
Luke21:7-8
"He said: "Look out that YOU are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’ Do not go after them.
Did you see the law?
No. First, I don't see a law, and second, the word that the article about which @flipper spoke was "lawlessness." We weren't talking about any particular law at all, so why are you?
Do not go after them.
This is not a law. "Abstain from fornication" (Acts 15:20) is a law. "You must not commit adultery..., murder..., steal ..., covet..." (Romans 13:9) are laws. You're off topic.
@Scott77:
[It's] the watchtower policies that contributed to the great emotional suffering of its members.
How?
@Nice_Dream:
Shunning someone, especially your own child, is so unnatural and unloving. It works at keeping people in for the wrong reasons. My husband is petrified of losing his whole family, he almost has a nervous breakdown thinking about what will happen to him if they find out. That's no way to live your life, it's sick.
Why? If one wishes to leave with their family, why not just up and leave with the family? I suspect the family may not want to leave with the one that wishes to leave and so this is the rub. What is sick is pretending to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses when you are really faking it, are in fade and then being in fear that if you should leave, your family will let you leave all by yourself, because they love Jehovah, love Jesus, love the truth more than they love the prospect of being dead forever just to appease you when they are really 'presenting themselves approved' in order that they might win the prize of life. (2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Corinthians 9:24)
@DesirousOfChange:
I see more and more members just ignoring this and being discreet about associating with family members by applying the "family business" loophole to any situation. With that, all that is at risk is titles -- elders/MS/pioneers may be found to not qualify. If they keep tossing them out, no one (truly qualified) will be there to serve. (Jehovah can use the rocks!)
Thankfully though, rocks won't be necessary. BTW, more than titles are at risk; the prospect of gaining everlasting life is on the line.
@JW GoneBad:
flipper: I have 2 words for you......................Excellent Topic!
Thank you. Just pulled my Feb. 15, 2011 Watchtower out to read in more detail.
You really should read it, because @flipper's review of this article proves to me that he didn't read it with any degree of understanding.
@LouBelle:
The screws are tightening even more on the rank and file who unfortunately cannot or do not have the desire to think for themselves. They will eat this [drivel] with renewed vigor I'm sure and will thank the GB for sending food at the proper time. My aunt is going through a tough time at the moment. Her 2 sons are staunch JW's and have [threatened] to go to the elders and "tell on her" (she's been questioning, researching and visiting other churches)
So let me get this straight: This woman's two sons are trying to get their mother, your aunt, disfellowshipped so that they can shun her. Is this what you are saying? And if their "plan" should turn out to be successful, because she's an apostate and she knowingly perverts the scriptures in any way, this will prove that "the rank and file .. cannot or do not have the desire to think for themselves"? You also said "that they have to go to such lengths to keep speaking freely":
It's so pathetic really, that they have to go to such lengths to keep speaking freely.
Are you referring to your two nephews or to someone else?
Returning to that faith would be the dog returning to [its] vomit.
Returning to what faith? If one should leave the faith after having acquired "an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" only to"get involved again with [the defilements of the world] ... and are overcome," the apostle Peter says it will be like the proverbial "dog that has returned to its own vomit." (2 Peter 2:20-22) Of course, you should already know that you've just perverted Peter's words and have said here something completely different than the point that the apostle was making.
@ nugget:
These statements by the WTS grieve me so much. I am sick of the double talk that the society uses where it states that family members are not shunned but restricts family members to mean spouses and minor children.
Actually, these "statements" to which you refer weren't from a Watchtower article at all, but represented @flipper's spin on this article only. Family members may or may not shun family members that find themselves in a disfellowshipped state. If they do, then the disfellowshipped person will likely not like being shunned, but if the family doesn't wish to shun a disfellowshipped family, there is no requirement that they do so, because there exist many reasons why a disfellowshipped father or a disfellowshipped mother will still need to interact with non-disfellowshipped family members that I need not go into here.
There may be family gatherings though to which the disfellowshipped family member may not be invited to attend since Jehovah's Witnesses may be invited to attend these gatherings, but if such a gathering is limited to just family, then the disfellowshipped family member might be invited to attend. What happens in such cases is neither the responsibility nor within the province of congregation elders.
This is not about punishing the DF'd person in order to get them to return it is all about damage control.
How so? What "damage control"?
Someone who is aware of the corruption will not want to go back but by preventing interaction others will not be encouraged to see the light focusing instead on towing the corporate line.
What "corporate line"? You seem to be using a phrase here that you don't quite understand how they are to be used or when they ought to be used. Maybe you should use words and phrases that you understand.
I am fortunate that my father was never a JW so can visit my parents although how my mother will react following this sort of article is unclear. I know my sister will be hard line and I know that she will cut me out of her life because of stupid articles like this. There is no evidence of a softening attitude by the society rather their fear of losing control is reflected by harsh rules like this one. They punish those in more then those who are free since those on the outside are free to love unconditionally, those in have to deny their natural feelings and torture themselves in a hopeless cause.
No, they don't. I think you're in your head. If you want to leave God's organization, you can just leave; no one is going to make you stay. When you leave, you punish yourself since you know that you will have cut yourself off from the kind of association you may have had before making the decision to leave.
@djeggnog
