I May Have Found Loophole!

Yan Bibiyan

Sorry, hit Enter way too fast.

So, I am thinking since the 4/15/2012 is very explicit on not associating with "disfellowshipped", what about "disassociated"?

They are very legalistic; turn it against them!

Whaddayathik?

FatFreek 2005

In the past 10 years or so the Society has made it clear that there is no difference, at to purposes of penalties and shunning, between DF'd and DA'd folks.

In the old days they created the DA situation for obvious legal reasons. Don't DF those in the military cuz headquarters could get shut down. Instead, we'll say a military person DA'd himself. "No, we didn't kick him out -- he kicked himself out".

Len

Yan Bibiyan

Len, I realize. But I am looking at the legalistic angle: the latest and greatest noo lite is very specific - Disfellowshipped.

3dogs1husband

hmm regardless of "angles" you loose all your family if you are either. They can not control me or my mind...so they control my loved ones....in turn that gives them some control over me, however I need to put them all on notice latley that I do have limits.

jamiebowers

From what I've heard, whether you da or are df'd, the announcement made is, "So and So is no longer a jw," so the result of shunning is the same.

Scully

They've basically lumped DFd and DAd people in the same category by stating from the platform that So-and-so Is No Longer One Of Jehovah's Witnesses™. The Legal Department will claim that this change was motivated to remove any negative association that might have come from the term Disfellowshipped™, which would be construed by those hearing as deliberate, unrepentant wrongdoing on the part of the person named, and potentially expose the Congregation™, the local Body of Elders™ and the WTS to allegations of slander against the individual named.

Nobody knows anymore who is DFd or DAd, presumably to remove the thought from the average JW's mind that someone might leave the JWs as a form of protest against internal corruption, or a valid disagreement over doctrine. The implication will be that the announcement serves to paint with the same brush both people deemed to be Unrepentant Wrongdoers™ and people who leave as a conscientious decision of protest against the WTS and/or its doctrines and/or practices.

Eventually, though, I can foresee a time when more and more individuals will be Disassociated By Their Actions™, which would practically eliminate the need for Judicial Committees™. All you'd need would be two people claiming to have observed someone doing something they shouldn't be doing, or the Elders™ approaching someone who is Inactive™ and asking whether they consider themselves to be a JW, and presto! you're Disassociated™ No Longer One of Jehovah's Witnesses™ by the next Service Meeting™.

ScenicViewer

Yan Bibiyan said,

...I am looking at the legalistic angle: the latest and greatest noo lite is very specific - Disfellowshipped.

It's true that Watchtower is extremely legalistic, but by all accounts when you get behind closed doors with elders or a judicial committee they will apply what they want. They can either ignore or apply their own legalism as it suits them at any given moment.

When they are shown something from the literature that doesn't suit them, it will mean nothing. The loopholes are virtually always on their side.

Roddy

But I am looking at the legalistic angle: the latest and greatest noo lite is very specific - Disfellowshipped.

Doesn't matter. They have their "oral law" and "secret interpretations" which allows them to use broad powers dealing with any kind of dissent or rebellion from the norm from anyone.

So no matter what kind of ace you think you have in your hand, they hold all the trump cards. And they can make new trump cards as they go along.

You can't win.

I May Have Found Loophole!

Share this