by Aussie Oz 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
W 81 9/15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.)
Since Watchtower joined the UN they've condemned themselves out of their own mouths.
Watchtower effectively dissociated itself - and In this instance, then, I fully agree with the shunning they deserve!
I remember we had drywall man who was working on our house back in 1979. My father (a super elder) was talking to him and found out he was disfellowshipped. It didn't phase him a bit, he just commented to me later that we just couldn't talk about anything spiritual. The rules changed in 1981.
Also this ^^^
I was taught as a child in the late 70s one must not have spiritual association only. But is there a Watchtower that explicitly states this I wonder?
I suppose if there really was no written policy on how to treat the disassociated pre-1981, that silence in itself shows they were not shunned and they could go about their business as a free person. The Ray Franz issue appears to have sparked them to make their first ever policy about it.
The reason i brought it up was wondering at what point in the history of the organisation did they become a cult. 1952 when DF came in perhaps. But they could still leave by DA & keep their family & friends until 1981. So i think 1981 may be the year when it properly bacame a cult.
What would happen though pre1981 if a person DA'ed and then started bad mouthing the organisation to family and friends? Would someone be DF for apostasy after DA'ing?
In Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz stated (p. 357 ftn. 7) :
I knew personally that the Governing Body had till then [March 1981] equated disassociation and disfelIowshipment only in the case of persons entering politics or the military, not for a simple resignation from the congregation. I had, in fact, been assigned to undertake a revision of the Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence manual which spelled out all such policies and I knew that no such extreme position had been reached on disassociation. Persons who resigned were not treated the same as those disfellowshiped, with the sole exception that if they desired to re-enter the congregation they had to submit a request to that effect. After hearing that the Service Department had sent out some letters that, in effect, equated disassociation with disfellowshipment, I talked with a member of the Service Department Committee and pointed out that the matter had never been presented to the Governing Body and that any such action had to be of the Service Department’s own doing. He acknowledged that nothing on this had come through from the Governing Body.
He goes on to say (pp. 357, 358) :
Back in 1974 the Governing Body assigned me to write articles on the treatment of disfellowshiped persons. Those articles, duly approved by the Body, greatly moderated the attitude that had prevailed up to that time, encouraged Witnesses to manifest a more merciful attitude in many areas of their contacts with disfellowshiped persons, reduced the rigidity of policies governing dealings with a disfellowshiped family member. The September 15, 1981, Watchtower not only reversed this, on some points it carried the matter backward to an even more rigid position than had existed previous to 1974. A major change made was with regard to any voluntarily disassociating themselves. For the first time the policy was officially published that anyone doing this was to be treated in the same way as if he had been expelled from the congregation.
Thanks Earnest. I forgot Ray was so clear on that point. So their earlier policy was written down in the Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence manual. I don't think anyone has ever leaked that one, so Ray's words seem to be the first & last word on how how disassociation was applied with regard to shunning back then.
