dis-associated/disfellowshipped - are they the same?

by Caedes 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  Do you have to formally dis-associate to count as such? There seems to be a lot who are hounded to make a formal declaration to a judicial committee.

  So my questions are (I would be very interested in references from the WT CDrom) - what is the official stance on those who simply stop going to meetings, do they count as disassociated by their actions? Should they be treated the same as those who are dis-fellowshipped?

  Just trying to make sure I understand the party line since I have family members being treated differently when I was under the impression that there is no official way to leave without coming under the instruction to 'quit mixing in company'

  Thanks
• 

  Black Sheep

  Look it up on their official website. Search for 'shunning'.

  Watch out for weasel words. Yes, they do treat formally DAs the same as DF. They say they don't shun drifters, but that doesn't tell the reader the whole story. Drifters have to hide, disappear, lie,etc.. to avoid being 'formally' DAd.
• 

  cedars

  As far as I know, merely ceasing to attend meetings (or becoming "inactive") does not constitute disassociation - YET. I have a suspicion that the Society will make inactivity for a certain period grounds for disassociating in the future, but this has not happened yet (thank goodness).

  Disassociating is something you do, whereas disfellowshipping is something they (the elders) do. Both have the same outcome as regards shunning, and the announcement to the congregation is the same.

  Although disassociation is "self-inflicted" as it were, it can be forced upon you if your actions are interpreted as demonstrating that you no longer consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses. An example would be joining the army, attending another church, or (believe it or not, this is in the elder's manual) becoming a professional boxer!!!

  So far, "inactivity" alone isn't grounds for disassociating. At least not yet.

  Cedars
• 

  Caedes

  Thanks Black sheep,

  I have looked it up it doesn't really tell me if they should shun 'faders', the implication is certainly there but nothing official that spells it out that JWs should shun faders.

  Certainly the quote below seems to say that you should treat dis-association the same as dis-fellowshipping.

  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.

  So is there something official that states that fading is the same as dis-associating?
• 

  Caedes

  Cedars,

  Thanks
• 

  Chariklo

  And then there's "marking", isn't there?

  When I stopped going for a while last summer, when I first came on here, heavy pressure was put on me to come back, and pathetically I succumbed. I was, in any case, only "a study", though by then I was also an unbaptised publisher. (And doesn't that epithet just show that the whole thing isn't a religious organisation? It's a publishing company!)

  During the course of my subsequent "strengthening" sessions from an elder with the elderette who then became my study conductor, it was made clear to me that if I went back to the church (I'd already been back there a few times) it would be viewed very seriously. But I was told I wasn't yet "marked" because I was still encouraged to "answer up" on Sundays.

  I don't really understand all the different grades between disfellowshipping (but they come back, I know several), disssociating, being marked, and then being an apostate and everyone really, really avoids you because you're held to be a great danger to the sheep.

  All of it is totally unchristian.
• 

  Caedes

  Cedars,

  Are there any other examples given in the Eldars manual?
• 

  BluesBrother

  Watchtower 1982 1/15 p31

  "First, though it is uncommon, a person might decide that he absolutely no longer wants to be a Witness. We do not mean a person such as is described above, a spiritually weak or discouraged Christian who may express some doubts. Rather, we mean someone who resolutely declares that he absolutely is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since in the past he voluntarily became a baptized member of the congregation, it would now be proper for him to inform the congregation that he is ending this relationship. It would be best if he did this in a brief letter to the elders, but even if he unequivocally states orally that he is renouncing his standing as a Witness, the elders can deal with the matter.—1 John 2:19.

  The second situation involves a person who renounces his standing in the congregation by joining a secular organization whose purpose is contrary to counsel such as that found at Isaiah 2:4, where we read concerning God’s servants: “They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” Also, as stated at John 17:16, “they are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world.”—Compare Revelation 19:17-21.

  In either of these two situations, the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person’s decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship, in harmony with what we read at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 9-11.

  As can be appreciated, the spiritually weak and inactive son about whom the question was asked has not become a “disassociated” person in either of these two senses and no such announcement has been made in the congregation. So it still may be possible to aid him in the spirit of Romans 15:1: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong.”—

  NB..The announcement nowadays is the same as for d/f'd ones, namely that "xxxx is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"

  Then, let the shunning commence !
• 

  cedars

  Caedes - the formal so-called "implications" of disassociation are listed on pages 111 and 112 of the "Shepherd" book.

  These are (briefly):

  • Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one of Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Joining another religious organization and making known his intention to remain with it
  • Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood
  • Taking a course contrary to the neutral position of the congregation

  The thing about boxing that I remembered was on page 71:

  36. If a Christian took up professional boxing
  and refused to stop despite repeated counsel, judicial
  action would be appropriate.-w81 7/1 pp. 30-31.

  Cedars
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  What is disturbing is the way in which the Watchtower Society, despite demanding rights to freedom of speech and freedom of worship from society at large, denies these rights to members that leave their society. It is true that members are free to leave the organization at any time. However, the penalty is to be shunned and ostracised by those nearest and dearest to them. The Watchtower Society's official policy is to disfellowship or shun members that dare to exercise freedom of speech. Even if they have left the organization voluntarily, they risk being shunned. Any members that do not obey the shunning order, risk being shunned themselves. More recently the Society has started using the term ‘disassociate.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have proclaiming their controversial views around the world for more than a hundred years. They constantly warn that on ‘the day of vengeance,’ their ‘God of love’ will kill anyone who has ignored their warnings and refused to be in their religion. If challenged over this expectation, the average Witness will say that it is not for them to judge, Jehovah will decide. My experience is that this is not what they really think.

  What if society at large were to take objection to their views and shun all Jehovah's Witnesses? Perhaps refusing to employ them, talk to them, or give them medical assistance, and demand that family members, who are not part of their religion, disassociate them. The Watchtower Society would see the treatment of their members as an attack on ‘Jehovah’s people,’ inspired by the devil and his demons. They would call on their God through earnest prayer, to defend their rights and give them the strength to endure being persecuted for being Jehovah’s chosen ones. In fact their literature predicts that this will happen during the run up to Armageddon.

  Given their track record it is likely that the Watchtower Society would be straight back in court, demanding the civil rights of its members be upheld. They would say that such treatment is inhuman and quote pages of court rulings from previous cases they have fought. Cases, that set a precedent for civil behaviour, making such prejudice and discrimination against people due to their religious beliefs, illegal.