They want it both ways

by jeremiah18:5-10 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  Several years ago the WTS stopped announcing individuals who were DF'd as, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped" and instead began announcing, "so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"

  This seems to be rather important to me. Undoubtedly this change was fueled by legal issues raised by someone who was DF'd and impacted in some way perhaps financially. I cannot locate any specific reference in LTBOE's outlining specific reasons for the change, if someone can direct me to such, I would appreciate it.

  It seems to me that this more generic announcement is to disguise or even water-down what has happened and to somehow reduce liability. However, the effect is still the same-ostracism. The elders and the publishers all consider it the same and treat the person who is "no longer one of JW's" the same.

  It seems to me that there is a significant difference between being a DF'd witness and "no longer one of JW's"

  A DF'd Witness is being "disciplined" with some hope of return. A person "no longer one of JW's" is out from under their "umbrella of authority" and should be treated as any other "worldly" person.

  Am I way off here? Is this really insignificant?

  As a DF'd person with many family members still in, obviously it matters to me personally. My announcement was "no longer one of JW's". It seems to me that the WTS wants it both ways and, as with all things, the "flock" doesn't get the difference.

  Perhaps this has been covered in a topic previously, if so I would appreciate being directed to it. I also would appreciate some dialouge on this if you good people wouldn't mind too much.
• 

  Chaserious

  It's in the Shepherd the Flock book , p. 112, par 4: "The announcement should be as follows: [Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." No scripture is cited. Of course it is for legal reasons, and of course they want to have it both ways.

  This is one of the many cases of double speak that exists in the Watchtower. The announcement just says no longer a witness, but in the literature, especially the study literature designed for those who are already members, it will use "disfellowshipped" and "disassociated" all the time. They are programmed to know that the announcement equals one of those statuses. It also allows them to assert in court or in legal documents that they never announced that someone was "disfellowshipped" or even implied that they engaged in bad conduct, since you can't tell from the announcement if maybe the person just decided to pack up and leave. The juicy details will be saved for the congregation gossip.

  Of course there is no scripture that merely says because someone decides to leave you have to shun them. This is no matter, however. They have been teaching that you have to shun DA's since the early 80's, even before the announcement change. So they didn't even have to try and back it up scripturally when they changed the announcement.
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  Yes I read the quote in the Shepherd book, but my thought was that this surely was a significant change when it happened. I was appointed an elder shortly after a revision to the "elder book" and never saw the one before it. Now the book has been revised again. I would think that some explanation would have been given to the elders, either by letter or at a KM school.

  My reason for wanting to know is because I'm contemplating using this reasoning with both my parents and my wifes' parents. Of course if I were to use it, most likely they would be close-minded and not listen or reason on it.

  It just seems to be worth reasoning on and discussing a little.

  I realize that most JW's don't care about a difference or at least don't stop to think about it. Many with DF'd family members might actually care about it and perhaps would love to find an excuse to be able to treat ones like myself differently. Perhaps it would ease their conscience on the matter somewhat.

  Then again perhaps I'm delusional and am just experiencing wishful-thinking LOL.
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  More specifically, if the former or current elders on this site who were serving as elders at the time of this change, could shed light on when this announcement change occurred and whether it was accompanied with an explanation and whether it seemed to be significant to you at the time.

  I can't remember who the former elders are but I think, 00DAD, JWfacts, Atlantis, EE, I know there are more, but if you guys recall anything, could you enlighten me?
• 

  Bobcat

  Jeremiah:

  I commented about this on my post #321 here.

  Thanks for bringing this up again. It is rank hypocrisy on the WT's part.

  From what I saw, there never was an actual explanation for this. It was simply an "adjustment."

  Take Care
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  Thanks for the reference Bobcat. It doesn't seem that it specifically got discussed very much in that thread aside from the fact that some are selective about their shunning.

  Someone in that thread mentioned that there's a correlation between the strictness of the shunning and the closeness of the relationship prior to the DFing. I think thats probably true.

  When my older brother was DF'd [for 15+years] he was in and out of jail from the time he was 20 until he was 42, my parents always maintained contact and would help him as much as they could anytime he was out. Although this help always came with conditions and was a way to try and hold him hostage and force his "return".

  With myself, a JW parents' wet dream most of my life, I apparently so broke their hearts with my fall from grace that they just can't stomach the thought of interaction. It seems they have a significant double-standard and it would drive me nuts if I hadn't emotionally cut them off. Doing this allows me to function w/o depression, but clearly it also robs me, my wife, and especially our kids of a relationship that is normal, natural, and essential to life.
• 

  wha happened?

  likely a slander issue. The comment from the platform announcing a disfellowshipping will impact your name in the community and you will suffer consequences as a result. Announcing you are no longer one of JW's leaves the cause ambiguous, therefore they did not cause injury to you or your name in the community
• 

  designs

  Yes back in the 60s they use to annouce the specific sin- ADULTERY yikes
• 

  leaving_quietly

  BTW, this announcement is stated in the Organized to do Jehovah's Will book that all JWs have. The Shepherding book simply reiterates it.
• 

  Bobcat

  Jeremiah:

  In reality. the WT policy of shunning only has a vague/surface resemblance of what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 5.

  The Society only focuses on the parts or words that they want to emphasize. But if you apply that same focus to the context, their whole doctrine about treating DFed ones falls apart.

  For example, they have recently focused on "anyone" so as to include one's family members. But there is no need for them to focus on the whole phrase, ". . . anyone called (present tense) a brother (i.e. to them, a JW, not someone who is "no longer a JW"). And they ignore the other qualification of "anyone" that comes next, ". . . who is (again, present tense) a fornicator, etc, etc." Instead, they change that whole phrase to, "is disfellowshiped." Whereas, someone who is DFed would be rightly described by verses 12 and 13, "those outside," whom the congregation are to leave to God to judge.

  The WT doctrine leads to absurdities (as I'm sure you are aware) like:

  The need to shun a young sister who was DFed for fornication several years ago, but has since maried and is, by all accounts, living and leading a very decent lifestyle. Yet she needs to be shunned because she is DFed.

  In contrast there is a baptized brother who is into drugs and other mischief. But since he has kept away from the congregation and moved to another town closeby, he isn't DFed. Thus his JW family can visit him and try to help him without remorse for doing so.

  This very example (real life) shows how the WT policy is very much like what Jesus decried in Matthew 15:1-9. Paul (in 1Cor 5) was trying to protect fellow Christians from bad associates and protect the reputation of the congregation. The WT is only trying to protect their position of power and authority. And so their policy amounts to a voiding of God's Word in favor of their 'tradition.' And the absurdities that result are simply the logical end of an absurd doctrine. Eccl 10:12b 13 rightly describes the WT on this.

  And the Society has the audacity to say that JWs who violate their policy are disloyal to God. It is the WT that is disloyal to God.

  I'm sorry about your situation. Hang tough, though. Losing your composure will only be used against you, as I'm sure you know.

  Take Care