Update on "DA'd/DF'd"...

by Suraj Khan 22 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Suraj Khan
    Suraj Khan

    Since many of you were kind enough to give your responses, or at least share in my confusion, I wanted to take some time to share things that went down in the last few days in my family.

    To recap, I was born-in but thankfully the hogwash never took. I was actively dodging meetings by age 13 by faking illness, usually missing 20 to 25 days of school per year. I left my family to attend college and was told by a family member that an announcement was made in my local congregation the following year that I was disassociated. I was never called by an elder and never given a reason why the announcement was made. Many of you pointed out in my original thread that I could not have been technically disassociated as I was an unbaptized publisher. In any event, I was cut off from that point on - about 25 years ago - without a word from the congregation. Except for my father's death and funeral, I was not approached by any Witness family members until last year on Facebook (which was a complete but welcome shock).

    We'd gotten along well enough just talking about sports and kids, ignoring the giant elephant in the room, until I lost it this past Sunday upon seeing the screenshot of the WT study article concerning treating disfellowshipped persons. In outrage, I posted it on Facebook loudly condemning the shunning practice as un-Christian, and further noted my belief that the Witness organization has blood on its hands by advocating this practice.

    Members of my family were horrified by my violent, public reaction, but it shook out some answers.

    My younger brother called two nights ago and did his best to explain the situation for me. He said he'd conferred with my older brother - the one who broke the news to me 25 years ago - and confirmed that I was not disassociated or disfellowshipped. When pressed, he couldn't tell me what term the congregation actually used. He then volunteered that the reason for the announcement was because I had written a political piece for my college paper.

    Ah.

    Pieces of the puzzle suddenly started fitting. I was, indeed, the commentary and opinion editor for the college paper, which had a closed circulation of 7,000. I had brought a few copies on my last family visit in 1989. I realized, at that moment, that my older brother had taken the newspaper and shown the elders of the congregation what I'd written.

    I leaned back and exhaled as I realized the sickening truth: I was cut off from my family, without a word of explanation, because of an innocuous article I'd written at the age of 19. Because my brother turned me in.

    It seems like a scene right out of George Orwell's "1984".

    My younger brother continued, saying that 'mistakes were made' and that 'it would be different now'. Precisely how would it be different? The WT article instructing followers to shun came from last Sunday's Watchtower. When he tried to counter by saying that disfellowshipping is reserved for grave offenses, I countered that many people have been disfellowshipped merely for expressing doubts that the Governing Body is the faithful and discreet slave. And too many of those have felt so abandoned by family and friends that they have felt they had no other choice but to hurt themselves or take their own lives.

    He had no answer for that. Because there is none. It is an unforgivable, un-Christian practice and I suppose I should be on my knees thanking God that events unfolded as they did to open my eyes and ears early on to the hypocrisy and lies this organization teaches.

    I also wanted to take a moment and thank you all for reading and caring to comment. You have all helped me immensely in the last few days, whether you were aware of that or not. Thank you so very much.

  • FingersCrossed
    FingersCrossed

    So sorry to hear that Suraj.. The cult turns people into cold blooded people. But as for you, you are free!

  • Gayle
    Gayle

    My younger brother continued, saying that 'mistakes were made' and that 'it would be different now'.

    This is an admission, WTS style, but no real 'deeply sincere' apology. It still comes up in reality, that 'you' are to accept & suck it up, forget about it, and get back in their game, while they go back to their own ridiculous rules. It is 'not' different now. They lie without a flinch.

  • Pickler
    Pickler

    Suraj, I didn't read your original comment. But what I read here is appalling. Im so sorry they shunned you like that, and for something like this?

    It seems you were already onto the WTBTS from a young age, good for you. Good luck to you in the future!

  • Suraj Khan
    Suraj Khan

    As are my teenage daughters, FingersCrossed! I am thrilled that, as I have shared details of this experience with them, their eyes pop out with amazement and disbelief. My wife has been, as always, supportive and loving through the entire ordeal. I am a very, very lucky man.

    What gives me pause is that so many others feel trapped and helpless. So many take the hurt of being abandoned and destroy themselves as they have been destroyed by their Witness family and the organization as a whole. If you are reading this, and you are on the fence about fading or disassociating, consider the havoc wreaked by this practice alone and compare Matthew 7:15-20.

    We were all born with free will. Is it not human to have doubts and struggle with God and the angels, as Jacob did? Is it not noble to admit that one cannot know everything of the divine?

  • blondie
    blondie

    Interestingly, up until 1988, unbaptized publishers could be da'd/df'd.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/92634/1/DA-used-to-be-used-for-unbaptized-DFing

  • wannabefree
    wannabefree

    I'm not sure when the change took place, but what was announced around that time would have been either ...

    Suraj Khan is no longer an approved associate (which they treated similar to being disfellowshipped)

    or

    Suraj Khan is no longer an unbaptized publisher (which didn't carry the disfellowship stigma, but were to be treated as a worldly person)

    if they still used the "approved associate" classification at that time, the treatment would be explainable, but would have changed when the new "unbaptized publisher" term was used.

  • Suraj Khan
    Suraj Khan

    That is very interesting, Blondie. So the word really could have been disassociated, especially if the elders of my congregation didn't get the memo from the previous year. The one part of the story I have been adamant about is that I was told I was disassociated. I would not have mistaken that word, though doubtless my family and that congregation would have shunned me even if I was simply identified as 'marked'.

  • Suraj Khan
    Suraj Khan

    ...also, "approved associate" would explain why my younger brother would have been unfamiliar with the term, and perhaps the gravity of the offense (of writing a political article in the school paper!) would have been translated as "disassociated" when the news was broken to me.

    I wonder what I wrote that was so terrible?

  • civicsi00
    civicsi00

    The level of control the WTS had back then was strictly severe, as Blondie pointed out above. Before the age of the internet, when everybody had to rely on a small community of support, it was easy to ostracize and expel any non-believers. With the advent of computers and the internet, people have found it easier to connect with others and expand their community to include many hundreds of like-minded people. It has become harder for the WT to maintain the control they had before, when people were unable to connect with the larger world around them. Much like the Dark Ages, before the printing press.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit