Are JW's using different terminology for "congregation discipline"?

by booker-t 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tim hooper

  Back in the day, if you committed a DF'ing offence, you were either out on your ear or put "on probation".

  Probations could be secret or public.

  Probations always involved restrictions.

  The worse case I ever encountered was a 14 year-old girl who had "committed" fornication. The sin was deemed public knowledge, so her probation terms were read to the entire congregation at the service meeting.

  She was forbidden to ever be alone with a male, to never ever argue with her mother again, to spend 12 hours per month in the ministry, TV was limited to 1 hour a day and, - just get this - she had to be in bed at 9pm every night when there wasn't a meeting!

  I sat in the KH and listened to this announcement. The sense of shame I felt at these revealtions as the girl just sat amongst us sobbing loudly will stay with me forever.
• 

  EdenOne

  It's usually the Elder serving as Coordinator that delivers those anouncements. That's the reason for the change in Elders when such anouncement is made. Since normally the CC wasn't making the announcements, there was always the need for the brief change of speakers.

  tim hooper, that procedure was an abomination. I don't think it was even according to organizational instructions. Sickening!

  Eden
• 

  under the radar

  I was raised as a JW. I clearly remember cases in the late 1950's and early 60's where they would announce the specific "sin" for which a person had been disfellowshipped. They would say, for example, "Joe Blow has been disfellowshipped for adultery." They actually used the word "disfellowshipped" and named the specific "sin." I don't remember ever hearing an announcement of a person's being placed on probation, but it seems reasonable that this would have been announced too.

  I do not think announcing the specific terms of one's probation was ever official policy. I have no doubt that it occurred, but I think it was probably just a case of a particular congregation going beyond what was "required."

  The Organization as it stands today bears little resemblance to the one I was raised in. It is run almost entirely by lawyers and bean counters now, and it seems their primary concern is the protection of their assets. They are doing everything they can to limit their liability and exposure to law suits. I think that's what's really driving the changes in terminology, procedures, and policies. Whether something is correct or the right thing to do takes a back seat to whether the change could cost them money or make them look bad.

  For the record, I reject the Governing Body for being the presumptuous, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, arrogant imposters of godly men that they are. I hope a special punishment awaits them for the untold and unnecessary suffering their ever-changing policies and doctrines have visited upon a gullible and trusting "brotherhood."
• 

  Anony Mous

  When I was in a few years ago, this was the list of official announcements:

  - X is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses (this could apply to both disfellowshipped and disassociated)

  - X is no longer serving as elder/ministerial servant (this could apply to public or private reproof, people simply stepping down, people's kids being 'bad')

  - X is no longer associated with Jehovah's Witnesses (this was rare and only for unbaptized people "unrepentant" in "grave sin")

  - X has been revoked of their privileges representing the congregation (public reproof)

  Then there is private reproof. Public reproof and disfellowshipping usually invokes a 'special needs' parts on the particular "sin". The "special needs" parts that weren't reproof were usually prefaced with some type of announcement that "this topic was given to us by the branch".
• 

  Violia

  The "no longer an approved associate" was used to humiliate the non baptized person and to prove that even if they were not baptized the BOE could still wield a mighty sword against them. lots of unbaptized kids in the 70-80 had this happen to them. If you ever went out in service or any kind of activity like that they could stop the "nice" jws kids from associating with you. They finally stopped it formally but as all other of their shatty legaleze, they still informally do this. If you do not get baptized and attend meetings the good jws kids will eventually mark you.

  sadistic creeps
• 

  anonymouz

  Unofficially it is now just "The Bethel Inquisition" that began by burning Ray Franz at the stake with Ed Dunlap. That 1980 Inquisition became policy, sterioded by self-right, and enforced by the central Popes of the GB as they seized power in 1976. That device soon sealed the corruption, self protected as the now owners and directors of the Bethel of today, a totally different ministry than say 1940. (2Thess2:1-4).

  Like boiling the frog, it has been so gradual (Dan8:11-12), JWs do not feel the water about to turn to divine steam. (Dan8:13-14).