Lying about Shunning! jw.org conceals the "truth"
If you people took two seconds to read the article you will see that there was no lying or misleading. The following paragraph after the one in the original post says:
"We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “ Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. ”—1 Corinthians 5:13."
Skinnedsheep I don't see any lies.
Space Madness - A few questions. 1. The title of the FAQ is "Do Jehovah's Witnesses shun FORMER members of their religion?", now out of inactive, disassociated, and disfellowshipped, which of those titles results in the annoucement, "Brother ______ is NO longer a member of the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses?"
2. If you honestly answered the first question, then notice how in that FAQ, once they click on the content, it begins by saying, " "Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest." - is that speaking about 'former members' or only 'inactive'(I asked elders and inactive are NOT considered former)?
3. In their description of what it takes for a person to be disfellowshipped, " We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “ Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. ” , do you see ANYTHING that makes a person think that those who no longer agree w/ the doctrine will be DFed or shunned or does it make it seem only those who commit moral/bible sins?
4. A person who doesn't know anything about JW's, would the description about family make them think that no matter what happens with their or their families membership, if anybody left later, they would be family no matter what and shunning doesn't apply to family, or does the description make it clear that any family who does not live in the same building is to be shunned?
5. After considering those 4 questions, do you still think they WT is lying and being deceptive about their practices?
ITT: Spacemadness is a prime example of how the WT gets away with doing so many lies. As seen above he didn't see any deceit or lies in it(even though the title is clearly a lie). That is because he was viewing it from the eyes of a long time active JW member. Any 'in' JW will read between the lines. He was NOT thinking and reading it through the eyes of somebody who knows nothing about JW's and would be researching or wondering if all the 'great lies' that the GB and JW's claim are told about them, about shunning, not allowed to leave without being shunned by family, etc are true. It was carefully written to deceive outsiders.
"Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest."
I don't think it's a lie. In my experience if you truly drift away from the preaching activity or meetings becacause you get busy or bored or distracted for any number of reasons, they do continue talking to you and encouraging you to come back. If you walk or fade away after raising objections to beliefs, policies or the actions of others, they do keep you at arms length and even go as far as to eliminate you from their life if you don't come around to their way of thinking.
Pete Zahut - In your answer you said if you "drift away","walk or fade away". The FAQ though is "Do you shun FORMER MEMBERS". Drifting away or walking/fading away is NOT a former member. Only dissassociating or getting DFed is a former member.
The question is not "Do you shun inactive members", it's FORMER MEMBERS. Do you still feel it's honest now?
It is not exactly lying per se, but nor - ahem - is it telling the full truth.
You could be forgiven for reading the online material and thinking the organization does not try to stifle questions or doubt.
Indeed, in the online material under the heading of shunning you will not find one single word about the organization's treatment and view of Witnesses who lead lives of moral integrity but who are accused of "apostasy".
This is the public face of the organization but is a very distorted face, not exactly lying but definitely not divulging the full uncomfortable truth either.
It is very telling that this self-claimed sole channel of truth on earth today does not model truth telling in its online publications.
EndofMysteries you're arguing over semantics.
Yes, and at what point in semantics does twisting the meaning become a lie?
A man cheats on his wife, has sex with another women.
She asks him, "Did you cheat on me?" He says no. He did NOT lie. He didn't behave dishonestly with her to gain some advantage, he merely had sex with another women. If she asks him, "Did you sleep with another women", he says no, he did NOT lie, he didn't sleep at all, he had sex.
Now in that above example, if you agree he is not lying, then maybe we can agree that the WT is not lying on it's FAQ of, "Do you shun FORMER members of your religion". However, to me lying is knowing what somebody is asking and giving an answer that you know they are understanding to be completely different from how you are presenting it. So just as in my example of a man KNOWING if his wife asks about cheating or sleeping he KNOWS what she means and in a literalist sense he might not be lying the same applies to the WT then, in this case, a person asking the WT about former members meaning those who have disassociated or left the religion and allowing them to believe that an 'inactive' person is the same as apostate/disassociated, and that family is all family not only those living under the same roof.
I like simon's choice of words: Jehovha's Witnesses are 'vindictive and cruel hypocrites that infest every hall.'
end of mysteries is spot on, just think how an honest answer would be worded, maybe like this:
"While we hope that every former member repents and returns to us, we belive, it is Gods will to not even talk to them or greet them. This also applies within families, except necessary family responisbilities.
Oh, and if a member does not follow this counsel, he will be a former member soon also."
Maybe the PR could word it better, but this would be how it is really, any JW knows this...
the FAQ on JW.ORG are deliberately deceptive, no doubt...
What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.
I would say that the above example is at the very least dishonest. It is a best case senerio that allows family interaction because of the WTS not wanting to violate the "family head" principle. Things get a lot more complicated if it is the wife or one of the children or worse yet, one of the kids move out in that state etc. This short article is just a sanitized version and doesn't realy answer the question.
And yes... only DAs or DFs are no longer considered members whereas inactive or walk aways are considered "inactive members" or "spiritually weak members" ones to be re-activated or spiritually strengthened. So the information really is deflection (red herring) and dosen't specifically address the question. IMHO