Lying about Shunning! jw.org conceals the "truth"

by Skinnedsheep 45 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Theredeemer

  The lie in the statement is not that they DO NOT shun those that no longer preach or drift away; the lie is that this person is regarded as a former witness. We know that a former witness is an apostate. A former witness is one who adamantly professes to no longer be a part of the religion known as Jehovah's Witnesses. A former witness is one who is disassociated and disfellowshipped for no longer believing that this religion is the "truth". These examples constitute a former witness.

  Someone fading away is not a former witness.

  The wording should say "Although we do not shun those who are no longer preaching, associating with our congregation, or attending our meetings, we do shun those who have officially dissasociated themselves, have joined another religion, no longer identify themselves as a Jehovah's Witness, or those who have been disfellowshipped for whatever reason."
• 

  EdenOne

  Thechnically, it's not lying, but it's deceitful, nonetheless.

  It's a piece of Public Relations for those who do not know much about the inner workings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. If they knew, they wouldn't buy the BS.

  Eden
• 

  wallsofjericho

  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.

  What a test of faith! Are you proving yourself holy by not associating with family members or others who are disfellowshipped?—Read 1 Corinthians 5:11.

  they are not "lying", they are talking about 2 different things. But they know what they are doing.

  Outsiders understand what shunning is but they don't typically understand disfellowshipping. The WTS knows this and makes the first statetment to non-JW's about inactive ones while making the latter to JW's about disfellowshipped ones.

  to the outsider, they will assume these are the same thing when as we all know they are light years apart in the JW world
• 

  sparky1

  "EndofMysteries you're arguing over semantics."- Space Madness

  Semantics:

  3. b.:

  "the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings."- m-w.com (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

  Indeed the Watchtower Society does use SEMANTICS to obfuscate, deflect from, confuse and otherwise 'water down' some of their dogma, teachings and internal policies to make them more appealing in the eyes of the general public. The naive and uninitiated need to beware.
• 

  Cadellin

  Of course they are being deliberately deceptive. They are presenting a limited or exceptional example while being silent on the broader, more realistic range of actual situations in which shunning would apply. The example--man with a wife and children--is probably the least hurtful example because of course his wife and minor children aren't going to shun him. In almost every other circumstance, a "former member" (and we know what that means, as has already been pointed out) would be shunned but good by everyone. And being profoundly immoral, as is also implied on JW.Org, is only ONE of many scenarios leading to DFing. This is a case of presenting the most acceptable public face possible while maintaining a very different (hidden) agenda.

  The WT's pants are smouldering...
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  They're being very decietful in the first paragraph, but the second paragraph does contain outright lies:

  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. ”

  Where in the "Bible's moral code" does it say that one must believe that the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses is the modern day FDS? Nowhere. But if you say that openly, you'll be DF'd. Smoking? DF'd.

  The funny part is, that the sentence actually contains two lies. The most obvious being that you can get DF'd without breaking the bible's moral code, but the less obvious lie is in the way that it states, in no uncertain terms, that unrepentant sinners "will be shunned." While I feel pretty certain that child molestation is against the bible's moral code (certainly more so than smoking) there've been countless cases in which the perpetrator wasn't shunned/DF'd. What's more is that in some cases, the victim is shunned. This lie is possibly more insidious than the first, because it creates a false sense of security within the organization.

  There's also more deciet in there, in that they strongly imply that you will not be DF'd if you're repentant. I know of a few cases personally, and read of a number on this forum that demonstrate that this, too, is not the case at all.
• 

  Pistoff

  "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."

  Blatant lies; the reality (one created by the atmosphere of fear and hate, courtesy of the WT) is that if a father or mother is df'd, normal family affections and dealings will NOT continue.

  How can they sleep at night?
• 

  Pistoff

  I am with EOM on this; the WT is counting on the confusion in non-witnesses minds between 'former' members (ie, 'so and so is no longer one of jehovah's witnesses, THAT kind of former member) and one who has just faded away.

  And they qualify it very carefully; IF they no longer preach, and IF they no longer associate.

  But they still leave a hole a mile wide; what of those who just are honest and say I no longer believe? Doesn't that make me a former member in the eyes of non-witnesses?

  Yes, but not in the eyes of WT; you are a 'former' member when you are no longer a member, which happens at df'ing or da'ing.

  So, I am with the side that calls this an outright LIE, right there on their spiffy, world renown website.

  They SHUN former members.
• 

  Mr. Falcon

  All this breakup of families and heartache for what? for WHAT?!?!?!? Just so Brooklyn can fleece $$$ from its hapless followers. This world IS screwed, it's just not by any "Satanic Hand".

  it's by our own hand.
• 

  BU2B

  When the FAQ asks: Do JWs shun FORMER members? and answers NO, that is a LIE. Any of the BS printed afterwards only serves to muddy the water. As was said many times previously, a fader/inactive JW is NOT a FORMER JW. Therefore the may truthfully say that inactive members are not shunned. The lie is equating INACTIVE JWs with FORMER JWs, and saying unabashedly that FORMER JWs ARE NOT SHUNNED. It is a clear lie. However dont try getting a brainwashed JW to agree. They will not even admit it is even deceptive. Their brains do not work that way.