WTS Changes Media Info on DF'ing

by FreePeace 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • FreePeace

    I don't know if this has already been posted (as I don't visit as much anymore).

    The WTS has changed the info in the FAQ section of their media site, http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm .

    Remember, it used to say, "Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties." Now it has been changed, apparently to be more in line with the last km insert.

    Following is the way it now reads. Take note of the first sentence, which is yet another blatant lie.

    Do you shun former members?

    Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.

    FreePeace (otherwise known as Doug Kelley)

  • Rado Vleugel
    Rado Vleugel

    Last month I wrote an article about this change: 
    			Disfellowshiping: The Watchtower 
    Society Tightens Its Control
    You can find it under Most Viewed Articles.
    Rado Vleugel

    Edited by - Rado Vleugel on 27 August 2002 11:14:21

  • Smitty

    Hi FreePeace,

    "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned"

    Is this new also? I disassociated myself and have been shunned for years. So, is this something new or is the brotherhood ignorant of it?


    Edited by - smitty on 27 August 2002 11:13:59

  • FreePeace

    Hey Rado, thanks for the update. Now that you mention it, I think I do remember reading it.

    I actually wanted to comment more passionately on it, but restrained myself.

    Smitty, it is simply yet another lie. I can't remember if this sentence was in the previous version or not. I suspect it wasn't. Perhaps Rado or someone else knows.

    If a person simply fades away, then he/she is treated as "spiritually weak," and avoided socially. If a person Disassoctiates themself, then he/she is shunned. This has not changed.


  • metatron

    Does this constitute a CHANGE IN POLICY? Will elders now enforce This as written?

    Suppose you meet with a df'd relative in a restaurant for discussion of family business?
    Will that result in your being df'd?

    it sounds like a change


  • nancee park
    nancee park

    The Watchtower Society's saying "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned" is a lie. Those who disassociate are definitely shunned and their phrase "who simply leave the faith" entails them.

    It shows that they are now on the defensive over the shunning policy especially in wake of the Silentlambs disfellowshippings. They are extremely sensitive to the newspapers like the St Petersburg one which are correctly informing the public, thus drying up new member sources.

  • sunshineToo
    Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

    Liar Liar Liar! I'm DA'd, too, and I've been shunned as well. I cannot believe them lying and call themselves "true Christians".

    What was in the St. Petersburg newspaper anyway?

  • Swan

    I too have left their faith and was shunned.

    Here in Oregon they have had a lot of negative press on their shunning policies because of the Longo and Bryant cases. Especially the Bryant case. If they can put the spin on the situation that people aren't shunned unless they are murderers, adulterers, theives, etc., then most people will understand their not wanting to associate with them. But the public has a hard time understanding shunning for having a difference of opinion with church elders, smoking a cigarette, eating birthday cake, celebrating Christmas, or leaving the faith.

    By putting for public statements like these, it makes it seem that they love and except everyone except the vile rejects of society.


  • waiting

    It's allllllllllllllllllllllll in the wording. Damned lawyers.

    Do you shun former members?

    Previously: "Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned."

    Actually, this is a true statement because simply ceasing to be involved in the faith means a person is still a member in good standing....just not involved. This person is in no way "a former member." He is a member.

    Currently: "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned."

    Actually, this also is a true statement (ok, partially) because it's saying those who "simply leave" aren't doing anything against WT doctrine, have not written a disassociation letter nor have they been disfellowshipped. In other words, *those* jw's are the slink-aways. Cautious, quiet, not making any stir, and very careful.

    I think the word "simply" is a lot more important than we give it credit. It means "utterly, just, solely." (among many other meanings in Webster's)

    And it doesn't mean that the locals are going to go along with this idea anyway - as we all know that what the WT writes isn't what it preaches.

    Thanks, Rado, went to your website & read the article. Fine points, as always. Hope you hang out here more. You have much good information.


  • Mary

    "....Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped..."

    This is half-true. If you simply drift away, you won't be DF'd, but if you disassociate yourself, yes, you are treated just like a disfellowshipped person, as they don't view that as just "drifting away". To them, you've stood up and said "I don't want to be known as a JW anymore." The Society views that almost as the same as apostacy.

    What is really outrageous though, are the REASONS why so many are disfellowshipped. When you read the scriptures, it says that "anyone who is called a brother" who is a drunk (guess that means 99% of the elders should be DF'd), an adulterer, a fornicator, a greedy person, a thief, etc. etc. should be "as a tax collector".

    I don't recall any scripture that says you can disfellowship someone for questioning certain teachings of the GB though. Doesn't the scriptures say "....make sure of all things...."??? Guess that doesn't apply to the rank and file Witness.

    Therefore, to me, they have no grounds whatsoever to have DF'd Bill Bowan, Barbara Anderson and her husband, or any of the countless ones who were molested by ones in the congregation and who went to the police. "Causing divisions in the congregation" was not mentioned in the list of "offenses" and even if it were, these people are to be treated "as a tax collector" or "a person of the nations".

    Less the Governing Body forget, Jesus ATE with the tax collectors and certainly never shunned a "person of the nations". While these classes of people were not everyone's favorite person, Jesus himself NEVER taught his followers to ignore someone, so the Governing Body is actually going directly against what Jesus taught.

    What idiots they truly are............

Share this