Are the Disassociated shunned?

NotBlind

On a whim, I recently visited the JW Media site and found this question in their Beliefs FAQ at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:

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.

My problem is with the first sentence. "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned." Is this true? I think most elders would agree that those who "leave the faith" include disassociated ones.

I noticed that there was a BIG demarcation in this paragraph between those who leave on their own and those who are thrown out (df'ed). Basically, this site states that those who leave on their own are not shunned; those who are df'ed are shunned. Although still corrupt, it makes a little bit of sense, even though it requires some twisting...

The August King-dumb Misery insert now says that

the principles . . . apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who are disassociated.

How can this be reconciled with what's on their website (not to mention the Bible), even using the WTS brand of double-talk? Or does the WTS need to update their site to say: "There's no honorable way to leave the WT. If you go, you're toast!" ??

Is the webmaster in the dark? Was he left out of the latest edition of "new light"? Is there dissention in the ranks? Or am I missing something?

LB

I think most elders would agree that those who "leave the faith" include disassociated ones

I think you'll find that there is a huge difference between leaving the faith and disassociating yourself. Leaving the faith means becoming inactive. DAing yourself is disfellowshipping yourself and they make no distinction between that.

I can't imagine a single elder agreeing with your premise.

ISP

Are the Disassociated shunned?

Is the Pope a Catholic?

ISP

144thousand_and_one

As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." - - NotBlind (quoting WTS official web site)

NotBlind,

Good catch! The quote above really sickens me, as it is undoubtedly used by the blindly devout to justify shunning their children and other close family members who've been disfellowshipped. Any organization purporting to be a religion that mandates the shunning of one's own flesh and blood is really just a despicable cult whose tax exempt status ought to be reviewed.

NotBlind

Leaving the faith means becoming inactive.

I believe that "leaving the faith" is the same as "leaving Jehovah's Witnesses". If this is the case, then I would say that becoming inactive is merely one way (of only 2 options I can think of) of leaving Jehovah's Witnesses. Another option to leave Jehovah's Witnesses is to disassociate oneself. It's an option that has been discussed many times on this board.

It's really a matter of semantics, but I honestly believe that becoming inactive is not the only way to 'leave the faith' of JW's.

DAing yourself is disfellowshipping yourself

The final result is the same, you get the cold shoulder. The means is not, though. When someone is DA'ed, no JC meets, no 'sin' is required. I disagree with, but understand, the WT reasons of DF'ing and treating them the way they do. What basis do they have for treating DA'ed ones the same way? I see no Bible support whatsoever...

Dismembered

Same thing different spelling

TheOldHippie

Another question is, What happens to one who has become inactive if he starts "doing other things" after a while?

A person here became inactive. After three years, his name appears on a list of candidates of a political party at the election. This is noticed, he is questioned, confirms, and is da'ed. Not df'ed, but da'ed. Da'es, because his present preferences are not in accordance with whatis expected.

OK, so a person becomes inactive - but, he has to stay inactive in "all" respects of his life for the rest of it ................

Tish

The clause here is that, when you DA yourself, there is nothing in writing to say you will be treated as a DF, but the counsel from the platform lets everyone know that they should treat you like a DF person.

On the aspect of being inactive, my Brother in law did not have contact with the cong for 2 years, yet when they heard he was attending a church they soon turned up with a commitee to get him shunned!

Tish

LB

What basis do they have for treating DA'ed ones the same way? I see no Bible support whatsoever...

I see zero bible support for the same treatment myself. That's the only reason I haven't yet DAed myself. At this point I don't want to be treated as a DFed one, but that day is coming.

NotBlind

The reason I bring this topic up is that the wording on the JW media website was changed recently. It used to say

Those who simply cease to be involved are not shunned.

Now it says

Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

Why was it changed? If I didn't know any better, I would say that the former refers to the inactive, the "fade-aways" and the latter refers to the inactive and the da'ed, too. I know it's just a few words, but they seem to convey a different tone.

Are the Disassociated shunned?

Do you shun former members?

Share this