We got a reproved announcement tonight. Slipped in under the wire. Not a clue as why. All I know is she is a bit picky and husband is a control freak of sorts
August WT: DF'ing renamed "Removed." AKA: GB re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
by WingCommander 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Sea Breeze
If you know it is a road to nowhere. Why do you still go to the meetings?
-
road to nowhere
Sea breeze
Wife zooms. I overhear. I will not crush her illusions because of age and mental disability
-
Beth Sarim
This is one aspect the Borg employs so efficiently.
They hold loved ones and family captive,, so the ones who feel like leaving,,held hostage.. They cant leave.
As Road to nowhere said. You see?
-
blondie
I posted on another OP, I agree, it is just semantics, redefining a word, like "mentally diseased." The WTS does this often, like "overlapping generation" to explain why the lifetime of the anointed can be expanded past the 1914 generation. But members don't dare say anything because they might "be shown the door."
-
Beth Sarim
And,,thiis is the reason why "questioning" anything is hated..
The Borg needs 'unity'
We hear it all the time. Any questioning can blow open the door to developing " critical thinking" skills. The Borg cant have that.
-
Beth Sarim
Something I keep thinking about .
Wasnt there some ''big announcement" which turned out to be a big nothing burger in 2005? In changes to not using that term "disfellowshipped"??
When someone was kicked out if the Borg starting in 2005?? It was just announced that so & so is ""no longer a jw"". But they wouldn't say ""disfellowshipped "" from 2005 onward??
I dont think I've ever heard someone being announced as ""disfellowshipped" from the platform since back then.
You guessed it. Probably legal ramifications.
-
NotFormer
It could be argued that announcing that someone has been disfellowshipped could be defamatory by nature. In this jurisdiction, defamation was* defined as anything communicated to a third party that could lower that person's reputation in the eyes of their peers. A disfellowshipment announcement could certainly be seen in that light.
The change in 2005 was probably to deflect a possible rise in defamation suits against elders and possibly the GB as heading up the whole defamatory machine.**
*Current law is different from when I learned it
** There are probably still plenty of jurisdictions that would allow defamation suits over a disfellowshipping announcement, even though the principle I "quote" above isn't the current defamation law. I might have a look at different regimes to see if the WT's caution in changing the announcement was prudent, at least in the face of defamation suits, when I have time.
-
DStanley
It's emotional and spiritual blackmail. Holding a gun to your head and stating that "You have free will to leave any time you want, but you loose your family if you don't decide the way we tell you," is NOT free will at all! It's forced compliance thru threats which they WILL follow thru with. Hence, human rights violations.
After watching Leah Remini's doc, I was telling my mom (VERY devout JW) that some see DFing as emotional blackmail. She argued it was not, you are making the choice. So I gave her a real life example. I said you know mom, let's say you want to leave the town we live in. You are done here. It's fine you can leave anytime you want. But if you leave you will never be able to see me or talk to me again. Or your grandkids. Or your great grandkids. Because we are staying here. We like it here. We like the lake and the weather. We like the museums and entertainment. We like the school systems. So we are going to stay. But you can go, here are your tickets. And I placed imaginary tickets on her leg.
The look on her face was priceless. She swallowed a lump. I then said, to ease her mind, cuz I'm PIMO, I'm not saying that *I* think it's emotional blackmail, but this is why some say that it is.
-
Rattigan350
"I was really hoping for the lifting of the ban on oral sex. I really was."
There is no ban on oral sex. One time they stated that it is unnatural under Paul's writings but remember Paul is not our boss. Why should we care what he said?