Question to shunned persons

by HesterPryne 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • HesterPryne

    Its ok to lie to wolvesa.....
    a.k.a.....non-jw's...says so right here. (this is from of my webpage.
    'A Journal To MY JW MOTHER')

    Watchtower 1956-57
    I have been trying to understand what you were taught about JWs in 1956 so I have been looking at back issues. I came across an article from 1957 that gives witnesses permission to LIE if they can justify it by claiming it protects Jehovah's organization somehow....I always wondered how you could lie and not bat an eye.You know... like how you decieved my brother about why I hadn't been to visit you and allowed him to think it was MY decision and that I was neglecting my aging parents. Do you see him as a WOLF? I really hate to call you a liar mom....I guess we'll just call them little un-truths in the name of the TRUTH. Do you recall this article from your 'formative' years? (see attached articles)

    1956 "The enemies [here identified as those who resist or persecute Jehovah's Witnesses] did not deserve to learn the truth to the hurt or endangerment of Jehovah's servants. In wartime it is proper to misdirect the wolfish enemy. .. It is proper to cover over our arrangements for the work that God commands us to do. If the wolfish foes draw wrong conclusions from our maneuvers to outwit them, no harm has been done to them by the harmless sheep, innocent in their motives as doves." {WT Feb 1 1956 80/86} {Lying is acceptable - see next quotation]
    1957 "Trust Your Proved, Faithful Brothers.. Showing respect for Jehovah's organization really resolves itself down to our attitude toward God's visible channel and the trust that we place in our proved, faithful brothers. If we have become thoroughly convinced that this is Jehovah's organization, that he is guiding and directing his people, then we shall not be unsettled by anything that happens. If something comes up that we do not understand we will wait patiently until it is made thoroughly clear to us. If we feel sure something is wrong we will 'keep the commandment' of our Father and take whatever theocratic steps are open to us and then wait on Jehovah. We will not 'forsake our mother's teaching' by immediately beginning to criticize and find fault. We will realize that Jehovah knows what is going on in his organization, and if he is willing to permit it, who are we to insist it should be different? If we really have faith, we will know that if it is wrong he will straighten it out eventually, and we are far safer inside his organization even with these minor difficulties than we would be on the outside where only chaos and destruction await us.. [We must] show our respect for Jehovah's organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God.. A Witness of Jehovah was going from house to house in Eastern Germany when she met a violent opposer. Knowing at once what to expect she changed her red blouse for a green one in the very next hallway. No sooner had she appeared on the street than a Communist officer asked her if she had seen a woman with a red blouse. No, she replied, and went on her way. Did she tell a lie? No, she did not. She was not a liar. Rather, she was using theocratic war strategy, hiding the truth by action and word for the sake of the ministry." {WT May 1 1957 284-5} [Do not criticize the Organization, and Lying is commendable, as for 1956, 1960, 1988, 1993]

  • logical

    ZazuWitts asked me to repost this

    JW's are expected to "shun" those disfellowshipped or disassociated. The WTS use Biblical "proof" for this, such as 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

    In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."

    The Greek for the words "quit mixing in company" is "sunanamignumi".

    This means according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

    "To 'mix up together, i.e. associate with; (have, keep) company (with)."

    Also, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says of the same word:

    "to keep comany with, to be intimate with..."

    The same source further uses 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14 as examples of how the word is used in the Greek text.

    This is in contrast with the Greek word "mita". In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance it is interesting to note that this word "sunanamignumi" is shown to mean a much closer association than that or the word mita which merely denotes:

    "accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association

    Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also says regarding the Greek word sunanamignumi:

    "A fellowship far closer and more intimate than that expressed by mita, although in the N.T. (New Testament) this distinction is much oftener neglected than observed. So from here it can be seen that the word used in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11 denotes close association, as with a friend, or someone with whom one would normally share a meal with"

    So, you can see there is a clear distinction between "mita" (general association) and "sunanamignumi" (close association). This is clearly demonstrated in the Greek language.

    We can see why Paul recommended that there should be no "close, or intimate association", or sunanamignumi

    When we look at the two words we can clearly see the expression Paul uses really does not suggest at all that one cannot say a simple "hello" out of common courtesy to such an individual. Paul's warning is not to become "intimate" with the individual. However, he could have some "casual" or "general association" since this is what he would have with persons in general.

    Pauls councel at 1 Corinthians Chapter 5 does not suggest that a Christian cannot be cordial to disfellowshipped individuals. He could have "general or casual association" with such individuals, which is what the scriptures really indicate.

  • ZazuWitts

    Thank you ever so much Logical

    Friends, I was impressed when Logical posted this first time around, and in 'chat' asked if he would do so again, on this thread. It makes all the sense in the 'world'...doesn't it!!! How 'violated' can you be if you can't receive/give a simple 'hello' to another matter what the reasons you (they) might pose. Zeeeesh, shame on any person or organization that would go this far!!!
    So, fellow posters, what can we do about it? I mean, we have the official website of the WTBTS, and the
    "we don't break up families" ...sure... I think we should ALL give some thought/response to this. Any thoughts on how to go about accomplishing this?

    My thoughts are not so simplistic as to expect a direct response from the Borg, they don't even allow us a direct forum to communicate with them, such as an 1-on1 e-mail, but I for one intend to take Logical's research and write them,...will let you know if I get any response, ha,ha.

    'That's all folks.'

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Hi Zazuwitts:

    On the first page of this topic, you asked if anyone had the WT81, on shunning DF'd and DA'd ones.

    I have the 2 articles in the W81, 9/15, if you would like me to post them (they total 8 pages}. The first is on "DF'ing and DA'ing-how to view it, and the second is "If a Relative is DF'd".

    If you want them, I can post them...just let me know here.

    As I've said on other posts, shunning has always been a sorespot with me and I would love to see a change. It would return a measure of harmony in my family between my da'd son and his sister who is devastated by this situation and with other family members too.

    I've wondered the same thing about their statement on their site and posted that question here and other threads too on how can they expect to get away with such an outright lie. I would like to know too how to make them own up to it, publicly or change it.

    Had Enough

  • ZazuWitts

    To all, and especially HadEnough- "Had" you were kind enough to offer to post entire 8 page article, ...I don't want to put rest of posters' through that, I guess???

    Thanks, so much, for the offer. I really do appreciate it; as it troubles you, it troubles me...almost more than anything mandated by the Borg.

    I have more comments to make to some of you individually,....have been quite ill for several days...just not up for it yet. Soon, friends, love Zazu

    And, Logical, thanks again. :)

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Hi Zazu:

    I appreciate your consideration for other posters regarding the length of the articles, so I sent you an email regarding this.

    The articles cover what is to be expected of "loyal" JWs in so many situations, it doesn't leave any doubt as to what their true stand on shunning is. It certainly isn't what they say on their website.

    Hope you are feeling better soon!

    Had Enough

  • HesterPryne

    Had Enough,

    Is the article you mentioned on-line anywhere?I looked at the site where I found the 1956-57 article, it wasn't there. The least JW's could do for those of us who are shunned is give us a little going away package with the articles explaining their actions. As I've mentioned in other posts, I stopped attending meetings when I was 47. I haven't looked at any WTBTS publications in 34 years!

    JW's don't actually use the word 'shunning'.At least I have never heard one. Do they have a have an official term for the action of ignoring people? I have always used the shunning term. I live in Amish country and that is the term they use.

    As for the LIE on the webpage...they are being TROOTHFUL
    Remember...we are all invited to the KH this morning where we can sit in the backrow and enjoy the good fellowship of people who can't talk to us....pedophiles, abused spouses and sad children...

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Hi HesterPryne:

    When you asked:

    JW's don't actually use the word 'shunning'.At least I have never heard one. Do they have a have an official term for the action of ignoring people? made me wonder too. I don't remember using that word or hearing it used much, if at all. We just referred to someone as df'd or da'd and it was understood that no one talked to or associated with them.

    I went to the WT official website and put "shunning" in the 'search' option and got no results.

    I have the WT CDrom of all their published material, but it only goes back to '51 I think. That's where I got my material in the W81,9/15.

    As far as using the actual word "shunning", here's the results of the 'search' feature on the CD. {bold feature is my input}

    *** w95 4/1 28 How Christians Cope With Public Reproach ***
    Loyal Christians have Biblical reasons for shunning apostates and their views. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Titus 3:10, 11; 1 John 2:19; 2 John 10, 11)

    *** w88 4/15 27 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***
    “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning.” (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20) Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”—1 John 2:18, 19.

    and in the W81 articles I previously mentioned, the word was used also..

    w81 9/15 22-3 Disfellowshiping-How to View It ***
    12 Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards…

    And one who disassociates himself is to be treated the same as a df'd one:

    *** w81 9/15 23 Disfellowshiping-How to View It ***
    15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.

    Yes, you're right..they can go to the meetings...but under the conditions you stated...but again..the public doesn't get that impression from their website.

    As far as family members goes, the remark I feel is a lie, is that their site says disfellowshipping does not sever family ties, in the same paragraph as saying that former memembers are not shunned. They give the impression that family memembers do not shun each other, and they do not elaborate on the fact that, that's only the case with family members under the same roof. Ones that are no longer in the same actual house as the df'd or da'd one, must shun that family memember.

    Such a farce! Especially when we consider what 'logical' posted for ZazuWitts for us and few posts back, on the actual meanings of the original Greek words used in the scriptures that the WTS uses for backup of their stand.

    If you would like more info from those articles, I'd be glad to post them for you.

    Had Enough

  • Drue

    article on jws and shunning:

  • HesterPryne

    Had Enough,

    Thank you for the information.

    Shunning is a part of JW's whether they admit it or not. They are so good at their double talk and requiring that people read between the lines in their literature. It was made perfectly clear to me that I am to have NO phone calls, no letters. In the same breath I was told I was welcome to have a study and that there is a sister in the congregation here who is anxious to study with me....hope she isn't holding her breath. It would be so easy to just have a family would be back to 'normal¿'. Nauseates me to think about it.

    On your CDROM do JW's address the issue of at what age children can be baptized? I have been curious about this. I was 9 years old when I was dedicated. It doesn't seem right to allow a child to make a decision that they don't understand fully. At 9 I thought JW's were the real religion....what do 9 year olds know. If you find anything on the topic of children and baptism, maybe you should post it in a different thread....sorry I have gotten off topic. I just feel that if I hadn't been allowed baptism as an INFANT I would still have my would my brother. He was 10 when he took the plunge. I hope they have made some rules about this since the early 60's.

    Thanks again......

Share this