by AndersonsInfo 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Fisherman, what you consider to be a 'bad influence' is way over the top.
Got it all wrong. Not me. Bad compared to JW standard compared to what non-JW like to believe and practice. Parents may not want the lifestyle of a family member to influence them or their kids and want to stay away. Surely a democratic gov must see that unless they just have it in for jw. If you can’t see, have a nice day.
For Your Consideration:
Beginning in the updated 2012 Shepherd the Flock of God elders' manual and continuing through updated 2019, 2020, 2021, and lastly, the Oct. 2022 Shepherd the Flock of God elders' manual, it is stated that JW's can have nonspiritual association with disfellowshipped relatives and “Would not be dealt with judicially…”
See the following information:
2012 “Shepherd the Flock of God” Elders' Manual
Chapter 10 - Matters Related to Disfellowshipped and Disassociated Ones
Make yearly visits on those who qualify. Permit them to obtain personal literature at the Kingdom Hall Assist those having undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives
6. If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures. Review with them information from the “God’s Love” book, pages 207-208; The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, pages 26-30; or the article “Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped” in the August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry. If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, it may be that he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision.
FYI, the following paragraph is not found in the 2012 elders' manual but is in the 2019, 2020, 2021, and Oct. 2022 updated manual. Italicized word is found in the elders' manual.
Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action.—Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39-40.
---
2019 “Shepherd the Flock of God” Elders' Manual
Chapter 12 DETERMINING WHETHER A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE SHOULD BE FORMED
17. Though this is not an exhaustive list, brazen conduct may be involved in the following if the wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude made evident by a practice of these things:
(1) Unnecessary Association With Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Individuals:
Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action.—Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39-40.
If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. Review with him information from the Remain in God’s Love book, page 241. If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision. (The word "spiritual" is italicized in this elders' manual)
----
2020, 2021, Oct. 2022 Elders' Manual – “Shepherding the Flock of God.” [The material below is basically the same as found in the 2019 manual.]
Chapter 12 - #16 and 17
Brazen Conduct [Heading is Brazen Conduct for both #16 and #17]
17. Though this is not an exhaustive list, brazen conduct may be involved in the following if the wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude made evident by a practice of these things:
(1) Unnecessary Association With Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Individuals:
Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action.—Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39-40.
If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. Review with him information from the Remain in God’s Love book, page 241. If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.
---
THE APRIL 2023 UPDATED "SHEPHERDING THE FLOCK" ELDERS' MANUAL WILL BE SENT TO ELDERS SOON.
MOST LIKELY, THIS WILL BE OF INTEREST TO JW'S AND DISFELLOWSHIPPED JW'S TO SEE IF THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN THE WORDING OF #17 (1) OF CHAPTER 12 THAT CAN IMPACT THE ASSOCIATION OF JW'S WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPED RELATIVES.
Obtaining this ''Shepherding Flock of God'' book is more obtainable than ever. It's well known, obviously.
It's updated thought frequently,,by the time someone downloads it & prints it off,,,it''s already obsolete. My understanding new copies of this ''secret'' book come out in MAY.
IT will be interesting to see the wording of Df'ed or DA'd ones, regarding relatives,,family and alike. I imagine just more paragrapphs or pages on child sexual abuse, or lawsuits about CSA and legal entanglements.
It's just amazing that by the time an updated form of the 'Shepherding the Flock of God' is ready for pdf, that it's already out - of - date. I imagine legal entanglements gallore.
Not being a JW a father may not want a son to use druxs or live a amoral lifestyle. The gov protects a person’s right to be free but a parent wants his son to be happy and to be healthy and to prosper. He won’t tolerate conduct that he believes is devastating to his child. The group lives by a moral code and allowing conduct outside the morality harms the offender and the group. The group should not be forced by the gov to tolerate conduct outside beliefs and practices of the group.
And they are not forced to tolerate conduct outside their beliefs and practices. They are even free to shun. As adults.
But the government has a duty to protect minors and social isolation is one of the cruelest things you can do to a social animal.
If the father who wanted his son to stop drugs started beating him with a whip, the government would step in and stop it because it's child abuse. Even if the result was the child stopped drugs.
But all of this is moot because, again for those at the back (Fisherman!) no one is stopping them practising their faith as they see fit . The government has certain criteria that any religion applying for the hand out must adhere too. Freedom to leave without consequences is one and child protection is another. Watchtower simply does not meet that criteria.
Samcats don't recall any articles with parents not eating with their children.
Samcats I've been looking for it but I'll tell you what it looked like so it may jog your memory.
There is either a fairly small photo or a drawing (bluish in tone?) of an older man (the father) sitting alone in the kitchen, at a small table (that may be attached to a wall) with his back to the door. He is eating alone in the house because his teenaged son has been disfellowshipped. The angle is sort of from above.
It is a sort of life story I believe of a JW father whose young teenage son still living at home has been disfellowshipped. If I remember rightly the father was what we would probably call 'soft shunning' his son in the home because he believes it's what God wants, Is the moral thing to do and (of course) will bring his son back to watchtower. It intimates the son expects a normal relationship because he's still at home but the father makes it clear - by eating alone and keeping contact to a minimum - that that will not happen.
I'll keep looking for it.
Diog
The government has certain criteria that any religion applying for the hand out must adhere too.
But they need to be fair about it.
Also, Let’s suppose that gov forced wt to allowDF family members close fellowship a matter of conscience. Do you think it would change how the JW family members dealt with df JW? No, it would remain the same. In fact, as Barbara pointed out in her post and I also explained in my previous post, JW family members have discretion in how they deal with close df family members. The only exclusion is spiritual association.
In any event this pressure from the gov to force JW to change their religion to meet their standards won’t work and if JW go to the European Court, I think wt will win because the standard is not fair. Nut it won’t even come to that. Like the Canadian Supreme Court, they will reverse their decision
@Diogenesister
There is either a fairly small photo or a drawing (bluish in tone?) of an older man (the father) sitting alone in the kitchen, at a small table (that may be attached to a wall) with his back to the door. He is eating alone in the house because his teenaged son has been disfellowshipped. The angle is sort of from above.
Do you remember roughly what year it was?
Diogenesister: But the government has a duty to protect minors and social isolation is one of the cruelest things you can do to a social animal.
Based on what is in the elder's manuals that AndersonsInfo posted, they could successfully argue that their shunning policy does not violate the Norwegian government's standards. It would not be the first time that the WTS modified policy to conform to such pressure (I think they claimed that they did not forbid blood transfusions to avoid sanctions in Bulgaria, didn't they?). And they could say one thing and do another, by pressuring the rank and file to shun even if their guidelines have relaxed the rules.
But if they start on the road to relaxing those rules in order to gain something so insignificant (when considering the possible gain/loss from the change in loyalty to Jehovah), it could open the door to weakening the concept and eventually dropping it altogether. Or at least, one can hope so.
Speaking to the Andersonsinfo post above, it will be interesting to see if they ever include disassociated people in that allowance. For now it seems to me like a way for them to have something technical that allows some association without changing anything meaningful in their policies. Most JWs will never see a Flock book.
Isaac
