JW Lawyers and Heavyweights lying in court.
That was a straight faced blatant lie..
Yeah, like I said.
I can see where his description of post-disfellowshippings/DAs situations could apply in a close knit family, with a minor living at home, but not to all JWs, as he clearly spoke,
Example: there was a young teenage baptism experience here, where the kid was moved to dedication by the closeness of the overlapping generation's end., but if he would now be agitating in the congregation, when he found out, that wt really opened a way to 2075 and beyond, that would be disrupting the dozing congregation, The Elders would really shut the spiritual family conversation down, for fear the truth would spread.
waton: I can see where his description of post-disfellowshippings/DAs situations could apply in a close knit family, with a minor living at home
Well it obviously didn't apply to Randy's family.
If you read the background of this case, you will find that the Wall family was under pressure from the elders to force their disfellowshipped 15 year old daughter out of their home. She was a minor and the elders wanted her to be homeless and parentless
It must have been terrible for Randy Wall to hear the lawyer lie in court about shunning given that he would never even have been in court if this shunning policy didn't exist.
Theyve changed that question rega ding shunning on JW org so many times now but they never manage to be completely honest or truthful.
They make this statement
What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.
Normal family afections do not continue and it has led to so many breakdowns in family relationships. This is a lie and it's inexcusable.
Here's my issue...
I reg pioneered off and on and I always talked to my df family members and was super open to the elders that I would always talk to them because they were family and everything non spiritual was family business. I was never removed from my position nor counseled about it because I didn't 1. condone the behavior 2. pray with them or 3. discuss spiritual things which was the big no no 3.
So I think they have some freedom of speech because although they preach one thing they don't really df anyone for talking to their df family members.
Having said all this I've been out for 10+years, things could have changed but then again I would be skeptical because everything always seems to be regional/congregational i.e sisters must wear pantyhose, brothers must not wear colored shirts, etc that was different from place to place.
Excellent video on shunning
faithnomore, You may have a point, because if recall right, the lawyer said: JWs, do not shun, he was not saying wt policy allows shunning.
Par. 19, today's October wt mag study. page 16.