Are baptized Witnesses that are no longer in the "truth", but were NEVER DF'D, now to be shunned and treated like disfellowshipped ones?

by Dunedain 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Dunedain

    A relative of mine was telling me, that in his, and a few neighboring congregations, there is a little confusion amongst some of the JW's about this "issue". Some families are having a hard time about whether certain relatives will be attending certain family functions, because some family members that are no longer in the "truth", might be invited to these functions. Mind you, these persons were NEVER disfellowshipped. They just faded away, perhaps even 20 or 30 years ago, and don't attend meetings, and would be considered "out of the truth", but again, were NEVER DF'd.

    Some were saying that these ones are NOW to be treated as though they ARE disfellowshipped. They said they heard this at a recent regional assembly, from a speaker at the platform, and I believe some even said they read it in print from the BORG. Yet, others, including ELDERS, and a CO, said NO they never heard that, and don't believe its the case.

    It is, supposedly causing some serious divisions in the relative I was talking to congregation. An older sister wants to invite her whole family to her going away party, but some of her other, hard lined JW family members, are threatening not to go, if she invites a certain son. All of her ADULT children are JW's, EXCEPT this one son. He is NOT DF'd, just faded away, and not in the "truth", but again, NEVER DF'd.

    Is this what JW's are doing now? I knew they were ramping up the whole, "DO NOT talk to DF'd children thing", and I know about the video that was played at a recent assembly last year, with the DF'd daughters phone calls being ignored. I also DO, vaguely remember hearing, however, that maybe, faded, out of the truth family members that no longer attend meetings, should be viewed as being DF'd now, even though they are NOT DF'd.

    Can some one PLEASE verify for me if this is true, and more importantly if its OFFICIALLY in print to treat those that are no longer active JW's, but were never DF'd, as though they ARE DF'd now, and ANY links would be GREATLY APPRECIATED.

    It seems to be a very confusing "rule" that some are believing they should follow, and some have never heard, while others cant believe it is being followed. It appears to be further breaking up, and causing divisions amongst families, and I would really love to know if this is a new, official policy, in print from the ORG.

    Any info, would be very helpful to me. Whatever links, or articles, or if anyone here has heard this from the platform, or not, I appreciate anything you can tell, or provide. Thanks in advance.

  • stuckinarut2

    Yes, it is a fact.

    The 2016 convention had several talks that warned against associating with ANY who have become inactive, or well as "less spiritual ones" still in the congregation.

    The level of control and paranoia has reached an all time high amongst witnesses, and it has come directly from the GB

  • Dunedain

    That's what I had heard to, and that it was specifically mentioned at a 2016 convention. I wonder, though, if its officially in print.

    The reason being, is that the coordinating Elder, and the Circuit overseer in my old congregation, are saying that this is NOT true, and they never heard this. Its kinda crazy. Yet there are 2 Elders in the SAME circuit, but in a neighboring congregation, that are refusing to go to this family gathering, because their own fleshly BROTHER is going to be there, and he is not "in the truth". He is also NOT disfellowshipped. ITS CRAZY.

    Their Mother is trying to get to the bottom of it, and see if this is "official", but she really cant get a straight answer.

    I appreciate the info, stuckinarut2, thank you.

  • stuckinarut2

    Dunedain, for a good summary of the 2016 convention , along with the footage of the paranoia videos shown to all attendees, watch jwsurvey's youtube channel "worst convention ever" series....

    Those comments from the GB about avoiding and shunning weak or inactive faders can be seen....

  • Dunedain

    @ stuckinarut2 - AWESOME, thank you so much. That's a great idea, and I will check that out, PERFECT. You helped me out greatly, I really appreciate it.

  • flipper

    I can only speak from my own experience as an ex-JW who has been considered " inactive " for about 14 years now. Most of my devout JW extended family still in the cult DO shun me and never call me or have anything to do with me. They will take a " timeout " from that treatment like at funerals for relatives- but after my mom died it's gone back to the " same old, same old " of shunning me again. I think they view being polite at funerals as " necessary family business " - so beyond that they get back to shunning you and treating you like a piece of poop.

    So yeah, something's in the wind here and I think Stuckinarut hit it on the head - the GB is paranoid and running scared and the paranoia is seeping down from the highest levels of the WT Society into the rank & file JW's

  • cobweb

    The way it was put at the convention was if you know of someone not df but who is engaged in sinful activities then you ought to shun them.

    To my understanding then, it depends to what extent your sinful activity is known about. I think if you were carrying on a fairly sin free life after fading or you were simply discreet, it could be possible to not be shunned.

    It also depends on the individual conscience of the jw as to whether they will apply the shunning counsel. I have heard of a faded jw where one brother shuns him and the rest of the family doesn't. The trouble with that is that the person shunning is deemed to be more loyal and so it can have a knock on effect.


    NO. The official JW website says that Dubs don't shun.


  • schnell
    Wouldn't that just make the love bombing all the more fake and awkward?
  • Rainbow_Troll
    Yes, it's official now. But even before it was official, associating with faded JWs was not something that you would do if you had any concern for your standing in the congregation.

Share this