Do You Shun Former Members?

by Hyghlandyr 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • Hyghlandyr
    Hyghlandyr

    Members, and former members of the watchtower religion are well aware of the various answers to this question. And the answers are myriad. It seems even elders are unaware of the official policy of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society when it comes to the act of shunning "former members." But we need look no further for the official teaching of the society than it's very own website jw-media.org. For those that are still in the cult ure of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who may be dubious of any website save for those produced by the society directly, let them attend in their browsers first to http://www.watchtower.org/ from whence they can see the link to MEDIA which will take them to aforementioned jw-media.org website, the official public relations website of the Watchtower. From thence let the weary eyed and the wise select simply the FAQ, though it shall require a search for FAQ as no link to such directly is found as far as this reader has noticed. The link is here produced below for the convenience of all:

    http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

    Now as of this date in July of 2003 these be the contents of said link:

    Do you shun former members?

    Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, special effort is made to reach out to them and rekindle their spiritual interest. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkeness, stealing or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly states: 'Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.' (1 Corinthians 5:13) Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided. What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.

    As well it seems all know they do. Of course it should be noted here that the answer is not really at all for former members. Why say you this you daft man?! Is most surely your retort to me. For if you do not go anymore you are most certainly "inactive" and a member still and true. Well perhaps this statement lacks not for fecundity if one is truely a member still and true. But what of those not members, be they former members or never before were members, true or otherwise? For surely one that is not a member, while not active, is in no wise to be thought a member by those high or low. While the same may not without question be said of those still members. For those that retain their membership, might, while being members, be members lacking activity.

    I might for the sake of an example in this entire epilogue state that I am a member of my chess club, albeit I never more have attended. But I receive certainly the newsletters of my chess club. I pay the dues of my chess club. I believe the methods of play of my chess club. I defend my chess club against agitators who would assail me with false testimonies of the superiority of their chess clubs, nay not their chess clubs only but even if it should so be declared their bridge clubs! And when all of this is noted it is without question that I am a member of and akin to my chess club.

    But what if, through no statements to my chess club, I cease reading its newsletters. I pay it no more dues. I, dare I say, no longer abide its methods, thinking another club perchance against all hope has better methods of play! Though, since I thought several of the members of the chess club to which I am, sadly, no longer a member, were beyond question biologically accomodating to my eyes, I refrain from speaking ought against them, after all why would a man speak rudely of such ones as appealed to his heart mind or loins?

    What conclusion then is drawn, yes must be drawn of my club and my membership therein? Am I simply an inactive member? Or am I, aptly and rightly, a "former member"? What fool would say otherwise than a former member? Well this is of course not to be stated to the point enough that it should surprise none if believers in fairy tales and childrens stories, created to frighten old men into submission, should also, blindly state, to all contrariness of evidence, that I am indeed a member of that which I never have or am no longer a member of!

    And yet it is the very believers of fantasies and delusions who, through no fault of their own, inspite of themselves, against all imagination, lacking any themselves, accept blindly that which has been fed to them from the troughs of the fauxmongers, that somehow, end up in positions of authority, thus are left to judge these things, in sheer ignorance of the policies of those who placed them in their places in the first place. So what of the elder, who without knowledge thinks that you, kind sir or maam, (hopefully maam and biologically accomodating), are in fact an inactive member and still thus a member true?

    Well I am not without an answer in this case, though you, if you are the sort that know me, know this to be the facts. Why I shall simply point you to the archived versions of the FAQ which I directed you in the first place. Why, you say, You mean to tell us that the society keeps its very website archived for the benefit of those who are about to be shunned through no fault of their own, the society, Jesus and Jehovah (both of course fairy tales themselves), or the local weatherman, and only because an elder is unaware of the official policy of the Society? Now you must surely think me daft to so state something in pureness of idiocy! No watchful reader, we have another source. The Internet Wayback Machine. Yes the Internet Archive. To wit:

    http://www.archive.org/

    Or specificially for the FAQ wherein we seek our answers:

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

    The careful reader will note that three of the links there, are broken, but shall, hopefully be repaired speedly. The others, from January 24, 2000 to December 17, 2001 are identical. They are thus quoted now for the hapless victim who shall use them to render obsolete the arrows that assail him from the bow of ignorance:

    Do You Shun Former Members?

    Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned. In compliance with the Scriptures, however, members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions. Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties. Disfellowshipped members may continue to attend religious services, and if they wish, they may receive pastoral visits. They are always welcome to return to the faith.—1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

    How plain then can it be that the official teaching of the society is that former members are not shunned. Unless one would dare to claim that these words are a lie. The society does not lie do they? If they did that would make them IDENTICAL TO EVERY OTHER RELIGION would it not? Could not such things be pointed out to the elder who in his ignorance of policy seeks to cause one to be shunned? Does it not plainly state "Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned." This is, factual and true as may easily be demonstrated to any elder of right or foul mind. Albeit, it may require a proding not of his conscience, but of his ego, using the statements laid out above. For if his religion is just like every other religion, of what benefit is it to be one of Jehovahs Witnesses?

    One sidenote is that between the last listed and the current, information from the faq at one time it stated explicitely that those who, not only cease to be involved, but that LEAVE THE FAITH, are not shunned. Hopefully when the Wayback Machine is fixed then that page will be one of the ones listed.

    Thus, at first glance it seems that former members like me, to those ignorant of words and policy, can in fact be shunned. However, as has without question demonstrated to the eyes of all herein, in veracity, only "inactive members" are mentioned, while the policy has remained the same that those who have ceased to be involved, and have left the faith, are not to be shunned.

    Goddess Bless.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    When I was a JW, I shunned anyone DF'd, DA'd, or who I felt was a "Marked" person. I avoided "non-members" because I viewed them as worldly. IN the last few years I was a JW, I relaxed more and more on the association issue with respect to "Worldly" people, especially relatives. When I left the religion, I ceased any and all shunning of any person. I shun no one, not even JWs. - Jim W.

  • Francois
    Francois

    Shunning former members is more prima facie evidence of the universal kind that the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. This shunning of formers members is as common in a cult as a winter cold.

    Think. Cults, especially JWs, are high control organizations. If these high control organizations cannot keep their membership from leaving by some hook or crook, they look weak to other members. And I contend that if any JW could leave and not be shunned by friends and family, there would be a massive stampeed of the membership of JW-ism out the front door never to return.

    But don't take my word for it, especially you lurkers. Look it up for yourself. Use the Google.com search engine and search on cult characteristics. There you will find multiple confirmations of what I am claiming: that is, by their active shunning, JWs prove themselves to be a cult. By the utter lack of love shown by this policy, JWs prove themselves unrelated in any way to the kingdom of love as established by the God of Love and introduced to man by the Prince of Peace.

    Jehovah's Witnesses should be ashamed of the shunning policy and abandon it right now, TODAY, if they are to have any claim as being the children of God. Unfortunately, JWs are so arrogant, they have not the capacity to feel shame, and thus are destined to hear those fearful words "Get away from me. I never knew you." How appropriate for them.

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    Yeah, when I go to apostofests I ignore everyone there. I reallly enjoy myself!

    caveman

  • bathsheba
    bathsheba

    highlandyr,

    i did attend yesterday the 3 day assembly ( a sunday) and at the end of the program the bethel rep mentioned 10resolutions given by the society.

    One of this resolutions is that those inactive members will be contacted again by the local elders.This will be done vigorously by the elders to welcome back those inactive ones. Let see if it is true.

    Bathsheba

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    One must keep in mind too that many df'd persons expect to be shunned. In fact, some may even report you if you do speak with them.

    I have a relative, not close, who is df'd, and I speak with her, as most members of my family do, and that includes all the jws in the family. If I see a df'd person, I'll guage the situation based on whether they look my way or not. If they do, I'll generally say hello.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit