In 1974 the society had changed there stance on shunning dis-fellowshipping people. They said you could have limited association with those who were dis-fellowshipped.
What year did they change it back to the old way of shunning people?
Shunning revered?
by new boy 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
freddo
About 1980 to self justify their treatment of Raymond Franz I believe.
-
Diogenesister
I remember, as a young child, being told that for family members it was "spiritual association' only that was forbidden. That was mid to late seventies. They started tightening up around 81 for sure because shunning was extended to DA people at that point.
-
snugglebunny
It was around 74. My parents immediately made contact with me as a result. When the society flip-flopped they didn't go along with the reversal.
-
new boy
So when exactly did they do the flip flop?.
-
poopie
This is called the Ray franz shunning policy
-
Sail Away
I agree with Snugglebunny, I was baptized in 1976, and we were allowed to have normal relationships with DF'D family members, just no talking about "spiritual matters". I was pregnant and had my first child in 1981, so the reversal didn't show up on my radar.
Ultimately, family stunning was my tipping point. I left because I wasn't willing to shun my son, and I refused to be a hypocrite like the elders who had contact with their DF'D kids. I was an all-in JW, and they pushed me too far. The mental torment literally broke me mentally and emotionally. I don't know if people ever heal from the trauma the WT inflicts on individuals, families and marriages. I have to believe it's possible, but lately it's hard to put one foot in front of the other.
-
new boy
so again what was the date of this reversal? 1980 or 1981
-
snugglebunny
So when exactly did they do the flip flop?
- It was 1981 that the WT reversed the 1974 softening. I no longer have that WT saved, however, this is the original softening article from 1974:
- "Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. We may note, too, that at 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle warns against mixing in company with one who "is" a fornicator or practicer of some other kind of serious wrongdoing. What, however, of the one who has been disfellowshiped for being that kind of person but who thereafter, either at an early point or at a later point in time, gives consistent evidence of discontinuing such wrong practice, stopping it? Can it be said that he or she still "is" a fornicator or whatever type of wrongdoer such a one was that caused him or her to be as "leaven" toward the congregation? For example, a young person disfellowshiped for fornication may thereafter marry, raise a family and live a respectable life. Or one who was disfellowshiped for drunkenness may abandon such practice and, if drinking at all, may do so in moderation only. By such changes these individuals may now regain the respect of the community. Such ones may not yet have come and formally sought reinstatement by the congregation. Is there, however, not an evident difference between these and others who continue right on in the wrongdoing that brought their disfellowshiping? Those giving up the wrong practice may still manifest some appreciation for Christian truth, perhaps even defending the true Christian congregation when someone speaks evil against it. Should not such circumstances be given due weight and have an effect on our attitude as a congregation toward such ones? Surely if the prodigal son of the parable had returned home in a drunken state, perhaps dragging along one of his harlot companions, the father's reaction would not have been the same. But the father had reason to believe that the son was approaching with a right motive and, rather than suspect the worst, the father hoped the best and went out to meet his errant son." Watchtower 1974 Aug 1 pp.467-469
-
JeffT
The September 15, 1981 Watchtower made it clear that shunning was back in full force:
11 The expelled person is not a mere man of the world who has not known God nor pursued a godly way of life. Rather, he has known the way of truth and righteousness, but he has left that way and unrepentantly pursued sin to the point of having to be expelled. So he is to be treated differently. Peter commented on how such former Christians differ from an average "man on the street." The apostle said: "If, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have become worse for them than the first. . . . The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: 'The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.'"—2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 6:11.
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 obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus' advice that such a person be considered in the same way as "a man of the nations" was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God's clear directions in this regard?