So Are Inactives officially SHUNNED?

by minimus 26 Replies latest jw friends

  • Phizzy

    "It's cyclical" , I agree, but what often happens is that most JW's go in to Zombie mode at R.C's, mind in neutral, not listening and remembering anything.

    The time to watch for, for us "inactives", is just after the relevant Watchtower is studied that deals with the question.

    In a few months things could subtly change for a few of us.

    I think as well that depending upon how you conduct yourself in the years after you leave, you eventually become seen, not as any real threat, but simply the guy/gal who used to be a JW.

    All of this may, I hope, come to next to nothing, despite the fact that the GB/Leaders of JW org would love to see "inactives" totally shunned, as we are the group most likely to plant seeds of discontent and doubt.

  • flipper

    PHIZZY hit on a really good point. " The fact that the GB/Leaders of JW org. would love to see " inactives " totally shunned , as we are the group most likely to plant seeds of discontent and doubt. "

    Exactly. There's the point. GB doesn't have to worry as much about DFed JW's as many active JW's will follow instructions and shun DFed ones- but in many JW's minds they categorize " inactive " JW's as still acceptable to associate with. So if at these assemblies the WT leaders can manipulate the information through dramas and even HINT that associating with " inactive " ones is as dangerous as associating with DFed ones - then WT leaders will have accomplished their purpose of trying to stop " inactive " JW's from causing what they term " planting seeds of discontent and doubt " .

    A very insidious trick on the GB's part, but one that many times successfully works when used with mind control tactics towards JW's. So we as ex-JW's who aren't DFed may have to be prepared to deal with this treatment as it appears some here are already getting stiffer treatment from JW relatives.

    But we STILL have the Internet on our side to expose this evil cult. Need to keep that in mind. Access to information in news releases we leave on billboards at stores about articles on the Internet deflects attention from us to the Internet. It's like the old expression, " don't shoot the messenger "

  • OrphanCrow
    flipper: PHIZZY hit on a really good point. " The fact that the GB/Leaders of JW org. would love to see " inactives " totally shunned , as we are the group most likely to plant seeds of discontent and doubt. "

    Not only that, but the WTS wants to be in the position to say in court "oh...but that person isn't really a JW" even if the one on trial hasn't been disfellowshipped or disassociated.

  • minimus

    They love sending mixed signals.

  • bafh

    I think this brings it back to us --- our responsibility - if what is important to us is our relationship with our family, then we cannot afford to behave in a manner that makes them view us as a threat.

    My mom is a regular pioneer, a TrueBeliever. Although I have my own opinions about the WT, I am always encouraging and supportive of her. Why? Because that is what allows me to have a relationship with her and more importantly, the rest of my family - including nephews.

    One thing we have to remember, is that we do not have to agree with them in order to be kind. It is easier for some of us than others, I get that. I am also of the opinion that it is not our right to undermine the faith of others. People believe what they choose to believe, and as we all know, if they want to consider more information, it is out there for the having. Some, like my mom, NEED something to believe in. It is my job to respect her judgment and to be loving and supportive to the best of my ability.

    That is what we all want, right? So we have to set the example.

    If we don't want to be viewed as dangerous, then we have to keep our opinions (and maybe our lifestyles) to ourselves. Privacy is a present we give ourselves.

    my 2 cents.

  • LV101

    bafh - love your 2 cents and think you're right on the money! Easier said than done as one tries to keep their pie hole shut.

    It's a lesson in life - just accept and let people be who they are and believe as they do. It's just scary when it's a dangerous cult like JWism.

  • OnTheWayOut

    Okay, I read the great comments so far. I am going to go with Blondie, the first person to answer on page 1.

    I don't think it is official but I am sure they are viewed as bad association and that jws should limit their contact with them except for spiritual activities, meetings, field service, conventions/assemblies; but nothing social. But I don't think jws are df'd themselves for associating with inactives unless something more serious is going on.

    While I share that answer, I will go a wee bit stronger.
    NO, Inactive ones are not shunned. It is not official policy. It is just being strongly hinted at, and will largely be ignored by family members as long as it is only hinted at. I don't think a study article will come out that does any more than the hinting.

    If they say "Shun inactive ones," who determines who that is? Will people be in front of a judicial committee for not shunning them? If I go to one meeting every 6 months and turn in 1 hour of recruiting time every 6 months, am I just "irregular" and not "inactive," allowing my mother to ignore the shunning requirement?

    The best they will do is to say that inactive ones who are a disruptive influence (or some similar term for "they SHOULD be DF'ed, but we haven't been able to do so) should be avoided.

Share this