Shunning: The Watchtower's Self-Inflicted Wound

by slimboyfat 99 Replies latest members campaign

• 

  humbled

  Stan livedeath— Afairjw just here and just now made his/her first post. The topic struck a nerve. This post was made the same day they signed on the board.

  Afairjw—You think transparency would be the cure for the Organization? Transparency would mean exposure. There is no healing the hot mess of this religion.There is no love or truth in this outfit.

  You have been spiritually molested, betrayed...and shunned? The person you described is perhaps yourself.

  You may catch some rough comments if you are still believing that “Jehovah” is using the WBTS to accomplish his will on earth. At a certain point those of us who are shunned discover what was hidden. You are at the raw beginning. Take care and Welcome.
• 

  smiddy3

  Welcome Afairjw that was some first post and I think most people would agree with the points you make against the WT society however I think you are naive to think you can change their policy`s in a court of law.

  Freedom of religion /nobody forces you to be a member of any religion/the choice is entirely up to you etc.

  Knowing what you know I don`t see how you can still believe JW`s are still the "true" religion and you just want to change "church" policy with a court order that`s never going to happen ?

  Why not just leave the bloody cult.?
• 

  Phizzy

  " Why not just leave the bloody cult.? " I see the wisdom of that Smiddy3 and maybe our new friend Afairjw will do that one day, but I admire the desire to see if JW Org can be made to respect Human and Constitutional rights, I wish Afairjw and the group every success.

  As was pointed out in the Post, so much heartache, pain and death has been caused by JW Org over the years by their unlawful and inhumane system of instituting expulsion and shunning.

  It has got to be stopped ! Human Rights are always to be respected and adhered to over an above any religious nonsense.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Grant Davis wrote

  Watchtower 1882 Dec p.423
  "We are not of those who disfellowship Christian brethren on account of some differences of opinion; but when it comes to the point of denying the very foundation of all Christianity we must speak out and withstand all such to the face, for they become the enemies of the cross of Christ."

  This cartoon against the act of disfellowshipping appeared in their publication Consolation:

  

  Here in the Awake of 1947 January 8 page 27 is calls the practice pagan and uses Hebrews 10:26-31 to explain why judgement should be left to god and not man.

  

  As for attending church services, this is now the job of the elders to intervene. This is an extract from very recent letter to elders regarding this event:

  Direction Related to COVID-19 Pandemic for Bodies of Elders June 4, 2020 section 6
  "Good judgment is required in determining whether to permit a disfellowshipped or disassociated person to connect to the meetings. If needed, the elders should remind him of when it would be appropriate to join and to leave such meetings."

  Shunning the Watchtower way - this video explains the way in which disfellowshipped should be shunned and is one of a number of such videos they’ve produced to show what a caring and loving religion they are.

  

  You have to ask yourself how a religion which does a 180 degree turn on a policy which is ultimately damaging, cruel and unproductive, can insist that it’s not a cult.
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  Somehow I missed this thread four years ago, it is a good one.

  When I read the transcript of the 1954 Walsh case (my copy disappeared long ago in a move) I became convinced that many of the changes to doctrine and practice in the '40s and early '50s were orchestrated changes for the sole purpose of getting brothers the classification of 'ministers' for draft purposes. The 'MInistry School', the book 'Qualified to be Ministers', the 'pioneer' status invention, it was all about the draft. Included, I believe, was the disfellowshipping practice. They were married to the idea that 'all Witnesses are ministers', yet they didn't have a way to 1) define what exactly a JW member, and 2) How and when do you terminate a person's classification as member. This was one of the things that got Rutherford and his seven associates in prison in 1918. At the time they didn't have a clear definition of membership, and yet they were giving out affidavits of membership to individuals of unknown and uncertain qualifications, which were presented to the various US draft boards as proof of membership in a pacifist 'religion'.

  Anyway, those are my thoughts. In view of that, I would add to sbf's list of kooky doctrines that have to go are the ones that 'all JWs are ministers' and 'we do not have a clergy class'. Both are fictional.
• 

  FFGhost

  Just wanted to comment on this thought:

  I want to suggest that it would in fact promote JW growth if they discontinued shunning.

  That may well be.

  But.

  "Growth" is not the raison d'etre of the WTS.

  Control is their motivation. The folks who rise to the top in the organization due to the pleasure they derive from the power they feel in controlling others.

  Growth is fine, but growth at the cost of losing power? Too steep a price. In their minds, better to settle for 1 or 2% growth (at best) while able to "mainline" their drug of choice, power.

  And without a threat to hold over people's heads, what power do they really have?

  Yes, it is messed up. Normal people don't think that way. But there is a significant number of people in the world for whom power is better than money, sex, good health, exotic travel, anything. The WTS <cough> "braintrust" <cough> is entirely populated with such folks.
  
  
• 

  vienne

  Afair,

  There is NO constitutional right to happiness. You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The Declaration is not the law of the land, but a summary of the principles behind the severance of the American British colonies from the English Crown.

  American courts will not intervene in church courts unless they violate civil law. Disfellowshipping is not covered by any civil law. That "brazen conduct' isn't found in the Bible does not negate the authority of a religious court. In the United States, religions are a voluntary association. Either party may sever the association. This is the same right you have as an individual to stop associating with a former friend.

  If you find a lawyer willing to take this on, be assured he will gladly take your money for no result.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  https://youtu.be/DEzC-3mi3y0
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  In this post I replying to posts made by slimboyfat, cofty, and sir82 from page two of this discussion topic (made 4 years earlier). There might now be way for the JWs to give up non-evolutionary creation and to begin teaching evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution). A recent scientific discovery (made by someone who is convinced of biological evolution) might now problem the solution for JWs to accept evolution without having the following problems.

  - '1 - The fact that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years is irreconcilable with their unique version of soteriology. They can never get over that hurdle.'

  - 'No literal Adam = no "first Adam", thus no "last Adam", thus no "corresponding ransom sacrifice" as JWs teach it.'

  For the possible solution see the following. (1) https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/christians-point-to-breakthroughs-in-genetics-to-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution# . (2) See also https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/04/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-existence-adam-eve-column/3826195002/ which was published before the book came out which is referred to in the two above links.

  For a creationist type intelligent design view contrary that of the above article see https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/fox-news-article-shows-why-evolutionary-solutions-to-adam-and-eve-fail-to-satisfy/ .
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Furthermore, an influential group of scientific creationists within young earth creationism has now given up the canopy model of the flood. See https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/the-collapse-of-the-canopy-model/ . WOW!

  Corrections to my prior post: Where I wrote "I replying" I should have written "I'm replying". Where I wrote "might now problem" I should have written "might now provide". Where I wrote 'in the two above links" I should have written "in the above link".