True, or FAlse?

Andyman

I am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the WBTS's PR site:

"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"

I have been having a pretty hard time on another site trying to get a straight answer to a question about the above quote.

I have simply asked him if it is true or false?

Do those who simply cease to be involved get shunned?

And do family ties get severed by DF'ing?

I just can't get him to give me a answer. Is the question that hard?

What does everyone here think, is this statement above true or false?

I vote for FALSE myself.

Take care.

Andyman:

waiting

Hey Andyman,

Are you visiting from Witnet? I like to view your Controversial room. Very interesting. Nice to see you.

I have simply asked him if it is true or false?

May I venture a guess that "him"perhaps is Friend? Good debater. I learned to qualify my statements with him.

I've been to the Society's forum. Interesting how they word words, isn't it?

Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

In my experience, this seems to be true, as far as this statement goes. Members who simply cease to be involved are not treated overly friendly either. I have several family members in this area, and they are treated nicely by JWs.

members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions.

I think this is interesting, as those who have ceased to be involved are still members - as long as they live. So, if those "ceasers" ever did anything seriously wrong against the Society's teachings, they could, at the discretion of the local elders, be disfellowshipped. Long Arm of the Law.

Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties

. This is an overly broad statement. If the Society had stated:

Disfellowshipping does not sever all family ties, the Society would have been telling the complete truth.

Disfellowshipping does not sever any family ties, the Society would have been lying through their collective teeth.

Disfellowshipping severs, imo, most family ties - sooner or later, some immediately. Crushing to all involved members. This is an example of very careful, deliberate choosen, wording, by the Society for Public Relations purposes. I have at least 4 family members df'd, I have experience.

Do those who simply cease to be involved get shunned?

No, not as long as they do nothing against the Society, for as long as they live.

Qualifying statements, I found, are very necessary in life, in debate, and in reading anything the Society writes (qualifyer - imho.)

Your further comments?

waiting

SolidSender

.

Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 3:58:46

RedhorseWoman

waiting, you have summed everything up very well, and hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

Just to elaborate slightly, although it is true that disfellowshipped members can attend the meetings, I love the way they leave out the teeny-weeny fact that these "members" must sit alone and have no interaction with anyone. They are pretty much sentenced to solitary for the duration of their punishment. No one in the congregation will associate with them, and if they take up association with worldly people, they will be considered to be unrepentant and never get reinstated.

Ah, the clarity of the Truth.....NOT!!

Seven

It all depends on what your definition of the word isis.-President William Jefferson Clinton

Andyman

Hey waiting;

Nope neve posted at wit.net, I don't think I would last very long over there! Just the same old Andyman who has been posting here for the last month or so.

I guess it does depend on how you read it. Of course like you said if you do "anything" wrong the rest of your life, you are in "big" trouble.

For myself from what I have seen, if you stop going to meetings 90% of the hall will treat you the same as if you had DA'd or been DF'd, that means you get shunned.

Same with family ties, some of the family will be alright with things, but never really the same, while others will treat you like a leper. I guess it has something to do with their "heart" condition. You know some of them have a heart, some of them don't!

Take care.

Andyman:

Andyman

Hi SS;

Here is a link to the "frequently asked questions" part of the site. You can find all kinds of stuff over there by checking out the site map.

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

Take care.

Andyman:

Friend

waiting

Well put!

RedhorseWoman

You said:

I love the way they leave out the teeny-weeny fact that these "members" must sit alone and have no interaction with anyone.

I think that little tidbit is more than imputed by the term shun.

Friend

Kismet

T'is the joy of ambiguous language. As long as the Society hides behind legalese the Flock in general are going to be taking more of an extreme position than what may actually be the doctrine.

FOr example, recently on one of those live Hospital TV shows, an elderly JW couple were brought in after an accident. All this poor women could say was no blood no no no no. She was totally unaware that some of the life saving measures offered by the nurses were on the "conscience matter" list. She died.

In the matter of shunning and walking away, the extreme is usually followed and is expected to be followed by local elders and other Publishers.

While serving as an elder I was driving to the bookstudy. I noticed a car broken down on the side of the road. I immediately recognised it as the vehicle belonging to a 17 yr old sister who had been df'ed the week before. I had served on the Committee. I pulled over and stayed with her until the tow truck arrived. I saw several cars of JW's drive by, mouths gaped wide open at the sight of a Bethel Elder keeping a dfed person company on the side of the road.

Needless to say it came up for discussion after the bookstudy. I had fingers being waved in my face by older sisters and received the silent treatment form others. I actually ended the group early due to the obvious discomfort by those attending.

So it came up, is it wrong to render aid to someone who df'ed or da'd. Once we reasoned on it people realized that human compassion doesn't end with the decision of a Committee.

So too if you are the adult child of a df'ed parent your obligation to care for aging parents does not end with Df'ing. Whilst it may make it somewhat awkward the moral obligation to render care remains. This begs the question, if you have absolutely no contact with df'ed family mmebers (viewing them as dead) how will you ever know they need assistance?

This conversation with the group took over an hour due to some rigidly wanting to apply ambiguous language in extreme ways.

So the point of this rambling is that the statements made on the PR site are not lies but in application are handled very differently.

My long winded 2 cents.

Kismet

Friend

Kismet

You said:

While serving as an elder I was driving to the bookstudy. I noticed a car broken down on the side of the road. I immediately recognised it as the vehicle belonging to a 17 yr old sister who had been df'ed the week before. I had served on the Committee. I pulled over and stayed with her until the tow truck arrived. I saw several cars of JW's drive by, mouths gaped wide open at the sight of a Bethel Elder keeping a dfed person company on the side of the road.
Needless to say it came up for discussion after the bookstudy. I had fingers being waved in my face by older sisters and received the silent treatment form others. I actually ended the group early due to the obvious discomfort by those attending.

I cannot say the above is false because I was not there, but I will say that certain aspects are almost impossible to believe. Your representation that a “Bethel Elder” had fingers waved in his face along with other overt and public displays of criticism sounds like embellishment has been introduced into a incident. If that part of the story is embellished then maybe other parts are too, like the actual reaction of those publishers.

A more likely scenario is that you did as described about waiting with the 17-year-old and then later, after the book study, you had polite and genuine inquiries about that action for which you forthrightly offered an explanation.

Friend

True, or FAlse?

Share this