by pale.emperor 28 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Oh yeah! And if my memory serves me, they did this at least into the 80s (1980s not 1880s ;) ).
If someone else can confirm this, that would be great.
My fuzzy memories....
Giving the reason lasted into the late 60's or early 70's.
Stating "...has been disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a Christian" lasted thru the late 70's or early 80's.
Replaced by "...has been disfellowshipped [period]" thru the early 00's.
"...is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" for the past 8-10 years.
Thanks SIR82. What you're saying sounds right. Perhaps I'm blurring the 70s and 80s.
One thing I do know is that after any DF-ing in the 80s, there was a "local needs" given right after the announcement that outlined the "crimes" (to use Scientology parlance) of the DF'd person (usually fornication).
That's the kind of stuff lawsuits are made of nowadays.
Sits in as an outsider. He should be felt ashamed of.
I think many of us are felt right ashamed we were ever part of this whole set up.
Give him no literature at company rates.
Just like it says to do at Corinthians 17:4.
If report handed in, it should be destroyed.
Because it's far too risky just to put it in the bin.
At public meetings could come in if he behaves.
If he lapses into behaviour half way through the meeting there's always the spanking room.
Shemiah cursed David. Bounds put around him. Leaves city. Dies.
Come again? Bind them and do what?
I can't recall them announcing publicly the reason for disfellowshipping a person ,but early on I heard of cases of this happening locally . But what I personally witnessed was ,at the service meeting, an announcement given and name given ,and immediately after ,by another brother ,a special needs talk given on whatever the person was d/f'd for ,it was common practice till the late eightees.
Yes, the "local needs" talk following (or just preceeding) the DF announcement made it quite clear what the "crime" was. I remember that, even as a child/teenager. I also remember one occasion when the brother giving the talk got a little out of hand with the details...... it really stirred a scandal.
Ridiculous.
Yeah, this is the WT I remember. I think the reasons stopped being part of the announcement around 1975. Probably got too embarrassing for the WT. There was definitely the special needs talk afterwards. It for more vague after 1980 or so. Still not at all subtle.
I can remember we'd have a special needs talk and then they'd immediately announce someone had been df'd ... real subtle.
"hmmn, I wonder what it was for - what could it possible have been?!?".
They would be sued to Armageddon nowadays for ruining someone's reputation, especially as most of their kangaroo courts are based purely on rumour.
Bonnie_Clyde:
I think the ref. to 1947 is to the Awake! article that said excommunication was wrong. See here:
This a good find for helping date when disfellowshipping began, evidently between 1947 and 1951. Yet another example of a 180ยบ turn in a short time frame.
Thanks for the post, pale.emperor.
Yes, I remember that they would say "Disfellowshipped for fornication/adultery/smoking/etc." back in the 1970s. Maybe it was in the late 70s when they changed that and just said "for conduct unbecoming a Christian." Then it went to just announcing the DFing w/o any stated reason, along with the aforementioned talk on the sin, in the early 80s, I think.
The idea of giving the talk after the DFing announcement comes from their interpretation of 1 Tim 5:20: "Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin so the rest may also have fear."
A good link on the chronology of the doctrine is here:
http://www.silentlambs.org/df.htm
Evidently these "Notes" of Knorr became the basis for the 1952 WT articles first on the list.
from memory the reason given when the person was named was conduct unbecoming a christian then later a talk would be given about a specific sin one that comes to mind was about loose conduct confirming the gossip cause conduct unbecoming was too broad a term to satify the gossips but a lot safer legally
