by detective 17 Replies latest jw friends
Hapgood, was she an unbaptized publisher? If so, then they would have met with her and it would have been announced that she was no longer an "unbaptized publisher." Her "privileges" in the theocractic ministry school would have been taken away (if she was enrolledl). Unofficially, they could tell others that she is bad association. They can do a lot of things unofficially.
Blondie
In the late 70's and early 80's, quite a few young people got "Corinthianized"---1 Cor.15:33 read-----and no one talked to these kids. Even their parents treated them harshly.
Blondie, yes she was an unbaptized publisher, she gave talks the whole bit. The elders never met with her at all. It was like they didn't know that she was missing. She went to that Kingdom Hall as a newborn until she was 18, it wasn't like they didn't know who she was. At the time I was devastated, I felt that the elders didn't know that she existed and it really hurt. Our congregation was having some problems at the time (we had two elders all of a sudden transfer to our congregation). They were probably too busy to be bothered with her at the time. She wasn't very strong in the "truth" and probably not worth their time, plus she was a female. Now I'm glad that we've been left alone, I just hope it continues.
Hapgood
I must have only been about 8 at the time, but I remember this because I asked my mum about it after the announcment. There was a young lad in our hall that had been df'd, but when this new light came in I remember the announcement that he could no longer be considered df'd because he was never baptised BUT he should be considered as marked.
Can you feel the love ?
It seems they haven't put too much in writing on exactly who can be disassociated or disfellowshipped? I vaguely remember someone saying that an unbaptized person was disfellowshipped but I can't remember who posted about it. I guess the org. prefers to let the elders have their way with interpretation?
I was hoping to have a little something for this person who- almost twenty years later- still allows the label of "disassociated" to plague them!
She went to that Kingdom Hall as a newborn until she was 18, it wasn't like they didn't know who she was. At the time I was devastated, I felt that the elders didn't know that she existed and it really hurt.
Sorry, Hapgood, they were so unloving. Maybe there were bigger fires to put out. The "shepherds" rarely know the appearance of their flock. Maybe it was better they let her slip through the cracks. The policy re "disassociating" or naming an unbaptized publisher a "disapproved associate" ended in 1988. There is a thread around here on that.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/62071/1.ashx
Blondie
Hell, they'll shun you if your farts don't smell right.
I agree with Elsewere, It's not about rules,laws or legalities.I think if they want you gone bad enough they will find a way to shun you baptised or not.
Yea "detective," they use to "disassociate" ones that had been associated with the Witnesses, but not baptized. Actually, they only did this with ones reporting "field service," from what I remember. "That" classified a person as a "brother!" However, what was strange was that if you were a baptized person, you could "disassociate" yourself, and not be treated as a disfellowshipped person! Now, I?m talking about the late 1960?s and early 1970?s! You would be treated as a "worldly person," BUT NOT SHUNNED! This is one of the reasons I got baptized in 1973! I believed that if I changed my mind, I wouldn?t be shunned, but just treated like a non-JW-believer! WELL, ALL THAT HAS CHANGED hasn?t it?
