I need to clarify this further, Waiting. The kind of stuff the men used to pat the women on the head about, which women actually pick up quicker than men because they are so very intuitive about nuances!
Think about the meaning of the term "disassocate" by itself. This is not semantics or word play about whether I am technically correct. I want to help you understand the concept. If the two categories were not different, there would not be two words used. How are they different?
Disassociation is what YOU do. (You join the military, I recognize it, announce you have disassociated yourself by your course of action. If I DF you, I am in trouble with the Government; they absolve themselves by using this category.)
Disassociation by definition is a course of action or something YOU do that tells everyone you are not going to follow their rules. How can I disassociate YOU? Disassociation is not an action performed by the Society or its representatives. Disfellowshipping, however, is just such an act.
If you are categorized as Disassociated, YOU have chosen to violate some JW standard or rule, and they merely recognize that, by making an announcement as noted above.
You are quite correct about general perceptions.
Can they make that decision behind your back? Without your meeting with them? Yes. Even if you tell them you still want to be a JW? If you joined the military, you could tell them you still wanted to be a dub but they would still consider you as DA. (I know nothing about Simon's case, but I have seen some really dumb things elders have done in committees.)
To repeat: You disassociate yourself by what you do in violation of "God's standards." I then tell the world about it via an announcement. In disfellowshipping I the Society am the one acting, and make an announcement. Again, the result is the same, shunning. But pay careful attention to the subtle distinctions. Particularly with blood transfusion.
So the Society and its reps would hold that it is not accurate to say THEY disassociated Simon against his will. What locals or the branch likely did is come to a decision that "by his course of action" he had disassociated HIMSELF. And they announced it despite any protestation.
If they sent him a letter saying "We hereby disassociate you," I want to see it. It would obviate the very reason for the category in the first place. The standard announcement is: "By his chosen course [name] has shown that he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Who did it? You did.
That distinction is very important when it comes to accountability. The Society is trying to shuck responsibility in more and more areas, in self-protection. Committees have practically begged individuals to do the manly thing (sorry about the sexist language; theirs not mine), not to be a coward, sign a letter, to avoid the slightest hint of responsibility on their part.
Hope this helps.
Some deaths left me anguished; thanks for the thoughts. Lots of fun chatter on the board, but for many it's life-or-death serious, especially when it seems there is no way out.
Maximus
'Sokay, I know a non-JW MD who was totally baffled by this--at first.
