Is the society shooting themselves in the foot with the new DF policy?

by truth_about_the_truth 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  willyloman

  Relax, we've been through this before.

  Over the years, the WTS has changed wording of its announcements many times. The basic process has remained unchanged.

  For instance, they used to say, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped for adultery."

  Then it was, "...disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a Christian."

  Then it was, " ...disfellowshipped." (period)

  Now, apparently, it's "no longer one of JWs."

  You see the influence of lawyers here? This is nothing more than the ongoing tug of war between the old hard liners and the new yuppie dub attorneys. It's about not getting sued.
• 

  toreador

  How can they take away a persons baptism? Isnt this in effect what they are doing when they think they can judge you are no longer a JW? I dont get it. Isnt this admitting to all that you are simply baptized into an organization and has nothing to do with baptism in the name of the father son and holy spirit?
• 

  booker-t

  How are JW's going to be able to know if a person left on their own or was kicked out for wrongdoing? This new policy is giving the elders more power to kick inactive ones out or even kick out "marked"ones out. The shunning will be the same for all catorgories. I was also wondering what about people that are put on "public reproof" has that announcement changed? And if someone want to come back how will that announcement sound? Will it say so and so is a JW once again or will they say so and so is reinstated? What about non-baptized JW's how will they be announced out? Does anybody have the new book that answers these questions?
• 

  TheListener

  As far the elder body in my hall we are all in agreement that nothing has changed except the way we'll announce a DF/DA from the platform. It appears that this will have the effect of hiding how many people actually leave of their own accord and how many are kicked out. It will seem like everyone is kicked out (because that's what die hard dubs want to think).

  It won't be anymore dificult or any easier for us (as elders) to boot someone. Before 3/20 we could claim that someone disasociated themselves by joining an org. or doing something contrary to WT rules. We can still do so. We have never needed to have the wrongdoer present for a judicial meeting. A verbal invitation by one elder would be enough.

  Can the rules be applied unfairly? Absolutely! Have they? Absolutely! And guess what? They will continue to be applied unfairly. Each elder body has its own personality. If they were dictatorial before this updated publication was released they will continue to be.

  OOps! I see someone had this same idea on another thread.
• 

  minimus

  I'll tell you what I object to----proclaiming "the new DF policy" exists when there is nothing "new". .........Perhaps there's something that MAY come out---but in the meantime, misrepresenting things is foolish.
• 

  xjw_b12

  ?[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah?s witnesses.?

  In think this statement will be read more and more often, to the point where it becomes a semi- regular annoucement, prompting Brooklyn to decide that they are only going to read the announcement on the last Service Meeting of the month. Something like a reverse roll call.

  This will be the most attended meeting of the month.
• 

  Scully

  TheListener writes:

  It appears that this will have the effect of hiding how many people actually leave of their own accord and how many are kicked out. It will seem like everyone is kicked out (because that's what die hard dubs want to think).

  The other thing that's going to happen is that any person who is "announced" as being "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is going to be painted with a very broad brush as being immoral and unrighteous. They are lumping together: people who are guilty of various and sundry "spiritual crimes", including but not exclusive to fornication and adultery, to smoking, to getting a fitness membership at the Y, to being a pedophile, to apostasy, with people whose wish is to "simply leave", or having a conscientious objection to organizational policy. It's ludicrous to me that all of these offenses are treated exactly the same way.

  I can see the following statement soon disappearing from the WTS media website too:

  Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. ~ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm
• 

  Honesty

  And the change in announcement will be the main difference. People will not be shocked that someone has da'd themselves and turned their back on Jehovah, they will assume they were df'd and the rumor mill will go into overdrive.

  And of course, somebody who da's will have no legal recourse against the society like somebody who is wrongly df'd. You can't sue someone else for something you did yourself. Could the elders be encouraged by the wbts to da rather than df wherever possible as a legal protection for themselves?

  In my former 'theocratic' observation, I would have assumed that all of them were a bunch of immoral sinners who deserved the WT axe. To think they left on their own accord would be too foreign a concept to even remotely consider.

  However, in my current (JW buzzword) opinion, I agree with Gadget. It appears that this is a defensive action by the WTBTS to keep the BOE placated and complacent with the unscriptural practice of demanding that shunning be enforced against those who speak out against the many atrocities committed by the GB in the name of God.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  The term ?disassociation? applies to the action taken by a person who, although a baptized member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation by his actions or by stating that he no longer wants to be recognized as on of Jehovah?s Witnesses.

  Correct me if I am wrong [and I did not get to read all the posts - sorry]. But is this not a slightly differing stance on Disassociation? Could the term 'deliberately repudiates' be a new one - with a lot of shades of opportunity to attack those who have no chance to defend themselves - as they might if they were charged with 'disturbing the peace or unity of the congregation'?

  Since I have distanced myself from the org. - could they state that I have repudiated the organization since I have no reason not to go [as far as they know], and have had issues with the elders lording it over?

  Just seems like the wording might give them openings that they did not feel as free to exploit before. Perhaps the 'shades' of meaning are hidden in a BOE somewhere.

  Thoughts?

  Jeff
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  It appears that this will have the effect of hiding how many people actually leave of their own accord and how many are kicked out. It will seem like everyone is kicked out (because that's what die hard dubs want to think).

  Yes, I think this is a big reason. And maybe there were some legal issues related to announcements, who knows? It could possibly be they see a lot more people leaving because people are finding things out about the org, not because of "fornication" and they are afraid of it having a snowball effect. What would you think if a few people you respected disassociated themselves because they couldn't in good conscience carry on with this religion anymore? It might give you the confidence to check things out for yourself for the first time. They can't have that.

  Sneaky devils. They think they can outsmart everyone, but they can't hide from the truth. Lies generally catch up with you.