Is disfellowshipping bad?

by Simon 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

bull01lay

Interesting topic that's made me think....
My initial reaction would be yes, disfellowshipping is bad. But having read through the other posts, I have to revise that.. I couldn't care less about disfellowshipping - I don't intend going back to any organisation that tries to control my life - it's the shunning that goes along with it that I hate, like so many others! I would like to be able to at least speak to childhood friends and family without fear of repurcussions it may have on them.
As regards moderation of your site - it's yours - you do as you see fit. One of the reasons I don't visit this site as often as I used to was because of the judgemental, agressive attitudes of some posters. Whilst they weren't particularly directed at me, I found it was reminding me of the judgemental cult that I left, and was stirring up emotions I didn't want to feel again.
I can't particularly see a parallel between removing access to a website and disfellowshipping either...
Bull!
Ticker

My take on the discussion board is the administrator of the site has the right to implement rules and enforce these rules with necessary actions. I really hate to see people deleted from these boards and I dont know the whole story behind any of the deletions and their may be many factors only the administrator and these deleted ones know. So we must abide by the administrators actions, confident he took the correct action toword these ones. Maybe their were misunderstandings, or things got escalated, but I would hope some of the deleted ones may in time be allowded back.
Personally I think having web site wars because ones are mad over thier deletion is silly and they need to realize the real picture. This site is meant to help ones discover the truth about the watchtower society and to help them in the process of leaving that organization. To use it for any other means especially for personal vendetta's is selfish and sadly these ones have lost the whole point of this site being in existence.
Both this site and the other Ex JW site serve valid purposes and both have excellent posters of which I enjoy thier comments, but to take revenge over deletions really detracts from the main purpose of the sites. Sure it makes good gossip maybe but what would the newbies think about it? Just a thought, since I wish for the betterment of all that both sites could work in unison for the enlightenment of others.
Ticker
gumby

I've been to other boards and seen what they are like with no rules ....to speak of.........and frankly, I don't enjoy them at all. There has to be limits, or you end up with a social orgy.
Gumby
wanderlustguy

Bottom line is, no matter where you are, no matter what the message board is, if you piss off the owner, odds are pretty good you're not going to be allowed to post there anymore. If I go to a forum about trucks, for instance, and call the owner a pinhead or disagree with his treatment of someone else because i don' think it's fair, yea I can say so, but there comes a point where even if you are right, there is no winning your side of the arguement. You can't come into my house and tell me I just did something wrong, and keep after me about it, and then expect to be allowed to stay, whether I'm right or wrong.
To me this place serves a huge purpose, and for either owners or posters to think more of thier individual issues that the greater good of helping people get out of a cult is really sad to me. But, I have also found out that most people who have been banned (not all, before I get hate mail) don't give a crap about helping anyone at all anymore, so they really don't belong posting somewhere that has this as it's focus. Some have called it another stage of recovery, maybe it is, but I know I'm happier when I see people just looking around and stepping out on to what they see as thin ice for the first time, expecting it to break. You just can't just have bitter people here scaring off newbies, and there's no other way to put it, newbies are scared as hell posting here the first time, not all but some.
I guess the best way to put it is I don't agree with this whole mess at all and think everyone involved is responsible for not getting this crap settled like real grown up adult people, but I understand the decisions and responses all sides have had. I just keep waiting to see people "be the bigger person", and there have been a few, and some who make moves that make me think a little more of them. I've never said it to them, and they'd probably be shocked if I did because they probably thought they did what anyone else would do.
Props go out to you for opening this can of worms up. I've got a ton of respect for you Simon, and also for some of those who have been banned, some of those guys have been here since the site started, I wish there was a way to settle all of this, it's so elementary school to me.
We're all better than this.
WLG
Billygoat

I agree. Rules are rules. They are there for a reason...justice and protection of the people. Unless of course, the elders don't live by the rules they enforce on the people. Then it's just a big joke and you realize they're in it for the power and not the justice of the people.
minimus

Is being an elder "bad"??? Is being a Circuit Overseer or District Overseer or Governing Body member "bad"?? Is "marking" and shunning "bad"? Yeah, they're all "bad" because they are man made. Or at least perverted from the original use. So likewise is disfellowshipping. It is unchristian. It does not follow the example of Christ in his dealings. Those that believe disfellowshipping as we know it----from our JW experience-----that it is a good thing----need to reconsider the perversion of the scriptures. No, disfellowshipping is bad.
cruzanheart

Disfellowshipping is bad. If a person is that "bad" then the secular laws should be able to take care of the problem.
If we're using the disfellowshipping analogy as it relates to a discussion board, then I still think "time outs" are a more effective way of dealing with the rowdy portion of the population. Sometimes people do need to be deleted but since their friends can still "talk" to them at other places, I don't see that it's completely like disfellowshipping.
As for the "inviting people to my house" analogy, yes, it is up to the board owner to decide whom he or she will allow to post; however, if there is to be a free exchange of ideas it logically follows that not ALL of the posters are going to agree with the board owner. The board owner has to decide how liberal he is going to be. If the board owner is too strict the board gets boring and people are afraid to post what they think for fear of deletion -- too liberal and it's a free-for-all.
Still using the house analogy, I will state that when I invite people to my house I expect certain rules of behavior to be followed. There is one person, however (not on this board or any other, by the way, so don't y'all go speculating!), who does consistently violate the rules of my house but serves a very useful purpose to me so I am willing to put up with the violations in order to obtain what I need. Personally, I think if a poster occasionally goes over the line on language or rudeness but contributes substantially to the purpose of a discussion board, I think an exception should be made but, again, that's up to the board owner.
Nina
upside/down

Couldn't agree more...
u/d(of the justice tempered with mercy class)
AuldSoul

All disfellowshippings as carried out by Jehovah's Witnesses are bad. Why?
Individuals are asked to implicitly trust the judgements of three or more men on whether (1) the offense actually occurred, (2) the case meritted shunning, (3) the person was unrepentant, (4) repentance would matter, and (5) they would be informed if there was potentially a real physical danger to the congregation.
In the First Century, the wrongdoer was reproved before all onlookers. Reproof is sharp counsel, not punishment or disipline. That is done behind closed doors, now. In the First Century, the entire congregation determined whether they felt the accusation warranted shunning. Actually, each individual determined for him or herself. It is called application of conscience, which is removed comepletely from the current JW arrangement.
Public proceeding after the manner of the First Century Christians would entirely resolve the pedophilia issue, among others. But these men wish to play God with the lives of others and not be held accountable when they are proven slightly less than gods.
Yes, all disfellowshipping is bad. Is all shunning bad? HELL no!
AuldSoul
bikerchic

Although I've never liked the reference of disfellowshipping being used in conjunction with deleting a person from this forum I can see why it's used by this group of people being that it's the only reference they have for being 'kicked out' of the group. That said I think it's a bad way of viewing the 'world' and it sure doesn't sound like 'some' have made the transition into the 'world' but are hanging onto JWisms. Given time perhaps they will eventually make the transition? One can hope if they hang around JWD long enough they will see the light......
Ross you raise a good question but I think it doesn't hold water at least not with me:
In the case of someone who is recovering from cult expulsion there are emotional issues that raise the stakes. Being debarred from communication, with those who an individual thought of as a support network in the absence of former family and friends, can have psychological consequences. For some this goes beyond mere frustration, and reinforces morbid feelings of rejection.

Being "debarred" as you say from this "support group" you make it sound as if it was just done to the person rather than an action taken by the person which lead up to the "debarment". So which comes first Ross the "debarment" or the behavior which lead to the "debarment"?
Also the reference to a person having "psychological consequences" to their deletion from JWD I would have to say "pa-hooey"........a big "pa-hooey" at that! I've yet to see where these deleted ones have NOT gone to one of the many other sites and somehow gotten along with the (rough) crowd over there just fine. And IMHO not a crowd most (shall I use the word) sensitive people would care to hang with.
IMNTBHO I would have to inject that in most cases I have felt that Simon was too easy on people and gave them way too many chances to straighten up before he finally got so pissed and rightly so and booted them. Once a person has made you so angry you've raised your voice or worse at them you've lost the battle or so it's been my experience when dealing with children. If it were my unilateral decision they would be given one warning then be booted, maybe not permanently the first time but definitely permanent the second time. Gawd if I was only THE Queen!
Also have you noticed that the list of those deleted is very short in comparison with those who manage to post here and go by the forum guidelines? There are always those who choose to push the limits and there are always consequences to pay for it everywhere in society and on the 'Net on every discussion board I've been to there are rules and consequences to breaking them. It's really no biggy.
Just my .02 Ross and fwiw I apologize I'll be gone today but will look for your reply when I get back.
Kate

Is disfellowshipping bad?

Share this