| I posted this under friends first but may be more appropriate here..... I visited my sister recently (she is not a JW and was never baptized but is very close to my mother and brothers) and she was telling me that they are no longer DFing people. I told her I heard that too, but that they now announce people as no longer being JW which effectively means the same thing. She said that they don't even do that. My ex-sister in law cheated on my brother and began smoking as well. My sister said that NOTHING was ever announced about her even after having elders visits regarding the issue. She has since married outside the witnesses and still nothing. My sister said she also knows of another incident and no action was taken in regards to any announcements. Is this accurate? Or maybe the local congergation is handeling it "wrong"? If they are no longer DFing what does that mean for all of us who were DFed? Are we still DFed or what? I found it weird that one of my brothers is talking to me now after years of not talking to me. He just says we can't discuss spiritual matters. I have not tried to contact my mother or other brothers yet. Not sure if it's got anything to do with this, but I sure would like to know. I haven't been on here much and have not kept up lately. Sorry if this has been discussed before.... Laurie | ||
Do they still DF people???
by toladest 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
toladest
-
blondie
It's semantics. They still hold judicial committees and the elders still decide whether to DF a person or not, but they do not announce it using the word "disfellowship.""so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"
This is how they announce people too who have disassociated themselves either by word or in wiriting or by an action such as joining a church or the military (of course the elders' interpretation of what is in word or writing is very flexible).
It is a legalistic maneuver similar to when they made taking a blood transfusion an act of disassociating yourself rather than a disfellowshipping offense (in 2000). You won't find anything in the WT publications about this and even the elders only had a non-letter read to them by the CO at an elders' meeting around that time. But in a statement to the London Times article of 6-14-2000, the WTS said:
If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/wtprblood.htm http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page720.html
But the medical community is aware though.
-
loosie
Yes they do. It's their favorite pastime.
-
stillajwexelder
strictly speaking NO - They announce -- so-and-so is No Longer One of Jehovah's Witnesses - it means the same but that is how they word it
-
misspeaches
Has anyone been in a judicial committee recently? If so did the elders tell you they were going to disphellowship you and then make the new announcement?
Effectively its the same thing new title.