Disfellowshipped anointed

by New Worldly Translation 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  blondie

  JWs today and in the last 40 years tend to think of the NT being about a congregation similar to a JW one today, made up of mostly non-anointed people. They don't think that everyone was anointed and thus the man in the account in 1 Corinthians that they teach was DF'd and then reinstated had to be of the anointed.

  Thanks for posting that article. The rank and file are conditioned to think that the anointed are better than they are, thus therirsins are more serious and the punishment greater..............

  JWs like to say that people in other religions don't know what the official teachings are in their church...most of the rank and file don't know there are 66 books in the Bible, let alone their names.

  Blondie
• 

  jwfacts

  As Blondie said, all Christians were anointed, so they had to still be of the anointed when reinstated.
  It is only since 1935 that JWs made up a class of non anointed, so all scriptures apply to the anointed.
• 

  gumby

  They don't think that everyone was anointed and thus the man in the account in 1 Corinthians that they teach was DF'd and then reinstated had to be of the anointed.

  Blondie....you sharp little rascle you!

  You make an excellent point from the scriptures. That dirty little greek horny man wasn't of the Great Crowd was he? He was a fellow brother of the heavenly calling and Paul make mention he was gained back. There was no "position" for him to gain other than the one he had.

  This man also was not one who "denied" the spirit...hence commiting an unforgivable sin. I suppose in this latter, this would mean one who refused EVER to repent in spite of his obvious calling. It seems odd that one called would ever feel this way unless disturbed, but evidently there were ones that met that citeria.

  Gumoralroberts the 4th
• 

  yaddayadda

  You could turn this around on them by saying that if all Christians back in the first century were anointed, then the disfellowshipping policy that they use 1 Cor 5 to justify should only apply to the anointed, right????

  If the 'other sheep' are not supposed to partake of the emblems at the memorial and therefore have not entered into any official legal covenant with Christ through that, then surely they are not under the same binding legal obligations towards Christ that the anointed are under, thus there must a lesser duty of care on the great crowd to behave themselves, right???

  Poor great crowd get all the same expectations and punishment as the anointed. 's not fair.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  I have this explanation directly from the mouth of someone annointed.

  He told me that no one but Jehovah can judge when someone has committed the unforgivable sin. So no one can say that even an apostate has committed an unforgivable sin. There have been cases where apostates have been reinstated. It is very rare, but it has occured.

  I think the reason it is so rare is not because the org is totally unwilling to reinstate apostates. I think its just because so few apostates ever ask to be reinstated! lol

  Cog
• 

  Elsewhere

  It's not very often my mother brings up JW stuff with me cos she knows my opinion on it. Tonight however she mentioned that she had answered up incorrectly at the book study this week and she wanted to know what my take on it was.
  
  The question was can disfellowshipped anointed ones come back into the org and still claim they are of the anointed?
  
  My mum said no and I thought no too, but apparently they can or so the group leader said. Is this a new policy as I'm pretty sure it never used to be the case?
  
  I always thought it was classed as sinning against the spirit, especially if it was for apostasy.

  This is correct. Growing up I knew an "anointed" man who got DFed for sticking up for his wife who at the time got DFed. He continued to "partake" even while he was DFed (Elders would bring the emblems to his home so he didn't have to go to the KH - too much risk that someone would conclude he was in "good standing" and talk to him). He was later reinstated and still partakes to this day.
• 

  Narkissos

  Growing up I knew an "anointed" man who got DFed for sticking up for his wife who at the time got DFed. He continued to "partake" even while he was DFed (Elders would bring the emblems to his home so he didn't have to go to the KH - too much risk that someone would conclude he was in "good standing" and talk to him).

  Off-topic, this implied a different meaning of disfellowshipping than "being no longer a member of Jehovah's Witnesses". In a sense it was closer to the mainstream practice of excommunication (although formally contrary because "communion" was the only thing allowed, instead of denied): a df'd person was a "member under discipline" rather than a non-member.
• 

  Narkissos

  Again partly off-topic,

  Watchtower 8/1 1958:

  •

  One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States.

  We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.

  Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake.
• 

  Narkissos

  Watcttower 9/1, 1958:

  •

  May an anointed brother once disfellowshiped but now reinstated and on probation be used to pray at Memorial time?—C. O., United States.

  It is true that if a brother has been reinstated in the congregation after disfellowshipment and is on probation he may be served with the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal in order that he as one of the anointed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ may obey Jesus’ command to partake thus in remembrance of him. However, when the reinstated brother is put on probation it would mean certain restrictions are imposed upon him. He may not be used in a representative capacity to speak and act for the entire congregation. For that reason even though he may be the only anointed one in the congregation he should not be used in offering prayer at the opening or the closing of the meeting, nor in prayer pronounced over either of the emblems, any more than he should be used in giving the talk regarding the Lord’s Evening Meal. If his period of probation ends before the actual arrival of the celebration, then he could be used in offering prayer.

  Otoh, Watchtower 4/1, 1960:

  Homemade, unsweetened red wine is acceptable as also are Burgundy, Chianti, claret and zinfandel, to mention the more common types of red wines.—Deut. 32:14.

  The emblems should be on hand and passed to each one present, even though it may seem certain that none profess to be of the remnant. Each one should go on record as to his firm conviction of what his hopes are, heavenly or earthly, on the basis of God’s dealings with him, by partaking or not partaking at the time the emblems are handed to him. Those professing to be of the remnant should therefore not be segregated and the emblems passed only to them. A separate blessing will be asked over first the bread, which should then be passed, and next the wine, which will thus be passed by itself. The cup should be a large and common cup, although several may be used if the congregation is a large one. Fastidious objections to such on the basis of sanitation are not to be considered. Small individual cups cannot picture the common sharing in the blood of Christ, even as small individual wafers, such as are used by the Roman Catholic Church in the Mass, would spoil the picture of one loaf. It should also be noted that there is no need to keep the emblems covered until just before they are served, as this smacks of religious mysteriousness and ceremonialism, which are to be avoided.—Rom. 8:16, 17, 24, 25; 1 Cor. 10:15-17.

  Of course, an exception should be made in the case of those of the remnant who, because of infirmity or sickness, are unable to attend. Individual portions are to be supplied to these, regardless of their age or physical condition, by a brother competent to discuss the occasion with them briefly. Such are to be considered as both attenders and partakers. Disfellowshiped persons are not welcome. Should they attend and partake, they would not be counted. Likewise, if any newcomers who are not yet baptized partake of the emblems, they should not be counted.

  What if any professing to be of the remnant should, due to circumstances beyond their control, be absolutely prevented from observing the Memorial and partaking of the emblems? It would seem that the merciful and loving provision that Jehovah made for celebrating the Passover a month later by those Jews ceremonially unclean on Nisan 14 would apply in their case. The individual member of the remnant would therefore observe a personal memorial of Christ’s death on the fourteenth day of the following month, Iyar according to the Jewish calendar, or just thirty days later (not a lunar month then; perhaps a "prophetic" one?).—Num. 9:9-14.

  What remains of the emblems after the Memorial celebration is over may be taken home and eaten the way any other food is. There is nothing particularly sacred about it after the event. But surely these emblems should not be consumed right after the Lord’s evening meal at the Kingdom Hall and in a spirit of levity, as has happened on occasion. "Let all things take place decently and by arrangement" is counsel that is especially appropriate for the Memorial of Christ’s death.—1 Cor. 14:40.
• 

  greendawn

  Good point Yada, I was also thinking along the lines that (as far as we know)the supposed other sheep have to reach the same standards as the supposed anointed though their reward is way beneath. The WTS never seems to expect different standards, and they keep things in a very vague way never clarifying why one JW would be chosen as an anointed and another would not. Is it just the whim of jehovah?
  
  And how do we know that the opinion of a loyal long time anointed is not correct even though it contradicts that of the GB? If that anointed just gets expelled as an apostate without any explanations except the silly don't run ahead of the FDS, this is where we know that the GB are way out of line in their behaviour. Isn't that anointed a member of the FDS, and can't they express a view that disagrees with the GB?