I have little doubt that this will be coming soon.
I've heard second-hand that it already has in some areas. Seems to depend on the particular BoE.
Disassociate the Inactive? Maybe Not.
by metatron 40 Replies latest jw friends
-
Ingenuous
-
Borgia
Hi, my first post ......It's little bit unhabitual but eh.....I hope you´ll enjoy mine as I ave enjyed yours. I´m still in although hanging in by a thread. eh......I was listening to the babtismal vows last Saturday as a visitor, not as a partaker, if you catch my drift,: (Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?) and I had to think about the new anouncements as of march 2005. I was wondering whether or not it is suitable to call somebody no longer a JW when being disassociated. The babtismal question relates a JW to an org, the SDO (Spirit Directed Org). Before babtism a person already has become a JW (by means of dedication) but not officially associated with the SDO. In the JW theology, dedication is something between you and God and being disassociated does not alter one single syblable to ones dedication. So, is the new announcement not merely to be considered as a defamation of caracter instead of disassociation? Cheers Borgia PS my name has nothing to do with borg in case you were wondering.
-
Blueblades
According to the the society the inactive are under the care of the elder's as they are considered spiritually sick. If they turn around and kick them out, then that will mean a new Watchtower teaching on the subject of the inactive ones before they do such a drastic turn about.
Blueblades
-
AuldSoul
Blueblades,
What happens to someone who is sick? They get better or they die. They don't stay sick indefinitely. You are correct that such ones have been doctrinally placed in the care of the elders, as has the responsibility for keeping the congregations clean. All that has to happen is for the elders to be instructed to determine if these inactive one are actually sick (can be rehabilitated) or whether they are dirtying the congregation by their continued presence.
The new announcement regarding DA persons reading identically to that of DF persons is not without good reason.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
AuldSoul
Borgia: In the JW theology, dedication is something between you and God and being disassociated does not alter one single syblable to ones dedication.
I agree that it is defamation of character. But it probably isn't legally actionable since it is dogma based. An interesting side not is that there is no Scriptural basis for requiring Christians to pray a prayer of dedication prior to baptism.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
serendipity
Hi Borgia and welcome!
-
wednesday
I have posted this in several threads about this, but will say it again. I have been known a certain elder for many years. I always thought him to be a reasonable man. He recently told me that many jws feel the inactive have DA themselves by viture of not attending meeting or going in service. I was told you can't call yourself one of jws if you do not preach the good news. So he said it was a conscience matter, if you are inactive, you can be treated as DA person and sorry the elders hands are tied, it is a personal jws choice. They also do not have to associate with the reinstated just b/c they are reinstated. It's their choice. This is the same elder who has not spoke to his sibling for 25 yrs b/c they are DF even though the cause of the DF has long ago been resolved, they however, refuse to humbly submit to the org and get reinstated. Until they do, he will shun.and you think you know people.
-
mkr32208
As to the "contribution box" I would have a hard time not just taking money out of it if I ever went back! I wouldnt' even consider it stealing!
I guess I'm a bad person... Good thing I don't give a damn!
-
Scully
(Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?)
Too bad for the WTS that my baptism happened before those questions were asked of candidates. There is NO way in hell they can say that I agreed to that condition.
These are the questions that I answered "Yes" to:
*** Watchtower 1970 May 15 p.309 Your Conscience Toward Jehovah ***
20 Two questions which do search out the heart and mind of each candidate are: (1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus? (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God's Word as his holy spirit makes it plain? Those who answer "yes" audibly to these two questions so that the other persons present may witness their affirmation of dedication may appropriately be baptized.
-
Borgia
Scully, And so was mine. But the last circuit assembly proved to be an eye opener in the sense that they could not care less. Yes is yes and the speaker insisted that the questions as of 1985 were anwered by all of us with yes. Therefore, stick to you word. Look at the transscript Lenny supplied. They are not concerned to what exactly you said yes. Do you want to cooperate or to disassociate. Unbelievable. Although I have to admit that these "elders" did exactly as was taught on this district convention: Ask questions (simple, straighforward and easy to answer) and stick to a single subject (simple) It looks like if a person is in NOW, only the present rules apply. It would mean that a contract I signed is no longer valid because other employees have other stipulations. Understanding justice is not a business the WT is very good at, it seems. But as for inactive persons: since the new org book (2005) the stage has been set to disassociate any person who does not exactly walk in line. It´s only a matter of pulling the levers. What a mess it will become.:-) Cheers Borgia