would it have been different if we knew why?

by sowhatnow 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sowhatnow

  I always took issue with the idea of no one knowing why a person got DF.

  I know Im not alone.

  I complained to my mother about this when I was younger, explaining that how do we know what it is that gets a person DF If no one knows what they did?

  my moms answer was ,

  'if people knew a persons personal faults and what they did , others would not be so forgiving when they were reinstated, because we'd always view them with that view, so in other words, if when so n so, committed fornication, and the whole cong would know it, if they announced from the platform then his/her reputation would be permanently stained'

  then Id say,
  

  "Ok I get that, BUT, if you KNEW that your sin would be exposed on the platform, how much more would you have tried to NOT do those things to get DF? "
  

  So, here perhaps, we have someone drinking a lot, and then getting DF.
  

  here would be an announcement

  'sister generic is DF due to her drinking ' or , 'bro poorhouse is DF because hes a hoarder'. [yes i know someone who was DF for having a 'dirty' object packed house. they died being DF.]

  and the big one

  'bro elder is being DF for molesting a child'
  

  so IF we know what a person did, and we knew it would be announced, how much closer to the [one] bible account would this in fact be, and would it have prevented a lot more people from committing 'sins, or on the other hand, simply from getting baptized to begin with?
  

  thoughts?
• 

  Blackfalcon98

  It is a dual edged sword. It would: break privacy laws in certain countries and tarnish their reputation. BUT it would also cause divisions in the congregations as some (naturally) wouldn't agree that the sin was so bad (like your hoarder). Moreover, it would make the Rank and File privy to information, and thus make them party to judging the decisions of the BOE......never may that happen.
• 

  Simon

  That aspect was brought up in this topic on shunning

  Are we pro-shunning or against it?

  I personally think they would name and shame if they could but for legal reasons they don't. So they do the next best thing - they have a local needs talk to make the sin obvious to all but without directly accusing anyone or attaching names to it so it isn't actionable.

  Over time I think they've discovered this gives them more power as they can effectively silence anyone and not have to explain why. They really have no appeal process at all worth speaking of.

  While people are willing to blindly accept what they are told about someone then it will continue. The people are there mostly because they have already blindly accepted things - such is the nature of all organized religion.
• 

  hoser

  , 'bro poorhouse is DF because hes a hoarder'. [yes i know someone who was DF for having a 'dirty' object packed house. they died being DF.]

  Disfellowshipping someone with a mental illness related to OCD. What's next disfellowshipping because a person is in a wheelchair?
• 

  flipper

  How 'bout this ? The whole IDEA of disfellowshipping is wrong in the first place. Here's a better idea. If a JW member is guilty of a crime like murder, child abuse, assault, or robbery- or other crimes that would actually ENDANGER other members of the congregation make an announcement that so and so ( their names ) have been found guilty of these crimes and the congregation is being informed and forewarned of this so as to protect themselves and their children. Most probably the guilty party will then not show up again if he or she knows their criminality has been exposed. And the elders would have done the ethical thing informing about crimes that any " worldly " newspaper would have already reported.

  As regards fornication, adultery, alcoholism, drug abuse, apostasy leading to inactive status - for the most part these are personal family issues that should be dealt with in a personal family environment. No need for spreading personal dirty laundry that doesn't involve congregation members. No need for announcements whatsoever with any personal names being used.

  Of course this is just my personal opinion and has no bearing on WT Society reality as it works right now. But I believe my way would be more efficient and fair to congregation members. If the elders wanted to handle the fornication and all the other stuff I mentioned in paragraph 2 in private counseling- then that's up to them. But in regards to the paragraph 2 practices I mentioned- really NO need to announce DFing or personal names at all. But the paragraph 1 stuff could actually harm congregation members and is announced by names in the media constantly anyway. Just my 2 cents
• 

  Xanthippe

  Someone was disfellowshipped and condemned to death at the big A for being a hoarder????

  Can't even process that! Surely it's a sign of mental illness?

  Just noticed hoser said the same, I wish I could read
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  "I think they've discovered this gives them more power as they can effectively silence anyone and not have to explain why"

  Bingo!
• 

  Simon

  If someone is guilty of a serious crime then it should be reported to the police for investigation. If they are subsequently charged then that will typically be reported in the local press and it could then be announced at the KH to 'warn' the congregation.

  No group that has money and a legal dept is going to risk having a policy of announcing someone is guilty of a crime without it being legally established first.

  It's the same online - you can't accuse someone of possibly being guilty of a crime unless you are confident that you will be able to defend it in court (as you may have to) but you can freely report that someone has been charged with a crime as that is a fact.

  It's important to distinguish between real genuine crimes and simple misdemeanors against the groups internal beliefs. Someone "swearing" or "smoking" would never be something for secular courts but of course would be something that the WTS would be interested in.

  I think we should always draw that distinction because it stops them pretending that their shunning policy is for anything but trivial matters. They shouldn't get to use serious crimes as cover.
• 

  The Searcher

  (Matthew 18:15-17) .“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation.. . .

  (1 Timothy 5:20) "Reprove before all onlookers [in the congregation] those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest."

  I don't see any mention of Elders or Judicial Committees here, do you?

  Is someone going beyond the "things that are written", and inventing their own set of rules?
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  But I do remember when they used to give the reason back in the '70s. Does no one else remember that?