when I was an active witness, there was only one disfellowshipping of a member of the congregation. To this day I have no idea what he did to get DFd. I seriously doubt it was drugs or alcohol or infidelity, in retrospect I assume it was some sort of apostasy. But I don't actually know and I was never privy to any gossip about it. He got reinstated and never came to another meeting. The only other serious JC case involved an elder who was getting too friendly with a coworker. He avoided getting DFd, but all the details of his indiscretions were widely known throughout the congregation. As far as I know, neither man is currently attending meetings.
would it have been different if we knew why?
by sowhatnow 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
DATA-DOG
I never cared what someone did. I believed that people make mistakes and sometimes got punished, but Jeehoobie took care of it.
I think the reason is always known, because JWs gossip. I also never cared because I'm not a judgmental douche.
DD
-
EmptyInside
My mother told me,yes,they used to give the reason,but it did change due to legal reasons. Most eventually,find out the reason for someone being disfellowshipped.
I think it is no one's business really,unless they are a danger to others,such as,in child abuse cases.
-
steve2
I had always understood that, within a week or two of a disfellowshipping, there would be a local needs talk that broadly covered the "type" of unrepentant sinning that had led to the expulsion.
E.g. if the talk was about the sanctity of marriage, then the disfellowshipped individual was an unrepentant adulterer or if it was about the need to drink in moderation, the expulsion was for alcohol over-use leading to drunkeness.
In that talk, no names or details were provided, but it was usually patently obvious why the talk was given.
-
Phizzy
Yup, spot on Steve, if after that talk and the rumour mill you couldn't work out the reason then you were pretty thick, or it was a useless talk.
We had a Local Needs talk once, not after a DFing, that was so obscure in its references that nearly everyone afterward was saying "What was that about then ?". So, pretty pointless.
What it was supposed to address was the case of a young person from our Congo. who on the surface should have been DF'd, and would have been by a Nazi B.O.E, but our B.O.E handled it correctly, in my opinion.
But as only a few people knew the ins and outs, they should have been told why the decision was taken, and the rest of the Congo would not have had to sit through a talk about they knew not what.
I find it revealing what was said above, that the SAD's do publically give out the reason, so what Simon says above must be true, the WT/JW lot do not give out the reason purely for control purposes.