by return visitor 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In reading COC I learned that prior to the 1980's it was ok to speak with disassociated witnesses and that this was changed in the 1980's. While I can find the article in the 80's that addresses the issue, I can't find anything that shows that it is a change. Can anyone direct me to something published by the organization that reflects their teaching before the change?
Thanks in advance for the help,
RV
Hi Return Visitor,
I'mnot sure which article reversed the position of disassociated jws, but there is some information on the incident that led to Ray Franz being disfellowshipped at this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Franz#Expulsion
It seems the rule was changed just after Peter Gregerson, who was Ray's landlord and employer, disassociated, and Ray was disfellowshipped after he went to a restaraunt with him. Maybe if you contacted Ray, he may be able to shed more light on the article.
Hope this helps
Linda
Watchtower August 1, 1974 pp. 467,471,472
5
Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. As noted earlier, some rabbinical writings held that, even if in peril of death, no assistance should be extended to Gentiles. Suppose, then, a member of a Christian congregation boating on a lake were to see another boat containing a disfellowshiped person capsize, throwing the disfellowshiped one into the water where he struggled to stay afloat. Could the Christian ignore that one’s peril, row away and feel free from guilt before God—inasmuch as the one in danger of drowning was disfellowshiped, viewed as "a man of the nations"? Certainly not. That would be cruel and inhumane. We cannot imagine Christ Jesus doing so; nor would any other Jew of the first century who had a balanced viewpoint have reacted that way toward a Gentile or a tax collector in such a plight.
21
As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that "leaven" is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such "leaven." Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not
a spiritual fellowshiping.
22
In some cases where a disfellowshiped parent is aged or in bad health and needs care, the son or daughter might feel it advisable to bring such a parent into the home to fulfill proper filial obligations. So, too, Christian parents of a disfellowshiped son or daughter who is no longer a minor might decide to take such a one back into the home due to that one’s having a grave health problem or having been incapacitated in an accident or being in a destitute state financially. These are humanitarian decisions that Christian families must make and the congregational elders are not required to intervene where there is no sound evidence of a reintroduction of a corrupting influence within the congregation.
26
At the same time a balanced viewpoint will keep us reflecting harmoniously the divine qualities of our heavenly Father, who is both righteous and merciful. Those who may have been disfellowshiped and whose hearts sincerely move them to want to return will therefore feel no reason to be hesitant or doubtful as to the way their efforts to return will be received. They will not fear being rebuffed in coldness or indifference. They will realize that their situation is not hopeless and that the congregation elders will helpfully show them what they need to do to regain an approved standing in the congregation of God’s people and to enjoy fully all its benefits. Where elders have real reason to believe that some disfellowshiped ones in the area served by the congregation are in ignorance of such provisions, they may feel it advisable to communicate this information to them.
Yes, up until 1981 we could talk to whoever we wanted to in the family. My oldest son was DFed in the late 70's and we had no problems with him OR WTS procedure. The November 1 1981 WT (I think it was) came out with an article (or two or three if I remember it right) about how to treat DFed ones, and of course THIS is when my family first began its road into the WTS shredder.
Since that time, JWs have experienced a mind-boggling journey of who they CAN associate with and who they can't----and everyone in between that doesn't fit under the wide WTS umbrella. You have your weak ones, your inactive ones, and those who never were baptized----ALL under the high-falutin' scrutiny of JWs whose "consciences" won't allow them to speak to these others.
Before the WTS decided to tamper with the rules....wasn't it pleasant when you could walk into a KH and not have to be "labelled" right off the bat.....or when you saw a JW in the store....you never had to worry about being shunned and sneered at if they didn't know your "status"? Life was so much more uncomplicated and CHRISTIAN back then......(sigh)
Annie
In some cases where a disfellowshiped parent is aged or in bad health and needs care, the son or daughter might feel it advisable to bring such a parent into the home to fulfill proper filial obligations.
What if a DF child takes in a parent. That child has been shunned lets say.....all their adult life by the parent. Now when they are weak and on thier deathbed, the parent wants help. How humiliating for the parent to ask. How loving for the child to care for that parent, with time, money, care, probably companionship. Wouldnt that parent be grateful for their child then? Wouldnt God notice that good deed and find favor with that child?
I know I sound cynical but it seems like it is always ok when it comes to money or needing special care for the rules to be altered in some way pertaining to disfellowshipping and how much interaction is admissable.
Lets say the parent is blind........and the DF child reads literature or the daily text.....is that ok?
As long as the person can get to the meetings and go in service etc etc the DF rules are very strict. ........I feel badly for saying it as it is not true in all cases....but that is kinda how the counsel looks to me.
purps
The {entire} WATCHTOWER BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION policy on shunning, as a result of disfellowshipment, is terroristic in nature. It should be abolished. No if and's or butt's. No matter when it was instituted.
Yet, how does one abolish their feelings towards the shunners, after years of abuse? One ponders.
sKally
The {entire} WATCHTOWER BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION policy on shunning, as a result of disfellowshipment, is terroristic in nature. It should be abolished.
sKally -- How 'bout if I re-word that? The {entire} WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION is terroristic in nature. It should be abolished.
Sounds better, don't ya think?
Thanks for all of your help, however the question still remains:
Can anyone direct me to something published by the organization that reflects their teaching before the change?
Particularly their teaching pertaining to disassociated people (not necessarily family).
RV
April 1, 1920 WT, pg. 100: "We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel."
And they have the audacity to call them selves Gods people? Shame on them and the WTS!
