doing "bad" things while inactive...results?

DeusMauzzim

Ok here's the scenario:

I'm baptised, not da'd or df'd but 1yr inactive because I'm pretty 200% sure dubdom isn't the Truth(tm) - I basicly just left silently. Naturally I do not feel myself bound by their rules of living anymore. While communicating with dubs I'm respectful of their beliefs (as with any other faith), but when asked about it I do not hide that I do not believe it myself. The dubby elders and families I was close with know that I'm an atheist now, but they are friendly to me, we have dinner together etc: a silent contract to treat eachother with respect.

A friend of mine was recently disfellowshipped because of the terrible sin of porneia. Of course I see no reason to stop socializing with him, and I will not hide the fact that I do so from the dubs, elders or anyone.

Question: Could that get me disfellowhipped? Could other bad things happen?

NB: Geographical location is Europe, I think we're somewhat more liberal here than in the States (at least where I live).

Regards,

Deus Mauzzim

hamsterbait

If you are baptized, but not attending meetings, the elders might leave it alone.

Depends on the elders. They might come after you, because associating with a DF is a DF offence.

When you come back to the meetings they might DF you for a sin committed whilst not attending.

Some elders might decide to DF in absentia so the cong will not be infected.

HB

MeneMene

I think it depends on the area you are in as you suggested.

I was raised in the southeast US which was deep in the bible belt and very conservative. I still can't believe I was never df'ed. After I had been out for a few years a male companion moved in with me for about a year. During that time my father advised me the elders wanted to talk to me. (I had been baptized at age 12 and was about 35 at this point.) I told him I was not speaking to them and that nothing I did was any of their business. While the elders never pursued me, the family did choose to shun me during the time the fellow was living in my home.

After he moved out they all decided to start talking to me again.

Seeker4

Yeah, they can get you. They actually "created" that rule (associating with a DFed person is grounds for disfellowshipping) in the early 1980s in order to disfellowship Ray Franz. Ray was officially given the boot for having dinner with a DFed Witness.

It all depends on your local elders. That will give them the grounds if they want to get hardassed about it.

S4

JK666

I agree with Seeker,

It doesn't matter what you do or when you do it - it only matters if the elders have a hair up their a$$ against you!

JK

exwitless

Well, if the elders know you're an atheist and still have dinner with you, I can't see how your associating with a DF person is any worse.

DeusMauzzim

Ok thanks all!

@Seeker: Correct me if I wrong, but I thought that rule was about associating with DA'd persons. Before the Ray Franz debacle you could still socialize with DA'ed persons, but not with DF'ed ones (hope you follow this confusing trail lol). After Franz fell from grace and had dinner with his DA'd boss, they changed this into a DF'ing offense (like associating with DF'ed persons was already) to get him. I do agree with you about it basicly depending on the elders though.

@Exwitless: Yes that was my line of reasoning as well (and the reason why it seems more liberal here compared to some stories on JWD)

So I guess there won't be any problems :)

My "DA'ing risk" wouldn't influence my decision anyway. Not associating with your DF'ed friend only because you're scared of the elders is just not.. high morals.. hear that dubs? :)

1914!

would anyone care to elaborate on the Franz disfellowshipping and what let up to it? I have never heard of it until now. I was probably too young to remember

Gopher

1914 asked:

would anyone care to elaborate on the Franz disfellowshipping and what let up to it?

CLICK HERE to read the entire story in Freeminds. Below is the main relevant portion of that web page:

As a few may recall Watchtower Policy has changed when circumstances serves the interest of the Governing Body in getting rid of someone they want to railroad. An example that has been offered involves Peter Gregerson . Peter was a personal friend to Ray Franz, in 1980 Peter wrote a letter to the Society, saying he wanted no further association with the organization. At that time a disassociation letter with no wrongdoing was handled with no shunning but simply as a person who walked away. When Gregerson left, the Governing Body created a new policy that stated all persons who disassociated would now be treated the same as disfellowshipped in a 1981 Watchtower.

A few months later Ray Franz was found to be eating a meal with Gregerson along with their wives, once again there was no policy to cover this as a disfellowshipping offense. Yet, in short order a new article was written regarding "new" policy by the Governing Body. That is, anyone who eats with a disfellowshipped or disassociated individual would make themselves subject to disfellowshipment also. Result? Ray Franz was disfellowhipped not for apostasy, but for the "new light" given by the Governing Body stating, eating was considered a crime against God if it involved disfellowhipped individuals. Oddly enough neither of the two wives were disfellowshipped , perhaps at that time the policy only applied to men.

1914!

thanks gopher for digging that up.

<p>

any idea why they wanted Franz out in the first place? Was he not enough of a tyrant?

doing "bad" things while inactive...results?

Share this