Status of people shunned before rule change?

by rebel8 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    Back in the early 1980s, some congregations were "disassociating" unbaptized people who committed alleged disfellowshipping offenses and weren't repentant. It was announced from the platform in the same way, "So and so is disassociated," followed by 1 scripture about shunning and another about the specific sin that person had committed. The ritual shunning was exactly the same as dfing. So actually there was no difference between df and da except a few letters.

    In my congregation, there was a rash of young people being "disassociated", as young as 13 years old, disassociated for things like smoking pot and fornication. And their sins were pretty much announced.

    So then there was some sort of clarification given that disassociating is something  a person does to himself while dfing is something the congregation does to him.  Then they stopped the aforementioned practice.


    So my question is, what is the status now of the people erroneously shunned back then? Are they just considered inactive? Can dubs speak to them?  Thanks

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus
    Unfortunatly in dubbie land DA is the same net resilt as DF, in terms of how they are to be treated. In the minds of modern dubs, someone DA'd 30+ years ago is simply DF by default. 
  • NVR2L8
    NVR2L8
    The only announcement I ever heard was so and so is no longer an unbaptized publisher. There was no official shunning but of course you would limit your association to congregation meetings with such people.
  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    I was DA'd and no JW outside of my family ever spoke to me again. My mom went through a few times when she refused to speak to me, but she got over it. My dad is dead now and he was what kept her from letting it go on (cause he liked me and was not a JW) so I don't push any of her buttons and she tries not to push mine. I am much better at it though and put up with a lot of the JW speak if only because she really isn't even realizing half of it. The other half-well, I can make her a little nuts by NOT responding/reacting and that is as much fun as an lively discussion thatI KNOW she wants to have and Im not rising to the bait!

    My aunt is a pioneer and was DF'd several times. She talks to me. Lots of JWspeak but I just let it float on by. . .she is (not to be unkind) lacking in every kind of smarts. As she isn't doing drugs and drinking, she is probably better off a JW. They ruined her in her youth, but now that she has nothing left, they are some sort of comfort to her. It is sick, but what are you gonna do? She converted her poor (4th) husband. In her late 50's, it is probably as good as she is gonna get. She is a sad case.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    This is exactly what happened to my brother rebel8, I wrote about it here; 

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/21351/me-my-brother

    To answer your question, yes these individuals were subsequently to be treated as inactive but you know how it is with the more judgemental dubs. Once shunned always shunned.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    To answer your question, yes these individuals were subsequently to be treated as inactive but you know how it is with the more judgemental dubs. Once shunned always shunned.

    That was beautiful. Thank you for sharing that post.

    I did reach out to one person this happened to. She was involved with the dubs only for a short period of time and does not see it as a cult or anything beyond just a bunch of jerks. This shocks me. I believe she was 14 or 15 when she was DAd for "fornication" (which I later discovered could have been just kissing--they DAd a bunch of kids for this around the same time). She did not repent (I mean really? 15 year olds are kinda obstinate by their very nature. Why were they "created" to be defiant?). They announced it on the platform that we were to not say a greeting or eat a meal with her (you know, the scripture everyone knows means 'go shun this person'). They read a scripture about fornication. IMO this is child abuse and beyond disgusting. She was a CHILD.

    Her mom stayed in the borganization for a while with a child who refused to attend the meetings. That's the power of brainwashing--a mom rejecting her own child for being normal, in favor of a bunch of buttheads. It was so awkward for me--I was angry at the mom and at the borg. The mom woke up rather quickly and I was glad--I felt a parent should be on her kids' side when the kids are right.

    Anyway, I'm just wondering if she would still be shunned if she encounters dubs today. I'm thinking yes, even though New Light cancelled this out. Apparently they do not have Old Light Amnesia when it comes to shunning.

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus

    With respect nicolaou, those who are DA'd are treated exactly as the same as those who are DF'd. I appreciate that the sitution Rebel described is one who was DA'd many years ago, before the current arrangments were in place, but in the mind of and in the eyes if the org someone known as "disassociated" is just that, disassociated, for whatever reason or whenever it happened.


    pages 110-112 of the ks10 make it clear, including the announcment to be made when someone DA's, either through verbal means or actions. The announcment is "[name of person] is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses", the exact announcment made when one is DF'd. 

    please let me say im not trying to be insensitive to the sad family situation you described or in any contridict you, only pointing out the current organization realities.  


    If someone is known to be in the sitution rebel described, a dubbie would shun.

  • blondie
    blondie

    My cousin was an unbaptized publisher but was caught smoking.  That was around 1987 and we were to treat him as df'd.  This info came out and the family resumed association with him.  He has never reassociated.

     

    *** w89 2/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***

    ▪ Does the material on being approved by God mean that Christians may speak to one who once was considered an “approved associate” but later, because of wrongdoing, was to be avoided?

    Yes, it does. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, showed why it is Scriptural to adjust our view of an unbaptized person who shares in the public ministry with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Formerly, such a person was termed an “approved associate.” If he thereafter unrepentantly broke God’s laws, the congregation was alerted, and the members would then avoid association and conversation with him.

    As the recent material showed, the Bible requires that such disciplinary action be taken in the case of baptized persons who are unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) Yet, the accountability of an unbaptized person who pursues wrongdoing is not the same as that of one who is baptized. (Luke 12:48) He has not been baptized and thus has not become approved in God’s sight, so disfellowshipping is not appropriate in his case. Basically, he is now a worldly person and can be dealt with accordingly.

    What, then, of one who was formerly termed an “approved associate” but who is no longer qualified for the public ministry because of his wrong course? Since he is not disfellowshipped, he should be treated as the person of the world that he is. Of course, the November 15 Watchtower advised on page 19 that due caution must be exercised by loyal Christians. These realize that the unbaptized person may well have shared in wrongdoing despite his having knowledge of God’s requirements. Mature Christians must be careful about socializing with such an individual. If questions arise as to the extent of contact that may be had with him, most of these can be resolved by following godly counsel. We can reflect on counsel such as that found at 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Proverbs 13:20 and ask ourselves: ‘What association would I properly have with a person of the world who is not living by Christian standards?’ If the elders see that a worldly person of this sort poses any threat, they can privately offer warning counsel to those in the congregation who seem to be endangered.

    In time, an unbaptized person who had been an “approved associate” may give reasonable evidence of repentance, and he may desire to have a Bible study again. (Acts 26:20) He may speak to the elders of the congregation where he now attends, who, if it seems advisable, will arrange for him to have a Bible study. This will apply also if in the future someone is disqualified as an unbaptized publisher and later shows repentance. Usually, he ought to speak to the two elders who dealt with his wrongdoing or the two others whom the body of elders chose to review the matter if he requested that.

    Appropriately, The Watchtower explained that it is somewhat different in the case of parents caring for minor children in the home—those legally dependent minors for whom they are responsible to provide material support. (Ephesians 6:1-4) The Scriptures lay on the parents the obligation to instruct and guide their children. So the parents (or believing parent) may choose to conduct a private Bible study with the erring minor or to include him in the family’s program of Bible study and discussion.

    While the recent Watchtower material calls for adjustment in our thinking and dealings, it is done in line with the Scriptures that are beneficial “for disciplining in righteousness.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus

    We are talking about two different things, as fine as the hairs being split organizationaly are...


    rebel asked about someone who was termed "disassociated", although the situation seems to fit more in line with what blondie referanced as someone no longer viewed as an "approved associate". 

    Someone dissociated will be treated as DF'd. Someone who was never baptised will not be, in my experiance, treated as DF'd, nor does the org say they should, as the referance blondie shared showed. The reality though is that athough not treated as DF'd they are treated poorly, 'after all they did something that disqualified them as publisher so they cant good associated'.

  • rebel8
    rebel8
    Hi Morpheus, in the 1980s for a while they had a different definition of "disassociated" than they do today. I'm referring to that old way of doing things.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit