Status of people shunned before rule change?

by rebel8 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  blondie

  I lived through that period pre-1988 where "approved associates" or "unbaptized publishers" committed a disfellowshipping offense, such as smoking in my cousin's situation, would be shunned as a da'd or df'd jw would be (baptized individuals).  In the article I quoted above, the WTS rescinded that policy since "approved associates" or "unbaptized publishers" were not baptized.  These unbaptized people would no longer be shunned as baptized jws were that da'd or were df'd.  Not that jws would not view them as good association as long as they continued practicing a df'ing practice.

  After that unbaptized individuals who had been approved for field service could not do so any more, could not be part of the school, etc. 

   Quote from above:

   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.

   
• 

  nicolaou

  Morpheus; this was a way of disciplining unbaptised individuals.  My brother was 14 and had never been baptised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He did not dissassociate himself yet the the announcement contained the phrase "has been dissassociated from the congregation".

  This practice was only in place for a few years in the early 80's before it was overturned by Brooklyn. No Elder ever went to visit my brother and apologise nor was any announcement correcting the previous one made at the Kingdom Hall.

  This was primarily an attempt at controlling pre-baptism teenagers who, by their nature, are rebellious and unruly.
  
• 

  bafh

  I remember this because it happened to my best friends brother. Scarred him for life. He was an I baptized teen and was shunned just as any DF'd or DA'd person would be. I am not clear on what he did exactly but I'm sure it fell within the range of normal teen behavior. 
• 

  _Morpheus

  I am not in the least supprised that no one ever visited or apologized.  Standard dubbie practice... They were right 'at the time' and thats what counts in their eyes. 
• 

  stillin

  After the organization decided that the r&f should NOT treat unbaptised ones as though they had been DF'd, we had one hard-nose elder who couldn't get his head around it. He wrote to the Society and asked whether the new arrangement was retroactive; if there was a person being shunned already, who was never baptized, are we supposed to be speaking to that one now? Of course, the answer was yes but it was as though this elder felt he had lost some power, personally.
• 

  rebel8

  ^stillin, did people stop shunning that individual after they were told to stop?

  Does anyone know of any case when shunning was stopped because of this change in procedure?
  
• 

  Fencing

  I only knew of one person growing up who was announced as being "no longer an approved associate" and everyone shunned, before the unbaptized publisher "arrangement". But they were back in (and then baptized) well before 1988.

  Wasn't it rumored it was done away with because of some legal reason? Like, it opened up the society to defamation of character lawsuits, since the person wasn't actually a member or something?
• 

  stillin

  Rebel: did people stop shunning even after they were told to stop?

  this particular tried to make it sound as though it were still "a conscience matter" when in fact it was not..

  kind of a moot point though, because the girl it was all centered around saw through the bull and made it her aim to get away from this religion. I felt badly for her Mom, though, because really, the daughter was a victim of crappy management.
• 

  millie210

  So really then, the smartest thing a parent can do if they are forced to raise children in the Org, is to only let them be unbaptized pubs but NOT get baptized.
• 

  stillin

  Millie210, I would absolutely say that you are correct in that. Children can't be party to an actual legal contract. They simply do not have the experience to understand all of the ins and outs of what they are getting in to. 

  We held a son back from his own desire to be baptized. Really, he just wanted to carry the mikes. A daughter is DF'd and my wife is a believer so there's a strain...needless strain. Our daughter may have been able to answer the qualifying questions to be cleared for baptism, but she was not ready for the "long run."