by tsar_robles 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I found this post in You tube:
"In the meantime the brother may merely be treated in the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or Gentile, withholding the special rights or privileges or greetings or voting opportunities that belong to the church as a class separate from the world" (WT 3/1/1919, p. 69).
Can anyone in this forum validate this quotation? thanks!
they are real.
let me try this again:
The gloss of compassion in the 1920s' shunning policy was an unintended left-over from Russell's softer-edged take on scripture. But, boy-oh-boy, did Rutherford's stiff-bristled broom soon sweep away the little slither of compassion that temporarily snuck past the then-new Chief Censor.
That quote is correct. The current form of disfellowshipping did not originate till the 1950's. Russell instituted that the congregation would hear matters of discretion, not closed bodies of elders, in line with the advice of Mat 18:17. The person was not shunned but treated as a worldly person. Studies Series VI - The New Creation p.289 onwards goes into detail on how to treat wrongdoers.
http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/disfellowship.htm discusses this under the heading of "historical development."
An early example of Russell acting that way is that he wrote advising others that it would be improper to say things like "Good
morning" to Maria.
In a letter of July 9, 1896, Russell wrote: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me
say, under the circumstances it properly devolves upon you to make the advances
on the line of social amenities between us. It would be improper for me to take
the initiative in the matter of amenities such as, 'good morning,' 'good night,
'etc." (Exhibit 2, Superior Court)
Reviewing the evidence, Justice Orlady ruled in Mrs. Russell's favor with
barely concealed anger:
"The indignities offered to [Mrs. Russell] in treating her as a menial in the
presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind and that she was
under the influence of wicked and designing persons, fully warranted her
withdrawal from his house, and fully justified her fear that he intended to
further humiliate her, by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her
sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated
aspersions on her character and her mental condition, nor does he intimate in
any way that there was any difference between them other than that she did not
agree with him in his views of life and methods of conducting business. He says
himself that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and perfect moral
character. While he denied in a general way that he attempted to belittle his
wife as she claimed, the general effect of his own testimony is a strong
confirmation of her allegations.
"In an analysis of the testimony it is quite difficult to understand the view
of the respondent in regard to his duty as a husband to his wife. From his
standpoint he doubtless felt that his rights as a husband were radically
different from the standard imposed upon him by the law, and recognized by all
the courts of this country.... His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced
such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to
the jury that his conduct toward her was one of continual arrogant domination
that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a
burden and make her conditions intolerable."
http://www.exjws.net/vg2.htm
thank you all of you guys! I guess there's always something new to learn from 'mother' lol
