by iloowy 285 Replies latest members private
If this is true, then those who try the "loophole" would most likely be spared. Still, those who say they intend to start or go once in awhile have acknowledged the WT's power over them to the elders.
Those that refuse to acknowledge the elders' request are the ones who'd be targeted by this. If they won't acknowledge the elders' attempts at contact it'd be pretty obvious they have asserted their independence already. (Not that I defend the WT on this at all.)
@ cabasilas; they already DF people who claim to be repentant and want to be a JW. Claiming the person has DAd themselves thru their own actions is actually less messy, IMO.
Perhaps...it's just that it becomes a legal fiction to claim that a person voluntarily disassociated themselves when they say they want to remain a member of the group. I would wonder if a lawyer could do something with that.
It also turns the tables for the previously DF'd individual who attempts to sue the society for cruel and unusual punishment by way of DF'ing.
That was already there; DF'ing lawsuits have been defanged ages ago. However, the "Paul decision" case jumped right over the normal lawsuit strategy and went for "Tort damages", attempting to exploit that untested "door". That didn't work either.
This is a synopsis of the Paul decision:
The decision mentioned the usual strategy: the usual Ecclesiastical Abstention arguments are a moot point here, since they aren't being exercised.
This is a "Tort theory" case, for damages, instead: we recognize the Tort theory.
However, First Amendment Free Exercise Clause religious freedom rights prevail: we trump the Tort theory with Freedom of Religion rights.
The decision mentioned that the DF'ing practice was not found to be "malum in se" [evil, in and of itself]. While the rest of the decision reads in accordance with what would be expected of the usual jurisprudence practice, this one bothers me as a possible issue. I see a weak point here, that subsequent cases seem to have affected.
Mustang
I believe it would be a highly risky strategy on the part of the WT to start taking this action against faders. This is in part because of all the excellent points already made in comments on this thread. Also, it's because it would force a certain percentage of people back to meetings and service against their will. This would be a disaster for the WT.
Right now the practice of fading is a relief valve for those who don't agree with, or can't live with, the WT but don't want to create a problem or rock the boat. If that relief valve is taken away, some will be openly and loudly condemnatory of the WT, likely stirring up a lot of negative publicity. Others will outwardly submit, but become a dangerous element in local congregations. They would be able to find opportunities to do extensive damage to the Society from the inside, and be motivated to do so. This would make it difficult for the organization to know which of their followers they could trust and which they couldn't.
The current system works to the advantage of both faders and the WT, so I think it is unlikely to change.
I believe it would be a highly risky strategy on the part of the WT to start taking this action against faders.
(faders coerced to return) ....become a dangerous element in local congregations. They would be able to find opportunities to do extensive damage to the Society from the inside, and be motivated to do so. This would make it difficult for the organization to know which of their followers they could trust and which they couldn't.
Mrs. Fiorini just "checkmated" you, WT. hahahahaha
Semantics, to reduce the risk of civil action. "The congregation took no action in the defendant's removal. The defendant removed themselves from the congregation.'
And this is at least three years old - those are apparently the words they used when I was disfellowshipped - not that I was there for the announcement. The elders certainly used the word 'disfellowshipped' with me.
Mrs. Fiorini just "checkmated" you, WT. hahahahaha
The noise that faders might make would only be used by the WT as proof that the
evil slave is hard at work, we're so close now that look how they are grinding their
teeth. Once the WTS puts the spin on any retaliation it would serve to exert more
control on the R&F.
I personally feel the BOE's have much to do with other responsibilities and this is
another way that the WT is freeing them from having to call every year on those
who've left the flock. If they willingly disassociate is only proof that they were never
really among the flock. Or so they'll spin it.
Whether the info is going to be part of a CO's talks to congregation elders or whether
it was just a CO's talk outline to POs at Patterson it doesn't seem to say there's
much new in the way of dealing with DF and DA cases, just a spin on the wording
and what's going on. It warns not to use the term DFing but to put emphasis on the
person's own choice through actions to separate from the congregation. It's written
in language very similar to the other outline from COs about college.
If you can read Spanish go to ExTJ.com/foro and follow the discussion there.
Sincerely.
--ILOOWY
Sass, the wording you quote sounds like pure WT legal talk.
Haven't we seen how often the legal department initiates later
policy presented by COs to BOEs? The extensive notes and
making sure that elders wrote the notes on the Flock Book
about porneia and adultery, uncleanness and acceptable
employment etc. all begun by the legal dept. as I see it.
With regards.
--ILOOWY
The most obvious point, which no one has really gone into yet, is that such a new policy would be totally unscriptural and very hard to sell scripturally to JW's, or at least the remaining few who actually think for themselves occasionally.
Firstly, the bible is absolutely clear that you can only be disfellowshipped for what you DO, not 'omissions'. You can only be disfellowshipped and therefore shunned for sins, offences, unrepentant immorality, speaking out against the organisation, etc. 1 Corinthians 5, for example, is explicit on those things you can be removed for.
Shunning for 'omissions' is completely artificial and unscriptural. There is simply no scriptural way you can justify shunning someone for merely not attending meetings or FS. Its quite disgraceful and outrageous if this is made official policy.
Those who are thoroughly inactive, even if they do not return elders phone calls or don't want to meet, can only scripturally be "marked" for being disobedient to some internal organisation matter. They cannot be totally shunned for mere 'omissions' of meeting attendance and FS. See this:
2 Thess 3: 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
If the GB expect JW's to totally shun persons who are simply inactive and there is no evidence of committing serious sins, then they will be acting completely against this scripture.
If this becomes policy it will be final proof this is a horrible, cruel, unloving cult that is only interested in strict obedience and conformance through fear and intimidation.
yadda
2 Thess 3: 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
Hey Yadda Yadda 2.
If you notice what the letter says about the elders contacting the person and if he avoids contact he distances himself from the congregation, and also that they are to follow up for a few months, year, then drop the situation, find closure in declaring the person disassociated by no longer acting as one of JWs. In 2Thess 3:14 the words "stop associating" can mean disassociation, but it's not official until the elders make an announcement. Marking talks aren't what they used to be. And emphasis seems more on the person taking some action by which they demonstrate their desire to no longer be a part of the congregation... such as in the matter of blood transfusions, or voting.
Personally I feel like I'm walking into a trap letting some of this out. It was only because there are more Spanish brothers coming out with it that I ventured to post it here, like the other CO outline about college, adultery etc.
With regards.
--ILOOWY
