DF'ing and DA'ing procedural change in the horizon

by iloowy 285 Replies latest members private

• 

  mcsemike

  This is another attempt by the WTS to avoid blame on several levels: legal, psychological, financial, spiritual, and others. I'm sure they now feel they can't be sued or held accountable for anything that happens to a person who is gone. They used to announce the actual "sin" when a person was DF'd. Now if someone commits suicide they think they can blame the person. "He quit our cult because we're idiots and he didn't want to throw his life away by remaining a JW." All along, they have always said that whatever happens to a person who is DF'd or DA's himself, it was HIS fault, even if he became an addict, killed someone, or committed suicide. This is just one more step in their heartless march to avoid legal problems.

  However, I don't think it will work out for them in the end. People will ask, "It is understood by whom?". The elders? The rank and file with their IQ's averaging 150? In many cases, I'm sure that even the person who is "no longer one of JW's" will not understand what he did wrong and why he's now being thrown out.

  It doesn't matter what terms they use or how they announce it. The brain-dead rank and file still know enough to get the hint that they are now to treat that person as human garbage. The WTS thinks it is very clever but those with a shred of decency will see through this. And the media or those writing about the effects of having ever belonged to this sick cult won't be fooled. Most authors and columnists who observe trends in religion and write about them will understand what is happening.

  It also might blow up in their faces in another way. As more JW's see that they don't have to agonize over a decision to fade, write a letter DA'ing themselves, to suddenly quit going to the meetings, etc., those who want out can just stay away. The congregation will soon know about it. It really is a wonderful thing that JW's are so innocent and pure. Gossip is a serious sin to many believers, yet this is the way that the entire circuit will eventually learn who has been naughty and who has been nice. I still don't know if I was ever DF'd or not and I don't care. The effect is the same. You still lose your family and friends. Yes, the WTS must be the only religion approved by God. "If you have love among yourselves......". I really miss all of that "love".
• 

  cameo-d

  Blondie WT quote: if it is a deliberate act and there is no repenting over the wrong act and asking of forgiveness of God’s congregation. If it is a first offense and the transgressor sees his error, repents of it and begs forgiveness,

  If forgiveness must be asked of "congregation" why are elders allowed to exclusively speak for the "congregation"?

  Why must a person "beg forgiveness" of man? Wouldn't this show it is a man made decree if man is the one to forgive?

  How can a man say that he knows the heart of 'god' in order to determine that god has forgiven?
• 

  sammielee24

  I have a question that hopefully someone might have the answer to.

  If a person is ejected or rejected 'voluntarily', then can they 'voluntarily' reinject themselves? One must currently kiss the feet of the elders and beg for reinstatement...if one is voluntarily considered 'out', then is the formality of reinstatement still in force?

  sammieswife.
• 

  sammielee24

  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

  ....if tort is trumped by freedom of religion, then what about people who are refused to practice 'fully and engaged' in their religion as a direct result of the actions of elders? It is not uncommon to have family and elders who are filled with spite and vengeance, using their power, to spy on, lie about or in other words, do everything they can to refuse to allow a person re-entry by reinstatement. In doing so, they create a lot of damage to families, a lot of pain and suffering - so how is it that freedom of religion by the society can be allowed to trample the same rights of the individual in practicing that same freedom of religion? How is it that a civil suit cannot be enacted against the society, not on the basis of 'voluntarily disassociating', but on the reinstatement formality that denies one the right to practice their religion? Refusing reinstatement means that families and members remain in shunning mode and the person is not considered a good nor active member - and that means that you are unable to fully engage in the religion. sammieswife.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  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.

  This is how I see it as well.

  I think this move is more about legal cover than going after faders.

  It seems that the freshest news tends to come from the Spanish forums lately, not to mention that the discourse seems much more civil and polite over there. Maybe I'll switch languages after this place closes down.

  BTS
• 

  IP_SEC

  hilarious. If its true, time to sh!t or get off the pot. LOL! Love it.
• 

  sammielee24

  I'm also curious about the legalities around baptism and punishment against those baptized by the society.

  The society considers baptism to be somehow a more 'legal' defense when it comes to punishment. It is a known fact that those who are baptised will be disfellowshipped and shunned while an unbaptised publisher, accused of the same action, will not be. I am surprised that there is no way for a civil action based on the prejudice involved regardless of the church shield...

  As for baptism itself. A child cannot enter into a contract legally, because they could not understand the terms of the contract, I always understood that is the reason a child cannot be sued for damages or held accountable. A child therefore, who is baptised as a JW, cannot fully comprehend what the punishment of shunning entails and therefore is coercied, pressured or manipulated into baptism without being mature enough or fully aware of the ramifications of his/her actions.

  The JW is only one of a few religions that punish the severe form of shunning that they do and they only punish baptised JW's to the extreme and not unbaptised one's.

  I'm not sure why the baptism and punishment issues because they are clearly linked, are not followed through civily and separate from the disfellowshipping issue itself. sammieswife.
• 

  passwordprotected

  @ sammielee24 - the WTS have historically proven themselves to be very, very water-tight legally. Yes, there have been some successful suits against them but they are quick learners and don't make the same mistake twice. If this DF/DA change is for real, we can put our mortgages on the WTS lawyers having it nailed down solidly.
• 

  oompa

  There are just too many scriptures that CLEARLY make this initial post impossible for even dubs to try this.

  (Jude

  22-23)22 Also, continue showing mercy to some that have doubts;23 save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh.

  ) If he had doubts, they would have attempted to ‘snatch him out of the fire.’ (Jude 23) Even if he had become inactive, not going to meetings or in the public ministry, spiritually strong ones would have striven to restore him. He might have told them that he did not want to be bothered with being in the congregation, reflecting his weakened faith and low spirituality. They would not have badgered him, but they might occasionally have made a friendly visit on him. Such loving, patient, merciful efforts would have reflected God’s interest that none be lost.—Luke 15:4-7.

  (Matthew 18:10-14)10 See to it that YOU men do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell YOU that their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. 11 —— 12 "What do YOU think? If a certain man comes to have a hundred sheep and one of them gets strayed, will he not leave the ninety-nine upon the mountains and set out on a search for the one that is straying? 13 And if he happens to find it, I certainly tell YOU, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that have not strayed. 14 Likewise it is not a desirable thing with my Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.

  11 actually says Matthew18:11***"For the Son of man came to save what was lost." (dubs hate this scripture i guess)
• 

  sammielee24

  sammielee24 - the WTS have historically proven themselves to be very, very water-tight legally. Yes, there have been some successful suits against them but they are quick learners and don't make the same mistake twice. If this DF/DA change is for real, we can put our mortgages on the WTS lawyers having it nailed down solidly.

  I agree but - only to a point. Times change and so must they. As I posted on the other thread about this...the society works on prejudice and bias.

  In the 'real' world it has become very difficult and dangerous from a legal/financial point of view, to keep ruling on your club based on gender, race, age etc. The society is doing exactly that by baptism.

  If you are baptised, then you will be df'd for the same crime that a non baptized person has committed, but they will not be shunned. They are not df'd. You can then argue that it's 'church rules'...however, when those rules discriminated against one group to the point that the person is affected financially, emotionally, mentally and physically by the WTS punishment of shunning...then it is punishment by prejudice alone.

  A child entering a 'contract' or baptism by the society does not have the maturity to comprehend what they are entering into. That's why a child is protected by law. The society works on the premise that because they are a religion, they can practice prejudice in punishment...and they have gotten away with it. Until they are forced to change and are forced to meet the challenge...then they will not change. sammieswife.