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

by iloowy 285 Replies latest members private

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    However, if the Borg makes it official policy that members must treat faders who cause no trouble the same as someone who's DF'd, I will make sure that every single person in my area gets a copy of the project that I've recently completed and will go from being a passive fader to a most aggressive exposer of their bullshit and lies. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here that would take such a view.

    I can guarantee that many faders in such a situation will become active in their
    opposition to WTS. I know I would have nothing to lose. Voice your agreement
    here and they just might reconsider this.

    There are more sleeping giants than WT cares to wake up. Forcing their hands
    might sound good, but it would hurt them more than help them.

    Bring it on. Bring it on.

  • still_in74
    still_in74
    *** w93 7/15 p. 27 Tenderly Shepherding Jehovah’s Precious Sheep ***Inactivity in the ministry or in attending Christian meetings does not mean that the sheep is no longer part of the flock. He remains part of "all the flock" for whom the elders must "render an account" to Jehovah.

    I find it very hard to believe that the WTS will be able to get this past the rank and file that merely not attending meetings or turning in time is a scriptural reason for "shunning" someone.

    I'll just wait and see.

    Blondie is so smart!...so ditto this. I have so openly told all my friends and elders and all...."my faith is just destroyed right now"......and they know and understand that.....so I am truly a "lost sheep".........no way in hell can they give up on lost sheep!....the lost sheep is supposed to get all the attention ...lmao!....cause they seem kinda glad i am out of sight out of mind............oompa

    they already have R&F believing "spiritual endangerment" is grounds for a scriptural divorce. HELLO???? Where did JC say this?? Oh yeah, he didnt!!!

    The R&F will believe it. They will just "enforce/apply it to different degrees in the same way they do now with DFing....

  • undercover
    undercover

    One thing I have on my side is that I doubt my Dub family would shun me anyway, no matter what the Borg says and it just might open their eyes as to what a fucked up cult this is. I agree with what others have said on here: it would be a difficult thing for them to implement......I mean: how many meetings does someone miss before they're suddenly considered 'DA'd?' This could (and probably would) end up being more of a nightmare for the Society itself than what it's worth.

    I'm in the same boat...if my family, extended family and JW contacts that I have all of sudden have to treat me as if I was some gross evildoer it might cause some to question the intent of such a practice.

    I'm still skeptical of this info, I just can't see the Society making this kind of tactical mistake. Despite all their cultish ways, they've done a pretty good job of marketing themselves as non-cultish. The only ones that really seem to realize the cultishness are those of us who escaped or those from similar backgrounds. To incorporate this type of thing would show their hand as the controlling group that they don't want people to see. It screams cult to the casual observer and it might even shake up the believers to some degree.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Not wishing to be pedantic but the substance of this policy appears to be removing the word 'disfellowship' from the theocratic vocabulary and shifting responsibility to the R&F who will be viewed as DA'd by their own actions - nothing to do with the elders really, is it?

    Yes, the way I read it, it is all a smokescreen to remove DISFELLOWSHIPPING from
    their vocabulary. Commit fornication and you DA yourself. Stop going to meetings and
    you DA yourself. If they follow through on this, they might have to remove some of the
    shunning for the ones who DA'ed themselves but sit at the meetings. Why would so
    many stay to get privileges back if they are shunned?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    However, if the Borg makes it official policy that members must treat faders who cause no trouble the same as someone who's DF'd, I will make sure that every single person in my area gets a copy of the project that I've recently completed and will go from being a passive fader to a most aggressive exposer of their bullshit and lies. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here that would take such a view.

    Indeed, you are not alone. I have done my best to leave without rocking the boat, without creating conflict. I have left peacefully and I hope to be left in peace. I only wish to be left alone to live according to my own conscience. I was raised in this cult without a choice for myself and when I had enough knowledge to choose, I did--to leave.

    If due to this new policy they take aggressive measures to harm my reputation and relationship with remaining JW family and the few JW friends I still retain, it will be time to fight back aggressively. They don't want to piss me off. I am now at a stage of leaving where I am trying to find a new orientation in life, a new altruistic goal, they don't want me or people like me to decide that fighting their lies and coercions is that goal.

    BTS

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    If this is TRUE, then it is evidence that a critical mass of faders and exJWs has been reached that threaten the continuity of the Society.

  • still_in74
    still_in74
    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.

    if i dont pay my gym membership they will cancel my membership and i cant attend my gym anymore.

    if you dont go out in service or go to meetings they'll cancel your membership with the WTS.


    "what do you expect? you did this not us. We are not shunning you. Jehovah's Witnesses choose to associate with other JW's, and you are not a JW. What's to discuss?"

  • blondie
    blondie

    *** w82 1/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

    The

    Watchtower mentioned that some Christians become weak in faith and spirituality. This occurred also in the first century. (Romans 14:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 11:30) It does not mean that they have ceased to be Christians. Even if they become so weak that they no longer share the "good news" with others and stop attending meetings, and they are not bringing reproach on the Christian congregation, they are still to be regarded as our spiritual brothers and sisters. We should want to help them lovingly, following the apostle Paul’s counsel: "We exhort you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed souls, supporttheweak, be long-suffering toward all." While the elders often take the lead in this, it is to be noted that this counsel was directed to all "the congregation of the Thessalonians." (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 5:14) So the elders and others might offer loving help and encouragement, having in mind the advice: "Straighten up the hands that hang down and the enfeebled knees, and keep making straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather that it may be healed."—Hebrews 12:12, 13; Revelation 3:1-3.

    It is quite a different matter with a former Christian who is "disassociated." This designation is applied basically in two situations:

    First, though it is uncommon, a person might decide that he absolutely no longer wants to be a Witness. We do not mean a person such as is described above, a spiritually weak or discouraged Christian who may express some doubts. Rather, we mean someone who resolutely declares that he absolutely is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since in the past he voluntarily became a baptized member of the congregation, it would now be proper for him to inform the congregation that he is ending this relationship. It would be best if he did this in a brief letter to the elders, but even if he unequivocally states orally that he is renouncing his standing as a Witness, the elders can deal with the matter.—1 John 2:19.

    The second situation involves a person who renounces his standing in the congregation by joining a secular organization whose purpose is contrary to counsel such as that found at Isaiah 2:4, where we read concerning God’s servants: "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." Also, as stated at John 17:16, "they are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world."—Compare Revelation 19:17-21.

    In either of these two situations, the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses,disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person’s decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship, in harmony with what we read at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 9-11.

    As can be appreciated, the spiritually weak and inactive son about whom the question was asked has not become a "disassociated" person in either of these two senses and no such announcement has been made in the congregation. So it still may be possible to aid him in the spirit of Romans 15:1: "We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong."—See also Isaiah 35:3.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Didn't they gather the elders in the US for special training at Patterson recently? If they planned such a big change in how elders do business you would think they would have used that opportunity to spell it out. If they had told elders about this change I suspect it would have leaked out by now.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    I could see this happen. I can see the org (who currently places the blame for the situation and all repercussions on the person) now go further and claim they did nothing- the person did it to themself. All for legal reasons. As far as ousting inactive ones I do not think this would be used blanketly. Rather I see it used for those seen as apostate where the elders are unable to nail the person on anything specific.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit