by iloowy 285 Replies latest members private
My sister (ex-pioneer,husband is Service Overseer in next-door congo.) wrote to me yesterday saying
"Your decision to stop associating has caused us all great unhappiness. We won't ever push you but should either of you want to discuss it we are here and most willing"
Now I know this is purely out of love for myself and my wife,but I wonder how long they will be "here and most willing" if there is even a slight policy change?
Love
Wobble
Horrible Life
We are considered drones. Drones can be reactivated or deactivated.
I didn't read all 10 pages of this - but WOW! Two things: Has this been confirmed by more than a single source [not implying that the poster is wrong, just seeking confirmation]. And two: Was there any indication of how the Jw's would be expected to treat those who have voluntarily DA'd themselves?
Call me skeptical, but it's rather hard to believe the Society would shoot itself in the foot like this. I'd like to see a scan of the original, not just a post on a forum. As has been mentioned in other posts, this idea has been speculated upon for at least as long as this forum (JWD) has been in existence.
Or at the very least, some firmer information. When will this be implemented? When will it be communicated to the R&F? It's too detailed to be part of a typical CO outline for consideration in a BOE meeting - is it instead from a letter? If so, from whom (the GB? CCJW?), to whom, and dated when?
This whole thread is extremely presumptuous.
Actually, I have long believed they would eventually do this. One reason in legal liability issues likely have arisen in the past. This way, just as they have done for years regarding those who joined the military or took blood, they can discard those who dare step outside the tight box of control that exists for those who attend all the meetings and go in service weekly. They can always control drones better than anyone else, so they are perhaps aiming to clean the nest of those who just hang around. Still, a scan or other deeper proof of this coming down the pike would be needed to cement my acceptance.
yadda: "If this is true, shouldn't it be coming to light in the English speaking congregations by now? The organization doesn't release this kind of major change just by a CO in a Spanish speaking circuit."
Not if there are no leaks among the English COs. The latest leaks (not rumors) have come from our Spanish "brothers," so I lean toward trusting this information. In my years on this board, the vast majority of rumors of organizational change on here turn out to be true, so I have no reason to continue casting doubt on the OP, especially when this fits in with what we know of the Society.
Its hard to say how much diffrence thiswill make if it is true, I hope it softens things, for all those that do still care you could help by sending letters showing that the shunning especially with family is hurting people to much and should equally be taken lower. Reniaa, this would not serve to soften the treatment of dfed/daed individuals in any way- in fact it would, in a sense, make it worse. The mindset now is that a person, by their actions, forced the cong to act and has brought the bad situation and repercussions on themself. If this 'new light' is true, it would change the mindset slightly to the person left the org and brought the situation, and resulting repercussions on themself- and the cong did absolutely nothing to the person as far as judgment.
very interesting, I can hear it now.. "we don't disfellowship anyone" lipstick on a pig and nobody does it better. I have heard BS conductors say "people say we have a lot of rules.. we don't have any rules you are free moral agents to do whatever you want..Its not us.. its you.". It really fits perfectly with the mindset. Imagine the hall "look how loving we are.. we don't DF anyone.. " followed by heads bobing..
but if they go after long inactive thats a different story.. I don't think the elders have the time or heart for that.. its just a prod for those on the fence
Agreed that true believer JW's seem to think there are no rules. I had that put to me on my shunning Knol
and my response (which the JW has not responded to yet)
I'm briefly speechless. We are talking about Jehovahs Witnesses here? Surely one of the most rule-happy groups on the planet - they never saw a rule they didn't like. They have a whole book of rules - all based on Bible principles of course - called Organized to Do Jehovah's Will. For the benefit of non-delusional readers the multiplicity of WTS rules can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practices_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
Compliance is not optional.
