There is still a lot of wiggle room in there for the elders. What if someone is too ill to attend? Are they going to DA all the little old ladies that no longer attend?
DF'ing and DA'ing procedural change in the horizon
by iloowy 285 Replies latest members private
-
-
cattails
There is still a lot of wiggle room in there for the elders. What if someone is too ill to attend? Are they going to DA all the little old ladies that no longer attend?
No, of course not. These old ladies are probably some of the most regular contributors to the local KH and the Branch.
They probably listen in to the meetings, and / or get tapes of meetings delivered to them.
In their wills they probably leave every last penny to the WTS too. Very sad.
-
Leprechaun
The Witness’s are all about Judicial crap and procedural rules, they get their jollys off on it. If they are really doing this, it could only be that they know the internet has bit them in ass hard and they have to change with the times like they have with everything else over the years. I know I will: NEVER WALK INTO ONE OF THEIR JUDICIL MEETINGS AGAIN. I remember the last time I did I drank a bookoo amount of beer, then came back latter and urinated on the kingdom hall door, I think the stain is still there on the polished wood.
-
yknot
Cattails
Well with 2007 AM (annual meeting) being a doozy, 2008-AM a dud, many expect the 2009-AM to be another doozy.
Jan 2010 would be a good time to drop/alter the mid-week meeting (more congregations merged, halls sold?), further implementation of Spains pay structure globally (albeit no social security for those outside of Spain) start further priming of DA/DF change, e-books via www.jw.org along with the new songbook.
From there you can have the ''consciousness' school in which COBOES could also be gleaned for the CO-lite positions.
At the 2010 AM they could announce the DA/DF and CO-lite training (or implementation)......
-
undercover
"Omissions" could also be understood to mean neglecting the preaching work and not attending meetings without good reason during a long period of time, perhaps even several years. In this case, the wholly "inactive" one (to differentiate from the occasionally "inactive" one) is invited to meeting with two elders (not before a judicial committee), either at his home in the Kingdom Hall or in any other agreed place. If the brother or sister rejects the invitation or refuses to answer repeated phone calls or written invitations, the body of elders, after a "reasonable" waiting time, perhaps a few months or a year, will conclude that the person "is not interested in associating with the congregation and, consequently, it is understood that "he has disassociated from the congregation" and so it will be announced.
I still say that this is blown out of proportion...but for the sake of argument:
This potential witch hunt on inactive ones is just dumb. By actively searching out people who have been forgotten about, just to announce to the congregation that the inactive person has chosen to remain inactive will be counterproductive.
If this rumor is true, they're going to make a point of announcing that people long forgotten about are to be considered as disfellowshipped (though that word will never be uttered).
If lists of inactive ones were suddenly read off as undesirables, it's going to cause people to sit up and take notice. People will question it. They'll wonder why someone was announced as DAd when they haven't been seen in years. And if they wonder why one person's name was announced, imagine their reaction when dozens or more names are read out.
Personally, I hope they do something this stupid. Leaving aside the uncsripturalness of this rumored policy, this is great ammunition to show our JW family or friends how controlling the Society is. They had to make an example out of me? Someone who faded away? Who wanted to be left alone? They thought me a big enough threat to have me hounded and announced as some apostate to the congregation?
The question I'll put to my JW contacts will be, "Just what are they afraid of?"
-
reniaa
this is a 9 month old debate surely this rumour should have happenned by now if it was going to happen?
-
treadnh2o
Reniaa,
It just won't go away. Kind of like you!
-
shamus100
No,
It's bullshit rumours that keep going and going and going.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
-
sammielee24
LOL...I was just thinking of how this could go.
As an example: my brother-in-law hasn't been to a meeting in 25 years..not df'd..never da'd...he says he doesn't believe it and just doesn't go at all. Everyone in town knows him, knows where he lives and they all still talk with him and hang out with him. He doesn't keep up on WTS changes and stuff, so if the Elders came and basically just said 'you know, you haven't been to a meeting in years and we want to clean up our files, if you aren't interested in returning to the congregation, do you want us to remove you from the rolls?'...Of course, he would say 'sure'..and not think anything about it - he doesn't associate shunning with disassociation. If the family starts to shun him, and he gets ticked, where's he going to go? The Elders can tell him that 'he's welcome to come and sit at the meetings any time, the door is always open for him...nobody there is shunning him, if his family is acting so harshly toward him, sorry, but you have to take that up with them.' There are no directions at all in the WTS that tells a family to shun at all so in matters like this, they are using their conscience to guide them.'.
So, he would be forced to take the issue up with the parents & siblings thus removing the Elders from the fray. It now becomes an issue of family pressure totally and not the WTS because it is entirely a concience matter.
Now, as to what scripture they would use as justification for disassociation, I 'm not sure. sammieswife.
-
Norcal_Sun
So, he would be forced to take the issue up with the parents & siblings thus removing the Elders from the fray. It now becomes an issue of family pressure totally and not the WTS because it is entirely a concience matter.
Now, as to what scripture they would use as justification for disassociation, I 'm not sure. sammieswife.
The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum. - Kingdom ministry 8/02
I'm pretty sure there is really no difference in being DA'd or DF'd. Everything I have ever seen mentioned was using the two phrases synonymously. So its not really a conscience matter. And they don't need extra scriptures, all the ones listed apply.
This change is total bull and I hope it is just a rumor.