by Amazing 61 Replies latest jw friends
not modified by notes in any Elder schools since its publication in 1991 that I am aware.
That imo is the question. The relevance of the printed Flock book strictly depends on its last annotation (which may vary from a country to another when legal issues are involved). Any current elder with an up-to-date copy?
You would still have to explain how you found out what was in the "Flock" book.....this might work for an elder who is facing a JC, but not for a rank and file Witness.
Amazing writes:
some actuyally give a damn about their family, and may want to find a way to get through to them without imposing such standards as you defined that their family is unaware of
Don't get me wrong, Jim. I "give a damn" about my family. I'm just sick and tired of being jacked around by them in on-again-off-again relationships, without advance warning. They lie to cover their tracks by saying they "deleted their facebook/myspace/yahoo profile" when I have evidence that they simply changed their privacy settings. They *KNOW* they can have a relationship with me. The male parties in my family are Elders™ and have their very own copies of The Flock book. They actually have Spirit Directed™ permission to associate with me and even have "spiritual conversations" with me due to their status as Elders™. They have relationships with other family members and non-family members who are either DFd, DAd, brought up JW and did not commit to baptism. They just enjoy the bullying and the ability to pick and choose how to apply the "rules" and to whom to apply the "rules".
I'm sorry you disagree with my "standards", Jim, however I am finally choosing what is in my best interests after over a decade's worth of trying to be kind and "the better person" toward my JW relatives, while walking on eggshells to "respect" and avoid offending their JW sensitivities. I'm not about to let anyone abuse me that way again.
My point is that sometimes it is necessary to let go of the fantasy that one can have a peachy relationship with JW relatives. Life is too short to coddle irrational people following irrational rules supplied to them by an imaginary authority figure. When I think about how I've been humiliated and interrogated by the relatives in question and revealed very private information about the JW who molested me and the molestation, so that they could "justify" associating with me, only to have them do an about-face and treat me like a DFd person (even though I am not a DFd or DAd person) I feel totally betrayed by these hypocrites and want absolutely nothing to do with them.
They owe me an apology, and so do you, Jim.
One point- elders may very well be told at the very next C.O. visit to put references to recent WT articles in the margin of their Flock book.
So while the content of the print is one thing, the hand-written reference says "See WT xxx, 2009 para. xx" That's the real Flock book that they use- the one with the notes.
But as Amazing points out, it wasn't changed as far as he knew. I fully agree that his initial post was my understanding. "Don't bother to go after relatives that don't enforce shunning unless there's some problem caused by it." The thing is, if they are going after someone, they already determined there was a problem with it- so kiss their asses or get DF'ed. That's the real world.
Any current elder with an up-to-date copy?
In the US that statement has not been modified or amended.
Of course the qualifier is important - it says "close relative" without defining the term.
Parent or sibling? Probably. Aunt / uncle / cousin / niece / nephew? Err....gray area. One BOE would decide differently than another.
You go, Scully!!
It seems to me that this might explain the "official" stance of the WTBS (which we all laugh at) that they do not separate families. If called out on it, they can point to this statement to show that they don't - unless the DF/DA person is causing trouble. Makes me wonder if they are deliberately sweeping that position under the rug in favor of "unofficial" positions which are followed by the average dub/elders/CO because they've never bothered to really look at the information.
If a JW relative's association with me has more to do with what the WTS's doctrine du jour says they can or cannot do than their familial relationship with me, then they can go f*ck themselves. I don't need that toxic bull$h!t in my life
I'm with you on that one.
.
You can parade what ever book or quote you want...you can quote scripture even...
It won't do any good if the elders are on a witch hunt.
Face it, if they're concerned that an active dub is associating too much with a DFd relative, they're going to hound them about it. And if they don't like the response they get they're going to keep hounding them. Throwing their own book back in their face is only going to make them more determined to put that person in their place.
I second that, undercover.
