Treatment of Dfed children

by isaacaustin 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  isaacaustin

  Spiritual Upbuilding….

  “Have you entered into God’s rest?” (Heb 4:10, 11) All were encouraged to cease ‘dead works’ (Heb 6:1)

  Self-evaluation: …Ask yourself how you would react to counsel regarding personal lifestyle? What if the scriptural counsel differs from personal opinion? Will you be obedient in molding?

  Example: An adult child who lives outside of the household is DFd? While the term ‘Necessary family business’ is a term familiar with those in this circumstance; the GB wants to stress there is no need to push this to the extreme! ….Basically to shorten the example and to get to the heart of the matter….. there must be incentive for the DFd person to want to return. Parents are encouraged to give a little but to leave the DFd child desiring for more while promoting their actions as motivate by their love for Jah. The end result is hope that the DFd child in wanting full access to the abundant love of his parents willl also begin to see his losses in not having a relationship with Jehovah and seek reinstatement.

  First off, it appears this only applies to children/close relatives. Do you see this as a small lightening, perhaps leading to more change...or simply talking out of both sides of the mouth and perhaps covering themselves legally by admonishing not to be extreme?
• 

  miseryloveselders

  Thats exactly what i see, and I believe the letter focusing on the word, "Brazen" quite possibly could be associated with this latest developement. Ironic that this is happening right after Jaracz died.
• 

  isaacaustin

  MLE, you see this as a lightening? Or as simply covering their own butts, having told the followers not to be extreme? And putting the blame on the followers when things go bad...claiming "we said not to be extreme."
• 

  isaacaustin

  MLE, a lightening to me just does not seem to fit the context of the org. All the study WT's seem to be focusing on building paranoia and warning about the world and apostasy.
• 

  wasblind

  Isaac,

  I maybe reading into it wrong, and if I am please correct me

  but I don't see it as lightening up on the dfed ones, I'm reading

  it as saying, Not to take necessary family business to the extreme

  by using it as anexcuseto have contact with the dfed person. And

  the less you have to do with them, the more they will miss you and

  want to come back to the Org.
• 

  isaacaustin

  WasBlind, your reading of it here is exactly how it was stated in the release at the convention 2 years ago or so, the book that had an appendix on how to treat Dfed ones.
• 

  OUTLAW

  IsaacAustin..

  Just more WBT$ bullshit..

  What the WBT$ says and what the WBT$ enforces,are 2 different things..

  Is there ever a Glimmer of Hope for a Compulsive Liar?..

  .............................. ...OUTLAW
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I see this as WT worrying that they will lose members who won't totally shun their loved one. They give them an excuse to violate the shunning rule here and show "some" love to their child, grandchild, sibling, etc.. This way, they can make the member feel a twinge of guilt if they don't at least try to get the df'ed one to consider coming back, but they don't make him so guilty feeling that he leaves WT over the matter.

  IMHO, it's a "lightening" rather than "losing them." They cannot end the policy outright because the floodgates of faders, uninterested ones would burst open. I doubt there will be any more lightening. In time, they will reiterate their shunning policy and then it will just be talking out of both sides of the mouth so members hear the one they want to hear.
• 

  isaacaustin

  I agree Outlaw. The org has no problem talking out of both sides of their mouth. Perhaps this is said for legal purposes? They are known to word things in ambiguous ways...where to the JW reading between the lines it is a hardline approach...while the outsider who is not reading between the lines simply sees it as saying to reduce assocation but not cut off or be extreme.
• 

  wasblind

  Ok, I was lost for a bit because, I was not a born in

  and I only was active with the JW's for 5 years. So this

  was not the original stance on shunning ?