Is this a change in WT policy?

cofty

In the previous elder's manual was it a judicial offence if somebody persistently associated with a disfellowshipped person? I am sure it ws when I was an elder. Was that not how they finally got Ray Franz?

In the new KS-10 it says.......

If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of

the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does

not respond to counsel, it may be that he would

not qualify for congregation privileges, which require

one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judically

unless there is persistent spiritual association or

he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision. 116

This seems to say that a JW could associate socially (but not spiritually) with a DF's person with impunity as long as they had no desire to receive special privileges?

leavingwt

No change.

cofty

So if a JW carries on regardless socialising with their DF'd friend the elders cannot take judicial action? Surely that's a change is it not?

dssynergy

wasn't this specifically referring to family members?

bennyk

The paragraph refers specifically to relatives of the the DF'd/DA'd individual.

"If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with

disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household..."

The previous Flock book stated (p. 103):

"Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped

for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there

is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or

excuse the wrongful course."

cofty

Thanks I missed the word "relative" when I read that.

shepherd

There are 2 differences - now it says relatives, before it said 'close' relatives, giving the elders more freedom in deciding who was or was not a close relative. Secondly it says they will not be dealt with judicially but before said 'normally', previously allowing local elders to decide that there could be an exception in a particular case. The result? In many congregations, no change, and in others where the local elders would hang on every word in the book looking for a loophole to put a head in a disfellowshipping noose the wording is now less ambiguous.

flipper

COFTY- If there is a change occuring now where the WT society is not coming down as hard on witnesses associating with DFed ones- in my opinion it's due to legal ramifications involved . Essentially they don't want any more legal headaches than they already have. Just my opinion. They would never do it just to be more lax in enforcing it. WT society usually has ulterior motives

wobble

Yup, the same as Legal drove the change to fractions in the blood policy.

compound complex

Hi cofty:

Was that not how they finally got Ray Franz?

Good question; in a round about way, yes.

As posted in some earlier threads, Peter Gregerson, Ray Franz's benefactor and employer, was not disfellowshiped but had recently disassociated himself for reasons of conscience. When the Society got wind from local elders that Franz and wife were dining with Gregerson, they applied an ex post facto maneuver, putting disassociated ones in the same group as disfellowshiped persons. So, while Ray Franz had committed no wrong per then current rulings, the Society framed mischief by law and got their man.

Cynthia was not disfellowshiped.

CC

Is this a change in WT policy?

Share this