Elder's Manual Question

by satinka 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Reopened Mind

Sorry about about almost blank post. Diamondiiz covered everything I attempted to relate and more. I haven't the faintest idea what happened.
Reopened Mind
Murray Smith

My belief was that if I continued to believe the jw theology, I would self-destruct.
Satinka
Your belief was absolutely correct and your instincts served you well . . . I did continue . . . and I did self-destruct . . . severe depression/anxiety disorder which has taken me 7 years to get on top of . . . that 7 years cost me heaps . . . hospitalisation, my job, my home, family relationships changed forever etc etc.
Such a heavy price tag can never be forgotten . . . or forgiven.
Our fellow posters have come to the party for you (as they do) . . . Hearty thanks to you all . . . Satinka . . . I sincerely wish you the very best with your family
Luvonyall
Anony Mous

You can prove right from the scriptures that JW's are wrong in the way they treat DF'ed people.
Look at the claims they make to justify shunning: Matthew 18:15-19, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and then the rest of the article claims other WATCHTOWER articles (emphasis mine) as a source of authority.
First of all, Matthew 18 where Jesus tells us, treat them as heathens and tax collectors. The footnote in the WT reads that in Jewish Society those people were shunned however Jesus himself taught that that behavior was unacceptable and HE HIMSELF ate with tax collectors in order to help them. According to the WTBTS that privilege is reserved only to Elders+ in the organization thus granting themselves a privilege that either Jesus reserved for himself OR a privilege he allowed the Congregation to have (Jesus did not institute an organization/congregation with priests and privileges, something JW's claim they themselves follow). Also, at least one story about Jesus show that Jesus AND HIS APOSTLES (emphasis mine) were at a tax collector's house, enjoyed a meal and THE PHARISEES condemned him for doing this where Jesus CORRECTED them (emphasis mine).
1 Corinthians 5:11 - Read very carefully. If somebody CLAIMS to be a Brother but then goes on to do bad things thus showing by his behavior that he is a FALSE BROTHER, don't eat with such a person. This is a warning against people that would come in the congregation, CLAIM to be a believer and then subvert others from doing the right thing. This does not talk about somebody making a mistake or somebody turning away from the congregation willfully. This talks about people that willfully do bad things and then continue wanting to be associated with the congregation, being called a brother or follower of Jesus. I can understand that certain people should NOT be called Christians (or Jehovah's Witnesses) and I can understand that there are those that are going to attempt subverting or converting others from their Faith while continue claiming to be Christian (or JW's). ONLY THOSE should be shunned as they are a spiritual threat to true Christians if people believe in them (they are the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing).
2 Thessalonians 3:6 - Read very carefully again. If somebody IS a Brother but then walks disorderly or is idle (same word here could be translated as busybodies), stay away from them. Again, this talks about somebody who is maybe nosy and gossips a lot or that really has a bad influence in general on the congregation, stay away from them. Again, I can come into the thought that you might not want to associate people that have a bad influence on you or the congregation, people that lie, cheat, steal etc, people you don't want your kids hanging around for morality reasons. However Paul nor Jesus never admonishes anyone to hate or shun anyone. Merely treat them as somebody without faith. If you can, preach to them, if not make smalltalk like you would do with neighbors or work mates or just tell them that their actions are not acceptable to you personally - maybe you can convert them back. But NEVER in the WHOLE BIBLE (and I've read it through and through) can you find proof that admonishes anyone to stop all associations or treat badly those that have either no faith, lost the faith, made a mistake. The only ones you should really ignore and not go out to eat with is the ones that actively try to pull you away from your faith.
satinka

diamondiiz, thank you for your research. It helps me very much. I plan to blog about this.
tenyearsafter and freydo, I agree with you on how the elders would view a suicide. They would not likely feel responsible, because they believe the df'd/da'd one to be at fault. Blame, blame, blame. I keep thinking of their own talks where the elders say, "do not finger-point. Because there are always four fingers pointing back at you." Time to apply their talks to the blaming elders.
Murray, thanks for the validation about the cruel practice of shunning. I am sorry to hear of your devastating experience. Like I say, it could have just as easily have happened to me, but fortunately I was in therapy at the time. My therapist was totally there for me, as well as my "worldly" friends. The jws kicked us when we were down. Their intention is to destroy us. Fortunately, we can show them what we are made of, since we are here today. We are survivors of their abuse!
Anony Mous, thanks for your encouraging words. I agree that the Watchtower takes thoughts out of context to explain their twisted thinking. Yet, cult members gobble it up as gospel.
Thanks so much for your research, Reopened Mind. I copied and pasted your text into Notepad and it removed all the wonky formatting. Here is what you sent:
santika, I found two of the quotes you asked for. These are from the 2007 WT Library. I don't have any thing later than this. However I think this will give you a good idea of the WT contorted reasoning for disfellowshipping. The first quote is from the Watchtower April 15, 1988, pp. 26-30.
Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit
"No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."—HEBREWS 12:11.
1. THINK back to your childhood days. Can you recall your parents disciplining you? Most of us can. The apostle Paul used that as an illustration when commenting on discipline from God, as we read at Hebrews 12:9-11.
2 God’s fatherly discipline, which can affect our spiritual lives, can take many forms. One is his arrangement to exclude from the Christian congregation a person who no longer wants to live by God’s standards, or who refuses to do so. A person who is thus strongly chastised or disciplined may repent and turn around. In the process, the congregation of loyal ones are also disciplined in that they learn the importance of conforming to God’s high standards.—1 Timothy 1:20.
3. ‘But,’ someone may ask, ‘is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?’ Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped. She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her. So she took the matter to court. What was the outcome, and how might this affect you? In order to understand the matter properly, let us see what the Bible says about the related subject of disfellowshipping.
Why This Firm Stand?
4 Most true Christians loyally support God and his righteous laws. (1 Thessalonians 1:2-7; Hebrews 6:10) Occasionally, though, a person deviates from the path of truth. For example, despite help from Christian elders, he may unrepentantly violate God’s laws. Or he may reject the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation. Then what should be done? Such things occurred even while the apostles were alive; hence, let us see what they wrote about this.
5 When a man in Corinth was unrepentantly immoral, Paul told the congregation: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) The same was to occur with apostates, such as Hymenaeus: "As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning." (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20) Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort."—1 John 2:18, 19.
6. Hopefully, such a one will repent so that he can be accepted back. (Acts 3:19) But meanwhile, may Christians have limited fellowship with him, or is strict avoidance necessary? If so, why?
Cut Off Thoroughly?
7. Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ‘fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.’ Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, ‘otherwise we would have to get out of the world.’ He directed that it was to be different, though, with "a brother" who lived like that: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man."—1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.
8. In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai´ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works."—2 John 9-11.
9. Why is such a firm stand appropriate even today? Well, reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God’s Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7) Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing.—Job 34:10-12.
10. We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. "Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment." (1 Corinthians 5:7) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.—Hebrews 12:15, 16.
What About Relatives?
11. God certainly realizes that carrying out his righteous laws about cutting off wrongdoers often involves and affects relatives. As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible. In fact, if a son was a drunkard and a glutton, his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him, ‘to clear away what is bad from the midst of Israel.’ (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) You can appreciate that this would not have been easy for them. Imagine, too, how the wrongdoer’s brothers, sisters, or grandparents felt. Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them.
12. Recall the case of Korah, a leader in rebellion against God’s leadership through Moses. In his perfect justice, Jehovah saw that Korah had to die. But all loyal ones were advised: "Turn aside, please, from before the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that belongs to them, that you may not be swept away in all their sin." Relatives who would not accept God’s warning died with the rebels. But some of Korah’s relatives wisely chose to be loyal to Jehovah, which saved their lives and led to future blessings.—Numbers 16:16-33; 26:9-11; 2 Chronicles 20:19.
13. Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. Respect for God’s judgments and the congregation’s action will move the wife and children to recognize that by his course, he altered the spiritual bond that existed between them. Yet, since his being disfellowshipped does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue.
14. The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. 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 line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man."—1 Corinthians 5:11.
15. Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents’ love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God, as stated by the sister quoted on page 26. Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah’s relatives.—Psalm 84:10-12.
The Court Decision
16. You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.
17. Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed. The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: "Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah’s Witness, we find that the ‘free exercise’ provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm" the earlier judgment of the district court.
18. The court opinion continued: "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah’s Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson’s view that ‘[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free—as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.’ . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."
19. The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, "permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy." This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.
20 Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah’s Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God’s Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.
Discipline—Many Benefit
21. Some outsiders, upon hearing about disfellowshipping, are inclined to sympathize with a wrongdoer who can no longer converse with members of the Christian congregation. But is not such sympathy misplaced? Consider the potential benefit that the wrongdoer and others may receive.
22. For example, on page 26 we noted Lynette’s comment about her choice ‘to cut herself off completely from all association’ with her disfellowshipped sister Margaret. She and her Christian relatives ‘believed that Jehovah’s way is best.’ And it is!
23. Lynette’s sister later told her: ‘If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.’
24. In another case, Laurie’s parents were disfellowshipped. Yet she says: ‘My association with them never stopped but increased. As time went on, I became more and more inactive. I got to the point of not even attending meetings.’ Then she read material in The Watchtower of September 1 and 15, 1981, that stressed the counsel of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 John 9-11. "It was as if a light bulb were turned on in me," she writes. ‘I knew I would have to make some changes. I now better understand the meaning of Matthew 10:34-36. My decision was not an easy one for my family to swallow, for my son, five, is the only boy, and they love him dearly.’ It is hoped that losing such association will touch the parents’ hearts, as it did Margaret’s. Still, the discipline involved helped Laurie: ‘I am back out in the field ministry. My marriage and family are stronger because of my change, and so am I.’
25. Or consider the feelings of one who was disfellowshipped and later reinstated. Sandi wrote: ‘I would like to thank you for the very helpful and instructive articles [mentioned above] on reproof and disfellowshipping. I am happy that Jehovah loves his people enough to see that his organization is kept clean. What may seem harsh to outsiders is both necessary and really a loving thing to do. I am grateful that our heavenly Father is a loving and forgiving God.’
26. So our God who requires that an unrepentant wrongdoer be expelled from the congregation also lovingly shows that a sinner can be reinstated in the congregation if he repents and turns around. (A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.) Thereafter he can be comforted by Christians who will confirm their love for him. (2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 7:8-13) Truly, it is just as Paul wrote: "No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."—Hebrews 12:11.
[Footnotes]
John here used khai´ro, which was a greeting like "good day" or "hello." (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use a•spa´zo•mai (as in verse 13), which means "to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome" and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even "hello" to such ones.—See The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 31.
For a discussion of a relative’s being disfellowshipped, see The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 26-31.
819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).
Though various individuals have brought suit, no court has rendered a judgment against Jehovah’s Witnesses over their Bible-based practice of shunning.
The following is taken from Our Kingdom Ministry August 2002.
Display
1. The bond between family members can be very strong. This brings a test upon a Christian when a marriage mate, a child, a parent, or another close relative is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation. (Matt. 10:37) How should loyal Christians treat such a relative? Does it make a difference if the person lives in your household? First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves.
2. How to Treat Expelled Ones: God’s Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . . . Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: "Let [the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." Jesus’ hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones.—See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20.
3. This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should ‘not even eat with such a man.’ (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.
4. What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah’s view of matters: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him." Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says: "A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshipped person?"
5. Indeed, it is just as page 31 of the same issue of The Watchtower states: "The fact is that when a Christian gives himself over to sin and has to be disfellowshipped, he forfeits much: his approved standing with God; . . . sweet fellowship with the brothers, including much of the association he had with Christian relatives."
6. In the Immediate Household: Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities? The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: "If in a Christian’s household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities." Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.
7. However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 28, points out regarding the disfellowshipped or disassociated person: "Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle. . . . That will mean changes in the spiritual fellowship that may have existed in the home. For example, if the husband is disfellowshipped, his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer, such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145, 146) What if a disfellowshipped person in the home wants to be present when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share his religious ideas."
8. If a minor child living in the home is disfellowshipped, Christian parents are still responsible for his upbringing. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, page 20, states: "Just as they will continue to provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, they need to instruct and discipline him in line with God’s Word. (Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17) Loving parents may thus arrange to have a home Bible study with him, even if he is disfellowshipped. Maybe he will derive the most corrective benefit from their studying with him alone. Or they may decide that he can continue to share in the family study arrangement."—See also The Watchtower of October 1, 2001, pages 16-17.
9. Relatives Not in the Household: "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.—See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.
10. The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: "What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshipped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshipped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) . . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household."—The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.
11. As for a child, the same article continues: "Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshipped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshipped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring ‘leaven’ into the home?—Gal. 5:9."
12. Benefits of Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible’s high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an opportunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce "peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."—Heb. 12:11.
13. After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.
14. Loyally upholding the disfellowshipping arrangement outlined in the Scriptures demonstrates our love for Jehovah and provides an answer to the one that is taunting Him. (Prov. 27:11) In turn, we can be assured of Jehovah’s blessing. King David wrote regarding Jehovah: "As for his statutes, I shall not turn aside from them. With someone loyal you will act in loyalty."—2 Sam. 22:23, 26.
[Study Questions]
1. What situation can test a Christian’s loyalty?
2. According to the Bible, how are Christians to treat those expelled from the congregation?
3, 4. What sort of fellowship with disfellowshipped and disassociated people is forbidden?
5. When disfellowshipped, what does a person forfeit?
6. Is a Christian required to cut off all association with a disfellowshipped relative living in the same household? Explain.
7. How does spiritual fellowship within the home change when a family member is disfellowshipped?
8. What responsibility do Christian parents have toward a minor disfellowshipped child living in the home?
9. To what extent should a Christian have contact with a disfellowshipped relative living outside the home?
10, 11. What will a Christian consider before allowing a disfellowshipped relative to move into the home?
12. What are some benefits of the disfellowshipping arrangement?
13. What adjustment did one family make, and with what result?
14. Why should we loyally support the disfellowshipping arrangement?
----------
thanks again everyone for your help and your encouraging words! The jws can no longer keep us separated from one another and from the support we deserve!
Mr satinka said something encouraging to me tonight: "Why would you want these people (my brother, son and daughter) in your life, anyway?" And he is right, they would upset me constantly, with their judgmental and twisted jw thinking. I strive for balance in my life. My son has a bad temper. He used to punch holes in walls and knock closet doors off their hinges. My daughter was a shoplifter. They have been out of my life for 11 years. I am better off without them.
satinka
Murray Smith

Satinka
All the research won't be wasted . . . bookmarked for future ref
Mr Satinka sounds like all you need . . . I like him already
The day may still come when a family member also sees those creeps for what they are . . . here's hoping
Luvonyall
Crisis of Conscience

Great thread, with all the research included. Thanks!!
CoC
Mr. Falcon

"No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."—HEBREWS 12:11.
I hate when they use this scripture to justify their harrassment of people just trying to live their lives. Okay, let's play Devil's advocate here for a second and assume that disfellowshipping really is a beneficial arrangement (just bear with me...). Even if that were true, by what authority does some guy in a cheap suit with little or no education have to render such a serious judgment? It's nuts. Hell, what's to stop me from assuming such authority? What prevents me from walking around DFing people?
Let me get this straight, then: A guy goes out in field service alot, comments alot and cleans the KH toilets regularly. So the CO comes around and asks about this guy and the elders say he's a great guy because he goes out in field service, comments and cleans toilets. So the CO writes a goofy recommendation and mails it up to Bethel. The Service Department or whatever opens it up, looks at how many magazines he places, shrugs then send back the approval. A month later he's an elder and now has authority to render a judgment against a woman that would prevent her own biological children from speaking to her.
Makes complete sense, right?
Reopened Mind

santinka,
Thank you for fixing my formatting. I copied and pasted directly from the WT CD. Perhaps I should have copied to word or notepad first. Other posts copied from these programs have been successful.
Reopened Mind
satinka

Mr Falcon writes:
assume that disfellowshipping really is a beneficial arrangement (just bear with me...). Even if that were true, by what authority does some guy in a cheap suit with little or no education have to render such a serious judgment? It's nuts. Hell, what's to stop me from assuming such authority? What prevents me from walking around DFing people?
Presumptous, isn't it? What egos!
satinka
satinka
So, anyway, I had quite an amazing day yesterday and I did blog about the issue of shunning disfellowshipped members...
Feel free to PM me if you want the link.
satinka
Kindness of a Stranger
I was half a block away from the corner when the bus rolled up to the stop. "Oh, darn," I thought dejectedly. "There goes my bus."
It was Monday morning and I was feeling sorry for myself. I looked up again and noticed the bus was still sitting at the corner. I picked up my pace, being reminded about a similar day last week when I had not yet reached the corner, yet the kindly bus driver waited for me. Smiling, he said, "I know who my regulars are." I thanked him. His kindness was appreciated. But, for me to think he would again be waiting this morning seemed preposterous. I was just too far away. Nevertheless, I picked up my pace. By the time I reached the corner I was running. Surprisingly, the bus remained stationary. I rounded the corner and caught the smiling eyes of the same bus driver. "I can't believe you waited for me, again! You are so kind!" I was breathless, as I gratefully climbed aboard.
"I know you are one of my regulars," he responded gently, and again I thanked him.
I found a seat and unexpectedly became filled with emotion. Tears flooded my eyes and I wondered why it is so easy for some people—strangers—to be naturally kind, yet relatives could express cruelty with equal vengeance. My mind flashed back to the past weekend. I had asked my brother a simple question, "Do you ever hear from my kids?"
He did not respond. My brother and my two grown children are Jehovah's Witnesses. They are obliged by a "disfellowship order"[1] to shun me because I chose to leave the family religion. My own children have cut off all association from me. They could only express kindness conditionally—if I "repented of my gross sins." Until such time I must be punished by their cruel practice of shunning.
One might reason, "Satinka, you must have committed some vile deed for them to treat you so badly."
I confess, I sought a divorce from my philandering husband. I confess, I began taking dance lessons. I confess, I made many new friends who the religion labelled "worldly" because they were not Jehovah's Witnesses. I confess, I had an affair with my exciting new dance partner. I confess, I loved every minute of my new life.
Subsequently, I was judged by a tribunal of three elders. My faith had been found to be defective and I was "disfellowshipped" from the congregation. In other words, I was "kicked out." But, being "kicked out" seemed like a fine idea because I did not want to be a part of the family religion any longer. Unfortunately, the religion does not leave the matter at being "kicked out." The punishment must be severe and on-going, to their way of thinking.
Since leaving, I have deliberately purged the beliefs with which I had been raised. It was my only chance to be healthy, I felt. Members of the religion are taught that "upon leaving, you will be taken over by the devil." Or, "there is no place for you to hide from the wrath of Jehovah." Surely, if I retained any of those beliefs, I would self-destruct.
Religions keep crying for more freedom. Subsequently, they would exercise their freedom license to do what?
- to practice bigotry and hatred in the name of God?
- to use children as weapons against ex-members in a type of emotional blackmail?
- to pressure ex-members to conform to a bygone standard of "righteousness"?
- to judge the faith of another human being and condemn it?
Many ex-members who find themselves on the "wrong" side of the elder tribunals do not survive their harsh discipline; they commit suicide. Likely, they recalled the teachings of the Old Testament where the Israelite elders stoned "sinners" to death. The Jehovah's Witness members were taught this story in application to the "disfellowship order" as a lesson in fear. Such "sinners deserved to die" the elders explained, in order to not contaminate the rest of the clan. The religion teaches its members to hate. "A Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked."—Watchtower 1961 Jul. 15, p. 420.[2]
Recently, the Watchtower Society has made a public announcement about familial shunning, "Our organization does not interfere with family matters." Yes, that is the official statement to the press. After all, they would like to present themselves as a "moderate" Christian religion. Meanwhile, behind the scenes a completely different story emerges. I, for one, am feeling the effects of their strict enforcement of the shunning rule. Members who leave are demonized, "Satan's influence…will be to cause the other…members of the family to…join…his course…To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order."—Watchtower 1952 Nov. 15, p. 703. My children have been taught to fear me. Apparently, I have been taken over by the devil and am no longer the loving mom they used to know.
When a person leaves the Jehovah's Witness faith, the other assumption of the elder tribunal is that the person "[does] not love Christ."—Watchtower 1952 Mar. 1, pp. 131, 134. To that I would respond, "Love for a religious theology is completely separate from love for Christ. Christ's philosophy was one based in love; the Jehovah's Witnesses are steeped in fear. Love and fear are opposites."
What happens to a member in good standing if they do not conform to a "disfellowship order" or "shunning order" against a "defective" member? Their very own theological magazine states, "If a [member]…ignores the prohibition on associating with the disfellowshipped one, that [member] is rebelling against the congregation of Jehovah,…he also should be disfellowshipped."—Watchtower 1955 Oct. 1, p. 607. Yes, members are threatened with expulsion if they continue to associate with a disfellowshipped or ex member. I am in possession of such an elder threat; a letter.
Why did the kindly bus driver show up in my life? I believe the Universe brings these stark lessons in contrast to illustrate the religious bigotry and abuse that I have been subjected to since leaving the Jehovah's Witness religion. It seems to me the tribunal of elders do not want me ever to forget that I have "left Jehovah." Yes, it is true, I have left a god who teaches fear, bigotry, and hatred. The kindly bus driver has brought me a spiritual lesson to show me that there are many kind people in the "world" that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe will be soon destroyed at Armageddon.
I thank the kindly bus driver for reminding me to be firm in my resolve to be true to my Self, even if it means never seeing my children again. Being true to me is the only way to heal from religious bigotry. Integrity to my principles enables the Universe to fill my life with caring and loving people for whom I am truly grateful.
[1] As defined by the Watchtower Society in their official theological magazine, The Watchtower.
[2] The large page numbers (402) are a result of the 24 annual journals being bound into one volume upon year-end. The practice of page continuation between journals has been discontinued in recent years.
--------------------
Copyright © 2011.

Elder's Manual Question

Kindness of a Stranger

Share this