Just wondering if there has been any changes lately?
My father is over 90 years old and lives with my sister, I hope she would call if he got very sick or died. Would I even get invited to the funeral?
Thanks
Have shunning rules changed?
by tank 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cedars
Hello tank, no there's been no major change to the shunning rules recently. However, the latest April Watchtower has used very unequivocal language to encourage Witnesses to continue to shun those who are disfellowshipped, including family members. See the following link:
Cedars
-
yourmomma
I'd say that above article changes the rules as it clearly stresses the importance to not have any contact (even the slightest) with DF family members. that is more how the scientologists do it. so imo, yes they have changed and have become more extreme.
-
discreetslave
In the July 15, 2011 WT it mentioned contact for necessary family business but that's not even brought up in the April 15, 2012 so it does seem to be a change.
-
2tone
Same rules. JWs are associating more and more with dfed people. Lets face it life is short
-
wha happened?
yea it goes back and forth. It's ok with necessary business and other matters but lately, it's back to absolutes. No talking under any circumstance. It's just information control as those naughty df'd relatives aren't afraid to look in the internet and eventually speak with their active JW relatives
-
2tone
Wha happened? when everyone is dfs. If you df a whole family doesnt that defeat the purpose? lol. I guess jws dont have the intellect to think that far ahead
-
cedars
I would have to agree with 2tone on this. Just because certain elements of Witness legislative practice were omitted from the article (i.e. "necessary business"), does not make the paragraph a "rule change" as such. You don't change rules simply by over-emphasizing certain elements and omitting others. At least, that's not how the Society have changed things historically. Normally they would go into things in more depth, exploring all the connotations, and maybe devote a Questions From Readers article to it.
Cedars
-
wha happened?
when stating an absolute, it isn't necessary to go through the laundry list of whats not included. It's an absolute. No is no. Now will we see another article in the near future that negates to some degree what this recent article pointed out? Absolutely.
-
discreetslave
The April 2012 article is probably just to to reinforce the guilt trip from the July 2011 article about JW's taking advantage of the necessary business loophole.