CEDARS- Essentially the advice from the WT society to " mark " someone for being a " dangerous " influence on other active JW's is done to restrict access to information that inactive JW's may share with active Witnesses. WT society considers those of us who have stopped attending meetings as a " threat " to the alleged " spirituality " of active JW's. We read the Internet, active JW's are told not to. So- it's a control maneuver in order to keep active JW's under mind controland away from being influenced by us. Thus one reason you see all the counsel about " avoiding ones with negative attitudes " in congregations. What that REALLY means is : WT society is saying " WE don't want you active JW's finding out about our injustices and dirty laundry. " Peace out, Mr. Flipper P.S. and yes count me among the 75 % who has experienced pre-emptive shunning. Experienced it a lot in the last 8 years.
Pre-emptive shunning - a growing reality
by cedars 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cedars
Thanks flipper, but as I said, I see "marking" as a whole other subject. Marking is a very specific action taken by elders, normally following an elders meeting where a particular individual is discussed, and followed up by a "marking" talk that describes the condemned conduct without naming the individual. The congregation is then warned not to associate with such a person until the conduct ceases.
Pre-emptive shunning, on the other hand, is more of an inevitable by-product of the Society's advice surrounding "bad association", and it is practiced on a personal basis according to each individual's conscience. In other words, it isn't sanctioned by elders specifically towards individuals, as in the case of marking or disfellowshipping.
Cedars
-
Vidqun
Well, all I know is that I have stopped associating, and there is no change in my situation. Business as usual, and it doesn't bother me at all. Only problem I foresee now is the elder visits to bring me back to the fold. But my question to them will be: Why start now? You had three years to get to know me, and you haven't bothered. Why the sudden interest?
-
Anony Mous
@cedars: Yes it's considered "personal choice" as much as blood transfusions, personal grooming, reporting of child molesters etc. are a "personal choice". It is CLEAR you're not supposed to do it. Those are "conscientious" matters in their PUBLIC communication while on the other side of the matter (the internal documentation between elders and the branches) the rules are severely tightened and protocol is to be followed.
See for example my recent release of documentation of the financial documents or the blood-policy for children. Also see the elders book. The branch claims in courts and in the WT publicly that each congregation is autonomous in those decisions and that parents should do according to their own conscience while it's VERY CLEAR from the documents released that eg. proceeds from property sales have to go back to the branch or that parents are to continue badgering judges and doctors to not give blood to their underage children.
One judge said (I forgot the exact words but I read it in one of the cases) when talking on the "Custody" booklet that it's clear the WTBTS has created a public image for itself which they attempt their followers to falsely represent to the courts while on the other hand they have an entirely different set of rules that is to be rigidly followed when they are within the religious setting and because of that the JW's testimony could not be seen as reliable.
One judge said this: [The booklet] was designed, and encourages, the Jehovah’s Witness to cover up some of their true beliefs and mislead the court as to what their beliefs and practices are with reference to children.” "There is nothing wrong under the religion, as I understand it, in misleading or even lying to somebody that is not a Jehovah’s Witness.” "encourages its faithful to fudge their testimony”
-
00DAD
Cedars: Pre-emptive shunning, on the other hand, is more of an inevitable by-product of the Society's advice surrounding "bad association", and it is practiced on a personal basis according to each individual's conscience.
It's one thing to not associate with a person, meaning you don't invite him over for dinner, don't call just to say "Hi! How are you? Let's go get some coffee some time and catch up."
It's another thing to shun someone, meaning to deliberately avoid the person if you accidentally run into them around town shopping or what have you, or to not respond if they attempt to reach out to you.
With the first you don't seek them out, but wouldn't (necessarily) be rude if you happened to have the chance encounter. The second is passive-aggressive hostile behavior.
00DAD
-
cedars
00DAD - Yes, you're right. Whilst the counsel on "bad association" prescribes limiting social interraction, it certainly doesn't directly infer ignoring someone's existence during a chance encounter, which is deplorable behaviour. However, the Society knows full well that certain Witnesses are inept at showing moderation in these areas, and that such ones would rather take advice to the "nth degree" than show reasonableness and leave themselves potentially vulnerable to becoming "bad association" by association. Rather than encouraging such brothers not to take things too far, and show love to those who are inactive (or "spiritually weak"), they would rather keep the status quo of pre-emptive shunning, which is for them a satisfactory by-product of the mis-application (or over-application) of their own advice.
Anony Mous - yes you're absolutely right, and I wasn't trying to insinuate by "personal choice" that pre-emptive shunning ISN'T behaviour that is directly encouraged by the Society through the literature. I was merely describing the difference between full shunning (i.e. disfellowshipping) and marking, both of which are instigated judicially. The fact that pre-emptive shunning (or steering clear of bad association) is supposedly left to the discretion of the brothers doesn't make it right by any means.
Cedars
-
3rdgen
My hubby and I experienced "premptive shunning" by some JWs in our former cong and by most of our realatives. Our family shuns for different reasons than the the former "friends". Our family live out of our circuit and even our district yet managed to find out we are inactive. They shunned us because we asked them to pay back money they owe to my very elderly, widowed, faithful JW mother. They didn't want to and they were EMBARASSED that we knew about the large gifts and loans that mom gave nearly all of her realatives (siblings, nieces, nephews) throught all their lives. Now that SHE is in need they refuse even a nickel. These are pious-sneers, and elders and their wives. They shun us because we remind them of their hypocracy.
The local dubs who shun us do so for the usual reasons already stated by others. The shunning for NO valid reason whatsoever got us to start waking up. Frankly, as I see it , those hypocrits are HELPING the dubs they shun. By showing "no natural affection" they cause doubts, distress, and anger. All the emotions to make a dub BRAVE enough to look more closely at his beliefs and the organization as a whole. Only after "pre-emtive shunning" was I willing to come to this site. Once here......
The rest is history.
-
00DAD
3rdgen: Frankly, as I see it , those hypocrites are HELPING the dubs they shun. By showing "no natural affection" they cause doubts, distress, and anger. All the emotions to make a dub BRAVE enough to look more closely at his beliefs and the organization as a whole.
That's a really good point and I agree completely. Yet still, depending on the relationships that end, sometimes it's very painful.
There are plenty of "friends" from the KH that I don't miss a bit, but there are some former friends and family members that I do miss, some very much.
What gives anyone the right to think they can tell another person who they can or cannot talk to? It's ridiculous. It's an abuse of power that should be criminal.
00DAD
-
3rdgen
00Dad, I agree 100% I know all too well the grief and sadness shunning causes and have the utmost sympathy for any and all who have/are experiencing it ESPECIALLY from the ones they love MOST- family. I didn't mean to sound callous. I only meant that when under the mind control of a cult it unfortunately often takes something SHOCKING and PERSONAL to wake up out of the fog.
-
00DAD
3rdgen, no worries. You didn't sound either cold or callous. That's the WTBTS's job and I wouldn't want you to take it over! ... lol
You're right that sometimes it takes something like this to get us to wake up and see that JWs are NOT the happiest people on earth and they most certainly do NOT exemplify "the Love of the Christ". Those are just two little bits of JW fantasy designed to attract new recruits.