Dubs badmouthing children

by rebel8 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rebel8

  I was remembering the 1980s when it was in vogue to shun children. They went through a fad when they'd call unbaptized excommunication as "disassociation".

  Within a short period of time, most of the teens and preteens were "disassociated" or disfellowshipped. Most of them were unbaptized. These were kids 12-16 yrs old, IIRC. The typical "and persons like those" and "not even eating with such a man" scriptures were read to indicate they had committed fornication or the sin du jour.

  The adults, for years afterwards, would talk smack about these children. They were loose, hussies, immoral, drug users, etc.--whatever the grapevine decided they were. They were certainly destined to become prostitutes, addicts, criminals and jehoopla would be striking them with lightning pretty soon. They would never amount to anything and they'd never have time to enjoy their sinful lives because they'd be dead soon.

  I was just thinking about how sick it is to call young children these names. Children! What kind of person does such things? (rhetorical question)
• 

  Jadeen

  My parents were studying during the 80's, and when I hear these stories, I wonder how the hell they didn't have red lights flashing in their heads, 'Warning, warning!"
• 

  rebel8

  I remember a dub mother telling a worldly person her own daughters were fornicators. They were caught kissing & maybe fooling around a little, not having sex IIRC. They were like 13 yrs old.

  The worldly person was asking why do dubs talk like that about their kids, fornication is such an odd word to use, etc.
• 

  Sapphy

  I remember many announcements that someone was now a 'dissaproved associate'. It's crazy, they'd disfellowship a kid that wasnt even baptised!
• 

  puffthedragon

  But we aren't a cult!!!!! Cults follow a man!

  yeah you follow 7.
• 

  3rdgen

  Yes, rebel8, I remember all too well! Almost all those I can think of are out now. I wonder how many unbabtized teens who were treated this way remained. I'll bet not many.
• 

  Messerschmitt

  Do they still do this today?
• 

  mynameislame

  They only did that to people that studied for a while out my way. I wonder if it got out of hand and that is why they changed thi policy.

  I think you can still be marked as bad association but you aren't Shunned I don't Think
• 

  WTWizard

  I can remember they took that down in late 1988. The term was called "disapproved associate", and this referred to anyone who had become an "approved associate". Today, these are "unbaptized publishers", and are no longer viewed as more than "worldly people that know something about the truth tm . Yes, that included children that were not baptized but had been "approved associates".

  Fornication? The witlesses view just having one member of the opposite sex anywhere in the same universe as "fornication". Back then, they would make things up. These days, they don't need to because just looking at a member of the opposite sex and going no further could be looked at as "brazen conduct" by any hounder. And even now, they badmouth children--just ask Ja Rule who was disfellowshipped at age 12. Children that get baptized at age 6 can still get disfellowshipped for anything, including saluting the flag (or even that "brazen conduct", if the hounders see playing as something they don't want and hound the children to stop) within a few months. To me, that is even worse than the sexual molestation because, if a child gets shunned at age 6 or 7, it is going to do at least as much damage. And the sexual molesters are not universal.
• 

  eva luna

  I remember this all to well.

  In highschool, my best friend's UBM sister got marked from the platform. I dont remember the exact words used. But you treated them the same as being DFed. She was 15 and had run away for one night with a boy , nothing happened but kissing. But she was marked as if she did more. Her sick stepdad cut off all her beautiful long blond hair for punishment.