JAN 2013 SHUNNING ARTICLE COULD MEAN JWS NOT AS OBEDIENT

by steve2 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  steve2

  In a separate thread, there's been intense discussion about how the GB is still seeking to tighten its grip on the rank and file. The latest evidence is the January 2013 Watchtower which rolls out hugely predictable statements about not doing anything to upset one's (JW) family by, for example, being in email contact with a disfellowshipped witness. It's hard to stifle the yawns. You mean, that's it?!

  I disagree that the organization is getting stricter. To the contrary, the regular warnings suggest that more and more witnesses in good standing do not take the shunning policy that seriously. Hence the repeated warnings. Hell, if the rank and file are falling into line and vigorously shunning those who have been disfellowshipped, there wouldn't be the need for the periodic warnings (and, hey, the warnings are incredibly limp).

  How some here have concluded that it is evidence things are getting stricter cannot be seen in the January 2013 article. It's the same old same old. Nothing new. Indeed, I get the distinct impression that the articles are desperately trying to whip up more compliance with the act of shunning because families - and especially individuals in those families - are choosing to continue associating with disfellowshipped JWs.
• 

  BabaYaga

  Steve, I had the same thought/theory.

  I agree (that is, I certainly hope you're right.)
• 

  braincleaned

  I've always gotten into trouble for not respecting the shunning crap. On day an elder told me that if I continued to talk to the DFed, I could be DFed myself - and I told him "be my guest! That would make such a stink, you could never justify DFing a bro that has not sinned just because he talks to another human. Go ahead!" He told me I was a trouble maker - which I was not. I just never thought it Christian to shun anyone. WE do have a mind of our own... Proof is I left and became an atheist.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  I would agree the articles are generated from the perceived needs as reported by BOEs and COs and DOs specifically related to what they are experiencing in the congregations. Ever since the disfellowshipping announcement was modified to say "so and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" attitudes from rank and filers have changed. Many "independent" thinkers simply don't pay any heed to the admonition to practice shunning. Of course there are still those trying to "reach out" for privileges or elders, servants and their family that will practice the shunning as to avoid bricks being thrown at their glass houses.

  Last month I talked to a sister who was devastated at being disfellowshipped without a hearing and without being told what the allegations were. She was in great pain thinking she would lose contact with and be shunned by her mother who has done so much for her throughout her entire life. Today the sister received a card in the mail from her mother and was very afraid to open it. Happily her 70 year old mother told her that she loved her and has since her birth and always will and NOTHING will ever come between them.

  I believe more and more family and friends are taking this stance regarding shunning. Therefore the WT articles trying to vilify the actions.
• 

  panhandlegirl

  My family is shunning me and my brothers big time. In fact, they are going byond the call to shun. My cousins refused a plant sent to their mother's funeral by my daughter, who is not a witness, has never been baptized, just because she is related to me.They are mean and rude as can be. I think they want to impress my nephews, one who is a DO and another a former Bethelit who gives talks at the DC.
• 

  fresia

  the GB are in fear of losing control over the flock, and one of the main fears they have is those that have DA themselves because of their finding out the truth on the net, they don't want any JW in contact with any DF or DA person in fear of their listening to the truth about the truth. That is what I think.
• 

  Kristina1972

  My JW MIL only shuns those she wants to, but she never seems to get caught by the elders. Funny how there is a double standard and some of them pick and choose the rules they want to follow. Maybe because her BIL is an elder. Whatever. Bunch of judgementat miserable people.
• 

  zeb

  well 'panhandle girl' thats the journey they are on.

  Its their loss not yours.
• 

  trujw

  I disagree. Can you imagine anyone telling another person not to talk to your child even by email just because they dont attend the same church???????????? This is total control. Watch a bunch of murder rape etc. etc. on TV but dont talk to your child. Steve2 this is the worst form of control becuase they know we are the ones that can help them in there learning the TTATT and this is an amazing article in the year 2012. My mother has nothing to due with me or her grandson. You wold think if they have such a LIFE SAVING MESSAGE she would be calling him every day to save his soul. Evil dirty cult they watch TV drink like fishes and an email bewteen me and mom is forbiden.
• 

  Bobcat

  TylinBrando:

  Ever since the disfellowshipping announcement was modified to say "so and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" attitudes from rank and filers have changed.

  The R&F should rightly ignore the Society, even just for this , if for no other reason.

  The Society wants the R&F to toe the line, and accept all the pain (theirs and the DFed ones) that shunning brings.

  All the while the Society lightens their own load of legal responsibility. They changed the announcement to what you said so as to make themselves less legally liable. What rank hypocrites! They perfectly epitimize Matthew 23:4.

  If one is going to be technical, then, if 'so-and-so is no longer one of JWs,' then so-and-so is no longer 'called a brother,' and the injuction of 1 Cor. 5:11 no longer applies.

  Take Care