Why WTBTS Disfellowshipping Works...

by AGuest 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Angharad

  I TRULY do NOT get this heightened sensivity! Really, I don't! I was NOT insinuating that C would even engage in such conduct - to the contrary, that's why I used HIM as the example... because I could NOT imagine it!

  I don't think you were insinuating that, but I can totally understand why someone would be upset with their name being used in such a way - I know I would be! You could have made your point just a well by using Uncle Joe, Ron etc or some other random name.

  All MANNER of things are said about me on this site. I take it with a grain of salt because I KNOW the folks who do it don't know me. But goodness... surely you all know I wouldn't think C a molester (OMG!)... or even seriously insinuate he was!

  I know and we have been making the effort to clamp down on this as you know but we have to be fair to both sides. I don't think you think he is a monster but again I can see why he was upset and it is the type of comment that is only going to continue that bad feelings.

  I would love to see this thread continue as I think it is an interesting discussion which is why I didn't want it to be derailed due to one poorly worded example.
• 

  AGuest

  I understand, dear Angharad.

  C, my sincere apology if my comment offended you. I truly didn't see what you may have in my comment - it was never on my mind or in heart to view you in such a way realistically. Again, I used you to show how ridiculous it might be to simply believe what a child said. Notice, I said "might." Depends on the people involved, which is why I wouldn't necessarily run to the authorities right off but want more information. I don't know you really, but if someone posted that you had been involved in ANY crime or untoward conduct, I would have a hard time believing it. I would need some more information.

  Anyway, my sincere apologies if it seems like I was insinuating that - I truly was NOT.

  A dolous of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Band on the Run

  I've read many comments from observers that JWs are a black female religion. Countless times I have read this over the years. It is not original with me. I will not be the last person to make the observation.

  People stress the dominance of black women primarily b/c it shows that women who know sorrow are willing to be subjected to a bunch of old white guys in Brooklyn. In my experience, men were rare. Very rare.

  The competition for the few males was ruthless. It was sad to watch.

  No, I am not alone in my view. I recall the crowds at Yankee Stadium and the district conventions.

  It is not racist to say so. It reflects a social phenomena that strikes people at odd. Why aren't these women attracted to a black Baptist religion? My KH had much better educated black females than men. They had nice jobs. No professionals but no one was a professional. It was a bad neighborhood. Before I knew anything about feminism, I could not understand why they would let some white guys tell them everything. Also, in my KH, which was mostly black b/c of de facto segregation, all the top spots were held by white men. The pattern would shock in any other place. Maybe this practice has changed since I left.
• 

  LisaRose

  When I was JW, I truly thought the practice of disfellowshiping was justified, if you chose to be a dub, but did not want to live by their standards, then leavell. But since I left, I have thought about it a lot. The scripture most commonly used to justify disfellowshiping is 1 Corinthian 5:9-11. "B ut now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

  First of all it say "anyone who calls himself a brother" . But what if a person just leaves? They are not calling themselves a brother, So why would the organization feel they must treat that person any different than any other non believer? What scriptural basis is there to shun someone who has left the organization and no longer says they are a Jehovah's Witness? None.

  The second part says "anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, or greedy, an idolater or a slandered, a drunkard, etc" This scriptures seems to indicate, to me, that it is those who make a practice of sin while still associating with the Christian congregation. There is nothing here that indicates that the congregation needs to sniff out any hint of sin, to form committees, to force people to confess. It seems to me, that those who are known to practice sin, that is, their sin is a practice (not a one time thing) and it is known (all are aware of it) but who continue to associate with the congregation are the ones to be shunned. The scriptures say nothing about those who may disagree about scriptural matters.

  There is no need to form a "committee", no need for elders to determine guilt or innocence, there is no justification in the scriptures for that at all. As Christians, we all sin. It is only the habitual sinner, one who's sins are known who should be shunned. The WTBTS has effectively used disfellowshiping to effectively silence all dissent, to isolate and punish those who have simply made a mistake. There is nothing loving about it. It is a harsh and dictatorial practice that has harmed so many. It has resulted in many broken families and pushed many to commit suicide.
• 

  noni1974

  As to the pedophilia, let them know I know AND report them to the proper authorities.

  As a victim of child rape and more than one pediphile I find this discusting. When a child reports such acts to a trusted adult that child relies on that adult to help them. Questioning the child to get more information before you report it to the police is both stupid and a violation of the trust placed in you by the child. Stupid because you are not a trained police detective or a psychologist and could cause more damage to the child and make the child feel that they are lying or wrong and a violation of trust because, as the adult the child told, you should go immediately to the police who has trained detectives and psychologists to question the child in a mannor that won't leave them feeling like they are lying or wrong.

  I know from what happened to me that when I told my parents what happened they believed me and went to the police. They didn't try to play detective to see if I was lying or making it up. I know what it feels like to be both believed and not believed. When I was raped at 5 and molested my parents went straight to the police. When my JW cousin touched me they went to the elders instead of the police. Guess which one I felt more guilty about?? The first two times I was an inocent child, it wasn't my fault. The third time I was alone with my older male cousin and I shouldn't have been, I mean he was a young man with urges and I as a 10 year old should have known that and protected myself be not being alone with him.

  It freaks me out to know that there are people out there in the world who would take it upon themselves to play detective rather than believe the child right away and go to the proper authorities immediately. It's attitude like this that keep pedophiles safe. It's actions like this that make the child feel that what happened is their fault and beilieve me when I say it is something a child will carry for the rest of their lives. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that you could handle something of this magnitued on your own.

  Yes

  Child: Mommy so and so touched me in my private place.

  Mommy: What?? Get your coat we are going to the police station!

  No

  Child: Mommy so and so touched me in my private place.

  Mommy: What?? When, where, why, and how?? Explain yourself to me.

  See the difference??
• 

  mamochan13

  Noni - you are exactly right. placing blame on the victim is a secondary rape. That's what WBTS does.
• 

  cofty

  Shelby - you knew exactly what you were doing when you wrote that offensive comment - you were being vindictive as usual.

  I pointed it out to you and you wrote "and I should care why?"

  Angrahad calls you out on it and you act dumb. Given your long history of vindictiveness I don't buy it.

  I don't accept your faux apology because I am not a naive child you can manipulate like you do your followers.

  If you want to continue the conversation do it by PM.
• 

  Phizzy

  I am totally disgusted by Shelby's comments to you Cofty, and by her lack of empathy with abuse victims.

  Jesus, if He were alive and talking to people would, I have no doubt, not converse with someone of that nature.

  Back on Thread subject, I think the disgusting DF policy and practice of the WT, as pointed out, has no scriptural warrant, and should be publicised as much as possible, they keep it as under wraps as they can, and with good reason, as my Therapist said when I explained it to her :

  "I question their right to call themselves Christian, it really is the worst kind of bullying".
• 

  dreamgolfer

  Chapter 11 of Ray Franz' In Search of Christian Freedom is called "The Misuse of Disfellowshiping." It has a section called "Inflexible Enforcement of Organizational Law." Here's the start of that section:

  The manner in which elders apply Watch Tower policies clearly
  shows that they do indeed view them as law. The inflexible attitude
  produced—or, at the very least, condoned—by the organizational
  headquarters causes elders to view neither circumstance, age,
  health, years of association, nor any such factor as affecting the
  requirement of full compliance with all organizational rules, full
  acceptance of all its teachings.

  Many members similarly just go along.

  I think the above sums it up, no need to be bogged down on the "whys and reasons" It's a plan simple method of "CONTROL" over the general R&F JW population. Look, the Scientologists, do the SAME thing. It's a way to get all your ROBOTS working and fearing the in the EXACT same manner. And if you do not "tow the line" with the WTBTS on the same EVERCHANGING ideas, you can be Gone gone gone and there is nothing you can do.

  So you have to ask yourself, if JESUS was running the WTBTS, would he act in such a TOTALITARIAN manner? Heck no, he would not. This type of action(s) - D'a or D'f ing does not come from the 1st Century, but comes from early PRotestant religions from only a few years ago. It's like the old saying. "if you aren't for me, your are against me". Purley created for CONTROL

  And the "ME" being the New and improved FDS.

  Just think about it - Mind Control, a pleasant way to start your day,

  Now go out and make something good happen!
• 

  AGuest

  Why some folks think that they have been the only "victims" of things is... curious (peace to you all!). Why some take issue with another stating what he/SHE would in a situation... when asked what he/SHE would do is... an attempt to control what another should think and do (which everyone here should have left off once leaving the WTBTS - each one must decide for themselves how to handle a matter, and I stand by my position. If someone I knew well was so accused, you betcha I would ask that child a few more questions... before I jumped off the cliff and potentially ruined someone else's life. While not ALL children make up false stories as to things that have happened to them, some do. And some mimic things they've heard from friends at school, cousins, etc. So, yes, if it were someone where the accusation seemed unlikely to ME... I would ask some questions and get the most information I could. AND... if I was certain IN MYSELF that it occurred, you can bet I would let the creep know I knew. Now... YOU are entitled to your opinion as to how YOU would handle such a situation yourself; however, what you think of me and MY position is irrelevant to me).

  Why some don't want to see the truth as to an explanation for a statement... or the sincerity in an apology... such that they need... and perhaps believe themselves entitled to more... is also curious. Reminds me of that whole WTBTS JC "you don't SEEM repentant" game... which I don't play any more. The apology was warranted (once I understood how someone else might have taken what I stated (regardless of whether I MEANT it that way or not)... and so I happily gave it. Sincerely, specifically... and publicly. Not "in general" but pointedly directed to you, C. Now, if you wish to discuss it further, by all means, PM me. If that doesn't suffice, however, then the only other apology I'm going to give is that I'm sorry it doesn't.

  I've worked through my WTBTS control/show yourself repentant issues, people. Some of you should start working through yours. None of us are getting any younger.

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA, who also finds it curious that someone keeps sending a certain someone else... who I actually have very high regard for... to do their dirty work. For shame.