So if you disassociation yourself you still have a chance of an elder getting on a stage and saying: He or she is no longer being one of JW's?
It's not just 'a chance' it's the rule.
It's on page 112 of the new Elder manual: 
Why do they say: Brother is no longer JW VS Brother is disfellowshipped?
by Joliette 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
Lore
-
RubaDub
I recall back in the 60's that they stopped using the term "disfellowship" for a person who joined the military. I was but a young lad then but some born-ins here can help me with this. As I recall it was something like " so and so has removed himself from the congregation" or something similar.
My grandfather (Company Servant) said that they do not disfellowship people going into the military since the congregation does not want to appear anti-government (for whatever that is worth ... lol). So I guess technically they viewed it as the person leaving, but not being thrown out.
Rub a Dub
-
FadeToBlack
So: "If he joins a non-neutral organization, he has disassociated himself".
He or I can't join the YMCA to use the pool, but 'THEY' can join the UN as an NGO? What constitutes non-neutral in their eyes?
NRA?
PTA?
PETA?
Every organization has an agenda...
-
Theocratic Sedition
I like how the appropriate forms should be sent to the branch. Committees, procedures, appeal processes, publishers, forms, branch offices, magazines, brochures, 6 month adjustment periods, etc.. Welcome to Corporate Christianity.
-
frankiespeakin
They are trying to avoid legal issues. When I first became a JW 1972 they used to announce that "so and so has been disfellowshipped for adultry". Then they wised up shortly after that and would just say "so and so has been disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a christian", at that time they had marking talks following a public reproof, and then move the talk to a week after the reproof. Then they progressed to only saying "so and so has been disfellowshipped", and now they shy away from the word disfellowshipped and say " so and so is no longer a Jehovah Witness".
They are definately following legal council but it seems begrudingly and perhaps after much debate. The legal department expanded quite a bit over the years and I'm sure this expansion means legal worries are becoming a problem and the need for the Governing Body to cover thier ass from lawsuits.
-
leaving_quietly
Not sure how this is really a legal issue, and it certainly is not a secret to any JW. This change came years before the new Elder's book. In the Organized to do Jehovah's Will (the newest green book that new publishers and every JW possesses, published in 2005) on page 154, it states: "When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, simply stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." There is no need to elaborate. This will alert faithful members of the congregation to stop associating with that person. (1 Cor. 5:11) The presiding overseer should approve this announcement."
Therefore, the announcement itself is most definitely equivalent to disfellowshipping and/or disassociation. The same book, page 156, states essentially the same thing for disassociation, but adds: "Such as person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person."
This book (that all JWs possess) states the announcement is made this way in either case, and thus the treatment of the disfellowshipped or disassociated one that ensues is done according to what is printed therein (e.g. treat them like they don't exist.) I don't know how this could pass the muster of anything legal-wise, but then again, I am not a lawyer.