by Quarterback 45 Replies latest jw friends
I have little doubt some "righteous overmuch" local BOEs tried to enforce their personal views on the matter....
Er....That would have been me, I am ashamed to say. I remember an occassion when a d/f'd guy, sat in front of us at the hall. I followed him out and asked him to sit in the back row next time.
That was the rule we applied. I cannot quote chapter and verse but it certainly was policy around here
Sitting in the back rule. is not in print anywhere, as far as I can recall. It's one of those rules that came from an Elders school that the Elders had to pencil into the Elder's manual. It came before my time as an Elder. An older Elder showed his book where he had written in his older book. He stated that it was information in the 70's. That book, he showed me, has been revised three times since then. The rule has lasted until now.
Sitting in the back row for DF'd ones has been a practice in our city for decades.
Actually, as outlined in the footnote, this revokes the rule stated in a 1952 Watchtower, that has been valid until now...
Monthly edition are you refering to, Inquiry Man? I didn't notice a footnote
Study edition, August, page 8. I was in error stating it was 1952. It was actually 1953:
footnote reads: This updates what was published in The Watchtower of April 1, 1953, page 223.
#This updates what was published in The Watchtower
of April 1, 1953, page 223.
--------------------
"It is all right for the faithful members of the family to ride with the disfellowshiped one in a car bound for the Kingdom Hall, but upon arrival the faithful ones should not sit with or associate with the disfellowshiped one at the hall, but rejoin him only when departing for home." (The Watchtower April 1, 1953 p.223)
This is just like Tatoos and Voting it may say in the Watchtower™ it's ok wink But in reality if you do it they will use the "stumbling your brothers clause®" to nail you.
Thank you Blondie.
OMG. This is so seriously sad. What utter bullshit.
When I was DF'd, the PO (as he was called back then) specificially told me at the JC that I ought to come into the hall during the song and to SIT AT THE BACK and then to leave immediately after the prayer.
I was so humbled at the time, I followed every last direction and instruction (which, as always, totally goes beyond "what is written") and I was actively trying for reinstatement. *gag*
It was only after being reinstated that the whole "lack of love" thing started to nibble at me and perhaps I should be thankful now for the horrid way I was treated, as it was one of the things which helped wake me up.
There was a question from readers after that that clarified that wives or husbands could sit next to their df'd spouse at the KH.
What God has put together let no man put apart....................
*** w59 7/15 p. 448 Questions From Readers ***
If an individual is disfellowshiped, but continues in quiet attendance at the Kingdom Hall, is it proper for that one’s marriage mate to sit with such a one during the meetings?—J. F., Switzerland.
With a view to helping sincerely repentant ones to get back into proper relationship with Jehovah God and his organization, it has been the policy of the Society to permit disfellowshiped persons to be present at all meetings at the Kingdom Hall that are open to the general public. For married persons Jesus set out the proper viewpoint when he said: “Did you not read that he who created them at the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:4-6) This rule would seem to apply at the Kingdom Hall as well as elsewhere. In view of this it would seem to be improper to force a separation between a man and his wife even if one or the other is disfellowshiped. This is not having fellowship spiritually on the part of the faithful one with the disfellowshiped partner. However, it would be wrong for the individual who is in good standing to try to force the company of the disfellowshiped mate upon the other brothers and sisters in the congregation in the endeavor to have them recognize the disfellowshiped one and have communion with that one.
