I have been out for over 20 years now and sometimes I run into a young JWs on the street and the language seems to be "greek" to me. I have a hard time understanding what they are talking about. When I was in(90s) they had 4 catergories for congregation discipline. 1.Disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming of a Christian. 2. Disassociation (so and so has disasssociated themself and is no longer a JW). 3. Public Reproof (so and so has been reproved for conduct unbecoming of a Christian) 4. No longer an Approved Associate(unbaptized JWs). Have there been a change in terminology since the 90s? The young JWs were saying something like "We judically reprimand" I remember my mom (JW since the 60s) told me they use to say what crime the person did such as Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality, Drunk, etc;
Are JW's using different terminology for "congregation discipline"?
by booker-t 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
rebel8
booker-t, I was in during the 70s and 80s. I don't remember the 4th one you said. I didn't know they approved associates in the first place. For a time there was a status, "disassociated", applied to unbaptized people--it equaled disfellowshipped. Then there was an article in the KM, IIRC, telling the bros to stop using it. So it went back to public and private reproof.
I do remember them almost naming the sins when making these announcements. I don't remember them stating it exactly, but rather announcing, "booker-t has been disfellowshipped from the congregation blah blah blah blah..." and then reading a scripture about "not even speaking to such a one", preceded by reading a scripture about a particular type of sin being wrong...so you were supposed to read between the lines.
They did this when disassociating the unbaptized kids too. I remember them reading a scripture about fornication about a 13-yr-old girl. SICKOS.
-
confusedandalone
" . No longer an Approved Associate(unbaptized JWs). "
This happened to me in the late 80's.
-
JeffT
I think the legal department has been rewriting the rules about this. Our letter included a line to the effect that we'd call a lawyer if they said anything to malign our character our Christian beliefs. I imagine this is a fairly common occurance, so they had to start watching what they said.
-
fakesmile
i dont remember them announcing the "transgression" from the platform. i do remember the pioneer speculations. by the time the pioneers were done, it would have been better if they would have just announced it. that was early-late 90's. i would think that the legal dept. would have made a few changes. i dont care anymore except my only living relative is elboes deep in the mind control.
-
factfinder
The last few years I was in they were simply announcing a person (name) was disfellowshipped. They said nothing else about it and continued with the rest of the meeting.
-
konceptual99
If someone is DFed or DAs themselves then the announcement is "xxxx is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".
If someone is reproved then the announcement is "xxxx has been reproved"
If someone is unbaptised and a publisher then the announcement is "xxxx is no longer recongnised as an unbaptised publisher"
Anyone who is not in one of these categories is not considered part of the congregation in terms of disciplinary matters and the unwritten rule is that the congregation would treat them as one in the world albeit with the appropriate context of being a progressive study, minor child of Witnesses, interest attender or whatever.
It's all in the Shepherd book 2010 edition.
-
Jaidubdub
They never announced what the sin was, but the rumour mill was always in full swing....
-
jookbeard
the "reason" for a dissfellowshipping must have been a throw back to the 60's as a 70's kid I always remember "for conduct unbecoming for a Christian" I always did remember because my old man always seemed to make the announcement, then in the 80's the "unbecoming" seemed to be droppped but a local needs talk would follow.
-
respectful_observer
As an aside, I always find it amusing HOW the announcement is made. Even if the person already on stage is an elder, they do this whole "dog and pony show" of saying: "Br. So-and-so has an additional announcement." followed by one elder leaving the stage and another elder coming up to make the DF announcement, then leaving so the other elder can return to the stage and continue with his Service Meeting part.
I never understood why they couldn't just have the elder who had the next part make the announcement. It seems like unnecessary dramatics.