One touchstone to go by can be found in the 1979 "Commentary on the Letter of James" book, the colaboration effort by Ed Dunlap / Ray Franz. BTW, they never liked having that book quoted to them during elder sessions .
.
.
Disciplinary Actions
by Cold Steel 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Gopher
Thedog1, you said:
those who become Witnesses agree to play by the rules as set down in the scriptures
Not all who get baptized are fully aware of how "the rules" might be applied. If they were converted as adults, when baptized they were very likely still in that honeymoon period where it appears to them the organization can do no wrong. If they were baptized as children (perhaps as young as 8 or 9) - then they really don't know what they're getting into. (It's a side subject, but even Jesus didn't get baptized until age 30. If baptism is truly the most important decision one can make in one's life, and one is prepared to make such a decision at age 9, then perhaps we should encourage JW kids to also get married around that age as marriage is only the second-most important decision in a JW's life.)
I also have my doubts about 'in the scriptures'. The relationship between what the scriptures say about dealing with wrongdoers and the judicial committee process laid down by the Watchower Society is the same as a so-called historical movie that is 'based on real events' has to the actual (often less-exciting) actual story. The entire WTS process of the private 3-man committee and the announcement from the stage is a set of man-made rules.
The more accurate way to phrase things would have been "play by the Watchtower Society's rules, some of which are taken from the Bible". -
humbled
thedog1,
I hope you respond to my question on page 1.
To Gopher's point, I signed on to follow the bible (I took it very seriously). The literature trumped the bible I discovered. What was I to do?
-
piztjw
I my case many years ago it was the complaint of the vindictive daughter of a so-called jw woman I knew. While she had no clue, the accusation was just what the chief hounder and his cohorts needed to latch on to the reason to df me. Her accusation was a blatant lie, but the hounder's believed that her mother and I had "fornicated". One of the secondary hounder's punk-ass son came forward as the second "witness" saying that he had seen me without a shirt on when in the presence of the woman! Of course the two hounder's were pissed off that I had called out their idiot, drunken, drug addled MS sons.
I refused to admit to sins I had not committed. I could not feel "remorse" for something that had not happened. So on the grounds of "unrepentance" I was booted in short order. Later for the sake of my immediate family I attempted reinstatement. They claimed that as long as I didn't copy their clothing styles I was trying to be independent, and refused to RI me. Eventually I managed to get back "in", and as I said in an earlier post I take pleasure in occupying a chair in the KH and being a thorn in their sides merely by being there.
-
thedog1
humbled, not too up on how to pm, tried to click on link on the top of your last post to pm, is that how you do it? But it showed an error message. Would like to respond to your msg on page one, but I don't understand it fully. Can you explain it a bit more? Sorry, did not quite get it?
-
cantleave
So I was baptised before the organisation became as prominent as it is now. I question the governing body, and stated that they had lied to the flock. Because I told the truth, I am now DF'd, have lost my inheritance and my family are told not to talk to me. How do you reconcile that with the message of love taught by Jesus the dog1?
-
humbled
thedog1,
Your message showed up.
My matter was not that I misbehaved. I had a conscience matter that involved Genesis 22. The entire series of letters, including Bethel's response is on line. I will find the link.
The issue, as simply as I can state it,then and now is that it seemed more proper to allow me to read the bible account of what God asked of Abraham rather than the interpretation in My Book of Bible Stories.
The brothers initially--Or at least the one they let speak for them--told me that I must use the literature as it stood. I asked "Not the Bible?" He laid his hand on the yellow Bible Story Book and told me to use it. He told me that I had my own interpretation of the account. I told him, not so. The word for "burnt offering" carried not the same meaning as "sacrifice" in Hebrew. Therefore the Book of Bible Stories was the interpretation--I wanted at least to allow for the ambiguity of the text in view of the contradictions (unanswerable and horrible) the literature presented.
They recessed and to it to the Circuit Overseer. Then it went to Bethel.
I wanted to know if you would have told me not to read the Bible account instead of the Bible Story Book.
-
thedog1
ok, cantleave, I can understand your antipathy to the governing body, based on your experience. I stated in a previous post that I have some misgivings now about the sort of mind control that goes on in the org, where you cannot express how you feel at the risk of sanctions from the gb. A number of years ago, a close relative of mine was df'd unjustly. At the time I wrote a letter to the branch office in the country I was then living in, asking the bros what they were going to do about it, and accusing them, in a diplomatic sort of way, of living in an ivory tower, and not being attuned to the ordinary bro or sis. At the time, my wife was sure I would be severely censured, as I was, as I am now, serving as an elder. Amazingly, the branch wrote back to me in a very kind way, saying that they were continuing to investigate the circumstances of the case and would review it in time. They wanted to assure me that they were not in an 'ivory tower' and did care about the bros and sis in the congs. Anyway, the close relative was eventually re-instated and told that he should never have been df'd. He was never given a full apology and has never felt the same about the org since. His wife almost gave up but hung in there and is still a JW, as is he. He used to be an elder and had given his whole life to the org. So, understandably, he is bitter to an extent. I do not want to or intend to be an apologist for things that are wrong with the org. I too struggle with the lack of accountability and the complete lack of opportunities to express any doubts or misgivings. These things are part of human nature, our questioning nature. Jesus message is one of love, but even Jesus did counsel to view others as 'a man of the nations and a tax collector' if they did not listen to repeated counsel. Jesus' love was very encompassing, but he did not preach a form of unconditional love, that no matter what you do, it is all right with him. This sounds a bit dogmatic to some people, but Jesus has standards. He is willing to forgive, but we can also take advantage of that. I am not saying that this is what you mean exactly, but the scriptures do counsel to remove the wicked man from among yourselves, as Paul said. This is not to say that we should not be able to question the GB, and as I do not know the details of what you mention, how could I form an opinion on it, even if that opinion had any merit in your eyes, which it probably would not?
-
thedog1
Hi humbled,
that account, as we know, is about Abraham offering up his son. So this impacted on you in some way. Let me know how this affected you. Would like to know.
-
Gopher
Jesus' counsel to "view others as 'a man of the nations and a tax collector'" does not necessarily correlate to what the JW's do.
The whole context (centered on Matt. 18:15-17) is about a personal wrong done toward an individual, not the church or congregation. Jesus said that "you" as the wronged individual can treat the person as a man of the nations. It doesn't mention a congregation sanction here.
Paul specifically talked about how a wrongdoer was to be treated in 1 Corinthinans. Then later, he wrote at 2 Corinthians 2:6 that the "rebuke of the majority" was sufficient to straighten out matters and now it was time to encourage him. Notice the word 'majority'. No top-down order was implied where the elders decided that a man should be treated differently. A 'majority' participated in the rebuke, a minority may not have. No whole-organization shunning is implied here.Also Paul wrote that those who are mature have, by use, their perceptive powers trained to distinguish right from wrong. So Paul was saying that mature Christians could discern who good associates are and who they may need to steer clear of.
So again, I say that the top-down decision from 'on high' (the elders or the organization) is particular to the way the Watchtower Society wants to run things and is not how things were done (at least in the time of the early Corinthians).