An End To Df'ing..Would It Satisfy You?

by Englishman 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  I was just wondering if an end to disfellowshipping might be enough to solve some other major problems, as well as deflecting criticism away from the society.

  People could act on their own conscience over blood, for example. Sure, the WTBTS could still say it was wrong to have a blood transfusion if they felt so inclined, but at least people would be able to make a decision based on a belief rather than acting out of fear of shunning. It would certainly take the heat off the WTBTS.

  It would also take away the rage that ex’s feel when their families are instructed to shun them, so that the ex becomes a major and formidable opponent against the witness religion. It might even stop people leaving because they decide to refuse to become a player in the shunning game, which was the main reason for my own departure.

  What do you think, would an end to disfellowshipping be enough to satisfy you?

  Would it be in the best interests of the society too for DF'ing to be ended?

  Or, is DF'ing a very useful propaganda tool to use against the society, particularly in deterring prospective converts from joining? Would we, as critical opponents, effectively have our teeth pulled if the WT did away with DF'ing?

  Englishman.
• 

  gumby

  I was just wondering if an end to disfellowshipping might be enough to solve some other major problems.

  Disfellowshiping is their strong arm....well.....one of them.

  To drop this policy would mean losing CONTROL.

  Smoking, drugs, sex, would be more common .....hence.....a bad name on the Borg.
  Apostasy would surface more.

  If their is NO THREAT to publishers......their is no control.
• 

  joelbear

  I've always said DFing was the main issue. Disfellowshipping is psychological terrorism. Using one's own family and friends against you to control your behavior and beliefs.

  A religious or philosophical moral code and set of doctrines should have to stand on their own as far as their beneficial nature.

  In other words, I should not want to take blood because I believe that it is unhealthy and immoral not because I am afraid of being disfellowshipped. The same goes for any belief or moral rule. If I am only obeying that code to avoid being shunned, how good is my faith in the first place.

  DFing helps no one. The fear of it kept me a virgin until I was 30 but it didn't turn me into a heterosexual. Now, I am separated from friends which hurts me because I love them, but it hasn't reshaped my moral compass.

  DFing causes people to have to hide their true thoughts and feelings on many issues. Having to do this is damaging. Being separated from one's social structure because one can no longer hide one's true thoughts and feelings is also damaging.

  In my opinion, DFing is morally reprehensible.

  Joel
• 

  Seeker4

  Joel, a good post, and I agree.

  I would like an end to disfellowshipping for those who decide to remain JWs. Would it make a difference to me? The idea that one of the worst false religions decided to make some cosmetic changes wouldn't make me think more highly of them at all.

  S4
• 

  Amazing

  Ending DFing and making Blood Transfusions a mater of conscience would help the JWs. It would not matter to me, except that I could once again enjoy the company some friends that presently shun me. Otherwise, regardless of these nice changes, I would never go back.
• 

  joelbear

  Seeker,

  Eliminating disfellowshipping would not be a cosmetic change. It would strike to the heart of JW spirituality and doctrine.

  DFing actually works against the concept that Jehovah's Witnesses voluntarily submit to God's Universal sovereignty. Instead, they have to be coerced into this submission by threat of DFing.
• 

  sleepy

  An end to dis-fellowshiping is an end to the society.

  Without control what are they?

  So it would stisfiy me.
• 

  Seeker4

  Joel,

  I agree, it would be more than a cosmetic change for the Witnesses, and would end the power of their "spiritual terrorism." I think my point is that I essentially see all religion as mostly nonsense, and even a change of that magnitude in the WTS would do little to make me think differently.

  For those who remain JWs, I agree, it would be of great importance.
  S4
• 

  blondie

  Then there is unofficial DF'ing people do at the KH without an announcement.
• 

  blindfool

  In my mind the df'ing policy is only one problem with the WTBTS.
  A major problem indeed, but only one.

  I think the policy on only 144,000 annointed Christians being in communion with Christ bothers me just as much.

  The 1914 belief, God's only chanell belief, the can't understand the Bible without us belief.

  No, changing the policy of df'ing would not do it for me.