Hardline on disfellowshipped ones (page 4)

Salud

What about this quote:

Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum," in harmony with the divine injunction to "quit mixing in company with anyone" who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly.

How absured, this just boils my blood!!! Many of the JW's who are disfellowshipped have stopped their sinning but they use the damn lame excuse of being 'worldy sad', and they still get disfellowshipped!

If the WT writers did more research into the text they love to quote found in 2 John 10 which reads:

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never recieve him into your homes or say a greeting to him. NWT

they would realize that this scripture is referring to Gnostics who did not believe in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ and the Christians were to turn these away. Never is their any basis in the scriptures for shunning believers or a judicial committee for that matter.

mommy1

I wonder if this hardline includes writing a simple thank you note. My JWbrother got married a couple of months ago and all the other wordly relatives got a thank you note but me and my df mom. We both gave them checks and they were both cashed two days after the wedding. It was such a major deal for me and mom to go to his wedding and now that he is married to "Sister Pioneer " he can't even call to say thanks.

plmkrzy

I was always amazed at how they could twist the scriptures so much in order to justify how we were supposed to treat the df'd ones. BUT I never in my entire life ever witnessed any JW, none that I ever new, that was not more than willing to say good morning to and chat with a neighbor or the store clerk or even the paper boy. EVER.

And ESPECIALLY be nice to the TAX Man.

plum

Marilyn

If you look over that entire article you will see The Watchtower quoted as the ultimate authority. In 1981 The Watchtower said: bla bla bla. In 1988 The Watchtower said: bla bla bla. In 1991 The Watchtower said: more bla bla bla

Does quoting themselves give it more authority than just stating it a new?

I am convinced this is a backlash for the angst apostates have been causing the WTS. It's the only sting they have left in their tail. Of course most of us have been bitten so many times we're immuned to their bite!

larc

Well, if they come down hard, I will see how it affects my JW sister. It was after the 1981 article that my sister decided that she could not talk to me or my wife. After many years, she mellowed. My wife did tell her that we will not go through this again, so if she takes a stance against us, we will shunn her forever.

blondie

I think I said above the elders are the biggest offenders when it comes to associating with DF'd family members and others. Only the elders on the JC are supposed to have any contact with the DF'd one spiritually, and very limited (once a year visit and to help in arranging literature at the KH). It's amazing how may elders have ongoing "financial" arrangements with DF'd family members.

In one case, a brother (not a servant) went to the wedding of a DF'd child. Other than being taken off the school, nothing happened. DF'ing him was never mentioned by the BOE.

Several elders were in business with a DF'd brother and only stopped after the CO yelled at them twice. They solved it by reinstating the brother. None of the elders involved lost privileges, were removed, let alone DF'd themselves for this violation (of the prime directive)

Some of you have family members that obey this directive and for a variety of reasons. I am willing to bet that some of your family members did not get along with you before your DF'ing and this is a "spiritual" basis to avoid you that soothes their conscience. Or, some may feel blackmailed into doing it, thinking they will be DF'd if they do (see above). The elders don't want to DF anyone for this. It is too complicated, time-consuming and hard to prove. It is like DF'ing someone for gossip or slander.

My suggestion, don't play the game. Call them, drop by and see them, send them a card. Don't avoid mixed family gatherings.

This reminds me of a quote from Wargames:

Strange game...the only winning move is not to play.

Kenneson

Dmouse writes: "It appears that Jesus wanted his followers to follow their example of how to treat people who became unrepentant sinners."

Jesus would not do one thing (associate with tax collectors and Gentiles) and then turn around and tell his followers to do something differently. His followers already had reached a point where they were a congregation. They learned from Him how to treat tax collectors and men of the nations. Matthew was a tax collector and why would the Apostles and other followers have treated him any differently than Jesus did? The way most people interpret this passage is that Jesus was telling them to ostracize the brother. No, he said "let him be to YOU as a man of the nations and a tax collector." They no longer by this time would have viewed tax collectors and the Gentiles with opprobrium. If they now treated tax collectors and Gentiles as Jesus did, how would love have allowed them to be contemptuous to a brother? Notice, he is still called a brother. I see it as Jesus telling them to love the brother even if he doesn't listen to the person that first approached him, to two or three witnesses or to the congregation. In other words, don't try to legislate morality; just keep on loving him as you would a tax collector (like Matthew and Zacchaeus). In a similar vein, further on we are told: "... Peter came up and said to him: "Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him: "I say to you, not, Up to seven times, but, up to sevently-seven times."

minimus

When I went to the last school I realized the renewed hard line the Society was again taking.I felt that without a doubt they were strongly restating their official position , even commenting negatively about elders who might unnecessarily associate with disfellowshipped family members.I felt very surely that the Society was going to really go after any dissenters. The elders have been subtley and overtly made to feel that to keep Jehovah's standards they must not loosen their opinions on such a human/ family response.They must uphold righteous standards and keep the congregation clean.

DakotaRed

If they were really concerned with keeping the congregations clean, wouldn't dealing appropriately with pedophiles be a good place to start? But no, they sweep that under the rug and decide to go after anyone who associates with their own family members.

Now, whats wrong with that picture?

Lew W

Hardline on disfellowshipped ones