Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sentinel

  Speaking from experience, the answer is absolutely yes!

  Sentinel/Karen
• 

  NotBlind

  Maybe I'm the only person here who thinks the WTS is trying to deceive the public . . . ? ?

  We all know JW's shun the disassociated. The point is: they're using their spin doctors to try to convince the public that they don't....

  Am I the only one who sees the WT deception here?
• 

  Big Tex

  I think the WTS is trying to deceive the media, and therefore the public, about its shunning practices. But the day is coming when those who are inactive or who have faded into the woodwork are going to be shunned as well. I think ending subscriptions to the magazines was a first step in that direction. I think WTS is trying to consolidate people in a tight little band that is easy to control.
• 

  Beck_Melbourne

  Greetings Not Blind

  What date was that article?? You may find that "New light" has probably made that statement redundant.

  Beck

  ps...beg yer pardon, just read it again and saw it was a media statement *gasp*

  Edited by - Beck_Melbourne on 18 September 2002 1:49:34
• 

  Simon

  Disassociated are shunned - they are treated exactly the same as disfellowshipped.

  What it more, they can disassociate you which is a convenient way of disfellowshipping you even if they cannot find something that you have supposedly done wrong.

  I was forcibly disassociated by them and am now shunned by my family.
• 

  ozziepost

  What it more, they can disassociate you which is a convenient way of disfellowshipping you even if they cannot find something that you have supposedly done wrong.

  I was forcibly disassociated by them and am now shunned by my family.

  You, too, Simon? It happened to Mrs Ozzie and I too.

  In our case, we were "walkaways"but we claimed the freedom to go where we wished and that included a church. ZAP!

  Didn't take too long for the shutters to be put up.

  NotBlind: Nice point you make about the contradiction between what is stated on the website and the August KM insert.

  Cheers, Ozzie

  Edited by - ozziepost on 18 September 2002 5:55:36
• 

  Darkhorse

  I have a few questions regarding DA'd and shunning (I am not a JW).

  What happens in the case of a person who does not attend the Sunday meetings because they have to work, or take kids to sports, or want to do other things other than attending the meeting? The same would go for weekly meetings? In a sense, is this person DAing themselves or is it considered more of a fading away?

  Does the congregation consider this person a "slacker" and treat him/her less favorably? Or depending upon the "type of congregation" it is - liberal or conservative - over look the missed meetings, etc and still treat the person well?

  I find this interesting especially in the case of a community in which it is hard to go into hiding when you have kids in the same school and run into those same people at his/her place of employment.

  Can there be a "middle ground" if a person has not been "officially DF'd" or is it pretty black and white which appears to be the thinking of most JW's. A person is either "in" or "out".

  The original poster got me to thinking.
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day Darkhorse,

  What a lot of questions!

  In a sense, is this person DAing themselves or is it considered more of a fading away?

  Disassociation is a formal act, quite different in their eyes from the "informal" act of fading away. In reality DA is performed by the congregation elders, although the R&F will claim that it's the DA-ed person who has taken the action to "turn their back on Jehovah". Mostly, the R&F will believe that a person is DA as a result of them handing a formal letter of resignation to the elders. The reality is much different, of course.

  The congregation does not recognise a "fading away" as such. Instead they speak of "spiritually weak" persons becoming inactive. They may even refer to such ones as "Inactive", as a noun. However, no shunning takes place. Of course, loss of "privileges" will be exercised.

  There was a time when shunning was the response to DF alone. It was about twenty years ago that DA was given the same "weight" as DF. You may like to read the book "Crisis of Conscience" by Raymond Franz, which discusses the origins of Disassociation in a formal sense.

  Check out the publishers on this link:

  http://www.commentarypress.com/

  Cheers, Ozzie

  Edited by - ozziepost on 18 September 2002 10:18:13
• 

  minimus

  Oral tradition may say otherwise.
• 

  ozziepost

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm