Shunning Rules Changed Again

by Amazing 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  og

  4 states? There are dozens: one can be reproved in various flavors, shunned formally or de facto, on restriction, inactive, "not doing well", DF'd, DA'd, an unbaptized publisher, removed as an unbaptized publisher, and, lest we forget the most sublimest state of all... in good standing.

  They have a system so vague as to allow them to do whatever they want and claim that is according to published procedures. Dan Ashcroft has obviously been taking lessons.

  Edited to appease my inner grammar demon.

  Edited by - og on 18 September 2002 11:38:59
• 

  JeffT

  I think that Amazings post the other day about the power of the elders is applicable here. They put out one thing for public consumption via the publications, but put out a completely different message via the elders, CO's etc. Dubs are used to holding diametrically opposite statements in their heads all the time. Such as "it is God's organization it teaches us the truth and we have to follow it completely." But if confronted with evidence of past changes, false prophecy etc they say "well after all they are just men."

  In this case they will tell you that they don't shun people that "simply leave" (whatever that means) while knowing that they have to shun Brother so and so, because he's left the troof.
• 

  metatron

  I hope you're right but I think your interpretation is wishful thinking.

  "those who simply leave the faith" likely means those who walk away , NOT anyone
  who da's himself. Further, the statement is a lie, anyway, because NO ONE is allowed
  to simply "leave the faith". That isn't possible because there is no theocratic
  statute of limitations on becoming inactive. I know a guy who walked away more than ten
  years ago and never makes any claim of being a Witness. As soon as rumors surfaced
  that he was getting a divorce, elders were appointed as a committee to hunt him down.

  This stupid organization can never just let go, they're like something out
  of Les' Miserables.

  My hope continues to be the fact that disfellowshipping PROVES THAT THE ORGANIZATION
  IS LEGALLY UNITARY AND CENTRALIZED. The liars in Paterson can throw up every smoke screen
  they want - eventually they will have to confront the fact that this organization is
  ruled top down, hierarchy style - and is even more chain of command, in some ways,
  than the Catholic Church.

  metatron
• 

  Elsewhere

  Nathan Natas,

  I think you should separate that into 9 categories:

  1. Publisher who is Marked
  2. Voluntarily Disassociated - Send a letter or told two elders that they no longer want to be a member of the congregation
  3. Forcibly Disassociated - Made the wrong choice in a "conscience" decision
  4. Those who "simply leave the faith"
  5. Active Publisher
  6. Inactive Publisher
  7. Publisher who is in good standing
  8. Publisher who is Marked
  9. Publisher who is bad association

  I wonder if the bOrg can provide scriptural reasoning for making that many distinctions?

  Matthew 15:3,9
  3 In reply he said to them: "Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

  1 Corinthians 4:6
  Do not go beyond the things that are written

  Can anyone think of any other catagories?

  Edited by - Elsewhere on 18 September 2002 12:9:14
• 

  sunshineToo

  Well, well, well, are they saying "oops!" to their latest Aug.KM then?
• 

  Lady Lee

  Do you ever get the feeling that their left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing????
• 

  Amazing

  Lady Lee: I think you are hiting the nail on the head ... the Society does not always know the right hand from the left on matters of doctrine and even much policy ... when it comes to money, however, they seem to have a better handle on things.
• 

  MikeMusto

  talk about mixed signals..from

  http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm

  For example, despite help from Christian elders, he may unrepentantly violate God's laws. Or he may reject the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation. Then what should be done? Such things occurred even while the apostles were alive; hence, let us see what they wrote about this.

  By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.

  The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man."

  Edited by - mikemusto on 18 September 2002 15:53:32
• 

  plmkrzy

  Minimus: I suppose that "simply" is less complicated. Ya think?

  I think it means if you simply walk away and never open your mouth again, you are not shunned.
• 

  wednesday

  Does anyone have a copy of that KM? I 'm confused. have the shunning rules Increased or decreased? At one time they were very strict-then they let off-are we back to strict again?