August WT: DF'ing renamed "Removed." AKA: GB re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

by WingCommander 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Riley

  I was really hoping for the lifting of the ban on oral sex. I really was.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  By now I suspect everyone here has seen the video of the WT lawyer speaking to the Canadian Court regarding disfellowshipping, and how it ONLY changes "spiritual association" with family members while the relationships remain unchanged in all other ways.

  WHY DON'T THEY (WT) JUST DO THIS?

  Why all the cunning and lying about changes that are not real and thinking they're going to trick the Secular Authorities? JUST MAKE IT AN INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE MATTER. Most diehard JWs will follow tradition and shun dissenters and WT won't have to LIE about it all.
• 

  NotFormer

  "I was really hoping for the lifting of the ban on oral sex. I really was."

  The two witnesses rule is your friend.
• 

  NotFormer

  "Why all the cunning and lying about changes that are not real and thinking they're going to trick the Secular Authorities? JUST MAKE IT AN INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE MATTER. Most diehard JWs will follow tradition and shun dissenters and WT won't have to LIE about it all."

  This is my question too. Genuinely loosening the reins wouldn't cost them too much.

  At its core and at the top, the WT seems to be about how hardline they are. The rules seem over the top from the beginning. As in, not as harsh as is necessary to maintain order, but as harsh as they can get away with.

  And this is the case now. Instead of a genuine backing away from harsh and unkind rules, they are only lessening them in the minimum sense that they think can persuade governments that they have changed.

  As an outsider, I can see that the change is cosmetic. Governments are likely to see it that way too.

  Ironically, if the WT was consulting with the exes, they might get some good clues as to what genuine changes need to be made. After all, these are the people with whom the various governments are consulting. The governments will simply ask the exes whose testimonies they have on their books if this is a substantial change, and the exes will simply answer "No".
• 

  Beth Sarim

  "The two witnesses rule".

  Possibly the biggest one of the 3 most damaging policies of the Borg. Which can never go away!!!

  Up there with the blood doctrine & shunning policy.

  These 3 can never go away
• 

  Journeyman

  It's plausible deniability.

  The Org are trying to offload responsibility for the way those disfellowshipped removed from the congregation are treated to the individual publishers, in the same way as they've try to divert responsibility for everything else in recent years, from the choice to go house-to-house, man a literature cart, refuse blood, and so on.

  On one level, yes, of course it is - and should be - every person's choice to practice what their religion teaches. However, as many have pointed out, the problem comes with high-control groups, where the peer pressure is strong to conform to what the group - or more often the hierarchy - want.

  If this is their aim, I think the GB will struggle to justify this to secular authorities as sufficient evidence of 'relaxing' of rules, when the Org itself cannot help but run on a rigidly hierarchical structure. The very fact that it requires a WT article (and likely videos from GB members, a letter to all congregations from the Branch and updates to the Shepherd book to follow-up) to make changes like this official and give congregants 'permission' to change, shows how centrally controlled and led everything still is.
• 

  Anony Mous

  To people ‘in the know’ it may not be that much of a difference, but to outsiders it definitely is.

  Disfellowshipping is something that is generally reserved to the highest scandals in a church (public censure) and doesn’t happen in response to minor sins or disagreements. Basically it is only acceptable if a sin is very severe without regret and very publicly known. To many Christian denominations the refusal of giving communion as punishment for minor sins is in itself a major sin.

  Removal means basically you stopped going to church and they dropped you off the rolls, it happens all the time and is just an administrative thing.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  The Borgs aim or ulterior motive is to shift blame from themselves putting any kind of "punitive" action on the victims,,,,,ur I mean followers.

  To make it look like the $heeples did it to themselves,,,left on their own accord and its a result of their actions. Rather than other way around.

  Of course with the same result. Ostracizing.

  eg) what happened in Bulgaria in the 1990s with the blood policy as an example. As someone was talking about recently somewhere. To make it look like someone disassociated on their own doing. By accepting a blood transfusion.
• 

  LongHairGal

  WING COMMANDER & EVERYBODY:

  I was just talking to an old friend who is also an ex-JW.

  This person is beyond words and feels all these changes (and those yet to come) are meaningless after so much victimization, guilt and emotional distress.. I agree.. Nobody can ever get justice for what was done to them or what they experienced. Hell, the perpetrators could be dead. Even if they were alive, would you get an apology? No. Even if somebody did, it does not erase lost Time and lost potential, etc.. It cannot be undone.. So, I was shunned because I worked.. So what?.. (I’m Glad now actually!)

  I know a lot of the people on the forum are ‘hoping’ for a kinder and reformed religion because they still want to belong to it. Maybe they have family there. Well, I wish them luck…I’m Glad I’m Out.
• 

  Riley

  Being “ removed “ actually sounds worse. It is like they have a mob hitman on stand by ready to kill you.