by TheWonderofYou 18 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Yes, I know. That's the updated FAQ section on shunning.
The original version was much more duplicitous if I remember correctly. I'm sure the original is floating around on the Internet.
Like I said, these religious things sure are confusing for a fella. 😆
DD
If this "she will be shunned" pratice would be merely the little daily "shunning" it sounds even acceptable. If it would only mean than:
We dont have so much contact any more because we dont now about what to speak or what to do togehter, but we speak with the person and we help her to remain in the community if he wants, famikly contacts remain. .... than that would be okay.
I have a neighbour , i would never invite him, because I dont like his behaviour, we are not friends, i dont want him in my clique. This is the little shunning, nobody can urge me to like him. In the congregation sometimes we shun someone too, if we exclude the person from a clique, dont we?
If you read the JWorg text you think shunning is something acceptable.
But this is not little shunning it is a group shunning.....like a group mobbing, mobbing is illegal.
Going all the way back to Oct 2012 it seems that the FAQ has stayed the same.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120830063214/http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning
I like the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for finding changes.
I would not be surprised if shunning was redefined when presented in this case.
Most people tend to think that we had a choice and we made it when we became members. Not realizing we were enticed into something that happened to be completely different than what we were told. Such ruling may assume that you knew everything about the religion before you when full blown in.
Yes, I was 15 when I was "baptized" in the name of the Org. Back then, I had no internet and no means of refuting what I was taught. And I likely could not have explained key teachings like 1914 or 1919. It is definitely not an informed decision.
Even before that, I became an "unbaptized publisher" at 8. I don't even remember making that "decision". It just sort of happened.
They tweaked something on the website not too long ago, because I read about it here. I can't find the thread, but I thought it was on shunning. Maybe not??
Anyway, the suck for shunning people.
DD
I was baptized as teenager. I had no idea that the subject DF shunning could violate human rights then.
If it would be only a public announcment like:
Case 1 "Brother X decided to seize his publisher service but he will remain unactive fellow-believer... / the reasons are private, (we would not public announce the reasons whether he doest believe in 1914 or in Armagedon or has a girlfriend) we will respect him now as good friend, because he is a very sincere and respectable person like his whole family, but he quits his service for private reasons and we will treat him with brotherly love, charity and loving neighbourship like all men"
this would be public ending of a special servie and would not be a mobbing.
Case 2: "Brother X decided to seize his service and we hope that he further remains our fellow believer. We respect his achievments in our congregation and love his family. We will always show love, charity and loving neigbhourship to him and his family."
again public but lovingly. No ending of family bonds anymore! How wonderful that TTaT would be.
Even if the bible uses the word "shun" this
would not mean that JW should use the whole "caliber" of shunning techniques that are available, neither in writing nor in reality.
And many witnesses in reality already dont follow this rigid rules. They are greating me and smile to me even. really, because they know that I am a good fellow, always was and always would be! The older elders try to convert me a second time, thats typical and I find it funny.
____
I think the laywers at the court think of the "little shunning", but not of the "grand shunning pratices" that JW use, therefore they think it would not contradict human rights.
Its a lack of information about the real cruel of shunning in the cult.
The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."[99][100]
