Reddit thread on convention video urging cutting off contact with Faders

by LongHairGal 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LongHairGal

  I just read this. Don’t know if anybody here has seen the video.

  The intended result of this is to obviously scare ‘Faders’ out of the shadows. Now, they are being threatened with loss of association with their loved ones and friends.

  For somebody like me who ‘Faded’ ages ago who had no family there since I wasn’t ‘born in’ this means nothing.. I was able to maintain a few friendships there for a long time. But, the friendships ended at some point. This was no surprise to me as most friendships (there especially) have an expiration date. They were like former co-workers on a job.. It is No loss really since life moved on…

  The JW religion might gain a few people back here and there who will go back and ‘fake it’ for the sake of having that bit of association with whoever.. Sorry for the aggravation they are going to be put through!
• 

  littlerockguy

  My relatives still in have already done that with me and I possibly couldn't care less. I don't need the kind of energy they carry around with them in my life anyway. I'm better off without them. I consider it a blessing.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  For about the last 8 - 10 years the Borg has been ramping up the rhetoric & fear tactics on dissenters.

  I think it was around 2016 when the Borg tighten the screws on DFd, Dad or even,,,, faders the ones who have even gone ""inactive".

  They surely have to curb the rising tide of doubters.

  They cant lose anymore free labor or money/donations.
• 

  Jalisco

  Do you think the old instructions on "spiritual association" with an expelled person living in the home (spouse, child, parent) still apply after the August 2024 WT? For example, if they prepare for meetings together or watch broadcasting together?
• 

  blondie

  Good question, Jalisco. Family relationships should continue but no spiritual association. Unless there are some health issues, parents don't associate with df'd or da'd adult children with minor children the parents still have a responsibility for their care. Adult children still have responsibilities to help parents with health and/or financial that requires caregiving. As to spouses, a spouse being df'd or da'd does not end the marriage arrangement. Still function as a couple, but not in spiritual matters. I would think that would still apply, I did not get the idea from the August 2024 WT, that there would be social association with df'd jws, but inviting them to the meetings (before only the elders were to make contact with df'd people). So that is a difference. But no going out to eat, or movies. I'll check it more thoroughly, but this is what I got from the info so far. August WT 2024, p. 30-31 "Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible-trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation​—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—​to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual." Article Help for Those Who Are Removed From the Congregation

  • 
    
• 

  liam

  larchington

  The video is a reminder that a person can be considered an apostate and fully shunned without any formal removal from the group*.* This means social rejection happens before any judicial action.+

  Removed JW vs Current JW:

  Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught to cut off all social contact, including greetings, with apostates - adherents who are still technically considered part of the group, but may greet those formally removed from the group who are no longer considered adherents.*

  *see exploration of the issue with this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1g17j1p/from_members_to_adherents_the_problem_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

  https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1kv22nx/for_faders_or_others_quietly_questioning_this/
• 

  blondie

  Social rejection, reminds me of the "marking" concept where the elders would give a talk (old service meeting) without naming names about a behavior if seen practiced (dating non-jw), jws can avoid social contact with them. There has been a change recently, that only individuals can mark another individual, not an indirect one by the elders in a meeting. "

  Questions From Readers (WT August 2024) p.7

  Is the marking described at 2 Thessalonians 3:14 an action taken by the congregation or by individual Christians?

  The apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, saying: “If anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked.” Previously, we said that this was direction to the elders. If someone continued to ignore Bible principles in spite of repeated counsel, the elders might give a warning talk to the congregation. Thereafter, individual publishers would not socialize with the marked one.

  However, an adjustment is needed. Paul’s counsel evidently refers to an action that individual Christians should take under certain circumstances. So there is no need for the elders to give a warning talk. Why the change? Consider Paul’s counsel in its context.

  Paul noted that some in that congregation were “walking disorderly.” They were disregarding inspired counsel. During a previous visit, he gave this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” Yet, some were still refusing to work to support themselves, although able to do so. Also, they were meddling in the affairs of others. How were Christians to treat such disorderly ones?​—2Thess. 3:6, 10-14.

  “Keep this one marked,” said Paul. The Greek word suggests taking special notice of this person. Paul addressed this directive to the whole congregation, not just the elders. (2 Thess. 1:1, 3:6) So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to “stop associating with” the disorderly one.

  Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added: “Continue admonishing him as a brother.” So individual Christians would still associate with the marked one at meetings and in the ministry, but they would choose not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation. Why? “That he may become ashamed,” said Paul. As a result of the marking, the disorderly Christian might become ashamed of his conduct and change his ways.​—2 Thess. 3:14, 15.

  How might Christians today apply this counsel? First, we would want to make sure that the conduct in question is actually “disorderly,” as Paul described. He was not talking about those who differ from us in matters of conscience or personal preference. And he did not mean those who simply have hurt our feelings. Rather, Paul had in mind specifically those who deliberately chose to disobey clear, God-given counsel.

  Today, if we notice a fellow Christian who shows such a disobedient spirit, we will make a personal decision not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation. Since this is a personal decision, we would not discuss it with others outside of our immediate family. And we would still associate with that individual at our meetings and in our ministry. When he corrects his course, we would then resume normal association.