by Sea Breeze 19 Replies latest watchtower scandals
"It's amusing if the GB have contrived to bring about the worst of all worlds for themselves where they have failed to convince governments that their policy on shunning has actually changed (because technically it hasn’t) but ordinary JWs have perceived the new wording as permission to end shunning if they wish."
GB: No, wait! You weren't actually supposed to adopt our "official" stance and show kindness and compassion! 😱
The trouble with elders being told in private that shunning should continue is that ordinary JWs, in particular sisters, won’t get the memo. I know local sisters who paid very close attention to the wording of the recent WT on shunning and have already adjusted their behaviour toward disfellowshipped relatives and acquaintances accordingly. If in future elders come around and tell them to knock it off and resume shunning in full then I think they’ll have some difficulty because, as they see it, they have written permission in black and white in the WT itself to stop shunning. The only way to turn that around, as far as I can see, is for another WT to be published that fully reinstates the old policies and for the old shunning videos to be reposted and endorsed all over again. But the cat’s out the bag and I can’t see that happening now.
Which is not to say that WT might not try to effect a harder line on shunning through informal channels and verbal communications to elders. They may well try to do that, but they may find they have limited success readjusting the behaviour of JWs in general with that strategy, because, as many see it, the wording of the Watchtower has granted them permission to stop shunning if they wish.
If in future elders come around and tell them to knock it off and resume shunning in full then I think they’ll have some difficulty because, as they see it, they have written permission in black and white in the WT itself to stop shunning.
Sure. I'm sure elders will have no trouble showing these sisters how their reading is, in fact, not quite accurate - especially in light of that particular situation. You know, "the GB meant someone like this, but the person you love is waaayy worse because of... reasons"
The options are endless.
It’s amusing if the GB have contrived to bring about the worst of all worlds for themselves where they have failed to convince governments that their policy on shunning has actually changed (because technically it hasn’t) but ordinary JWs have perceived the new wording as permission to end shunning if they wish
Yes the GB wanted to make it appear to authorities that shunning is no more and have JWs under the impression it’s still there.
what the GB have ended up with is JWs now think we don’t have to shun anymore and they are reconnecting with previously shunned family and friends.
And yet the authorities still think they haven’t changed and the policy is to still shun those who leave.
The GB have ended up with the worst of both worlds to them 🥳
This is a pretty seismic policy shift in how df-ing, er, “removal” will be done. As written, pretty much the only people who will ever be “removed” from this point forward are brazen apostates
Not really. As you astutely pointed out above, the central reason for shhunning is to deny freedom of religion to the public. I believe this has always been the central reason for the policy. For the poor soul who, after baptism happens to figure out that according to WT Jesus isn't your Mediator, and the New Covenant is "forgiveness of sins" (Mt. 26:27-28), and not government leadership positions, nothing has changed.
Try walking into a Kingdom Hall and telling your relatives that Jesus is your personal savior and that you are born again and see what happens. They will be screaming that you have a demon.
Oof, that picture. I didn't realize Tony Morris had let himself go...
I agree that they now have an issue where they cannot go back without confusing the rank-and-file. Remember that all of these changes and 'clarifications' are usually accompanied by breathless expressions of how the change is a clear example of Jehovah's loving guidance towards those that he does not wish to see perish. The pronouncements are usually followed by the joyful expression of "how wonderful it is that Jehovah provides perfect and thoughtful guidance as we march towards the end," etc etc.
At some point, if you are laying it on that thick, it's not easy to roll it back without leaving people wondering what just happened. The GB may get away with claiming fallibility, but that doesn't mean they can always get away with yanking the rug out from under everyone's feet.
FFGhost - “…How bad off are they, financially?”
This is almost the exact same question I asked when their charity-status was literally on the chopping block in Australia, and they blinked at the last minute and signed up for the ARC’s redress scheme to keep it…
…and when I first clued in that their financial situation might not be as robust as we’d thought.
I still find it amusing* and ironic that we are using their new buzz word "removed" to refer to Tony's status.
* I may be old, but I never made any claims about attaining maturity 🙄
The Tony Morris situation is much like Where's Waldo.
