Great comments Alan, thanks. One consideration that comes to my mind is the mid stream changing of the rules. For example the change of treatment of those who quit the group without the benefit of going through a trial and being disfellowshipped. Those who joined as adults before 1981. . . . they were joining without the threat of shunning if they decided to quit.
There were those of us like me, children of Witnesses and joiners as well, who quit in 1974 and 1975 and were not shunned until the Watch Tower Publishing Corporation directed their franchise religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, to begin shunning walkaways in 1981. There was a sting to that for many of us and some of us retaliated.
Good thread Larc. Thanks for starting it. Gary
Disfellowshipping
by larc 42 Replies latest jw friends
-
garybuss
-
rosalyn
It's been several months since I have visited this forum with the exception of a quick hullo last week.
Yes I knew what would occur after being disfellowshipped but I wasn't prepared for it. I don't think there are training courses for this type of preparation. Thank goodness there are some wonderful people to help you make your way through the muddle and mess after the damage has been done
Would I do it all over again? Most definitely YES. I can live with my own conscience knowing I made the wise choice no matter how difficult the road was. I was extemely low and even had to spend time in the hospital but to feel yourself get stronger after you have been ill can be most uplifting.
I am pleased to say the anger has subsided and the hurt rarely stabs at me. I can get riled when I see injustice being done to others. I can feel extremely anxious for someone who is gong through it because I was there and know the anxiety attached to the awful time ahead
It is possible to get over it.....At least to function. And to also experience joy and contenment. I realize everyone's personality is different and coping skills vary with each one of us. But if you can fill your life with positive people and activities it will get easier as the years go by. For starters though just take one day at a time.
rosalyn
-
Hapgood
Hi, I'm new here (been lurking awile), but this topic hits so close to the very reason why I left the JWs over a year ago (trying to fade). When I studied with the Witnesses as a young adult of 19, I was told that if there was ever any reason that I wanted to leave the JWs after I was baptized, I was free to do so without any consequences. But that was in 1975, since then they have changed to rules. And right now I'm paying the price dearly.
-
sunshineToo
gumby, I second to all the things you said here.
I really never knew the consequences. I have encountered with some DF'd ones when I was still a jw. It seemed to be so stupid just to ignore them and still saying that "we love them". To those inactive ones I still said, "Hi" and had some conversations. To DF'd, (sigh) I never got to see them again.
I see jws time to time at a local bank or at a hospital. I always initiate the conversation. One time I was greeting to an elder at the bank who came with his wife and another jw. Because I was talking to the elder, he responded,"Hi, how are you?" But his wife, who was very close friend fo mine for my jw years, ignored me. I was invisible to her and to other jw.
The most thing that upsets me is when they pressured my mom to shun me and when they give me cold shoulder, not just ignoring me, but I could really feel the hostility.
By the way, larc, they (jws) never fully explained to me about the DF or DA. They just told me that they "don't associate with them." Hey, but you and I know that it has rather broad meaning to that.
-
onacruse
As a general principle, "disfellowshipping" is not at all unusual; virtually all societies have codes and laws that provide for the exclusion of "non-conforming" members. Those codes may be more or less consistent, and the penalties may be more or less debilitating. Those are ethical matters to be worked out by each group. However, the history of this WTS policy betrays an ulterior motive.
From 1879 to 1944 the congregations (or ecclesias, or companies, as the terms evolved) handled all such issues locally, independently, with a hearing in front of and vote by the entire congregation. As a consequence, DFing was very very rare...in all the WTS literature of 1930-1939 the issue was only discussed once (regarding action taken against Leviticus Salter, of the Toronto ecclesia; see W3/15/37, p. 159 and W4/15/39, pp. 125-6). Even then, Salter's "hearing" consisted of over 300 members of several local ecclesias, including comments and Q&A from the audience (except, the sisters were not allowed to speak). The impartiality of this hearing is debateable, but at least it was an open and public process.
Then, in the May 15, 1944 Watchtower, pp. 147-156, under the title "Unity for the New World," the policy was changed to 'hearing by a committee of elders.' One telling comment is made (p. 152)(emphasis added here and following):
The laws of the organization do not draw their strength and validness from the voice or vote of the congregation and are not applied because of the consent of the governed... Quaintly put, a Theocratic organization is ruled from the top down (which means from the Most High God downward) and not from the bottom up (that is, from the people of the congregation upward).
This basically is all part of the continuing centralization of authority under the thumb of Brooklyn, a process that Rutherford initiated and progressively implemented with an iron fist.
However (and this is a big however), even then the reasons that would "properly" lead to being DFd were not what they are now (p. 154, discussing Matthew 18:15-17):
If he refuses to hear the church through its representative servants, then what? Does the Lord say the church or congregation should excommunicate the offender? No; but the Head of the church says to the offended one, whose efforts at reconciliation have failed: “Let him be unto Thee [not, unto the church] as an heathen man and a publican.” The offended one may refuse to have anything further to do with such one until he comes for a reconciliation. Only where the peace and unity of an entire congregation are involved, and its activity in the Lord’s witness work is being disturbed and hindered, there the Theocratic organization steps in and must take action in behalf of the congregation...
And p. 155:
One refusing to obey organization instructions, as represented by the apostle’s epistles, should not be followed or imitated by others of the congregation, but should be helped to see the error of his way. If he falls into causing divisions in the congregation, then the Theocratic organization must step in through its authorized servants.
The process went from public to private, but still, No one who simply walked away was DFd, and no one who remained, was non-threatening but otherwise uncooperative or dissenting, was DFd.
That all changed in 1952 (See the series of articles in the March 1 issue). For example, what if a person was still trying to do Christian things after being DFd?
*** w52 3/1 p. 141 Propriety of Disfellowshiping *** 13 Now some persons think they can stay in the truth, but they do not want to work according to God’s standards. So they keep going out in the field service, they go from door to door, they distribute books, they have Bible studies, still they are disfellowshiped from the congregation. Even after they are disfellowshiped, sometimes they put in many more hours than they did when they were with the congregation. What is the congregation going to do now with such an individual? We must keep in mind that this person has been disfellowshiped and is not a member of our company. We want to avoid him, we want nothing to do with him.
Note how, in just 8 years, it went from "help the brother to see the error of his ways" to "we want nothing to do with him."
The enforcement of this "total exclusionary" practice has, at times, and for short periods, been moderated, but 1981 saw the latest and greatest tightening of all (the 1981 Watchtower discussed DFing more than any other year in the history of the WTS), including the determination that those who DA are to be treated as DFd.
To summarize: The WTS did just fine for 65 years, using DFing only in very rare cases, and then only after public discussion. Along comes Rutherford, putting the squeeze-play on the congregations, eliminating all local jurisdiction over this process. Then along comes Knorr, and starts to work the squeeze-play on the individual publisher ("do as we say, or we'll rip your heart out by cutting you off from everyone you know and love"). Then, shortly after Knorr died (1977), along comes Freddie, and the noose broadens to include even those who merely "think" they are no longer JWs.
Penton hits the point straight on (Apocalypse Delayed, p. 249):
So the system of judicial committees serves as the ultimate control mechanism among the Witness faithful, and a terrible one it is.
DFing is no longer about righteousness, or God, or Jesus, or goodness. It's about control. And for that violation of the Biblical standard to which they say they hold, the WTS is damnable.
Craig
-
detective
3) A person is raised as a JW, gets baptized in his early teens due to standard family and cultural pressures, learns enough after he becomes an adult to quit the religion, and quits. Shunning this person is a gross violation of social norms, and I have a very big problem with this.
this is/was my friend's scenario. Frankly, should I ever meet his parents and they ever express any remorse over the estrangement, I'd ask them pretty much the same thing.
To his folks: What did you think would happen when you signed up? How did you think you would handle it when your children reached adulthood, and just like you did, decided to change course? What was your plan for handling that situation when your children reached the point where they would decide if/how they wanted to worship?
And, of course, what the hell were you thinking allowing your minor child to enter a binding lifelong contract with promising affiliation with a punishment-relishing religious group?
Ah, if only I'd meet them one day. How come I hope I never do??
-
LovesDubs
There are excellent posts under this topic. Thank you all for your insight. I remember distinctly when I was studying at age 30 in 1984 that my new "friends" told me after about 9 months that if I didnt get baptized soon they could no longer associate with me! I would have been devastated at that loss because they had become my ONLY friends, having convinced me that all others were not WORTHY to be with JWs. I did get baptized...and within a YEAR of that realized I had made a horrible irreversible mistake and had been emotionally blackmailed into DOING it to BOOT. I was on the way out from about 1986 and didnt actually DA until 1997....and in the mean time got married and had three kids...and the ENTIRE 10 years was looking for the door! TEN YEARS of being terrified of losing my family, my friends...and potentially my children if my husband succeeded in making them JWs!! It was a horrific choice to make...die in the eyes of others...or die inside myself. I believe that my finally making the break has saved both my own life and those of my children by GIVING us our lives...and in doing so my children wont ever BE Jws now because they TOO have see the atrocities the JWs have inflicted on our family.
Sure...we knew the "process" and we did it to OTHERS to make ourselves feel SELF IMPORTANT...and you can probably imagine what having a root canal without anesthesia is like, but you just dont know the depth of the pain...until you are in that chair yourself.
-
lv4fer
I did shun people when I was a witness, but it always bothered me. I am not df'd but I am still shunned. I haven't done anything wrong, I just stopped attending meetings, when asked why I explained that I had some questions about certain teachings, when I was questioned by two elders who came by to ENCOURAGE me I turned the tables and asked them questions and they didn't have answers, they left and said they would get back to me. They got back to me alright with a letter inviting me to a judicial commitee for apostacy. I got back with them and said I've done nothing wrong and they better not announce anything or I'd sue them, they haven't announced anything but they spread rumors throughout the entire congregation. I am not hurt by shunning, it just pisses me off. The people who are shunning me don't even know why they are shunning me, all they know is whatever the rumors that they've heard.
-
rocketman
Many of the replies here are testimony to the lack of fairness and justice in the jw system of dfing. Good post on the history Craig!
Having been an elder, I announced several dfings. I never really knew what it felt like though until my own removal (for non-judicial reasons) as an elder took place. That's when I realized how hard it hits.
As for those who reported on this thread that they were df'ed without sufficient reason, like SP and others, again, it shows the lack of care and love inherent in the whole process.
And also, having asked baptismal questions of several people over the years, I can say that most indeed had no idea what dfing really involved, or even some of the ways they could end up df'ed.
-
TD
Craig's post got me thinking.
In order to justify the tribunal from a scriptural standpoint, (i.e. letters written to entire congregations in the 1st century) JW's assert that the judicial committee actually represents the congregation. However the idea of a representitive minority acting as the agent of a constituent majority is democratic by its very nature. But everyone knows that JW elders are no longer elected by their respective congregations in anything remotely resembling a democratic process and JW literature since about the 1930's has been scornful of the very idea. Further, even after their appointment, JW elders are in no way required to represent the will of the congregation. This comes through loud and clear in Craig's quote from page 152 of the 1944 Watchtower.
When it comes to judicial matters, the governorship of the JW elders conforms much more closely to a paternalistic model where those in authority may act in what they perceive to be the best interests of those under their jurisdiction, but the governed have neither rights nor responsibilities. JW's therefore repudiate their own reasoning tying their judicial process to the Bible.
Larc mentioned in the opening post that the rules were known beforehand and that is certainly true in some instances. I'm not sure this takes into account the degree to which the rules are misrepresented. In other words, the alleged biblical basis for these rules certainly plays an important role in their acceptance by the potential convert.
Tom