by minimus 96 Replies latest jw friends
A positive story in the bible about someone lost then returning and receiving a huge welcome back in the form of a celebration party is not a good example for us to follow in this present day?
But, two instances in the bible that talk about birthday celebrations where bad things took place is a good enough cause for us not to celebrate our birthday?
Sandy, obviously it's not about the BIble. It's about control.
Tammy
When I spoke to my SIL, I reiterated that "it's all about control". I said it at least 10 times. Unless the elders or Socity approves of something, you just can't do it. And that's all there is to it. Next, they'll be telling us how to have a wedding, a party, sex, entertainment,.......oops, they already do that.
They don't even want people to clap at the KH when a reinstatement is announced
Same reason I stated earlier. A person who is reinstated has been reproved. They say it would be like applauding when a public reproof is announced. Still dumb!
Ready for this one? Hold your lunch in while you read this and ask yourself what scriptural basis do they use to arrive at a fixed period of time...
*** w65 8/15 p. 497 Turning to Jehovah ***
Over an extensive period of time they live down the blotch of reproach that they have brought on their personal record, with bad impressions also upon people on the outside. If, because of the blameless conduct of one since his reinstatement, the congregation has come to view him as a good example, then if such a person, who was at one time disfellowshiped but has now returned and shown humility, proved his love for Jehovah’s Word and work for ten years after reinstatement, it would be in harmony with the parable of the prodigal son if such one were used as a congregation book study conductor and allowed to give public talks. Later, he may even be privileged to serve in a greater capacity in Jehovah’s organization. If, since his reinstatement, he has proved himself to be an example to the flock of God during ten years of faithful service, and if the congregation committee sees that such a one can be given a greater privilege of service, why not grant it to him? If he has demonstrated that now he is going to stay in the house of his Father for good, and that he is loyal in his devotion to the interests of that house, it would seem that he could safely be entrusted again with greater responsibility in the congregation of Jehovah’s people.
Does anyone know if this 10 year requirement is still being enforced?
And one a little more recent regarding applause:
*** km 2/00 p. 7 Question Box ***
Is it appropriate to applaud when a reinstatement is announced?
In his loving-kindness, Jehovah God has provided a Scriptural way for repentant wrongdoers to regain his favor and achieve reinstatement in the Christian congregation. (Ps. 51:12, 17) When this takes place, we are encouraged to confirm our love for such sincerely repentant ones.—2 Cor. 2:6-8.
Even so, as joyful as we are when a relative or acquaintance is reinstated, a quiet dignity should prevail at the time that the person’s reinstatement is announced in the congregation. The Watchtower of October 1, 1998, page 17, expressed matters this way: "We must remember, however, that most in the congregation are not aware of the particular circumstances that led to a person’s expulsion or to his reinstatement. In addition, there may be some who have been personally affected or hurt—perhaps even on a long-term basis—by the wrongdoing of the repentant one. Being sensitive to such matters, therefore, when an announcement of reinstatement is made, we would understandably withhold expressions of welcome until such can be made on a personal basis."
Although we are very happy to see someone return to the truth, applause at the time of his or her reinstatement would not be appropriate.
Jourles,
I believe it is still enforced. An old friend of mine was just made an elder again after waiting about ten years. He was an elder when he was Df'd for adultry.
It isn't. But that was the "loving rule" back then. I remember as a kid, wondering why Brother So-Very-Nice was not allowed privliges and I remember being told by my mother that he had done something "bad" and would be another 10 years before he'd be given any responsibility.
I haven't read all the replys yet, so my point might have already been covered, but this just burns me up.
What about the prodigal son? Did they not have a feast to celebrate his return? Did they not kill a fattened calf(or sumthin) to feast on? What the hell difference is there? I know it's a parable, but it's a parable to show how to forgive and accept an erring one back in. This wasn't a congregation sponsered event. It was a private party. How the hell can someone tell you that you can't have a private party, no matter the reason for it? Goddammit, this pisses me off.
OK, I'm off to read the replys now.
Other Side of the Coin:
What about the victims, especially those who find themselves still in the same congregation as the one who is reinstated?
If a sister's JW husband committed adultery with another JW then after being found out coldly left his wife and children, and married the sister with whom he committed adultery, should there be a "reinstatement party" for him?
If a JW date rapes a young sister should there be a "reinstatement party" for him?
If a JW physically mistreated their children or parents should there be a "reinstatement party" for them?
Of course there are victimless disfellowshippings but I believe the above circumstances make clear the impropriety of sanctioning "reinstatement parties".
Surely former elders are aware of this. This is why I take all unproven "former elder" claims by many here as only a grain of salt, not worth the key strokes it took to print.
IW
IW, your point is well taken based upon the "crime". First, I don't think that JW disfellowshippings are "scriptural".So the treatment of a "sinner" is the issue here, imo. For whatever reason a person got df'd are you suggesting that if some friends and family wanted to get together to welcome back their sister, that it is inappropriate or wrong??? And IW, you speak elderspeak quite well. "The impropriety of sanctioning" such a get-together sounds quite symathetic to the Society and it's approach to such "wrongdoers".
