by Dunedain 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yes, the convention even used the expression:
"We would not associate with such inactive ones, even if no congregation action had been taken"
Now as cobweb said above, they did say "anyone sinning", but we KNOW that in the minds of witnesses, failing to attend meetings due to learning TTATT is THE BIGGEST SIN in their minds...
So, basically, if they think you have "left Jehovah", and yet have had NO "action taken" by elders, you are still to be ignored.
Ex-jws are usually shunned or not associated with anyways, all what really counts is if your an ex-jw, being baptized is pretty irrelevant.
Some new regulation that would imply this would not be surprising though since fear controls much of the lives of JWS.
I'm faded. My parents have relationship with me still and my sister and her elder husband refuse to communicate, while their sons (one elder, one ms) still will respond albeit at arms distance not closely as before. It's weird! The whole speak in unity thingy is obsolete as the value of this religion fades even to the faithful.
Isnt marking a person in the congregation a form of shunning anyway ? and thats been going on for decades so I dont see anything really new about it.
Then again confusion about how to apply counsel JW`s are given has also been around for a long time it makes a mockery of "they all speak in agreement" BS.
One person is stumbled by some action or dress on your part but another one isnt one will mark you the other one wont.
Marking one is similar to shunning one., whats the difference.
"...We would not associate with such inactive ones, even if no congregation action had been taken..."
Jeezus, at the rate they're going, they're gonna start ostracizing anyone who just turns down a talk, doesn't answer at the WT study, or fails to get X amount of hours in field service...
:satisfied:
I'm telling you guys, they don't want XJWs to come back, they don't want fakers and fence-sitters, and they don't want new members (in the developed world).
In answer to the OP, yes I think it is.
I've had experience of it myself 6 or 7 years ago from the wife of an elder. She was an on-off aux pioneer. That's nice, isn't it?
And what about the following phrase: "you can't stand still in the truth, brothers"?
Anyone remember that?
It's hard to say, where I am at present it seems to go both ways. A lot of faded people are in business, etc., in this town so the JWs talk to them like nothing is changed. There are a few cranky "die hard" types that won't talk to them but most still do.
Spiral - "A lot of faded people are in business, etc., in this town so the JWs talk to them like nothing is changed..."
Of course that's happening.
Why else do you think the GB is reminding them not to?
It counts as "bad association". One who is just inactive would be treated with caution, and yes some do shun them. But, regular association with someone who is inactive, not to reactivate this person, would fall into that category of "bad association" and not necessarily warrant a judicial hearing.
Unless, that is, some hounder decides to make a "brazen conduct" issue out of it.
WTWizard - "...Unless, that is, some hounder decides to make a 'brazen conduct' issue out of it."
Ten bucks says that's already happened.
After all, the conditions do dovetail together rather neatly, don't they?
