Doing the Right Thing, Making a Choice (shunning)

by Simon 71 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  _Morpheus

  I agree whole heartedly with the premise. Even as a full on believer i just couldnt shun people, family or friends, because of an announcment. I kept it discrete but i just refused. I like the idea of framing it as a personal choice and highlighting the responsibility individuals have in the matter
• 

  Simon

  I kept it discrete but i just refused. I like the idea of framing it as a personal choice and highlighting the responsibility individuals have in the matter

  Yes, discretion is a very important part of the equation.

  I am not talking about people who want to stand up in the middle of a KH and tell everyone that the GB are really lizard monsters or those with deluded but vocal aspirations of "destroying the Watchtower".

  If people are doing things like that then it really puts family in an impossible or at least very difficult position and makes the choice much more difficult.
• 

  LisaRose

  It's like the people in Natzi Germany who made a defence that they were just doing what they were told. It didn't work for them, it isn't an excuse here. No matter what the Watchtower does, each individual has a responsibility to do what is right. Shunning is really one of the most cruel things you can do to a person, and it certainly isn't needed just because a person made a mistake or simply chose not to practice the Watchtower flavor of Christianity. Many times the reason for shunning a person isn't even known. If you don't know what someone did, what right do you have to judge them? The Watchtower has twisted the scriptures to suit their agenda of maintaining control, if you blindly follow their decisions on shunning you are as guilty as they are.
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  nevaagain

  My brother in law was once DFd. He was living at home with parents and got married (with a JW) without anyone's blessings. The day his DFing was announced, no one in the family told him to go away. Dad was not a believer and he was not going to allow it anyway. In other words, no one in the family was going to shun him. He still came home that day and took all of his things, went to live with his wife and did not show his face around the house until he was reinstated
• 

  Vidiot

  Q - "Does the WTS force its members to shun former members?"

  WTS - "No, they are exercising their own personal choice to shun former members..."

  Q - "What happens if they don't exercise that choice?"

  WTS - "The act of regularly associating with former members indicates that they themselves have chosen to end their membership..."

  Q - "What if they want associate with former members but remain members?"

  WTS - "...that-does-not-compute..."
• 

  Finkelstein

  This religious organization has had long drawn out history of ejecting dissenters who expressed some opposition to the leadership, particularly starting with J Rutherford. The break away from the IBSA and the division that Rutherford himself caused was the beginning roots to why the DFed is so particularly harsh within this organization in my opinion.

  There is a lot of extenuating pretentiousness established within this organization such we are the chosen org, we are the only true and pure worshipers, we are the only Christian organization that follows the bible guidance and instructions correctly.... etc.
  

  Are organization is distinct from my the rest of Christianity who are false, influenced by Satan and conjoined with him. From all of that created internal theology, is it any wonder there is such vigorous shunning policy contrived in this organization ?

  The established Dfing policy orchestrated by the WTS. is a self structured semblance of power, judgment and punishment that's there to control people and its all important pertaining pretentious image of itself.
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  It's not hard to drive a bus through the idea that elders are inspired and infallible and must always be obeyed. There are even scriptures of people rightly disobeying the divinely appointed rulers of the day who were doing the wrong thing.

  What need is there for a bible-trained conscience if they simply have to do what the elders say?

  Really good point, this threads a keeper 👍
• 

  Pistoff

  “But for now, let's focus on the main thing we think is wrong with the WTS, with any high-control group, but that will not change in the forseeable future because it is probably impossible to legislate against, the thing that underpins all their other policies and abusive practices: shunning.”

  Is that the main thing ‘we’ think is wrong? Of all the damaging things WT is responsible for, encouraging the refusal of blood even in life or death situations is a bit higher on my list. I never once thought of being disfellowshipped as a factor in what I would do if my child were in the hospital; taking of blood was wrong, and Jehovah would resurrect my child if I lost him.

  “The trouble is that many JWs don't think they have a choice in the matter. They are in a little box and they think all their options are constrained by the boundaries of that box.”

  They think this because they don’t have a choice IF they follow the ‘leading’ of the slave; WT PUT them in the box.

  The OP looks at the situation of a witness from a distance; it is born of a forgetfulness of how it really is inside the ‘truth’: if you want to please Jehovah and not die at Armageddon, you will follow the leading of the slave, and the slave is following Jehovah’s direction in reminding us of how dangerous and disloyal to Jehovah and Jesus it is to associate with those who have been disfellowshipped. It is loving to hold the line, even on family members.

  The WT made the box, and keeps making the walls thicker.

  To be a ‘good’ witness, you follow the slave, and each time they ramp up the rhetoric on shunning, ‘good’ witnesses fall in line.
  

  To be a witness is not to 'belong' to a mainline religion; we are different, we are on the right track, we have Jehovah's mind on things. Where does it come from? The slave.
  

  To address your not wanting absolutes, my view is this: the WT is responsible for the policy, they have made it not only a matter of judicial action (if the one shunned is not immediate family) but one of loyalty, and have piled on the dramatic rhetoric in the last 5 years; it is one of their signature beliefs.
  

  I agree that it would be oh so wonderful to get family members to realize they can pursue a third way, neither shunning not walking out, but picking and choosing what they choose to do. My experience is, I don't know anyone who has done it that isn't already partially out the door.
  
• 

  minimus

  If the Watchtower tells you to shun and you put out that you disagree, you will be shunned. You can refuse to shun if no one else knows about it. You have to be a sneak.
• 

  Simon

  Is that the main thing ‘we’ think is wrong? Of all the damaging things WT is responsible for ...

  I think it's the underpinning of so much. It makes otherwise simple choices that bit more complicated and damaging.

  Take the recent discussion about gay people born into the WTS. Don't feel like you belong in the organization that condemns who you are? Well just leave ...

  It's the shunning that makes it difficult. It then (in people's minds) becomes their only option to live within a group that constantly preaches hate toward them.

  Same with blood. It puts additional pressure on people and appears to remove choices.

  Of course some will make choices for other reasons. If someone genuinely believes some doctrine and that drives their decision more than the threats then that again is their choice. That's no different to parents putting their children at risk because they think vaccinations are wrong etc... or following some other quack medical advice - it may be for the best of motives but unfortunately doesn't include as much research as faith.