Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada (page 8)

poopie

yes this idea changed a little with the Ray franz case. when he was associating in business with a brother they were angry at him so they came with the idea of dissociation. This idea of complete shunning is the result of the Ray franz case they do not want to admit that but it's true. Because by admitting that they would have to acknowledge they were wrong.

poopie

and many families who practiced wholesale evil shunning would leave the org and be very bitter.

Ruby456

orphancrow thanks for that link. its is as I thought. any other links anyone?

It looks as though Mr Wall's JW colleagues/clients thought like we do that one needs to get out of a business relationship with a disfellowshipped person if one can possibly do so.

edit: orphancrow this is what you said in your previous post and thanks for clarifying that you were just wondering when it changed

When did this change?
It must have been post-early 70s because when I was still 'in', business dealings were the only thing that a JW could engage in with a disfellowshipped person. You could do business with a shunned one but, once you walked out of his place of business, you couldn't go and have coffee with him/her. You were restricted from "fellowship" with them but definitely not from business dealings.
During Rutherford years, and even during the Knorr years, it was okay to continue business dealings with a disfellowshipped person regardless of his/her spiritual standing in the congregation. There are several incidences documented where both Rutherford and Knorr continued their business associations with disfellowshipped persons. Business was always protected.

search

Mr. Gnam told the 9 justices that doing business with a df individual is a personal decision (today).

He also said that that person would be talked to by the elders.

I will later post a portion of the trial court transcript about the expectation and consequences of the other members.

Fisherman

so if the elders sneakily told publishers not to do business with mrwall

That's a horse of a different color. But can such a case be heard, and can it be adjudicated as a judicial review?

then they crossed the line they did not follow there own rules this would be part of the judicial review as a citizen not religious.

Maybe not. The case law is in dispute and Court has not decided. Mr Gnam argued that respondent could bring the issue up as a tort, etc.

Fisherman

He also said... I will later post

Or you could just listen to that question that justice Maldavier posed to Mr. Gnam that goes with what Mr Gnam "also said". ( On the already posted vid of the appeals hearing.)

The judicial review is because elders do not follow rules carefully as outlined by service dept .

Mr. Ngam argues that there is no legal relationship between church and member in this case, only non justiciable religious obligation between church and member exists.

Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

Share this