The WTBTS exposes itself about shunning!

by The Searcher 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  The Searcher

  "Does religious conversion dishonor family traditions or customs? This need not be the case. The Bible encourages respect for all, regardless of their religion. (1 Peter 2:17) In addition, Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the Bible’s command to honor their parents, even if they have different beliefs." - Ephesians 6:2, 3." https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/change-religion/

  So J.W.'s aren't instructed & obligated by the WTBTS to shun parents who leave the org?

  A major investigation of the practices, hypocrisy, and lies of this alleged "charity" is long overdue by the relevant authorities.
  
• 

  tiki

  They speak with forked tongue
• 

  prologos

  "--This need not be the case. --

  Searcher, very good.

  "need", wt legalise, but has to be the case if you are challenging wt beliefs, or procedures. because, wt beliefs, doctrines come and go, but procedures, positions stay sacred forever.
• 

  Still Totally ADD

  Mind do. The wt idea of honor is if the parents get sick or whatever then they come in to help them. Otherwise they shun you. Still Totally ADD
• 

  scratchme1010

  A major investigation of the practices, hypocrisy, and lies of this alleged "charity" is long overdue by the relevant authorities.
  

  Problem is that the authorities have no ruling and no saying in anything that is not illegal. They are not violating any law, and JWs are voluntarily agreeing to abide their rules (by brainwashing, coercion and shunning, yes, but voluntarily nonetheless).

  There's not such thing as the moral police, not to mention all the things that many other religious organizations get away with in the name of religious freedom and separation of church and state.
  

  I agree that they are morally disgusting, but they are doing nothing illegal at all.
  
• 

  NikL

  they are morally disgusting, but they are doing nothing illegal at all.

  So true scratchme1010
• 

  steve2

  An investigation into the shunning practices of the organisation will simply ramp up its sense of being persecuted - and, unlike the Australisn Royal Commission of Inquiry in to the organization's response to child sex abuse allegations, the practice of shunning brings out the martyr-complex in many JWs.

  It is a practice they carry out with pride.
• 

  blondie

  Hidden in that statement is that these parents never were jws.....but Catholics, Jews, etc.

  Another way the WTS speaks out of both sides of their mouth.
  
• 

  Giordano

  In addition, Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the Bible’s command to honor their parents, even if they have different beliefs."

  Apparently they are saying one thing but actually punishing, by way of mandating shunning, if one associates with DF or DA parents or other family members.

  The Elder's handbook gives a clearer policy picture. Under reasons to be disfellowshiped:

  1. Associating with disfellowshipped people including;
  • Friends - ks91-E p.103, w81 9/15 pp.25-6, w55 10/1 p.607
  • Family - ks91-E p.103

  So on the one hand you are to honor your parents or grown child for that matter but don't associate with them in any manor or shape or you will be disfellowshiped.

  That is actually a crime of duress to compel someone to do something they would not ordinarily do........... it is called coercion.

  it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent.

  http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/search/label/JW

  Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, "No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts."

  Permanent church covenants or statements that discipline will continue after a person tries to leave in no way alter any of the above. They are useful for establishing informed consent to starting a disciplinary process, and continuing it while someone remains a member. But, the law and the courts don't consider religious practice and affiliation to be a contract but rather a civil right. You can't sign away your right to quit a church any more than you can sign away your right to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology which was twice appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court was unequivocal in its finding that permanent consent cannot be granted.
• 

  Giordano

  Same web site a case from 1947:

  Andrew Yoder's daughter is born very ill and needs regular medical attention. Andrew Yoder is a farmer and lives 15 miles from the clinic. Being Amish Yoder is entitled to rent a car or take a taxi but not to own one. However he decides to put his daughter above his church quits the church and joins a more liberal Mennonite church. He did not however complete a valid transfer.
  Church elders confront Yoder and he refuses to provide a full explanation. He is excommunicated and subjected to shunning. As a result of the shunning Yoder suffers severe financial and emotional distress. He goes to court and sues the church to have the ban lifted. The argument is that since he had quit the church he could not be subject to church discipline.
  
  The court has serious questions about its jurisdiction to take the case. However since Yoder lives in an Amish community the ban organized by the church leadership, in the court's opinion, constitutes a conspiracy to defame. That is they found that the shunning was illegal because a conspiracy to boycott the plaintiff actually amounted to a violation of the plaintiff's civil rights of liberty to switch churches at will and without intimidation and coercion. That is while the court can't order any of Yoder's neighbors to talk to him they do believe they can hold the leadership responsible for what amount to attempt to coerce Yoder to remain with a particular church.
  
  The church is found guilty and the leadership is ordered to pay $5000. The bishop refuses to pay his share and his farming equipment is sold at auction by the sheriff, an elder then steps in and pays the balance of the judgment to say his own farm. Yoder's daughter dies, one of the elders dies from the stress and Yoder commits suicide.