atpeacewithoneself
It?s certainly one of those occurrences that will disturb your peace if you haven?t found the answer to why some people what to go back, especially if the event(s) or reason(s) surrounding their leaving was disturbing.
I have found it helpful to look at it this way. The reason for going back is dependant upon the individual and what really matters to them. For example, imagine someone who was an elder, well respected, conscientious and a family man. Bob?s children are all in their twenties, financially independent and JW?s.
In time his marriage and view of the WBTS goes pear shaped. About the same time the divorce comes though he is disfellowshipped (reluctantly) for adultery. Bob marries the ?partner in crime? (Betty- a disillusioned JW) who is also disfellowshipped.
Taking into consideration his history, the home congregation would not hinder his reinstatement (you?ll have to trust me on that), however as for his new partner, Betty?s home congregation would more than likely drag the proceedings out.
They both have good friends who have also left the JW?s. The only problem that bothers them is to do with their respective families.
In discussions with them Bob wants to go back so that his children would feel easier about talking to him and, Betty so that her dependant mother (JW) would not be reluctant to speak to her because of family pressure (JW?s).
Apart from logic and good sense, the elder?s manual allows them to speak to close family members on things other than ?spiritual matters?. The elders should have informed all parties of this stipulation ? it doesn?t happen, rather they are only left to incorrectly apply the hard line of shunning. Even if Bob and Betty were to inform their families of the stipulation, they would not believe it until the Elders did so.
Going back may seem to be a noble gesture, but whom are they pleasing when it?s a JW problem? Not themselves, that for sure!
The solution is very simple and involves . . . (Sorry - not for your eyes).
[Name have been changed to protect the guilty].