by Poztate 31 Replies latest jw friends
That's been the policy for the last 15 years, since the Nov 15 '88 WT.
That is a partly reassuring statement for me.The only problem is what the WT giveth the WT can take away.(praise the WT)
It would certainly be about their speed to announce "new light" on the subject again and do a little retroactive beating of people.
This would not be helpful in my family situation.
I was never baptised, and was referred to as "a bad association".
Bad associations are shunned also.
Poz... in all honesty, I wouldn't worry about "new light" on that subject if I were you. Right now, the Society is very much under fire legally, because of the blood and disfellowshipping policies. So I really don't think they'd tighten those right now.
Little Witch... I have to admit, I remember shunning some "bad association" when I was a kid too. I'm sorry that happened to you. In Poztate's situation, however, he seems to be more concerned with how his son will be treated by family, rather than by dub friends. Am I correct, Poz? And generally, it's okay to be around "bad association" as long as they're family.
Greetings!
Up to the mid to late 80s there was an officially condoned procedure and category for dealing with unbaptized publishers and even unbaptized persons who were considered part of the congregation, who were judged unrepentant for a serious or gross sin, etc. basically something that a baptized person would be DF'd for. This category was "Disassocated" an an announcement was made from the platform, "so and so is disassociated" exactly like for DF'ng. From a practical POV the congregration was to treat the person so announced just like they would a DF'd person.
Later, the Society came to the view that an unbaptized person even if a publisher would not be in the same category as a baptized person so they gradually did away with DA'ng and instead the whole "marking" would occur in which a talk would be given and without naming names, persons in the congregation would understand that the person who was the subject of the talk (and gossip of course) was to be marked. The extent to which a person individaully marked one or avoided associaton with the person was variable. A person who had "privileges" like service and answering might not be allowed to engage in these.
Today there is a limited form of DA'ng when a baptized person sends in the letter of disassociation and letting it be known that they no longer a part of the congregation or JWs. The announcement traditionally and still is that the "so and so has disassociated themselves from the congregation." Probably due to confusion over exactly how to treat such a one, more and more the view has been expressed that such a one that disassociates themselves "really disfellowships themselves" and so the trend has been to DF and it may be that the announcement may change or at times is different but it really doesn't matter because all know that the two categories are the same.
Sincerely,
Eduardo
Eduardo, I believe you are possibly using incorrect terms.
"Diassociated" is and was different from "bad association" during the early 80's. The DA'ing you describe was already in use in the early 80's. "Bad Association" was the term, in the US at least, for unbaptized folks who would ahve been DF's were they baptized.
however, he seems to be more concerned with how his son will be treated by family
This is exactly what I worry about.The ones in the congo can go #%^&** themselves for all we care.In a large family though it seems better if a low profile is kept.Emotionally this might help my kid out rather than them all sh***ting on him in the name of god.
Thank you Eduardo for your comment.We might be able to luck out in this whole affair as my kid plans on moving to another city 50 miles away.Hopefully the elders will find it too much work to chase that far just to put the BAD ASS label on someone.We would like to stay under the radar if possible.
Once again thank you my fellow POZTATE friends for your imput on this.
My daughter was raised in the "Truth" but never baptized (smart girl), she stopped going to meetings when she was 18. She has done things that she would be DF for if she had been Baptized, and everyone know it. She has not been shunned, in fact she has been treated real nice by the "friends" when she meets them in public. My hubby is still a JW and the Elders have not advised him to cut any ties with her (she no longer lives at home). Actually the Elders pretty much have ignored the situation.
Hapgood
Poztate asked...................................
When would a non -baptized person be DA'ed??
................................... from my experience in the borg (13 yrs) I would say that it depends on the individual elders in the congregation. I have seen them change rules and standards more than I change underwear. And all to suit themselves or certain favoured dubs! And I don't think too much varies from baptized to un-baptized. Here are a few observations I made over the years..............some personal.
When my child was abused by an un-baptized publisher, the only announcement made was that so-and-so was no longer an un-baptized publisher. He still associated and because there was never a local needs talk done on sexual abuse after the event to give a hint(because that sort of thing only happens in Christendom, yeh right!!!!!!!!!!), the only thing that changed for him was that he could sleep in on Saturday mornings because he couldn't go witnessing (oh that would have hurt!!!!!). I heard alot of dubs say that he probably didn't do anything too bad, and that maybe he asked to be removed for a while. Also his entire family was in the same congo, his older brother an MS so it all had to be kept looking good.Makes me mad to remember!
But, when my 2 teenagers (16 & 15y/o) rebelled and left home (because living as dubs drove them away), the elders in a different congo took 1 meeting with them to announce them to the congo as 'no longer members of the christian congregation'. All within 3 weeks of them leaving. So the congregation viewed my kids as df'ed and were quick to treat them as such. And they hadn't done anything like the above mentioned pedo did.
I also know of a dub who left her dub hubby, lives with a non dub who's marriage she helped destroy, has had a child to him.............yet has never been announced at all. So her dub mother organized a baby shower for her with the sisters in the congo. Yet, I know of a bro. who got df'ed for adultery because his car was outside a house all night. 2 elders (1 was the father of the bros. dub wife) sat in their car all night, and then df'ed him for adultery! So much for the 2 witness crap. A sexually abused child will never be believed unless there are 2 witnesses (as if that's going to happen) yet this man was df'ed just because his car was parked outside a woman's house all night and THAT is ALL the 2 elders witnessed!
The inconsistancies in the borg are not just unfair and frustrating..................they are very destructive and dangerous. I hate them for what they did to me and my family and what they continue to do to others. I am so glad to be out and have my children back.
Cheers, Bliss
yes they did, a family member of mine was announced as dispproved associate.
what does it matter? If they start shunning u, others will follow, announcement or not.
