What must be really irritating to the gb & organization how this was talked about even before it being released.
August issue is now up on JW.com
by ozziepost 22 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
-
Jeffro
Lots of word games in the articles. In addition to the obvious semantic nonsense about what they call their ‘shunning’, there is also a conspicuous reference to a supposed ‘personal decision’ about ‘marking’ where the ‘decision’ has already been stipulated:
if we notice a fellow Christian who shows such a disobedient spirit, we will make a personal decision not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation
Notice how it’s not a personal decision about whether or not the person will continue to associate, but the ‘decision’ is to not associate. This nonsense is akin to the distinction that a person won’t be
disfellowshippedremoved for ‘accepting a blood transfusion’ but they’ve supposedly ‘disassociated by their actions’ anyway. -
-
StephaneLaliberte
if we notice a fellow Christian who shows such a disobedient spirit, we will make a personal decision not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation
I think the point here is that it won't be enforced by the elders. But you're right, the statement doesn't make sense. A better version would be:
we will make a personal decision on whether or not we'll associate with him for social occasions or recreation
-
Vidiot
Stephane - “… I think the point here is that it won't be enforced by the elders…”
Yeah, right.
“Youse had best make a ‘personal decision’ to see tings our way… it’d be a shame if some udders might be compelled to make a similar ‘personal decision’ regarding youse.”
-
Vidiot
“…if we notice a fellow Christian who shows such a disobedient spirit, we will make a personal decision not to associate with him…”
Not “you may”…
...“we will”.
“Personal decision”, my ass (not to mention the whole “we” thing, as if solidarity between the leadership and the rank-and-file were even possible at this point). Read between the lines, and there is virtually zero wiggle room.
These aren’t reforms…
…they’re just a slightly more creative way of reiterating the rules.
-
Drearyweather
Notice how it’s not a personal decision about whether or not the person will continue to associate, but the ‘decision’ is to not associate.
But isn't that what Paul says: "keep this one marked and stop associating with him". There is no question of deciding whether to associate or not. Just that rather than enforced by elders, this will be an individual's personal decision to mark him, which he cannot enforce on anyone else.
These aren’t reforms…
Yes, these are just change of terminologies to match the terms mentioned in the Bible. The term disfellowship was never there in the Bible, and thus for outsiders shunning looked like a practice
which was not Bible-based. Now in courts you can just quote the scripture and tell that this practice of removing wrongdoers is directly mentioned in the Bible. -
FragrantAddendum
Yeah, right.
“Youse had best make a ‘personal decision’ to see tings our way… it’d be a shame if some udders might be compelled to make a similar ‘personal decision’ regarding youse.”
totally, yup - that is wt
-
Vidiot
“Now in courts you can just quote the scripture and tell that this practice of removing wrongdoers is directly mentioned in the Bible.”
Exactly.
The very same Bible with passages that condone genocide, the execution of children for sassing their parents, and the ownership of other human beings as property.
Simple, really.