Can an ex elder help me please

by orangefatcat 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  orangefatcat

  I have been reading the publication, "Pay Attention to Yourself and to all the Flock',

  under the subject of the "proper view of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons."

  Unit 5 (a), it says, " The principle set forth in Jesus' words, at Matthew 10:34-38 has a bearing on situations involving disfellowshepped or disassociated relatives.

  Special and difficult problems may arise in relation to social gatherings,

  Loyal worshipers of Jehovah will want to adhere to the inspired counsel at 1 Corinthians

  5:11.

  Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course.

  Now then I am needing to know if this is still factual or does the Kingdom Ministry of last August over ride this?

  The reason I am asking this is because my mother is in the hospital and if what the book says in regards to this matter on disfellowshipped person, I could associate with her or for that matter any member of my family?

  Could someone inform please if you know for sure the latest facts., on this subject.

  Love Orangefatcat
• 

  LittleToe

  OFC:

  Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course.

  My understanding is that this is still current.
  It's frowned upon, but they "shouldn't" DF someone for it.
  That having been said, Elders can be fickles beasts, and if it suits them they might just do that.
• 

  talesin

  Not an elder, but my dad ...

  If you are not espousing apostate theology, or tearing down the WT teachings, they cannot prevent you from association.

  However, from what I have read on this board, it seems to be more a matter of regional control.

  As a matter of fact, today I was talking to my mother about how many I read about have shunned parents, children, etc. Conversely, some do not and have been severely reprimanded for keeping family ties. She was shocked. In this region, it is apparently acceptable, but you live in another province...

  Seems to me, it fluctuates according to the attitudes of the local BOE and the CO, DO. You may have to check with someone in your area.

  Hope this was helpful.

  talesin
• 

  dustyb

  well, i think its a crock of shit, that both should allow proper exercise of consience to make a decision. thats what an elder told me, but he's not a traditional elder either.........
• 

  dannyboy

  Orangefatcat,

  I know you'd like more recent info, but FWIW [For What It's Worth]:

  My perspective is getting to be a bit dated (5 years) and may be supplanted by more recent policy, but more latitude is allowed for contact with a DF'd relative, particularly a close relative, than for a non-related DF'd individual. Certain articles however, have made the point that "it might be possible to have almost no contact with a DF'd relative who doesn't live with [us]"

  I know this was official policy up to the time of my leaving, but I've seen a bit of tightening up on this, from the exerpts of stuff that's been posted here on this website.

  I'd like to point out also, Orangefatcat, that some Bodies of Elders are much more conservative than others on this issue, in my experience. It also depends on if a Witness who knows/observes of visits/contact being made with a DF'd relative raises a stink about it. But I've participated in correspondence with the Service Department over this issue (again, up to about 5 years ago), and this is the info I'm sharing. The point is much more latitude if it's a relative, particularly a close relative........Your mileage may vary.

  [Edited to add: I double posted with others above and concur]

  ---Dan
• 

  gumby

  I have been reading the publication, "Pay Attention to Yourself and to all the Flock',

  As far back as the Sept.15th W.1981, ....there is NO allowance to associate with a difellowshipped family member. The 1981 issue made it clear that ANY family member living OUTSIDE of the family circle was NOT to be associated with unless neccesary buisness matters needed settling. This Flock book is probably an old one as that was the thought in the 70's. Only if you "carried the banner" for a Dfed one could you be DFed in the 70's. Check the year of the 'flock book'.

  (Edited to add some more stuff.)

  Any witness who would not see this as a nessecary buisness matter would be bad off.

  The reason I am asking this is because my mother is in the hospital and if what the book says in regards to this matter on disfellowshipped person, I could associate with her or for that matter any member of my family?

  Gumby
• 

  orangefatcat

  So basically then from what I am reading here that all the elders do not don't abide by the Governing Bodies book of directives for elders. "Pay Attentions to Yourselves and to All the FLock"?

  Orangefatcat
• 

  LittleToe

  Gumby:
  I understand that the current loaded language is "necessary family business".

  It still depends a lot on the local BOE, though.
  The bunch that I had to work with often went on whims, taking several Elder's Meetings of solid logic to turn.
  Even then they begrudged it, and sometimes went behind your back.

  Edited to add:
  OFC, that's the bottom line, and likely always will be.
  Sorry, but for all their legalism, some will still do it their own way, making it inconsistent.
  Gook luck!!
• 

  orangefatcat

  Gumby the edition I have is "1991"

  ofc
• 

  gumby

  1991 eh?

  They are such lying bastard hypocrits! This would be an excellent thread in itself! They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths because there has been NO CHANGE IN POLICY as regards how RELATIVES are to treat Dfed RELATIVES. No change. Why this newer flock book makes this statement is news to me........big news!

  Gumby