by Englishman 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them .
I am going to print this out and save it...
Thanks, Englishman.
SLM
I might caution that the information in this 1974 WT article on DFing has been since superseded by other articles that say the opposite. These statements are no longer the "official" doctrine of the WTS regarding DF'd people.
Blondie
You wouldn't think god's "chosen people" would need to be told to treat anyone decently....if they truly took Jesus as their example.
These statements are no longer the "official" doctrine of the WTS regarding DF'd people.
The official doctrines change so often that even long time JW's find it hard to keep up to date. When I moved recently because of my marital breakup, my wife had a few witnesses present as I was getting my things. There was a former elder/CO there as well who tried to say hello to me several times. He became quite irritated when I didn't respond to his greetings, so I reminded him of my DA status. He said that was no reason to be uncivil, so I reminded him of the article in the August 2002 Kingdom Ministry, and suggested that he should brush up on the new light. I also reminded him that by disassociating myself, I have, in effect, disfellowshipped THEM! I also said I find no reason to be civil to members of an organization that knowingly protects child molesters. It shut him up anyway. But it shows that JWs are quick to shun people, but certainly don't like it when the same is done to them.
Walter
Doctrine or not, you are right in saying that you make the decision, Walter. Don't let them make the rules.
Blondie
I was wrongfully disfellowshipped ,1-5-92 from the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Rockland Massachusetts,on a charge of unrepentant fits of anger.I was also wrongfully charged with an unspecified capital offense. 
When I blew my stack over the bogus charge of a ,capital offense they then tacked on the,unrepentant fits of anger. 
They told me i was DFed for 3 months and the lying appeal committee chair elder told the local elders to keep me out for a year. 
Who cares now? I am inflicting major distress on the bastards now that I am free and clear.
My reply to this thread is this;>> I haven't seen my family held hostage by the Borg for 15 years.<<
I don't know what YEAR my disabled JW mother died!!! WHO,is this malicious,willful and cruel as the Jehovah's Witnesses WHO?
I did not notice the date of the WT, reading it, I thought it was New information. I felt a joy that the Jws were finally "getting it," I was thinking, "wow, sounds like Ray Franz is back, it echos his words in his second book, ISOCF......
However, when I noticed the date, 1974, Ray probably did write it......
Today I learned that my cousin is getting dfed next week. Sex is involved of course. I feel really gutted for him, and his parents. He's having to move out of the family home into an apartment. He's an only child and his parents will stick to the principles of the August KM. They're gutted. Particularly his mum. Despite it being their choice to shun him, I feel so sad for them as I know it will kill them to do it. He's in his mid twenties and his reason for being a dub was entirely social, so the exclusion will be traumatic for him. He still believes it's the truth though. He's a bit of a lummox so who knows whether this will make him realise he was brought up in a cult.
We're not really in contact with each other but I'll be emailing next week after it's announced.
I'd like to hire a plane to fly above their convention stadium trailing banner that says "JWs suck".
ugh.
s-man
|
Watchtower commands shunning of family.
http://www.freeminds.org/psych/disfell.htm
IS BLOOD THICKER THAN DOGMA? Not in the cult cocoon. Family is held hostage.The WT$. twisted take on the 'disfellowshipping chapter'..1 Corn. 5. Here we have St. Paul's adroit adjudication.,,,,"Let him be as a man of the nations, i.e. a Gentile. Or as a tax collector i.e. IRS agent. These were people's who were disliked, but not ostracized. [especially, if they were your own blood kin.]
Later in the new testament,at ;[2 John 1 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work"] we have St. John's condemnation of who?THE ANTICHRIST to come. NOT A WAYWARD TEENAGER John is not elaborating here on the 90 day shunning protocol of Paul. What is the watchtower's motive for family wrecking? The WT$ leaders are;"control freaks with a mean streak"They are also blinded to reality insulated in their Ivory tower. Back in 1989 I calculated that as the world turns,4.4 men women and children were disfellowshipped per hour.The WT$ asserts that all were expelled @ "the direction of the Holy spirit".This is blasphemy. Danny sez;"the headless horseman runs their show" 
|
I tried to track down my MIA JW kin with a 'poor mans subpoena' [i.e. certified letter with return address requested.]
No Luck....All I have my left of my Borg assimilated JW family is pics.
http://dannyhaszard.com/my_family.htm
The Watchtower IS of MAN MADE origins.
SHUNNING, A ONE LEGGED STOOL By: Gary Busselman What would the Watchtower have to do to change into "just another religion"? In my opinion, the only practice the Watchtower would have to change to almost overnight move into, "just another religion" category, is the practice of shunning.............................
Hatred needs a focus. Love does not. A benevolent, deity worshipping, group is non-confrontational, non-judgmental, and non-inquisitional. A safe place to develop a relationship with yourself, your friends, family, and with a God of your own understanding. By simply making the practice of shunning a matter of conscience the Watchtower would move overnight into mainstream dogmatism. The rest would be non-consequential. Sadly, the Watchtower leaders are aware of this.The Way I See It by Gary Busselman
There you have it,the voice of reason.Watchtower,it is incumbent upon you to make all your troubles vanish..
REFORM!
Scotsman:I'd like to hire a plane to fly above their convention stadium trailing banner that says "JWs suck".
| Danny's caravan | witness with the truck... | or without! |
19 Similarly, when one?s mate is disfellowshiped, the other mate, as "one flesh" with such a one, may rightly do what he or she can to lead such a one to repentance and restoration in the congregation. The refraining from spiritual fellowship would not rule out use of the Bible or publications explaining the Bible, for, as we have seen, fellowshiping implies a mutuality of sentiment and viewpoint, a comradely equality. If the mate in good standing uses God?s Word or publications based on it as a purely restorative and corrective means, this would not constitute such fellowship. Thus a husband who was planning to do some reading of Scriptural material might encourage a disfellowshiped wife to listen to his reading thereof. Or a wife whose husband was disfellowshiped might ask him if he would be willing to listen while she did such reading. Of course, discussion may result from such reading. If so, the refraining from fellowship in a spiritual way is maintained by seeing to it that there is no sharing of any wrong sentiment or attitude manifested by the disfellowshiped one nor any willingness to accept any condoning of the wrong action that led to his or her being disfellowshiped. (See the book Organization for Kingdom-preaching and Disciple-making, page 173.)
Blondie, I had one of the elders tell me that I could not discuss anything to do with Jehovah when it came to my mate. When I found this article, I asked them to review it and see if it conflicted with the new information found in the 1981 article. They said there was nothing in the new article to supercede this information about the one flesh. It had been so hard to go to the meetings and CA and NOT be able to say one thing about it or do it anyway and feel guilty. The elders said that it had been burdensome to me and Jehovah's commands were not burdensome sooooooooooo they marked this article in their Flock book.
One elder who was a good friend was very angry that I found this article and insisted that the '81 article meant that even I, the mate, was not to discuss anything about Jehovah to my mate. I read and read both articles and found nothing that reflected his opinion. That '81 article just doesn't get into the "mixing int the company with" or the one flesh relationship .
