by Mark 136 Replies latest jw friends
However the WTBTS is only stating an observation.
Sure, but if the WTS goes around saying that it does not DF people for accepting blood, but then turns around an announces that someone is no longer a JW after that person accepted blood, what did they base the public accouncement on?
They have no witnesses who heard the person say they resigned... they have no letter of resignation. This tells me that the person can sue for slander.
.
Now bothannouncements will read the same: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's
Witnesses."
They will no longer use the words DF'ed or DA'ed ...only Joe Blow is no longer one of JW's. They might not wish to call attention to the fact that more and more people are opting out of the WT (DA'ing) and they sure as hell don't want or need any more lawsuits..
So instead of going to the meeting....i have been studying this post, mustve nearly taken two hours to read and digest. Do you think that they will discuss the finer aspects and implcations with the R & F? I would think that if there is hidden adgenda [and there would be] it will be discussed in detail at the afore-mentioned 2005 Elders School. Once that has been conducted [any ideas on the date?] it will then be look out, Bro. Officious will take it as a mandate and run with it...then watch out, anyone that they didn't like, or who has been a pain in the butt will get it first. This has been a great thread, you can only hope that the spirit directed leagal department is reading it as it develops!!
I wonder if they will initiate a 'reaching out to the lost ones' campaign like they had a few years ago. It would make a nice cover for spying on those trying to fade in order to get enough info to kick them out for good.
This could indeed be the start of a new campaign. This time around they wouldn't need to catch you doing anything bad.They could just ask you to start going back to meeting and out in FS again.....Oh you say you don't want to??? Well...I guess that means you don't want to be one of JW's cause that's what a real JW does. We will just announce that you don't want to be a JW at the next meeting. Have a nice day To get rid of the rif raff drifters WHO ME ???
I think they have three items on the agenda with this.
1. To lump disassociations in with disfellowship's. The disassociation announcements can't be good for buisness because the R&F get curious as to why someone would leave the 'truth'. Some of them investigate and end up leaving as well. Can't have that.
2. To get rid of the rif raff drifters and to scare the fence sitters into reactivation. I think there will be a lot more announcements in the future because of this change.
3. Legal problems with the old announcement.
No question now who is in charge The Legal Department Jehovah
I wonder if this new direction on DA'ing has anything to do with my mom's recent letter to offically shun me.. it would make sense.. she figures I should be either da'd or dfd
My view of the announcement is still that it amounts to slander. Who are they to say someone is not one of Jehovah's witnesses.
Jehovah is this god of the old testiment. Anyone who testifys for or about him is his witness. Does the WTS have a trademark on the name Jehovah? Witnesses? Therefore I'd take more exception to an announcement saying IPSec is no longer on of jehovah's witnesses than IPSec has been disfellowshipped from the christian congregation.
"faders" and "da'd" cause way too many problems...like they encourage outing pedophiles and suing the WTS. When "cover our asses" becomes the focus of your work is there anytime left for making up getting new light?
IP_SEC... theologically, you could probably argue that, but definitely not legally.
A lot of religious proper names are actually universal theological designations: Catholic [Universal] Church, Orthodox [Right Teaching] Church, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, etc.
If an Assemblies of God minister is defrocked, the church could say: "The Assemblies of God no longer recognizes so-and-so as an ordained minister" and I don't think any court in the world would consider the claim slanderous.
