DA-ing Announcement in the Society's New Book (page 3)

Elsewhere

"[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

I can see how this could still result in charges of slander. The announcement is that the person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The phrase "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is not a title... it is a condition. Basically it means that one is a Witness of a deity named Jehovah.

Basically it would be the same as a preacher of one religion specifically naming a preacher of another religion and then calling him a Satanist. That is slander.

The reason they will never say one "is no longer a Jehovah's Witness" is because that will be an admission on their part of agency over the individual... something the WTS has faught tooth and nail in court so that they will not be help liable for the actions of JWs.

upside/down

elsewhere- you mentioned it, maybe I missed something...

So how does anyone tell the difference now between a DA'd and a DF'd person?

Because even as an "apostate" it makes a HUGE difference. It's like grouping traffic ticket offenses with murderers, misdemeanors and felony's. So potentially all "faders" will probably now be taught a lesson, of "sh*t or get off the pot!" They know what we're up to and that others of their flock watch and see how we've slipped through the cracks relatively unscathed and are now HAPPY-- this will not do! They're plugging the cracks and preparing to make "fading" as distasteful as all other attempts to throw off the WTS yoke.

All this persecution and "testing", makes me almost feel like a true "christian" again! lol

u/d (of the brace yourself class)

Will Power

What I find disturbing is the wording of it all.

Being a witness of a god that you believe in is what most believers consider themselves as. They are the witness. Like a verb.

With the new WT baptismal vows, the pledge to the words jehovah's witness is a promise to abide by the rules of the group. Even stating that they are unique to the group/society/organization/corporation. This is the phrase as a noun.

so when you don't want to be involved with a group for scriptural reasons - we all know them well - but the group's name is what you still are - ...

get my point?

Only evil could devise a plan of this nature.

IP_SEC

"[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's
Witnesses."

If one is simply no longer one of JWs, what is the difference between that and an inactive person? Inactive ppl are not counted as JWs. The Society says theres no such thing as a nominal JW, so will DF'd ppl just be treated like a man of the nations now? Or will inactive be treated like a DF'd person... I feel a letter from the CCoJWs coming on.

IPSec

upside/down

Great point!

So if I start a "religion" and call it "Human", and can get converts to ~~swear allegiance~~ get baptized to "Human" and they don't live up to their "baptismal promises", I can kick them out and declare them no longer "Human".

Of course there could be no other "legal" "Humans" on the planet either as we are the ONLY authorized org. and we "own" that title.

Am I on the right track....? How can you declare someone NOT Jehovah's Witness? Isn't that a job for "God" Himself to do? If they have the "truth, are "God's" only channel and are exclusively "special", why the need for all this separation? "God" know who are His and who aren't, don't they have faith in that?

They are out of their league and someone needs to give them a reality check.

u/d

HappyDad

I guess the only way I'll find out if I'm "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is if I ever run into one of the JW's I used to associate with and they either talk to me alt or ignore me. No No No Dismay I dont really care.

HappyDad

avishai

I can see how this could still result in charges of slander. The announcement is that the person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The phrase "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is not a title... it is a condition. Basically it means that one is a Witness of a deity named Jehovah.
Basically it would be the same as a preacher of one religion specifically naming a preacher of another religion and then calling him a Satanist. That is slander.

Yeah!! No kidding, they don't have a corner on God's name, or witnessing!!

Jez

The wording here is in effect saying that THEY did not kick us out, WE are just no longer one of JWs. Very very vague and necessary because now if this goes to court, the vagueness of the whole wording will not swing to the df'ed ones way. It will favor the society. It absolves them of responsibility for their actions legally. So what if I say, "NO, I AM still a JW, excuse me, but I AM" What would they say then?

This is a witch hunt, now it is worse because it is going to all be done even MORE than ever under the carpet, behind the curtain, everyone KNOWS what is going on, but no one has actual proof of it. Oh the utter Slyness of it all and the demonic influence of this.

It is so clever, they have once again, made themselves look innocent to the rank and file. I bet the society is realizing that df'ing is pissing ppl off, both ex and current JWs so they 'soften' the process with words and make it look like they have not done anything! Why, so and so is just not a JW anymore. I wonder if they will also stop publishing WT and Awake articles about how to treat df'ed individuals so that there is no proof either. It will be all word of mouth and talks on how to shun us. BASTARDS. They win again.

Jez

Sunspot

** But, if they start going after everyone with spotty meeting attendance, low hours, worldly partners, etc., they will very soon have nobody left.

For a "religion" that is so impressed with numbers, it makes me wonder how all these oustings will be now explained?

Oh, yeah, the greater number will be cooling off in the "last days"........or something similar. The JW population will sink like a rock and they will no longer be able to crow about how many are streaming into the Organization.

Sounds like a "catch 22" situation, but I'm SURE that the WTS will already have some concocted story to explain it! Hasn't stopped them yet, has it?

Annie

chappy

I wonder how this will affect those of us who were born into the organization and faded away but never baptised? Does anyone know of individuals who were never baptised but were df'ed?

chappy

DA-ing Announcement in the Society's New Book

Share this