Is the society shooting themselves in the foot with the new DF policy? (page 5)

sweet tee

I think another point worth mentioning is the fact that some who disassociated themselves demanded that no announcements be made in reference to them being disfellowshipped / disassociated or they would bring legal action against the Tower and it's officers ... this new 'announcement' sounds a lot like CYA.

Scully

sweet tee:

no announcements be made in reference to them being disfellowshipped / disassociated or they would bring legal action against the Tower and it's officers

In that case, ANY announcement with reference to the person's "no longer JW" status would be subject to the threatened legal action. By saying "So and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" the elders are still giving direction to the congregation to take a certain course of action, i.e., shunning the individual named in the announcement.

IMO, it still amounts to defamation under the legal definition of the word:

Defamation
Expression which tends to lower a person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory. Expression which would cause a person to be shunned or avoided is also defamatory.
McConchie and Potts, "Canadian Libel and Slander Actions", Chapter Fifteen, ?Defamatory Meaning,? at page 289
Defamation law engages two basic values in Canadian democracy - protection of reputation and freedom of expression. The line between defensible and indefensible expression is often difficult to discern. There are many traps for the unwary in this esoteric area of the law.

http://www.libelandprivacy.com/areasofpractice_defamation.html

GetBusyLiving

I really think this new announcement is because there is probably a surge in the number of people disassociating because of the information they can get on places like the internet. When somebody disassociates it creates much more of a buzz amongst the R&F than a regular disfellowshiping. Now everyone can just speculate that the person has become a fornicating satanic crack-head and feel okay about it.

GBL

roybatty

Relax, we've been through this before.
Over the years, the WTS has changed wording of its announcements many times. The basic process has remained unchanged.
For instance, they used to say, "so-and-so has been disfellowshipped for adultery."
Then it was, "...disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a Christian."
Then it was, " ...disfellowshipped." (period)
Now, apparently, it's "no longer one of JWs."

We've discussed this before and I don't understand why this is labeled as "new". When I was an elder and made my first announcement about someone being df'd, the PO in our congregation came up to me and specifically said to me "this is how you need to anounce it so&so is no longer a Jehovah's Witness." I believe before that, I always heard "so & so is no longer a member of the congregation." This was 10 years ago.

Ticker

That quote that Scully mentioned that is on the official watchtower site about "not shunning faded ones."

I was peeved off when i seen that, an outright lie in print for millions to see. If thats true then why am I being totally shunned by all JW's and yet am a faded member that left in good standing. I might as well be DA'd or DF'd because they treat me like I have the plauge. Oh well its like the old saying "what goes around comes around." Next time one of them is in need of some form of assistance(etc. vehicle breakdown on highway) it would be tempting to shun them as they do me and just sail on by, but I keep telling myself that I should not follow their actions. Rather I need to display a true christ like attitude even though it hurts to have supposed christians display such hypocrisy towords me and others in similar situations.

Ticker

Nocturne

When somebody disassociates it creates much more of a buzz amongst the R&F than a regular disfellowshiping. Now everyone can just speculate that the person has become a fornicating satanic crack-head and feel okay about it.

GBL

I think GBL's got it. During my time in the borg, I have never had a single person dissociate themselves, and I'm pretty sure that would have made me think about what would cause someone to leave the "truth". The only other thing that could cause me to think twice about the truth would be if a massive amount of people were df'ed. From as far as I can remember, people were always disfellowhipped, and the members of the congregation always thought of them as "weak" or just fornicators. Now that there will be no distinction, it will look like it's "discipline" coming from god, and it's unlikely the regular r&f publishers will think twice about it.

AK - Jeff

I was peeved off when i seen that, an outright lie in print for millions to see. If thats true then why am I being totally shunned by all JW's and yet am a faded member that left in good standing. I might as well be DA'd or DF'd because they treat me like I have the plauge. Oh well its like the old saying "what goes around comes around." Next time one of them is in need of some form of assistance(etc. vehicle breakdown on highway) it would be tempting to shun them as they do me and just sail on by, but I keep telling myself that I should not follow their actions. Rather I need to display a true christ like attitude even though it hurts to have supposed christians display such hypocrisy towords me and others in similar situations.

Ticker - I agree. I would have to do the right thing even to those who have treated me like cow dung in the past two years.

Doing good is it's own reward.

Jeff

moanzy

About 2 yrs ago, I went to an assembly and they had a very pointed talk about disfellowshipping and disassociated ones. They CLEARLY said that people are not taking it seriously and that some are still associating with these ones. They said that by doing this, the Godly discipline will not work as affectively in drawing those ones in error back to the fold.

I think that may be the reason for what is written in the new book. To reinforce everyone to abide by the rules because too many are not!!! With the internet now this can spell death to an organization like that.

Moanzy

Mulan

I read that section in the book today (Mom has it) and the only thing that is different is the wording. Instead of saying that someone has disassociated themselves, they just say they are no longer JW's.

Same end result.

I didn't see any change.

mnb77

Do you think in their attempt to 'simplify' the process they have shot themselves in the foot?

I do, I do! the JW may be growing, but i feel with the way dfing makes people and families feel this could lead run from such alful practices.

:(

Is the society shooting themselves in the foot with the new DF policy?

Defamation

Share this