by blondie 72 Replies latest jw friends
What has brought more reproach on the Almighty God over the years? The hell fire teaching, the trinity doctrine, the celebration of birthdays and holidays, the saluting of the flag or the WT’s false religious teaching of disfellowshipping?
Its’ a no-brainer for many; WT’s disfellowshipping policy is high on the list due to the nature of its' unkind act as well as the pain and suffering it causes!
Wow this thread is a keeper! I'm marking for research, since I want to talk with my wife about this evil practice.
Before 1946?
Oh Purleeze!
How many prostitutes were in London, Paris, Berlin in the 1860s?
How many illegitimate babies to foundling hospitals, how many pregnant women threw themselves off ONE bridge in London in1865???
Reading Witchtower litterature you wd almost think genitals were invented in the 20th century.
Before 1952 DF was unscriptural. After that the same scriptures proved it was. Similar with the beard argument.
Control through FEAR and hate..
Nice to be on a thread with you again Blondie!
HB
Before 1946?
Oh Purleeze!
How many prostitutes were in London, Paris, Berlin in the 1860s?
How many illegitimate babies to foundling hospitals, how many pregnant women threw themselves off ONE bridge in London in1865???
Reading Witchtower litterature you wd almost think genitals were invented in the 20th century.
Before 1952 DF was unscriptural. After that the same scriptures proved it was. Similar with the beard argument.
Control through FEAR and hate..
Nice to be on a thread with you again Blondie!
HB
Wow MacHislopp, it is hard to top that research, it is very thorough, thanks.
Cofty brought up the policy of 'probation' in the 60s and 70s, I was not aware of this and indeed, it can be found on the WT Library. The last mention was in 1972 W 2/15. The earliest mention in the Library (which only goes back to the 1950 Watchtower was in 1952 3/1 under 'reinstatement' (of disfellowshipping). 'QFR" W 1954 9/1 goes into much more detail as to when and how it applied
When does probation apply? Before disfellowshiping, during it, or after reinstatement?—L. D., United States.
If a brother has done some wrong that merits disfellowshiping, yet the congregation committee feels that he should not be disfellowshiped because of his sincere repentance or other extenuating circumstances, rather than disfellowshiping him the committee might put him on probation. The committee would set the terms of this probation according to their judgment, having in mind the facts or needs of the particular case involved. If the erring brother complies fully with the terms of the probation for the period of time prescribed by the committee the probation may then be lifted and no disfellowshiping takes place.
If a brother is disfellowshiped, however, he would not also be put on probation. He is cut off from the congregation and the congregation has nothing to do with him, exercises no control over him outside the congregation, puts no restrictions on him outside in the world....
If a disfellowshiped person shows sincere repentance and desires to be reinstated, the committee may reinstate him after the lapse of what it considers a suitable length of time. When this is done the committee may wish to impose some restraints and put the individual on probation. The committee may now do this, since the person has been reinstated and is again a part of the congregation, the congregation now having resumed dealings with the individual.
Hence, in answer to the question, a person may be put on probation without disfellowshiping or after reinstatement from being disfellowshiped, but it is completely illogical for the committee to try to establish probation over a person they cast out and do not even have dealings with. They only talk to him if he comes to them to discuss the matter of his reinstatement. To illustrate, a person in society may break a law. He is convicted and sent to jail. He has been removed from the community; he is not on probation when he is disfellowshiped from society and held in jail. But when he is released and returned to society he may be put on probation and have to live under certain restraints and report regularly to some officer. Or it may be that when he is found guilty instead of being sent to jail sentence may be suspended and he is put on probation, never being removed from society...
Notice their rules states
but it is completely illogical for the committee to try to establish probation over a person they cast out and do not even have dealings with
Yet this is exactly what they are doing today. Rather than placing no authority or rulership over a disfellowshipped person because he is no longer part of the congregation, they prescribe to the dfd person what they want him to do in order to be reinstated. Among other things he must attend meetings and demonstrate to them (not God) his repentance in some physical form. Interestingly, they don't call this 'probation' but within their own definitions this is what it is. In their own words, they are now acting in an illogical manner.
So in the past, if a person was seeking to be reinstated then he was at that point in time, accepted back as a member of the congregation and simply put on restrictions/restraints.
I had wondered why a person who was disfellowshipped and rejected from the congregation was still allowed to attend and actually participate in congregational worship by joining in the prayers and songs of praises. In the past this was addressed by allowing him back into the fold but placed on restrictions but today there is no explanation as to why they have this double standard.
Marked
marked
I wrote an article a long while back on this subject and posted it here on JW-net.
The connection to attorney Hayden C. Covington and his dissonant relationship with Nathan Knorr is discussed.
_________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In 1940, Hayden C. Covington—then the Society’s legal counsel and one of the “other sheep,” with the earthly hope—was elected a director of the Society. (John 10:16) He served as the Society’s vice president from 1942 to 1945.
Hayden Covington was by all accounts an extraordinary force of nature and a natural fighter who never backed down from a confrontation either legal or personal. His hero was Watchtower Society President J.F.Rutherford who was also a staunch advocate of confrontation of one's foes.
In 1942, Rutherford was replaced by Nathan Knorr as the Society's leader.
According to Covington, it was himself who "had the votes" to become the President. But, Knorr had "connived" him out of it.
An immediate clash of personalities resulted....at first UNKNOWN to Covington! Only gradually did the opposition become clear.
In an interview years later * , Covington referred to Knorr in pejorative terms. He called him "sneaky" and a "cobra" and called into question Knorr's courage because of having witnessed him back down from altercations with Catholics in a public forum.
Knorr did not want Covington as his vice-President. Rutherford insisted on his death bed that Covington be appointed. Knorr was poorly educated and Covington considered him ignorant.
Knorr was rankled by Covington's superior education and attempts to influence Society policy through intimidation. Consequently, Knorr engineered a change in policy to exclude non-anointed person's (other sheep) from serving as a governing body member. By 1945 Covington was forced out.
A public relations spin was offered that Covington had "graciously declined to serve" in view of the new policy. Everybody who ever met Covington knew quite well he NEVER backed down or withdrew!
Knorr's champion and fellow conspirator, Fred Franz, created the new policy in order to install Franz in place of Covington.
Covington was retained as legal representative, however, attaining Supreme Court case wins in 80% of the the lawsuits filed.
Two polices of Jehovah's Witnesses may well have been directly impacted by the personality of Covington and the discord with Franz and Knorr. The first was
the policy on Higher Education. Knorr considered Covington's irrepressible ego to be a direct result of "higher education" and a superior attitude.
As animosty grew, public statements by Covington embarassed Knorr and Franz's sense of absolute rightness.
Testifying in a legal case concerning Matthew Barrie we find the following from:
http://thegoverningbody.org/matthew-barrie-jehovahs-witness-judicial-hearing-glasgow-scotland-4/
Walsh Case (See essay The Martyring of Matthew Barrie – A Study in Ethics), and it was a chap who had some legal difference with the Organisation and the vice-president of the Society, Hayden Covington was testifying on the stand and the line of questioning led them down the route of ‘false prophet,’ and he asked various questions regarding the Organisation’s teachings and beliefs over the proceeding decades. (16:10)
And Brother Covington answered in the affirmative: ‘Is it conceded to be the case that your organisation has made false prophecies? And he said, ‘Yes,’ and he said, ‘Would that mean that you’re false prophets?’ And he said, ‘That is conceded to be true.’
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Knorr and Franz braced themselves.
How could either of them win a battle with Covington in the court of public opinion, in an actual lawsuit or otherwise? Covington was brilliant!
Only one avenue of approach remained where the "high ground" would be created to virtually demand all JW's worldwide osctracize Covington (or any other clever antagonists who challenged their athority) for Apostasy if they could engineer grounds for disfellowshipping!
Consequently, the sudden stiffening of penalty and harshness of attitude immediately began to set the stage for an arsenal against any (even Covington) who dared take on the Governing Body!
In the above speculation, I am saying that disfellowship policy was emboldened in reaction to perceived internal enemies and, once in place, grew stronger or weaker as threats came and went over the years.
Post 1975 the internal murmurings let loose a virtual jihad against any nay-sayers. All of which is a 180 degree flip-flop on Society history of this policy.
Some more info from Barbara Anderson:
" ..in the early 50s, Knorr put into operation the disfellowshipping arrangement in a way that was not known previously. It was because of a sexual scandal that involved Bethelites. There is a Kingdom Hall, the Brooklyn Heights Congregation, in the 107 Columbia Heights building, which building houses hundreds of Bethelites. Neighborhood Jehovah's Witnesses attend meetings at the Brooklyn Heights Congregation as well as many Bethelites. In and around 1953 or '54 (and I've forgotten the exact date, which my husband knows, but he's not home for me to ask), a number of young Bethelites who were assigned to the Brooklyn Heights Congregation were engaged in wife-swapping with couples who were not Bethelites, but who lived in the area. When the fat hit the fan, so to speak, Knorr was furious. That's when he used DISFELLOWSHIPPING and cleaned house."
marked
