Marked.
Why No Disfellowshipping Before 1952?
by blondie 72 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
3rdgen
m
-
Vidiot
Terry - "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.’"
I'll say this about Covington; the man had way more balls than his opponents.
I still wonder how the hell the WTS still managed to achieve tax-free/charity status after that trial.
Terry - "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."
Well, bully tactics is what you use when you don't have the ethical high ground.
Of course, if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs...
Tim Hooper, quoting Barb Anderson - "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."
JW swingers; now that's funny.
I can just picture a big purple vein throbbing in the middle of Knorr's forehead, and steam coming out his ears.
-
piztjw
And the current attitude about disfellowshipping is plain from the comment one of the super-eldurrs yapped on about last night for the bible highlights.
"Deut. 13; 6-9 states that anyone who was a false prophet should be stoned to death. They should be killed! Today we can't kill apostates, but we can at least disfellowship them!"
The chowder-head actually had a tone of sorrow when he said, "we cannot kill", but seemed pretty happified that they could disfellowship someone.
-
Hairtrigger
Marked. Thank you.
-
bsmart
Time to bump this back to the top.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
Good thread to bring up.
I don't have any inside information, but I think disfellowshipping was 'on the books' previous to '52, but seldom used in the US. I would guess that part of the reason disfellowshipping took off was the post war expansion which brought different needs and the organization didn't have a way to control it. Gilead started in the late '40's and they started to have conversions of a lot of different backgrounds from the various countries they sent missionaries to. Polygamy, voodoo, you name it. They got themselves trapped into the practice of ruling on disfellowshipping matters that they would have been better not commenting on or making rules about.
-
Rattigan350
Because prior to that there weren't congregations for that to matter and the organization was in it's growth. The Rutherford era didn't necessitate it, it necessitated neutrality and anticathalocism. Sort of like the 'higher powers' in the Rutherford era necessitated it being Jehovah God and Jesus christ, but after that it was the governments.
-
Rocketman123
It becomes a bit amusing that J Rutherford would have been DFed himself for living with another woman when separated from his wife.
And to suggest that after the war immorality was rampant is just broad speculative lie.
I think the WTS heads such as F Franz was worried about questioning or critically thinking people within the organization, such as questioning the validity of 1914 when no other christian based faith made any similar proclamation.
Power does funny things to men, Franz was one who was oh so righteous but at the same time was also oh so corrupt in his endeavors to keep his acquired power, this continues on with the JWS GB men today .
-
truth_b_known
"Deut. 13; 6-9 states that anyone who was a false prophet should be stoned to death. They should be killed! Today we can't kill apostates, but we can at least disfellowship them!"
Ever watch the tv show "The Handmaid's Tale"? I am certain that if the Watchtower had its own country on Earth the nation of Gilead would look just like it.