Read this on another board!..No longer D.A or D.F. ?

by Golden Girl 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  AlanF,

  This new policy is certainly purely for legal reasons. I suspect it's a result of the Anderson lawsuit.

  My immediate thoughts exactly.

  Though the Anderson lawsuit is not focused on overturning the 'disfellowshipping' process, it does play a large part in the suit. With this new procedure in place only insiders will understand the true intent of the statement. To outsiders it seems almost a benign statement, but in essence means exactly the same thing - the shunning of those who are found guilty in a closed judicial hearing of contravening WTS edicts.

  In the 50's and 60's a person was announced as disfellowshiped and their 'crime' was publicly noted. As in 'Hillary Step has been disfellowshipped for eating poodles'. In the 70's a person was announced to have been disfellowshipped for 'conduct unbecoming a Christian'. In the 80's the statement was changed to a simple 'Hillary Step has been disfellowshipped'. Now it is 'Hillary Step is no longer a Jehovah's Witness'. If anyone thinks these changes have been made to treat the JW's with a little more dignity and kindness they are fooling themselves.

  This is cultist public-relations deviancy at its best, but what the WTS does not realize is that with each change in its 'scriptual' procedure obviously at the behest of legal pressure, they are sending a clear signal to all that they acknowledge the Law is getting ever closer to dealing with their anti-social behaviors.

  HS
• 

  William Penwell

  I think the key to the whole issue of how a dub will treat a DF or DA is in the sentence, "If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, "

  What a typical arrogant Jdub comment to make. Again the "we are right everyone else wrong" applies here and excluding all the mistakes the Borg has made over the last 100+ years. I have had calls from a Jdub the last few days as there number comes up on my call display. Makes me wonder now what their true motives may be.

  Will
• 

  toreador

  "If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, "

  Now there is a blanket statement if I ever heard one. That pretty much includes everyone except them.
• 

  Pistoff

  I think that this policy will backfire, and may be shortlived. I have done the fade now for 3 years; if they ever announce that I "am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" I will sue them until I am dead, and my children will sue them.......for slander. Here is why: They are announcing something (in the case of DA) that is legally cloudy; if they meet with someone and disfellowship them, that is defineable. But to announce without meeting, as has been happening? They have NO WAY of knowing, or saying, that I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I know that this won't stop them from doing this to a number of people, but I feel that it will put the process on shaky ground. My 2 cents.
• 

  mad max

  pistof, this is the situation in my case, I did the fade for 8 years and now only 2 weeks ago the elder phoned me and I did not meet them for the commitee case on Sunday and yes they will announce that I am no blah blah.

  I dont know how I could sue them prehaps it was because I did say on the phone that I could not follow his God that lies and I have the spirit in me.

  Now the problem is, that if anyone says hullo to me or has a meal with me (like one of my family members) then they two can get DFed. Very strange. As it has been said they are saying quite plainly that the org is the only one who has the "truth". By saying the above they are keeping a tight control of all the "sheep" who live in FEAR. Thank god i am FREE.
• 

  Golden Girl

  They will also announce something if someone was studying and attending meetings and going in service and decides they no longer are interested!

  They even announce that!..

  They say: So and So is no longer recognized as an unbaptized publisher...

  Have they always done that?

  Snoozy...
• 

  tijkmo

  i think anyone who is about to be disfellowshipped should inform the commitee that if they go ahead and make that 'no longer one of jehovahs witnesses' worded announcement ...then they will sue the individual elders for slander and esp target the elder who makes the announcement...

  tell them that you do not intend to sue the wts as that is what the elders will presume you mean..and they think that they are personally safe because wts has constantly informed them that they do not lose court cases and individual elders will not realise that if they are personally accountable the wts will hang them out to dry

  jehovahs witnesses have always maintained that their name is not a title but an action...by saying that someone is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses is tantamount to saying that they own the copywrite or the patent on the use of that title and that without that name someone is unable to execute that action

  which in itself is quite interesting since a witness in any arena is not nessercarily one who speaks positively about someone. in a court of law or even in a judicial commitee an accuser of wrongdoing is a witness. so if someone ousted from a congregation only ever talks negatively about jehovah and his organization and accuses them of wrongdoing he is still a witness.

  and can call himself such...if he so desires

  whatever the case...if the elders are convinced that you are serious about coming after them and their belongings..house, savings, car, business, sanity..they will start to think about their actions and their conclusions and even their desire to serve in such an unprotected capacity
• 

  willyloman

  They say: So and So is no longer recognized as an unbaptized publisher...

  Have they always done that?

  Yes, since the 1980's. It's related to why you have to answer a few questions from the Org book (posed to you by two elders) before you can be "recognized" as an upbaptized pub and be cleared to turn in your field service time. I forget the exact wording, but the questions have to do with whether your personal behavor comports with JW standards and whether you express a desire to become one of JWs someday. Later, if you opt out, they "unrecognize" you, so to speak.
• 

  metatron

  Slow down and think about what the organization book says:

  "if the decision is made to disfellowship..." or when making an announcement

  to disfellowship....... etc.

  Will people still be disfellowshipped or disassociated? Absolutely! That's what

  the book says - and the elders know it. By extension, the congregation knows it, too.

  The announcement confirms their disfellowshipping, no matter what it says.

  metatron
• 

  POs Son

  So, having never been baptized, hell never even a publisher.... can I write a letter to my old cong. and ask that an announcement be made this Thursday that I "Never was one of Jehovah's Witnesses"???? How should I expect to be treated? Wouldn't that be a fun twist. Get everyone I know to send such a letter to the cong. and force them to make "never has been" announcements all night. Oh, well.... wishful thinking.