Need clarification on communication with a disfellowshipped person

by jostes 46 Replies latest social family

• 

  jostes

  I believe honesty is the best good or bad. I appreciate all of the answers so far, even if they are disliked or liked.
• 

  ?me?

  everyone seems to get confused about "judging someone" and "not judging someone" i think the kind of judgement that the bible talks about is only the kind of judgement that god can determine...... myself and a person always judges others, because we all know right and wrong, and what fits into our value systems.. if you don't judge people, does that mean you don't mind hanging with drug users, dishonest people, jerks, or just bad people? of course not, judging people "ACTIONS" is an important part of life... ok on the dfing question............well now with the new "no longer one of Jehovah's witnesses" you could definately play dumb, it has not officially been spelled out that that is now code word for dfed or da-ed, my neigbor is not a witness, so does that mean that the "former" brother is also "not a witness " anymore??
• 

  Pistoff

  Jostes, you have a reasonable view of belief and religion and tolerance; JW's, both as an organization and individually, do not.

  They believe that they alone have the Truth; NO ONE ELSE has it. In fact, you as a catholic are part of "Satan's organization". Do you understand now the witness mindset? It is filled with drama; black and white are the colors, nothing else.

  Here is what I did; I realized that the language used in ALL of the disfellowshipping material was bluffing about how much you can associate with a disfellowshipped family member. NO ONE is ever disfellowshipped for hanging out with a disfellowshipped family member; they don't want you to, that is obvious. But note the language; they say "it might be possible to have almost no contact". They don't say, if you associate with a df'd family member, you will also be df'd. I know this one; I have had df'd children and I have helped them in every way I can, and I don't hide it. Others have shunned me in return (for being a good parent!!) but they are unimportant to me.

  The problem is this: it takes a mature view to look at it this way. A "true believer" will probably not be able to go against the wishes of the WT on this without their conscience bothering them.
• 

  Max Divergent

  obviously this CULT lacks that and teaches how to hate and hold grudges. ALSO how to judge those but wishes not to be judged at the same time. That is CRAP!

  To hold 'righteous hatred' is a belief of the JW's. A 'true christian' would hate anything/anyone that God would hate. One who has been expelled from 'God's flock' would be hated by God until they repent and return to 'the fold'. Thus, to uphold their christain standing they will act as though they hate the course of conduct of the expelled person to the extent that they won't be around the person.

  Usually they don't actually hate the person (or probably their aleged conduct either), but they act as though they do becuase they're taught that to hate in this way is godly and good.

  They align this thinking to lots of bible verses, probably all out of context and misapplied I suppose... but they use the book to preach this sort of godly hatred of people in the way you describe.

  And there seems to be a greater tendency for disassociation to be infered from conduct too... don't go to meetings, be seen at a lottery counter and 'BOOM!' you're trated as dissasociated all of a sudden by anyone who's heard the rumour and chooses to draw the inference and then applies their dilligent hatred routine.

  Or somthing like that anyhow...

  It's a bit borish really. Thuggary. Bullying. Abusive. Rude. Annoying. Petty. Childish. Insulting. Silly. Self righteous. Self indulgent. Wank.
• 

  Jeffro

  CinemaBlend,
  The standard JW announcement for either disfellowshipping or disassociating is now simply "[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses". As such, members of the congregation are not made aware whether the elders are 'disfellowshipping' the person, or they have 'disassociated'. There is no distinction in how they are to be treated.
• 

  9thWonder

  I didn't realize that people were still disassociated from the congregation. For some reason, I thought that was done away with.
• 

  9thWonder

  If someone disassociates themselves, can they return. This woman took it to the Supreme Court and lost.

  From www.watchtower.org (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm):

  'But,' someone may ask, 'is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?' Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped. She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her. So she took the matter to court. What was the outcome, and how might this affect you? In order to understand the matter properly, let us see what the Bible says about the related subject of disfellowshipping.

  You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.

  Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed. The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals% was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: "Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah's Witness, we find that the 'free exercise' provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm" the earlier judgment of the district court.

  The court opinion continued: "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson's view that '[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free—as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.' . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."

  The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, "permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy." This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.

  Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah's Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned.^ Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God's Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.
• 

  Mr Rocky

  This specific kind of case is a waste of time and money. It has been stated that the JW's are a cult and this is true. When is the Supreme Court going to wake up and realize that that their freedom of religions helps cause Waco and Jones Towns to happen. Freedom of Religion cannot be absolute anymore than freedom of speech. Fredom of Religion was for the individual not for Corporations with their, we got you forever and we will take your reputation and family away if you try to leave rules.
• 

  Mr Rocky

  Another thing what was meant by the founders buy Freedom of Religion was really Freedom from Religion. Freedom of government from Religion. All the Supeme Court did in the Thirties was setup little religious governments with their club rules. Dissassociation should be upheld as a law inforced non retaliation method by which the person leaves an organization. This should be on top of and override a previous disfellowshipping.
• 

  jostes

  Religion is one thing, a vult is another. If this is a cult why should they be considered a religion? why should they be convenanted and protected by religion when it is not?