Couple of comments:
France- The ECHR has agreed to consider the WTS appeal over the 60% taxing of contributions. If we are able to prevail it will have a great impact on our status and sit as precedent for any future cases in Europe.
Agreed. And if they lose, the same holds true. This ruling could end up being as significant an event in the WTS history as the Swaggart case here in the US which resulted in them dropping charging for literature. The decision to not set up a for profit entity to sell their literature was one of the biggest business blunders ever by the WTS. See what happens when you don't pay "Caesar's things to Caesar"?
Example: An adult child who lives outside of the household is DFd? While the term ‘Necessary family business’ is a term familiar with those in this circumstance; the GB wants to stress there is no need to push this to the extreme! ….Basically to shorten the example and to get to the heart of the matter….. there must be incentive for the DFd person to want to return. Parents are encouraged to give a little but to leave the DFd child desiring for more while promoting their actions as motivate by their love for Jah. The end result is hope that the DFd child in wanting full access to the abundant love of his parents willl also begin to see his losses in not having a relationship with Jehovah and seek reinstatement.
I love these examples on how to practically apply the Talmud er WT directives. They do this all the time at KM school and at CO meetings with elders. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting development. First, it shows how the WT uses the threat of df'ing as a way to keep the flock in line. Second, it shows how manipulative the WTS is. Third, it clearly shows that the reason for df'ing is not to "keep the congregation clean" but rather to punish those who disagree with their directives. If they were really concerned that a df'ed person would be a bad influence on any JW and cause them to lose their faith, then why the exemption? I hate to be a cynic (not really) but does this potentially lighting of the shunning policy have anything to do with the big dollar French case?? Maybe or maybe now that Jacarz is gone, they're going to lighten up a bit.
This slight shift in the df'ing policy will end up being in a study article I'm sure with some more details. But, I think this is good news for those whose families haven't been displaying "natural affection" and if it eases the pain of shunning, I think that's a good thing.
Thanks Ynot!! Really appreciate all your efforts.
I love these examples on how to practically apply the Talmud er WT directives. They do this all the time at KM school and at CO meetings with elders. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting development. First, it shows how the WT uses the threat of df'ing as a way to keep the flock in line. Second, it shows how manipulative the WTS is. Third, it clearly shows that the reason for df'ing is not to "keep the congregation clean" but rather to punish those who disagree with their directives. If they were really concerned that a df'ed person would be a bad influence on any JW and cause them to lose their faith, then why the exemption? I hate to be a cynic (not really) but does this potentially lighting of the shunning policy have anything to do with the big dollar French case?? Maybe or maybe now that Jacarz is gone, they're going to lighten up a bit.
This slight shift in the df'ing policy will end up being in a study article I'm sure with some more details. But, I think this is good news for those whose families haven't been displaying "natural affection" and if it eases the pain of shunning, I think that's a good thing.
Thanks Ynot!! Really appreciate all your efforts.