Posts by cobweb

I wish they would ruin ur life even more along with so many people on here. I wish they would sue you for defemation of character and lible. I wish they would sue you into bankruptcy. But that ain't going to happen so I guess I will have to accept you will just be kept this hurt.

That is the most vicious comment I have seen on this board, Richard. I hope you will apologise and take it back.

161

ARC Analysis Summary of Case Files

by Richard Oliver in

i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.

i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.

it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.

cobweb

I don't know why I have been doing so much research when I can just be like everyone else here and just make up whatever I want, as long as I find people who agree with me, it must be true. This is so liberating.

If all that mattered to us was to be in agreement no matter the truth, most of us would still be witnesses. Its because that is not the case that we are not. It is because we have researched that many have left. It is you who need to research. You say you have done so but I have to wonder at that.

The Jw's do not have the truth Richard. You have everything upside down. Maybe you will see it one day. Please continue to research beyond the small niche that you seem focused on now.

40

Inactive

by ScottyRex in

jw
friends

inactive.......hmmm, what an interesting title (notice, not phrase) that's me.

not a title i ascribe myself, one foisted on me.. jwd -yes.

jw memorial, why of course too.. valid posts on here....yes.

cobweb

I think it is unrealistic to expect everyone to be completely fair and balanced after leaving the org. Our brains are not camcorders, they don't work that way. A JW may have had some good times while a witness but they must look back through the veil of subsequent experiences and knowledge and that colours and reorients how it is perceived.

48

Are baptized Witnesses that are no longer in the "truth", but were NEVER DF'D, now to be shunned and treated like disfellowshipped ones?

by Dunedain in

a relative of mine was telling me, that in his, and a few neighboring congregations, there is a little confusion amongst some of the jw's about this "issue".

some families are having a hard time about whether certain relatives will be attending certain family functions, because some family members that are no longer in the "truth", might be invited to these functions.

mind you, these persons were never disfellowshipped.

cobweb

That does make complete sense Flipper.

The whole convention program of outlines are here if required:

http://avoidjw.org/2016-regional-convention/

48

Are baptized Witnesses that are no longer in the "truth", but were NEVER DF'D, now to be shunned and treated like disfellowshipped ones?

by Dunedain in

a relative of mine was telling me, that in his, and a few neighboring congregations, there is a little confusion amongst some of the jw's about this "issue".

some families are having a hard time about whether certain relatives will be attending certain family functions, because some family members that are no longer in the "truth", might be invited to these functions.

mind you, these persons were never disfellowshipped.

cobweb

As far as what was actually said at the convention is concerned, the outlines are available to read for yourself.

This is the outline for the talk titled 'Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwqmWMK7dwtlQ2tfT2ttZWtkRUU/view?usp=sharing

The outline says the following

Loyal Christians would not associate with “anyone called a brother” who is practicing serious sin. This is true even if no congregation action has been taken, as may be the case with an inactive one (w85 7/15 19 14) This can be a real trial when a family member is involved. We must not allow strong family ties to lead us to compromise loyalty to Jehovah and his organization (w13 1/15 15-16 16-20)

They use the term 'serious sin'. That to me does not mean someone who is merely not going to meetings. But I suppose jws will often go beyond the things written as it were.

There was a talk given on Saturday morning regarding how to treat inactive ones.

This is the link to the outline:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwqmWMK7dwtlT0FCZ1pwYllob3c/view?usp=sharing

It says:

THEY ARE RELATED TO US IN THE FAITH (1 min.) We are especially interested in helping inactive ones because they are our spiritual brothers and sisters [Read Galatians 6:10] Unlike unbelievers, inactive ones started running in the race for life but may have stopped because of anxieties, hurt feelings, or a sense of guilt (Heb 12:1) We should reflect Jehovah’s interest in helping them (Eze 34:16a) The organization made a concerted effort to visit inactive publishers during the recent Memorial season, and our interest in helping them to return is ongoing HELP THEM RETURN “TO THE SHEPHERD” (5 min.) Inactive ones can return to Jehovah [Read 1 Peter 2:25] Jehovah sent prophets and finally his Son to help the nation of Israel to return (it-2 565 3) Jehovah can use us to help inactive ones return to him. A brief telephone call or a visit will remind them that they have not been forgotten by their spiritual family (km 2/07 8) When inactive publishers attend a congregation meeting, we should welcome them warmly. Avoid asking questions or making statements that may embarrass them. When we meet inactive ones, we should promptly let the elders know. Elders take the lead in ‘going after the lost one’ (Lu 15:4-7) They arrange to visit inactive ones at least once a year. Lost sheep are to be carried back gently by the elders (Lu 15:5) Elders understand that sheep separated from the congregation are likely to be exhausted from mistreatment in Satan’s world and from lack of spiritual nutrition Elders should ensure that all inactive ones receive a copy of the brochure Return to Jehovah

None of that help for inactive ones involves socializing with them, but they do not mention this applying to family in this talk, so it seems to me like they are not counseling against socialising with a family member who is inactive but not carrying on serious sin.

Personally, I faded quite some years ago, and I haven't yet had any witness family change their behaviour toward me in the last six months. If they became aware that I was doing something deemed 'serious sin' I suppose that would change. Everyone's experience will be different though, because it relies on individual jw consciences.

48

Are baptized Witnesses that are no longer in the "truth", but were NEVER DF'D, now to be shunned and treated like disfellowshipped ones?

by Dunedain in

a relative of mine was telling me, that in his, and a few neighboring congregations, there is a little confusion amongst some of the jw's about this "issue".

some families are having a hard time about whether certain relatives will be attending certain family functions, because some family members that are no longer in the "truth", might be invited to these functions.

mind you, these persons were never disfellowshipped.

cobweb

The way it was put at the convention was if you know of someone not df but who is engaged in sinful activities then you ought to shun them.

To my understanding then, it depends to what extent your sinful activity is known about. I think if you were carrying on a fairly sin free life after fading or you were simply discreet, it could be possible to not be shunned.

It also depends on the individual conscience of the jw as to whether they will apply the shunning counsel. I have heard of a faded jw where one brother shuns him and the rest of the family doesn't. The trouble with that is that the person shunning is deemed to be more loyal and so it can have a knock on effect.

161

ARC Analysis Summary of Case Files

by Richard Oliver in

i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.

i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.

it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.

cobweb

Forget the technicalities of your argument on child abuse a moment.

I'm throwing this out there. Do you think it is possible that there is some connection between your desire to defend the Org and the Org's rejection of you based on your sexuality. I wonder if you have a need to earn approval somehow. Maybe its unconscious. This to me would explain your passion.

OrphanCrow said something like this in your other thread and I think he's on the money:

OrphanCrow6 days ago

I truly feel like I am trying to talk to a person in an abusive relationship when I am replying to you, Richard. You display exactly the same kind of twisted logic to rationalize your experience

Maybe reflect on it a bit and don't dismiss it altogether. I really think it can't be good for you to be so in favour of an organisation that is taught to hate what you are. Because you are never going to be good enough for them. You need to be able to accept yourself. It doesn't matter how much you defend them.

I know i am going off piste with this comment and its a bit personal. Forgive me, but I just have the impression theres some deeper reason you are so determined to defend the org on tbe child abuse issue, to the extent that you are.

161

ARC Analysis Summary of Case Files

by Richard Oliver in

i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.

i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.

it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.

cobweb

Is there any point going over this same ground? I feel like you are going to make the same argument until everyone agrees with you but its not going to happen. You have made some points that are academicly true - fair enough, but you seem oddly obtuse to the thrust of what everyone else is trying to communicate. Both sides keep trying but if it hasn't happened by now, it aint gunna. Surely its a waste of time and energy and source of frustration to keep going at this.