steve2
This is NOT - repeat NOT - new. When has it ever been an "inalienable" right - and who ever came up with that overblown adjective to describe Witnesses having rights?
It was me Steve. I was the one who was stunned by it and wrote the post.
Thanks WildThing for being curious and wanting a discussion on what this means exactly, I am enjoying seeing the different perspectives on this.
The reason I feel this is new is the following:
Several years ago a woman who was disfellowhipped. She had been a pioneer and said she was "going out in service anyhow". The elders bristled with this effrontery and were sure they would put a stop to that!
They called the Service Desk and much to their surprise were told -
Leave. Her. Alone.
They were told that the preaching comission was directly from the scriptures as was her baptism and that her disfellowshipping restricted her from congregation activities only. So she could not check out a territory or meet with the group. She could however recieve her literature from the literature counter and go out in service on her own.
So seeing that the elders are being directed in writing to obstruct that right in people because of dress or hairstyle seems like things are going in a new direction,
People who are disfellowshipped are not re-baptized upon reinstatement. That baptism supercedes the discipline. A person being a minister was put in that same category.