on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.
if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.
every effort is made to help wrongdoers.
Maybe I'm the only person here who thinks the WTS is trying to deceive the public . . . ? ?
We all know JW's shun the disassociated. The point is: they're using their spin doctors to try to convince the public that they don't....
Am I the only one who sees the WT deception here?
do any of you good people of jw.com remember going to a district convention and hearing that little announcement the chairman would make before the bible-drama started?.
it generally went like this: "please remain seated during the drama and please do not obstruct other peoples view if using recording equipment such as camcorders" and he would also say "please do not use flash photography because it distracts others and is of little use.".
they made such a fuss anyone would think we were all going to witness the second coming of christ, floating down on his chariot onto the field!
Hmmmm, might this be the 1994 drama?
on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.
if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.
every effort is made to help wrongdoers.
The reason I bring this topic up is that the wording on the JW media website was changed recently. It used to say
Those who simply cease to be involved are not shunned.
Now it says
Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.
Why was it changed? If I didn't know any better, I would say that the former refers to the inactive, the "fade-aways" and the latter refers to the inactive and the da'ed, too. I know it's just a few words, but they seem to convey a different tone.
on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.
if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.
every effort is made to help wrongdoers.
Leaving the faith means becoming inactive.
I believe that "leaving the faith" is the same as "leaving Jehovah's Witnesses". If this is the case, then I would say that becoming inactive is merely one way (of only 2 options I can think of) of leaving Jehovah's Witnesses. Another option to leave Jehovah's Witnesses is to disassociate oneself. It's an option that has been discussed many times on this board.
It's really a matter of semantics, but I honestly believe that becoming inactive is not the only way to 'leave the faith' of JW's.
DAing yourself is disfellowshipping yourself
The final result is the same, you get the cold shoulder. The means is not, though. When someone is DA'ed, no JC meets, no 'sin' is required. I disagree with, but understand, the WT reasons of DF'ing and treating them the way they do. What basis do they have for treating DA'ed ones the same way? I see no Bible support whatsoever...
on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.
if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.
every effort is made to help wrongdoers.
On a whim, I recently visited the JW Media site and found this question in their Beliefs FAQ at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:
My problem is with the first sentence. "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned." Is this true? I think most elders would agree that those who "leave the faith" include disassociated ones.
Do you shun former members?
Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.
The August King-dumb Misery insert now says that
the principles . . . apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who are disassociated.
How can this be reconciled with what's on their website (not to mention the Bible), even using the WTS brand of double-talk? Or does the WTS need to update their site to say: "There's no honorable way to leave the WT. If you go, you're toast!" ??
Is the webmaster in the dark? Was he left out of the latest edition of "new light"? Is there dissention in the ranks? Or am I missing something?
i just read this off another thread that was on the jwzone.... "at my dc, i sit in my seat for the entire teaching program.
i sing, i take notes, i enjoy it, i feel moved, encouraged, blessed.
i dutifully walk only at prescribed walking times.".
Uh, I think they're referring to the noontime intermission...
ok starting about 10 years ago channel one was and is a newstation that is for jr, high and high school students.
i remmeber watching the gulf war on it, bosnia and a lot of differnt events.
it was a 15 min news program that we watched everyday.. lisa ling was on it before she left to join 'the view'.
Channel One - In my opinion, it's too commercialized and somewhat annoying, but it does get some of the news out to high school kids, and it's definitely real! It lasts about 12 minutes and is shown every morning in most high schools.
Side point - Channel One was the way many schools got a TV in every classroom. When the schools promised to show Channel One on a daily basis in the early or mid-90's, they got a TV for every room. Not a bad deal!
i have wondered why jws wear" id badges" at assemblys and not on the preaching work or at the hall,i know of someone who was stopped by an attendant because he wasnt wearing a badge.is it something to do with showing off our religious belief to outsiders, i must be honest i use to take mine off when leaving the assemblys but i noticed many wearing theres even when going home on the bus or walking home "i knew of 1 who wore his to bed", mormons wear id cards on their preaching work so do you think jws should.maybe due to the paedophile scandal jws may have to wear id badges especially paedophiles.
I've always taken offense to the JW's command to wear their ID badge at all times while in the convention city, at the hotel, and when eating out. Every other convention I've ever attended (non-JW) has ALWAYS recommended to take your badge ID off when leaving the convention center. Crooks see your badge and know you're an out-of-towner, leaving you more susceptible to robbery or attack. If the WTS really cared about their slaves, they would think more about their SAFETY and not so much being a walking advertisement for their ASSembly.
what do americans in general actually really know about the big outside world outside of their own culture?.
it's certainly not just me, but for years since early childhood in fact, it has been commonly accepted by many, that americans in general are the biggest ignorant fools residing almost anywhere on the planet, yet they still do their damndest to have everyone believe what a great nation they are.
is it even beyond their comprehension how foolish they look often to the rest of the world, the fact that they have so little understanding of problems on the worldwide front?.
Invisible said:
it has been commonly accepted by many, that blah blah blah blah blah
Haven't I read this line in the Watchtower magazine? I think Invisible is on the Writing Committee!!
It has also been commonly accepted by many that the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Just because "many" people accept something does not make it true...
something that has been alarming to my jw family is the amount of teens ("young ones") that have bailed out of the organisation, never to return.. they use the excuse, as would most jw's that "satan is getting them - he knows young ones are vulnerable.".
if you want my opinion, young people are getting far more educated - they are becoming far more broad minded than they were say 10 or 20 years ago.
because of the slow yet sturdy slackening of the "no college" rule, many more young jw's are attending university or college than ever before, and with further education comes more knowledge, more interaction with reasonable and intelligent conversations with educated people and most importantly -use of the internet ("satans latest tool, as put by a jw i talked to recently).
The JW org as a whole doesn't really care about the youth among them. But when the GB has an average age of about 75, this is not surprising. If they even did something such as establish a "Youth Department" at HQ, they would be making a great symbolic gesture that they actually care. They could even, God forbid, appoint a few younger people to the GB. (And, BTW, guys in their 50's do NOT count as younger.) Maybe then they would start to make strides in keeping their younger members.
This year's summer convention produced the first publication geared toward young people in 13 years. Thirteen years!! And it was just a tract! And if that weren't bad enough, it was nothing more than a tract plugging various aspects of pioneering and Bethel service (guess the numbers must be down...).
Until the organization wakes up and realizes that publishing a tract once a decade does NOT show consideration for young people - only a lack thereof - they will continue to lose their potentially most energetic and productive members. Until they realize that by banning (strongly discourage = banning) university educations, they bring about a shameful brain drain in the org, the WT will continue to lose its best and brightest.
Oh, I almost forgot! There IS one thing they do for the kids - they write all the mags on a 3rd grade reading level!
