Latest DF'ing Edict - No emailing Family

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21 Oct 13, 2012
Mikronboy wrote:
WT Jan 2013 study edition:
19 On the other hand, if you choose the path of resentment
toward Jehovah, you will distance yourself from him.
Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is
your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else
—including the family bond. So to cope with the situation,
be sure to maintain your own spirituality. Do not isolate
yourself from your faithful Christian brothers and sisters.
(Prov. 18:1) Pour out your feelings to Jehovah in prayer.(Ps.
62:7, 8) Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail.
(1 Cor. 5:11) Stay absorbed in spiritual activities.(1 Cor.
15:58) The sister quoted above says,“I know that I must stay
busy in Jehovah’s service and keep myself in a spiritually
strong condition so that when my daughter does come back
to Jehovah, I will be in a position to help her.”
20 The Bible says that love “hopes all things.”(1 Cor. 13:
4, 7) It is not wrong for you to entertain the hope that your
loved one will return. Each year, many wrongdoers repent
and come back to Jehovah’s organization. Jehovah does not
begrudge their repentance. On the contrary, he is “ready to
forgive.”—Ps. 86:5.
.
Does it not totally amaze you that the bologna.( Meat in due season).has been several months sitting on the sideboard before it is served.. And that the hype of assemblies and
the memorial is written before said events have taken place.. Hello.. IT's kind of like describing a wedding long before it takes place.. be a hell of a note if it didn't... hmm!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#22 Oct 13, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your problem
nonjw have seen jw kick kids out, very commom when i was growing up and nonjw see how jw handle pedophile, not very impressive
i am sure that folks living in some small town in Tenn will just be comforted knowing that Mo Larry and Curly instead of calling the Local Town cop, called a legal enitity out of NYC to provide them with information based on their UNQUALIFIED INVESTIGATION TO
determine if Frank the child rapist is a "predator"
i can't believe the legal and service dept is going to rely on 3 fools out in the field with no investigative training in molestation, early child hood developement or law enforcement back grounds to provide them with the data they will need to determine that Frank is a predator
does the soceity grasp the legal ramification of such actions THEY NOT THE AUTHORITIES will determine this
can you see the Boys scouts of amer, deciding INTERNALLY the status of such a man
can you see a school system deciding Internally such a man
and yet the wt is taking it upon themselves based on information of guys on the Ground with no SKILLS to make a determination
i can't beleive the wt is that stupid!!!!!!!!
i can just see some court calling some dude from Service dept or legal on the stand and asking what qualified you to determine if this man was a predator or not??
O we got the report from Mo Larry and Curly from Ohio who work down at the Ford Stamping Plant
lol;
bump
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#23 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
I have just proved that they must make a PERSONAL DECISION over this. Furthermore they will not be liable to judicial action over this.
So you are being untruthful.
<quoted text>
Then ACCORDING TO YOUR REFERENCES they are told to respect the theocratic authorities when they say this:
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
===
So your argument simply reinforces what I said.
You haven't proved anything.
mini-me

Mclean, VA

#24 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
This is not an "edict", it is ADVICE.
The degree to which family members are to be 'shunned' is still a personal conscience matter.
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
===
The elders manual specifically states that even undue association with family members not living in the home is NOT a reason for judicial action.
But OF COURSE they always advice against it in accordance with what the Bible clearly teaches.
Its not an edict, its advise. Then its not spiritual food as once claimed but just slop thrown together by the now re-defined F&DS aka GB.

Long gone are the days that the pages of the Watchtower were not the words of men.

Its now only advise. Pretty shi&%y advise at that.

Then using Garth to slop this spoiled and lousy WTS food into the troughs of the poor r&f JW.

Yum-yum.

Come on Gareth, say "thank you sir, may I have another".

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Weston super Mare

#25 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly ANYONE with a disfellowshipped relative is going to quickly find the 1974 article on the CD ROM because they are going to thoroughly research the situation:
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
Sadly, the Sept 15 1981 WT reversed its 1974 softening. Happily, my parents recognised the flip-flop and decided to stick by the earlier article and welcomed me and my brother back into their home.

Occasionally it would cause problems when JW's called around when we were visiting, but when momma tried to explain the complication to us we would simply say that these were her rules, not ours, and quietly leave.
Jace

Woodbridge, VA

#26 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
This is not an "edict", it is ADVICE.
The degree to which family members are to be 'shunned' is still a personal conscience matter.
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
===
The elders manual specifically states that even undue association with family members not living in the home is NOT a reason for judicial action.
But OF COURSE they always advice against it in accordance with what the Bible clearly teaches.
1974!!!!!!!!!!

Man don't be quoting stuff not put out by the Real FDS

The real FDS started last weekend

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#27 Oct 13, 2012
Mikronboy wrote:
Sadly, the Sept 15 1981 WT reversed its 1974 softening.
What nonsense.

he 1981 article does not change the position in any way. In fact the article complements the 1974 article with a lot of detailed advice. At all times it is leaving the decisions down to the family whilst strongly advising to avoid unnecessary contact.

And this also concurs with the elder's manual that explicitly states that no judicial action is taken for even undue association with family members.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#28 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
What nonsense.
he 1981 article does not change the position in any way. In fact the article complements the 1974 article with a lot of detailed advice. At all times it is leaving the decisions down to the family whilst strongly advising to avoid unnecessary contact.
And this also concurs with the elder's manual that explicitly states that no judicial action is taken for even undue association with family members.
. having observed the elders and heard their comments at the meetings.. it's was rather apparent that .. not all of them followed this stuff handed down by the WTS.. And reflect that the WTS.. looked for reasons to disfellowship Franz.. He took a meal with his disfellowshipped land lord.. Oyi!.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#29 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly ANYONE with a disfellowshipped relative is going to quickly find the 1974 article on the CD ROM because they are going to thoroughly research the situation:
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
-
When I was a Jehovah's Witness I was very conflicted about talking with my disfellowshipped (fleshly) sister. On one hand I missed her and was concerned about her and my nephews. We had been close previously. On the other hand, the Watchtower publications constantly emphasized how important it was to shun.
-
It was not a matter of whether or not I would be disfellowshipped for talking to her. She lived in another town, no one would know. No, it was because of the Watchtower constantly telling me it was wrong, that I felt conflicted. I wanted to please Jehovah, so I cut her off. Since my nephews were minors, and she lived in another town, it was not possible to see them alone. So I was in effect, shunning them as well.
-
Now that I am older, and away from the influence if the WTBTS, I realize that there was never any need to shun my sister. I read all those scriptures that are given as reasons for this practice, and I can see they were twisted and misapplied, but it is too late, I will never get those years back and regain that closeness with my sister and my nephews.
-
My sister left the Jehovah's Witnesses, she was no threat to any congregation and therefore shunning was uncalked for. But the WTBTS cannot just let a person go, they have to punish them forever by brainwashing their members into shunning anyone who leaves. It is just a control issue, If you all are the only true religion, how can speaking to a family member who left going to hurt you? Is your faith so fragile it cannot withstand a visit by a relative? It seems a poor, weak kind of faith then.
-

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#30 Oct 13, 2012
much happier now wrote:
<quoted text>
-
When I was a Jehovah's Witness I was very conflicted about talking with my disfellowshipped (fleshly) sister. On one hand I missed her and was concerned about her and my nephews. We had been close previously. On the other hand, the Watchtower publications constantly emphasized how important it was to shun.
-
It was not a matter of whether or not I would be disfellowshipped for talking to her. She lived in another town, no one would know. No, it was because of the Watchtower constantly telling me it was wrong, that I felt conflicted. I wanted to please Jehovah, so I cut her off. Since my nephews were minors, and she lived in another town, it was not possible to see them alone. So I was in effect, shunning them as well.
-
Now that I am older, and away from the influence if the WTBTS, I realize that there was never any need to shun my sister. I read all those scriptures that are given as reasons for this practice, and I can see they were twisted and misapplied, but it is too late, I will never get those years back and regain that closeness with my sister and my nephews.
-
My sister left the Jehovah's Witnesses, she was no threat to any congregation and therefore shunning was uncalked for. But the WTBTS cannot just let a person go, they have to punish them forever by brainwashing their members into shunning anyone who leaves. It is just a control issue, If you all are the only true religion, how can speaking to a family member who left going to hurt you? Is your faith so fragile it cannot withstand a visit by a relative? It seems a poor, weak kind of faith then.
-
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process. The Bible is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses.

“Real Truth Never Changes”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#31 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right because Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely love pedophiles and thoroughly hate teenage children.
What a very convincing story you told. Sounds really credible.
I AGREE!

It's the influence of Satan into the evil, wicked cult of jehovah's witnesses.
hMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#32 Oct 13, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>
I AGREE!
It's the influence of Satan into the evil, wicked cult of jehovah's witnesses.
Yup, that is all the WBTS uses from the Holy Bible, Satan and evil.
Spike

United States

#33 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
This is not an "edict", it is ADVICE.
The degree to which family members are to be 'shunned' is still a personal conscience matter.
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
===
The elders manual specifically states that even undue association with family members not living in the home is NOT a reason for judicial action.
But OF COURSE they always advice against it in accordance with what the Bible clearly teaches.
1974 was new light at that time, but was reverted to the old, pre1974 light sept 15 1981 wt. I wonder if not associating with da and df includes posting on forums like this? Hmm
hMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#34 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right because Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely love pedophiles and thoroughly hate teenage children.
What a very convincing story you told. Sounds really credible.
Actually the WBTS needs males, and they will gladly take pedophiles.
They could care less about children, so they use them as bait for who they need, adult males.
The WBTS' simply doesn't care about the health or safety of ANY child, they brainwash members to feel the same way.
That is why the public needs to look out for the warning signs of abuse in a child of a Jehovah's Witness parent, their own parents are unable to.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#35 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process. The Bible is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Yes, I agree. I was deceived into believing that was what the Bible taught, therefore that was what Jehovah required. I am surprised you agree that the Watchtower disfellowshiping doctrine has nothing to do with the Bible, but I agree 100%.
NorthPeace

Camrose, Canada

#36 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
This is not an "edict", it is ADVICE.
The degree to which family members are to be 'shunned' is still a personal conscience matter.
*** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
Using a quote from 1974 to show how the Society's view is STILL the same TODAY. Too funny!!!
You obviously missed the whole point the post was making - the Society is TIGHTENING their CONTROL.
Notice the distinction the Society made between normal familial association and "spiritual fellowship", and the freedom for family association as long as it didn't involve any discussion related to "spiritual" matters. I believe THAT is still the same. JW can still called on the carpet for discussing doctrine and/or "organizational" matters with d'fed family members. Now, we see the Society doesn't want ANY association, at any level, whether it involves "spiritual fellowship or not.
Whether you consider it an "edict" or not, the Society is RATCHETING UP the extent to which they want JWs to SHUN d'fed family members.
Herein lies the CONTROL and illustrates just how high control and cultist type religious groups like JWs KEEP THEM IN LINE.
Every cong has families with d'fed members. Those families get MARTYRED for SHUNNING their family members, although THEY are the ones doing the shunning, and the rest of the cong get to see what happens when you get disfellowshipped - even to the extent of NO EMAILS EITHER.
Anyone who is or was a JW will know HOW IMPORTANT it is to show to rest of the cong HOW WILLING they are to make these kinds of "sacrifices" - if for instance they were known for continuing regular association like having dinner, going for a coffee downtown, etc, they know they would be viewed as WEAK and risk being LOOKED DOWN ON or being "avoided" too, on a social level.
Often the Society can exhert just as much control with the "unwritten" rules as they can with the more official ones.
Now of course, not EVERYONE will follow this WINK WINK, it'll be like how JW all nod in agreement when "counsel" from the "slave" about participation of this nature with ex-JW, d'fed JW, apostates, etc. on sites like these is delivered from the platform - what they do when they get home is the actual measure of their SPRITUAL MATURITY - I'm sure every elder would love to know. They said YEP at the 'Hall but what do they do when they know that no one's watching...
Same for this new "advice", not everyone will follow it, especially since it's like anything on the 'net, it's done in your privacy making it something that can't be enforced anyway. But there are many "strong" JW who will follow the "slave's" latest direction, and for those families, the Society will drive an even deeper wedge between them and D'fed family members.
The Society doesn't want any "unnecessary" contact between them. This is a far cry from what the WT said in '74.
NorthPeace

“BIBLE TRUTHS *NEVER* CHANGE”

Since: Aug 09

LET GO AND LET GOD

#38 Oct 13, 2012
NorthPeace wrote:
<quoted text>
Using a quote from 1974 to show how the Society's view is STILL the same TODAY. Too funny!!!
You obviously missed the whole point the post was making - the Society is TIGHTENING their CONTROL.
Notice the distinction the Society made between normal familial association and "spiritual fellowship", and the freedom for family association as long as it didn't involve any discussion related to "spiritual" matters. I believe THAT is still the same. JW can still called on the carpet for discussing doctrine and/or "organizational" matters with d'fed family members. Now, we see the Society doesn't want ANY association, at any level, whether it involves "spiritual fellowship or not.
Whether you consider it an "edict" or not, the Society is RATCHETING UP the extent to which they want JWs to SHUN d'fed family members.
Herein lies the CONTROL and illustrates just how high control and cultist type religious groups like JWs KEEP THEM IN LINE.
Every cong has families with d'fed members. Those families get MARTYRED for SHUNNING their family members, although THEY are the ones doing the shunning, and the rest of the cong get to see what happens when you get disfellowshipped - even to the extent of NO EMAILS EITHER.
Anyone who is or was a JW will know HOW IMPORTANT it is to show to rest of the cong HOW WILLING they are to make these kinds of "sacrifices" - if for instance they were known for continuing regular association like having dinner, going for a coffee downtown, etc, they know they would be viewed as WEAK and risk being LOOKED DOWN ON or being "avoided" too, on a social level.
Often the Society can exhert just as much control with the "unwritten" rules as they can with the more official ones.
Now of course, not EVERYONE will follow this WINK WINK, it'll be like how JW all nod in agreement when "counsel" from the "slave" about participation of this nature with ex-JW, d'fed JW, apostates, etc. on sites like these is delivered from the platform - what they do when they get home is the actual measure of their SPRITUAL MATURITY - I'm sure every elder would love to know. They said YEP at the 'Hall but what do they do when they know that no one's watching...

The Society doesn't want any "unnecessary" contact between them. This is a far cry from what the WT said in '74.
NorthPeace
Natural affection deals with family members affection towards one another within their own family circle. Love for your brothers/sisters, parents, children etc is only natural and that members of the same family love one another.

So then, having *no* natural affection is treating your family with the indifference that you would have for a stranger....often even less. The natural bond is gone. Certain ones have no regard for their welfare, they don't care if they are alive or dead, sick and ailing; showing zero regard for their financial condition, well fed or hungry, etc.

For those who do their best to cling to Godly behavior, can this possibly be what anyone would feel that pleases our Heavenly Father or reflects HIS principles and teachings?

While Godly people the world over strive to highlight love, peace and forgiveness within their families and communities....we can see that, in this instance, the WTS religious leaders are promoting the opposite views:

2 Tim 3:3 GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

".....and lack normal affection for their families. They will refuse to make peace with anyone. They will be slanderous, lack self-control, be brutal, and have no love for what is good."

Romans 1:29.... "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips"

God is love. Does this sound like a practice that HE approves or promotes?
remnant143999

Albuquerque, NM

#39 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process. The Bible is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses.
So when are you going to make the "decision making process" and get baptised??
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#40 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process. The Bible is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process because if it were then you would have told the Governing Body that they can't just go and overthrow a biblical doctrine that has stood firm for over 100 years.
UGETTHAT

Melbourne, Australia

#41 Oct 13, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a shame that the Bible appears to have played no part in your decision making process. The Bible is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses.
If the Bible is so important to JW's, please quote me from which part of the Christian Greek Scriptures the word,'disfellowship' appears as it is such a important part of JW teaching?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Purple Faith: Prince's Life as a Jehovah's Witness 7 min Shell from WI 801
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 9 min imagoodboy 6,864
Sword Of Gideon is changing his name 15 min Shell from WI 25
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 17 min Matt13weedhacker 22,833
Question to all Jehovas witnesses? 29 min Shell from WI 48
Prince Religious Beliefs: false rumors, lies an... 40 min aadrivers 13
personally....! 48 min Shell from WI 1,362
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! 54 min Liberated 1,954
NWT is by far the best Bible 10 hr pcloadletter 501
More from around the web