Jump to content

Outta Here

The ex-Jehovah's Witnesses shunned by their families (BBC report)

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Outta Here -
JW Insider -
9
3264

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.
It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.

Disfellowshipped or disassociated persons do accumulate. And they don't always pine for the day they will be reinstated. Sometimes they go on the attack. When they do, like people anywhere, they play down whatever responsibility they had in favor of how others done them in.

You would think that the BBC would get the accurate scoop on what circumstances can lead to this most extreme form of discipline and what ones cannot. It's not as though the process is hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.
It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
 

While I agree with you to an extent, I also disagree. The point you made about the abusive relationship and skipping the memorial is true for the most part. I would also not expect that type of reaction to those instances. I think the point being made is not actually WHY one is disfellowshippped, but rather the unnecessary reaction by ALL once one is DF'd, even to the extent of family. I've heard of instances of one getting DF'd  for silly reasons, but yet the reaction is the same. The punishment, in my opinion, does not fit the crime. To God, sin is sin and it has only ONE consequence unless you have Jesus' covering. Us as humans are not God and that is also why there are degrees of consequences when breaking the laws of men. To have to live like you have no family because that family is holding to what the gb says instead of the compassion Jesus had, is cruel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a shame because I have relied on the BBC as an excellent source of information on the abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and have usually found their religion section to be reliable.

On the second point, I can state for a fact that most disfellowshippings, on average, take place within a 190-day window after the Memorial. All disfellowshippings take place within a window of time that is either 183 days before or after a Memorial. So the average amount of time between a disfellowshipping and the time of the Memorial is less than 90 days. See what you can do with numbers?

On the first point about leaving an abusive relationship, I would have to admit that this has happened. A few months ago I told the example of my own sister under a different thread. I'll copy it here:

On 3/11/2017 at 9:08 AM, JW Insider said:

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

But this was about 35 years ago, and this person in the BBC article is saying that something like this happened much more recently. I have not seen the type of thinking that produced such disfellowshippings in the last couple of decades. I have serious doubts about it.

More seriously, however, a person who leaves the Witnesses for doctrinal reasons is considered very differently from a person who decides not to return to the Witnesses after immorality, improper divorce, or simply drifting farther away from association with the congregation. I have been personally involved in a discussion of a person who decided not to associate for doctrinal reasons, and a discussion of going after him for disfellowshipping came up. The conversation went something like this:

First Elder: "His father says he called us a cult"

Second Elder: "At least he came to the Memorial."

First Elder: "So he probably isn't really that antagonistic."

Second Elder: "Or he's just trying to make his parents think he might come back some day, that he still has a chance."

The conclusion was not to go after him, but watch if he causes any commotion. But if a person really is causing divisions and contentions as an ex-JW or apostate, I'd be just as concerned whether he showed up for Memorial or not. I agree that it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a shame because I have relied on the BBC as an excellent source of information on the abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and have usually found their religion section to be reliable.

The program featuring this report is a sort of British version of those shows in the States that lean to emotion rather than factual and balanced reporting. Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera, even Jerry Springer come to mind, although there is more "theatre" . You probably have worse shows.

 I can imagine that the reporter involved in this news item had their own agenda regarding the Witnesses. Reporting on the BBC is usually of a much higher standard.

The incidents of disfellowshipping you sketch, whilst historic and different, illustrate how much more goes on behind the scenes in these matters and why this particular BBC report is really of no value other than a sterling example of media prejudice.

I must say that, once again, I am amazed at the level of "weirdness" you appear to have personally encountered over the years. Particularly this incident regarding the disfellowshipping of your sister over what appears to be entirely legitimate grounds for separation is disturbing.

The best part of the disfellowshipping process for me has always been about repentance and reinstatement and I am glad to have been involved in this side of the matter over the years. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I must say that, once again, I am amazed at the level of "weirdness" you appear to have personally encountered over the years. Particularly this incident regarding the disfellowshipping of your sister over what appears to be entirely legitimate grounds for separation is disturbing.

60 years in 8 different congregations in 3 states can offer up a few anomalies. My sister's experience was actually not so uncommon in the mid-west (Missouri) congregations I grew up in (1964-1976). But I've never personally heard of such things being covered up in the last 20 years. At the time, 1981, the elders seemed more concerned that my sister was going to tell the truth to the hospital staff, and this seemed to be their greatest fear. (Small towns revel in gossip and judgmentalism, so fears of public reproach on the congregation were very real.)

The only truly "weird" disfellowshipping I ever got involved with (and on the "wrong" side, at that)  was that of a 90-year old brother because his friends asked me if I could do something about it, and maybe even help to initiate an appeal. It was the kind of travesty that directly resulted in the loss of several other members of this old brother's congregation, including the couple who asked me if I could get involved.

Yet, I have never directly seen a pedophile case or child abuse case in all my years and congregations. I have not seen an apostasy case since 1984. Immorality, divorce issues, smoking and other youthful indiscretions are the only types of cases I've seen in 30 years, and these have been relatively rare, only one every few years. And, of course, the joyful side of each of these has been the return to normalcy after spiritual encouragement.

What I really hoped to get to in this conversation was to just go ahead and admit that I don't believe we shun properly, most of us anyway. That probably won't surprise anyone. I have no doubt at all, personally, that we overdo it, especially with family-based shunning. I think that shunning should be defined as not inviting disfellowshipped persons into congregation activities (platform teaching, audience comments, public prayer, congregation outings, etc). It has nothing to do with whether we should continue to do good things for any and all persons: enemies, friends, neighbors. We should be able to encourage them, talk to them, hire them, visit them when they are sick, etc., etc. That won't work for every single person in the congregation, especially someone who may have been wronged, but it will work for most.

(I think I ignored the previous conversation on shunning.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that shunning should be defined as not inviting disfellowshipped persons into congregation activities (platform teaching, audience comments, public prayer, congregation outings, etc).

Might need a bit more detail in view of the scriptural specifics don't you think?

My comment on wierdness was more general than related just to disfellowshipping. Mind you, on reflection, having had similar experience to yourself both in years and exposure (albeit much of it inner-city), I've seen my fair share.

I would add that the level of competency and experience required to judge matters that have such a potentially serious outcome needs careful attention and is something that I was totally unprepared for. This is a particular challenge in areas of rapid growth in numbers where skills and experience gets spread pretty thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2017 at 6:20 PM, JW Insider said:

On the second point, I can state for a fact that most disfellowshippings, on average, take place within a 190-day window after the Memorial. All disfellowshippings take place within a window of time that is either 183 days before or after a Memorial. So the average amount of time between a disfellowshipping and the time of the Memorial is less than 90 days. See what you can do with numbers?

Actually as an afterthought, how do you substantiate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Actually as an afterthought, how do you substantiate this?

This was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was havin' a laugh (or in this case "having a loaf" as one of your UK ads says it.) But here goes:

There are about 365 days in a year. So all disfellowshippings take place between 0 and 365 days after the Memorial. The average amount of time is therefore 365/2, which is 182.5 days. Just to allow for some unpredictable skewing, and to be a little more conservative, and because the word "most" is technically at least 50.0001%, I pretended that the year has two extra weeks, so that the average would be 380/2 which is 190 days.

So it was no different than saying that about half of all disfellowshippings will take place during a six-month period, on average. Saying on average, should make the estimate even a bit more conservative, since some years all of a congregation's disfellowshippings might take place towards Winter, but in other years all of them might take place closer to Summer.

It should always be the case that a disfellowshipping is either 182.5 (or 183) days before or after a Memorial because this will cover the entire year, although I left out the word "on average" here which would have better accounted for the times when one Memorial is in March but the following year's Memorial is in April. Still, if, on average, all events (DF'ing or anything else) take place either 182.5 days before or after a Memorial, then the average amount of days that these events take place on EITHER side of a Memorial is 91.25 days (182.5/2) or 91.375 accounting for leap years. I rounded this to 90 instead of 91.375.**

** In my own experience in about 6 congregations from Californian, Missouri and New York, there is a strong skewing toward summer disfellowshippings, and some of this might even be related to the reminders all the elders get in the "season" of extra shepherding visits encouraged just before the Memorial, and the follow-ups just after. This helps my numbers by a few decimal points, but is unnecessary where I said "average." 

At any rate, after correcting the 90 to 91.375, I stand by these numbers, on average. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Church ‘shuns‘ 15-year-old, then father – ends up in court
      Posted by SDD Contributor on November 9, 2019 at 4:20 am  
      The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against a religious congregation’s “shunning” practice, but the congregation and several other groups contend the justices had no right to even take part in the case.
      Randy Wall, a real estate agent, filed the suit against the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary, Alberta.
      Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued an appeals process through the Jehovah’s Witnesses then went to court because he said the Witnesses’ “shunning” — the practice of not associating with him in any way — hurt his business.
      He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
      A lower court opinion said: “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
      The “distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
       
      Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
      During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to rule that religious congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
      The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining whether or not such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
      The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
      A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that Canada’s courts should not be involved.
      The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing: “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      Previous case law has confirmed the right of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
      But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question centers on property or civil rights.
      The Association for Reformed Political Action described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
      It contends the court should keep its hands off the argument.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said: “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
      He continued: “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
      The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the case was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
      “Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
      The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
      The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
      “Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
       
                     
    • By Jack Ryan
      I'm a 21 yo PIMO on the West coast. My family and I attended a wedding this past Saturday and I was completely disgusted by my family's and congregation's behavior.
      The couple that got married are both studies, so they didn't get married at the Kingdom Hall. However they requested an elder to give the wedding ceremony talk (and I call it a talk because it was 95% scriptures and 5% about the couple) and they invited mostly JWs aside from their families.
      Everything was going pretty well, until about 40 min after the ceremony. I just finished eating when my dad whispered to my brother and I that we had to leave because there was a DF'd woman that was invited. I sincerely apologised to the couple for leaving because I felt awful that I had to play along with all of the invited JWs and awkwardly leave the wedding so soon.
      Once my family was in the car, I asked my dad who the woman was. He revealed to me that it was the groom's mom. Apparently a couple of elders went and talked to her and asked her to leave. She refused, so they let her know that we'll all be leaving.
      I was shocked and appalled at the insanity of the situation I found myself in. This couple isn't even baptised and they invited more JWs than family to their wedding only to have them all leave because the groom's mom is in attendance. To top it all off, the brothers afterwards were saying stuff like: "I can't believe that she could be that selfish" and "Aw that poor couple, because of ONE person, everyone had to leave. She totally ruined their wedding".
      The indoctrination is insane in this cult, of fucking course the groom is going to invite his own mother to his wedding. I can't believe that I'm expected to feel offended at the mother for refusing to leave her son's wedding. I really hope that the newlyweds see this as crystal-clear evidence that this is a cult.
      - Contributed
      --------------------------------
      Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
      He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
      Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise... Unless they're dfed then leave em to die."
       
      --------------------------------
      Their actions are codified as follows:
      *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 23 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped . . . ***
      "There is no point in looking for some rule as to family members being at gatherings where a disfellowshiped relative might be present. This would be something for those concerned to resolve, in keeping with Paul’s counsel. (1 Cor. 5:11) And yet it should be appreciated that if a disfellowshiped person is going to be at a gathering to which nonrelative Witnesses are invited, that may well affect what others do. For example, a Christian couple might be getting married at a Kingdom Hall. If a disfellowshiped relative comes to the Kingdom Hall for the wedding, obviously he could not be in the bridal party there or “give away” the bride. What, though, if there is a wedding feast or reception? This can be a happy social occasion, as it was in Cana when Jesus attended. (John 2:1, 2) But will the disfellowshiped relative be allowed to come or even be invited? If he was going to attend, many Christians, relatives or not, might conclude that they should not be there, to eat and associate with him, in view of Paul’s directions at 1 Corinthians 5:11."
      No rule given LOL, gotta love Watchtwer's constant plausible deniability wording.
    • By Jack Ryan
      A Norwegian JW woman, who was sexually abused, was disfellowshipped for fornication. The woman first appealed inside the organization - without success. Feeling injustice, she then decided to sue Jehovah's Witnesses. The court decided last month that the disfellowshipping was against the Norwegian law and must be canceled. The court also ordered the local Jehovah's Witness organization to pay 100 000 NOK to the woman.
      Here is the story, in a Norwegian newspaper.
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      I do find it kinda' funny that JW's love to talk about billions of people being removed / destroyed / killed / murdered at Armageddon. Billions of people.
      And for what ? Well JW's say it's for not serving God. But they will also say it's for not being a baptised JW. 
      Well we do know for sure that God either deliberately had, or deliberately allowed, the destruction of Jerusalem in circa 70 C E, and for what ? 
      Well the Bible shows us it was for not serving God properly, and for killing God's son. 
      BUT when I suggest that the Governing Body should be removed or destroyed, oh dear, the JW's they get really upset ya know. 
      Governing Body = 8 men.   Jerusalem = how many, men, women and children, thousands of them. 
      But oh dear, now it would be murder. So what was it back then ?  Your see JW's live in a dream world, wrapped up in cotton wool, they just cannot face the real world.
      The Governing Body do not serve God properly. That is clearly visible to anyone that honestly wants to see it. 
      The Governing Body are destroying JW Org, and if JW Org is God's true Organisation then the GB are deliberately working against God and against God's intentions. 
      Humans that deliberately work against God and cause problems for God do not last long on this Earth. 
      The Bible shows much proof of this, such as those that opposed Moses. 
      I am expecting the GB to be removed, one way or another. But only if God really wants to use the JW Org / Watchtower soc for His own purposes. 
      If God does not want to use those Orgs then it would seem sensible for God to set up a new Org for His purposes. 
      The only problem with the GB being 'removed' is that JW's will call it a 'sign of the times' and 'persecution', but if God causes the removal then I'm sure He will put them straight. 
      Those people that say that the GB cannot be removed / destroyed, are those people that worship the GB. And those people that worship the GB may probably need removing too. 
      The world is wicked, it belongs to Satan. The Earth is wonderful and it belongs to Almighty God.
      For God to save this Earth and for Him to save a few humans too, drastic things have to take place. Drastic things have to take place.
       
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital".
      The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess's racial heritage.
      Baker claimed it was a "stupid gag".
      The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.
      The corporation said Baker's tweet "goes against the values we as a station aim to embody".
      It added: "Danny's a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us."
      https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693
    • By Albert Michelson
      What is the good news?
       
      The Bible is clear that even if someone had been clearly selected by god if they deviate from the truth they are to be rejected. 
       
      Galatians 1:8-9 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.  9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.
       
      This holds even more weight for ones like the GB who are not clearly selected and who's claim to authority rests solely on a demonstrably false interpretation of scripture.
      The organization claims that the 1914 teaching is necessary for salvation and even goes as far as to claim that the 1914 teaching is the good news spoken of in the Bible.
      *** w67 12/15 pp. 753-754 pars. 3-4 What Now Distinguishes the Good News to Be Preached ***
      "What a joy-inspiring addition or enlargement to the good news now to be preached! Now has come the victorious kingdom of our God together with the authority of his Christ, his Messiah! As for Satan the Devil and his demons, they have only a short period of time until they are bound and imprisoned in the abyss after the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Armageddon. All this additional wonderful information has been true since the end of the “appointed times of the nations” in 1914, and particularly since World War I closed in the year 1918. Not before the “appointed times of the nations” ended in the fall of 1914 could the good news be preached of the newborn, established heavenly kingdom of God and of his Messiah. This, then, must be the good news that Jesus Christ in his prophecy said had to be preached first in all the nations. (Mark 13:10) This generation of human society that has seen and experienced the world events since the Gentile Times closed in 1914—this is the “generation” that will not pass away until all the things foretold have happened, including the preaching of the good news first in all nations.
      4 Jesus’ prophecy in Mark 13:10, “Also, in all the nations the good news has to be preached first,” has not been undergoing fulfillment during the past nineteen centuries. It is only since the second decade of our twentieth century that this prophecy has been undergoing fulfillment. This began to be realized by the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society since the end of the second decade of our century. In the magazine issue of July 1, 1920, of The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence the article was published entitled “Gospel of the Kingdom” and based on the theme text, “‘And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.’—Matthew 24:14.”
       It is for this reason that the organization is chained to the 1914 teaching. As the scripture I quoted above demonstrates the Bible says that one who teaches a good news that is false is cursed. If the organization admits that the 1914 and 1919 teachings are false they will have to admit that not only were they not selected as gods channel but that they have been teaching a false good news for the majority of their existence. It is for that reason that they disfellowship and shun people who cannot conscientiously remain in the faith. It's easier to just eliminate the opposition then to actually address the real issues with your theology. 
      *** w86 4/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
      Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
       
      "Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
       
      That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4."
       
      This is supposedly a list of the fundamental doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that all are required to believe. You will in most cases be disfellowshiped for not believing in one or more of them. Unfortunately the truth is most of them are false.
    • By Jack Ryan
      If the love you have for your children is predicated on their beliefs, you don't love your children you love YOUR beliefs
    • By Jack Ryan
      In previous decades, when someone was disfellowshipped, they were told their time would be 6 months. Now it’s a full year?
      Why did that change from 6 mo to a year? and are they getting more ppl to come back with the increased time? With the less members staying in the org, you would think they want to lower the “jail time “
      Also are there any other religions that gives you months or years of time out, if you commit a sin, even if you actually want to come back?
      Also any former elders here? Why is there a standard set time for everyone? And why can they reject someone’s letter who wants to come back? Don’t they need more members ?
    • By Jack Ryan
      Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4
      Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the Canadian Supreme Court.
      If you don't, YOU participate in this gross sin. Because you ALL KNOW this is a false statement.
      Remember as well that this JW Lawyer is also an Officer of the Court.
      What the courts do not know is that JW's consider outright lying in court a part of "theocratic warfare" just like Muslims do. So it is a virtue to them.

      SMH.
      Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y?
    • By Jack Ryan
      "Sunday, December 30
      Asa’s heart was complete with Jehovah all his life.—1 Ki. 15:14.
      Each of us can examine his heart to see if it is fully devoted to God. Ask yourself, ‘Am I determined to please Jehovah, to defend true worship, and to protect his people from any corrupting influence?’ For example, what if someone close to you has to be disfellowshipped? Would you take decisive action by ceasing to associate with that person? What would your heart move you to do? Like Asa, you can show that you have a complete heart by fully relying on God when you are faced with opposition, even some that may seem insurmountable. You may be teased or ridiculed at school for taking a stand as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or colleagues at work may taunt you for taking days off for spiritual activities or for not often working overtime. In such situations, pray to God, just as Asa did. (2 Chron. 14:11) Remain firm for what you know is right and wise. Remember that God strengthened and helped Asa, and He will strengthen you.
      w17.03 3:6-8 "
      https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dt/r1/lp-e/2018/12/30
    • By Jack Ryan
      This was a case where in June 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court.
      http://openjurist.org/819/f2d/875
      Has there been any cases after this, where DF cases went to court? Have there been cases in other countries were DF decisions were challenged and reversed?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Here in the United States we have Cable TV with such things as "History Channel", "Discovery Channel", "Scifi Channel", and "A&E" the "Arts and Entertainment Channel".  Apparently around November 13 of this year they had a famous (?) TV star, Leah Remini,  who had been a Scientologist since she was eight years old turn Apostate, and she has done at least two TV seasons exposing the ills of the Church of Scientology", do an Expose' of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      I do not watch TV as a rule, and missed it, and I spent a few days looking for it and trying to download a copy.  It was not on YouTube, but I did find it under "Aftermath Jehovah's Witnesses" on the Russian equivalent of YouTube, "Rutube.ru". It would not download with my usual download software, so I had to find a free screen capture software, which took about four hours to get the settings just right, and I was able to download the two hour program from my monitor, as it was playing.
      Therefore, I watched the TV program three times, as I experimented with the settings to get a good screen copy to my hard drive..
      I could see both sides of the program viewpoints presented, and did not find us to be misrepresented in any way whatsoever ... but if there was EVER a clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the horror the Governing Body has caused in disfellowshipping the way that it is currently done ... by ripping families apart, and creating  irreparable damage that can never be corrected with reinstatement, was chilling, and puts us in the same class as Scientologists ... which completely disregarding the horror and hardsip, and cruelty without any mercy whatsoever it creates locally, shames Jehovah's Name and Reputation over the whole planet.
      I don't believe there is anything a local Jehovah's Witness could do ... rob a bank ... have a harem ... have sex with horses ... etc., ad nauseum ... that would besmirch Jehovah's name and reputation globally as much as our current blatantly cruel public policies of destroying whole families for the sins of one person.
      I am very glad to have the education I have to know that the TRUTH is still the truth .... even though the 85% drivel has rotted and fermented into rotten sewage.
      Most JWs do NOT have this educational advantage ... so their lives are permanently destroyed.
      I don't expect much from people, and almost NOTHING from groups of people .... so for me, like getting one of those great salads at the Olive Garden Restaurant, and finding a big chunk of solid sewage in it ... I hold my nose, and eat around it.
      This TV Special is global news .... what could I possibly say to the average person that would clear the Name of God, that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, NOT THE TELEVISION PROGRAM, has corrupted by its Pharisaic policies that have real world consequences?
      The exact same thing happened in ancient Israel, and a system that God blessed and supported for a thousand years and more was abandoned by God.
      The exact same thing.
       
       
       
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON . BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?
      Here is the situation .....  a person REPORTED to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused, and NOT convicted ( ... because he is a fugitive from Justice ...) .....

      Apparently he was at one time in a "Position Of Authority", which possibly alludes to his being an  "Elder", and he may have relocated to another State or even another Country. Possibly using an alias.
      The  various Congregation Elders cannot find him, the Society cannot find him, and the U.S. Marshal's Service cannot find him.
      Not having any indication to the contrary ... at least from the information given in the pseudo-Wanted Poster shown above, he is possibly still officially one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      Whether he is or not, his bad example raises an interesting  aspect of trying to figure out how the disfellowshipping "system" protocol actually works.
      Can any of the Congregations  he went to disfellowship him without his being present  to answer charges ?
      ... and SHOULD he be?
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      DO  WE STILL  DISFELLOWSHIP  THE  MENTALLY  ILL ?
      I was a teenager in the 60's,  and I had a good friend that on Scout camping trips I introduced to the Truth, and I was there in NYC at Yankee Stadium when he was baptized as one of Jehovah's Witness. He was a true "straight arrow", and pioneered, always dressed immaculately, and eventually over the years became an Elder.
      One night, at an Elder's Meeting, he announced to the other Elders that he was Jesus Christ, and that his mother was the virgin Mary, and of course he was disfellowshipped.
      He spent several years in private mental institutions until his insurance money ran out, then in a State institution for several years.
      He called me up, and told me the story, and I told him I was the Great Turtleman, and every November, before I hibernated, I rose from the swamp and gave toys to all the good little boys and girls.  I was just pulling his leg, but he was dead serious.
      Later, he was in England, while his wife was trying without success to get him to take his medications, and fell over a balcony at Heathrow Airport and got killed.
      DO  WE STILL  DISFELLOWSHIP  THE  MENTALLY  ILL ?
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      from 2016 the year that they started the return to Jehovah brochure.
    • By Jack Ryan
      a heartbreaking video has emerged online showing how far reaching and deeply ingrained this shunning policy is; a video showing JehovahÂ’s Witnesses clapping in applause as a little girl announces she is shunning her own sister.
      Little Melody, and the sister she doesnÂ’t have.
      The incident appears to take place at one of this years Watchtower conventions. The video was posted on youtube by the girls parents, apprently eager to share with the world how they had trained one of their children to pretend her sister didnÂ’t exist purely on the basis of religious dogma.
      The video was comment-protected once viewers began expressing concern and displeasure at what they saw, but at the time of writing the video itself is still live and can be viewed below on the family’s youtube page. (EDIT 11/09/2017 – The video has been removed, but we have linked to an alternate site which has a copy)

      t shows a little girl called Melody. She is ten years old, and was apparently baptised when she was 9. This means that Melody is now committed to the religion for life, and will be shunned if she ever leaves, or “unrepentantly” breaks any of its vast array of detailed rules.
      During the interview, Melody explains that she has a sister who was “disfellowshipped,” which is the Witness term for one who is excommunicated; someone who was thrown out of the faith rather than leaving of their own accord. We are not told the reason for the disfellowshipping, but one can be subjected to it for a wide range of reasons such as pre-marital sex, celebrating Christmas or birthdays, voting, taking a blood transfusion, joining the military, or simply questioning any of the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      Melody states that her sister was trying to contact her, and asking her to stay in contact despite Watchtower decreeing that she be shunned. Remember, MelodyÂ’s sister has probably lost all her family and friends at this point; everyone she ever knew and loved.
      Melody admits that she misses and loves her sister, but states that she was afraid that if she didnÂ’t cut her sister off completely, she might be tempted to keep some form of relationship going. Thus, she has decided to shun her completely, as Watchtower demands. She claims that this was to protect her relationship with Jehovah.
      The audience of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses watching this announcement applaud.
      Source
    • By Jack Ryan
      This comes from the final talk at the Birmingham, AL Convention. Herd talks kind of low and there is some background noise, so here is a transcript starting at about 1:25.
      I thought this was interesting because it doesn't appear to be in the talk outline. Admittedly, I just skimmed through the outline quickly, so it might be in there. Either way, there is something twisted about comparing the shunning of children to casting out demons from heaven.
      Edit: For those wondering, this talk is from August 5. The part before when the transcript starts is Herd talking about King Asa removing his grandmother from her position.
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,512
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,508
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would this mean supernatural babies would not have received judgment because they are babies? Babies that turned into giants that caused the deaths of countless humans, including babies by a power given to them, they shouldn’t have received? Does everyone that possess the Holy Spirit have the ability for prophecy? No! That is made by design by God. 2 Peter 1:20-21, Romans 12:6 It would be unusual for a witness to be distinct to such honor and speak of prophecy as though it was relayed directly from God to that individual. Countering the written words of Paul. God gives that privilege, it is not taken by man. John 3:31-35 With that said, faithful witnesses should understand the meticulous groundwork that Pastor Russell laid-out for everyone to see. There are 2 instances within scripture of 1260. Revelation and Daniel. What witnesses shouldn’t do is project their independent understanding of prophecy, when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. However, I have seen where some people use genesis and Ezekiel as a reference guide. Therefore, there is no contradiction to Paul's words since the understanding of being enthroned in 1914 versus having taken control are two separate issues. Then, AD 1914 stands on its own Biblical merit.
    • I have a better idea, big boy. You write a letter—that way I do not have to—and ask about the specific reasons that Tim Cook was made part of the Governing Body. Specify that you want details.. Do not settle for “he was a pioneer for so many years, then a missionary, then a Bethel servant.”  No. Ask about specific praiseworthy deeds, abilities, or accomplishments that made the others think: “We have to get this guy on the GB!”  How bout it, sport? Write that letter. Make it certified. Send a copy to the BOE. Send a copy here, even, so that we can all see the answer. Hold their feet to the fire! My guess is that you will not get anything more than the generic, and you may not get even that. Instead, you may get references to verse like 2 Corinthians 10:12  For we do not dare to class ourselves among some or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. Certainly they in measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves have no understanding. or there might even be counsel not to fall into the pattern of “admiring personalities.” (Jude 16) When you get this reply, fire off another letter to them about how as MEN of HONOR, they owe it to you to SPILL when you say SPILL. Remind them of their scriptural obligation to TRUTHFULLY answer anyone who asks a question. Tell them that since you are asking them about good things, and not bad things, there is NO REASON for them not to oblige you.  The reason that they still will not satisfy you is that they are not into honoring persons. It is very hard to get the laudable specifics about any individual. They view humans, even themselves, as placeholders used by God, and when this or that is accomplished, credit goes to Jehovah, not the GB character or helper or branch servant who dreamed it up or got the job done. You have only to watch Sam Herd giving the Gilead talk in the most recent broadcast, shaking his jowls like Nixon, parodying those slobbering over the “Govnin Body” —a skit that I am still trying to get down pat for imitation—before he says it’s not any of them doing anything—you could do the same were you in their place—but it is Jehovah who should get all credit. They are not into zeroing in on the accomplishments of humans. Humans are placeholders. The good things they do are attributed to Jehovah, the bad things to human imperfection. I doubt you will get specifics for either.  Be a sport, JTR. Give it a go. Save me a stamp.  
    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.