Should JW's punish, disfellowship, or shun members who disagree with certain teachings?

[Albert Michelson]

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

So you want to debate and argue, Albert? What do you offer better? Much like Satan, nothing! A wind bag, lots of hot air!

Um freedom and intellectual honesty. 

[Albert Michelson]

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

We fret and fawn over the the things we avidly complain about, but remember even perfect Jesus worshipped at the imperfect temple, where twice he threw out those he called robbers! He too allowed his Father to cleanse the mess. 

Yes but the WTs entire claim of being the ones chosen by god as his representatives is based on the 1914 teaching. If he never chose them then leaving this sect isn't the same as leaving the temple. 

Its more like if someone sided with kora because they believed god was using him but later realized that he wasn't being used and so stopped following him.

[Albert Michelson]

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

When young Samuel was at the tabernacle, he saw the daily activities of the sons of Eli, correct? Were they appropriate in the way Jehovah wanted things done then and there? NO! But while it was allowed, the people to serve Jehovah came there and Samuel also served there, not leaving going elsewhere.

Whenever JWs make these arguments it's with the presupposition that god had chosen the WT in the first place. However the parallel falls apart when that claim is proven false. Again it would be more like someone following after the false teachers in the apostles day then realizing they weren't teaching truth and leaving their group.

Revelation 2:2 I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot bear bad men, and that you put those to the test who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them liars.  

Rejecting those who falsely claim to be chosen by god is never condemned in scripture. 

 

[Noble Berean]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These were persons who were a real danger to others, so that a way should be found to "mark" them for the entire congregation. They weren't shunned as a way to make others feel superior to them, or to use emotional blackmail to draw them back in, but just as a protection.

Nice idea, but how do you have one without the other? If you shun, it's always going to be emotional blackmail.

[Albert Michelson]

There's also the fact that many disfellowshipings happen because of corrupt elders or because the organization is trying to cover up its indiscretions. 

Ive had friends who were disfellowshiped because the elders were trying to hid something they or their kids did. Barbra Anderson and her husband were disfellowshiped for coming forward about the problems with pedophiles in the organization. 

They love to say it's a protection but experience shows that not only are people not protected but they are often abused, threatened, and needlessly harassed. The pain of losing ones family has driven many to suicide. Witnesses often live a very insular life and rarely have associates outside of the group. The WT is counting on the disfellowshiping process to leave the individual with nothing, no support system and no social network. They hope that they'll fall on their face and come crawling back. Unfortunately for the WT more and more resources are being made available to those exiting. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Nice idea, but how do you have one without the other? If you shun, it's always going to be emotional blackmail.

I don't know.

My hope would be that the Governing Body would send out recommendations and counsel based on the fact that the Governing Body would have been soliciting and welcoming input from everyone on the subject. The counsel they would be giving back out to the congregations would be Bible-based and would offer that same reminder that we are not trying to punish the person with silence; it's not "tough love"; we are only trying to avoid the danger. We are not trying to show our moral superiority, self-righteousness, and we continue to show love wherever we can, even while "shunning" the wrong.

Being cordial, polite and even friendly in a public setting or a congregation meeting would be fine for most "marked" persons. Let's say that an extortioner got some brothers involved in a financial scheme and does not appear sorry and has not tried to pay back what was taken from them. We may rightly feel disgusted at the sin. But the "shunning" is not a total withdrawal of speech and association or even shunning from Bible discussions. In this case, it is primarily a recognition that we shun to the extent that would be appropriate so that this brother never can involve us in a financial scheme. The level and method of avoidance for other persons would be appropriate for protection from the type of sin that person is "marked" for. 

This should have almost no effect on family relationships, except to the extent necessary for protection from involvement in the sin.

And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons. Doctrinal questioning should be encouraged, even from the platform. It would be wonderful if questions during a meeting were more like:

• "And can anyone see why this teaching might be difficult to explain to someone at the door?"
• "Would someone like to offer a Biblical reason why this proposed doctrine might not be correct?"
• "The talk this Sunday will be 30 minutes based on the new outlines: Brother Smithsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to spiritual Israel and spiritual Gentiles. Then Brother Johnsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to literal Israel and  literal Gentiles. So we'll want to put on our thinking caps for that one."

 

[Albert Michelson]

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The counsel they would be giving back out to the congregations would be Bible-based

Hum I highly doubt that. Their opinions are often inventions based on a perceived need. 

 

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The level and method of avoidance for other persons would be appropriate for protection from the type of sin that person is "marked" for. 

This is called getting a bad reputation and doesn't require a mandate from 3 elders who've held a secret meeting and decided how everyone else is to feel about and act towards an individual.

 

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

"Would someone like to offer a Biblical reason why this proposed doctrine might not be correct?"

I used to think that way too. I guess you're still under the impression that the organization can be reformed. Well I won't say it's impossible but you're most likely going to be waiting the rest of your life. I to seek reform however I believe that the best way to achieve it is to inform the public and those within the organization. Even if we could get things back to pre 1981 (before disassociation was declared a shunning offense) that would be a step in the right direction. 

[JW Insider]

23 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

And yet so many have lost their families for doing that very thing.

Yes, it's happened, although I hope it's a lot less than you imply. It's difficult to imagine a single congregation or even a single circuit that has had many such ones, at least recently.

I have an uncle who is a Circuit Overseer, and he says that in early 1990's all Circuit Overseers (through the District Overseers) were given instructions to see that congregations did not seek out apostates to discipline them, because of "morale" issues. Even if apostates left the congregation and were seen actively picketing the conventions, they were not to make an issue of it. The apostate was already making it clear they were not a JW, so it could safely be ignored. I never verified this. Actually, I tried to verify it and it was denied by someone who should have known. If anyone knows long-time circuit overseers, or anyone who was in that position around 90-92 I'd like to know more about this. Brother Jackson seemed to imply that this was possible based on his testimony.

 

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Hum I highly doubt that. Their opinions are often inventions based on a perceived need. 

Yes, sometimes. But this part was only meant to be partially hypothetical.

In spite of mistakes, I have never seen a directive where there is not an attempt -- usually successful, imo, to make it Bible-based. I think that the problems when this has failed has been a lack of input. Not that plenty of good input wasn't available. Before 1978, Bethel elders and "table heads" were full of ideas that they were sharing with other Bethelites. The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty. I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.

[Albert Michelson]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, it's happened, although I hope it's a lot less than you imply

I honestly don't know what the percentages are but I'd love to find out. I do know that the number of ones who leave or are disfellowshiped for other reasons and then learn the truth about "the truth" and cannot in good conscience return is skyrocketing. 

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Even if apostates left the congregation and were seen actively picketing the conventions, they were not to make an issue of it.

Im sure it depends on who you ask. 

Ive already posted this letter but I'll post it one more time

[JW Insider]

12 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

This is called getting a bad reputation and doesn't require a mandate from 3 elders who've held a secret meeting and decided how everyone else is to feel about and act towards an individual.

I used the word "marked" because there is no term for "disfellowshipping" in the Scriptures. So I assume that a level similar to our "disfellowshipping" existed for extreme cases, but it must have still fallen under the category of "marking" which obviously was just a reputational warning to protect the congregation. A person can be met with in private, but if there needs to be a public marking or judgment of that person, then the reasons should be as clear as necessary to the congregation. I'm all for transparency.

[Albert Michelson]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty.

I disagree but I will say that at that time at least they could be excused for not knowing that the central doctrine regarding god selecting their religion was false. 

 

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.

Now you sound like Ray Franz, which is not a bad thing.