JW Grandparents Who Shun Children Should Likewise be Banned from Contacting Grandchildren

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I guess I would be happier with all these shunning threads if they started with:

"Well, we know how vital it is for worshippers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world, but ..."

Or:

"Well, we know how Christians must 'touch nothing unclean,' but...."

Or:

"Well, we know how God is a jealous God who hasn't exactly been cool in the past when his ancient people got too cozy with the nations, but....

Well ... the accountants and Lawyers are running the show now at Warwick World JW HQ, and so as to not have small mountains of money, and high value improved real estate confiscated by the various worldly court systems, we USED to adhere to the Bible's clear and unambiguous directive "ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD" .... but now, to placate the NATIONS' judges, we allow blood to be transfused .........  if it goes into our bodies in 13 different IV tubes, as fractions.

And that's the FACT, Jack.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I guess I would be happier with all these shunning threads if they started with:

"Well, we know how vital it is for worshippers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world, but ..."

I know the person very well who made the claim, but I was not a part of that particular conversation. I only repeat it because I already knew this to be pretty much the way the brother felt at the time -- on shunning the elderly and on shunning disfellowshipped family members.  I admit that I don't know about his viewpoint on blood, although this was stated at a time when the WTS was clearly relaxing our stance on blood therapy. And I mentioned his position of authority within the organization at the time because it should be obvious that anyone who is given the responsibility to speak for the organization to the public on such issues is trusted to have considered our Bible-based based position on those issues, and be able to defend what we believe is Jehovah's viewpoint.

So, I guess I was hoping that anyone could easily read between the lines and know that I was trying to say the following:

• I have anecdotal evidence on this topic about a person who was trusted with the responsibility to consider and defend how vital it is for worshipers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world -- and even such a person realized that we are bringing a lot of this shame on ourselves, on our own organization, by overplaying the hand that Jehovah gave us to follow.

In the past, I heard a person in a similar position at Bethel make the same case about no longer forbidding family birthdays, weddings, funerals, bar-mitzvahs, etc., when these are held under another religious "roof." His idea, right or wrong, was that these situations made us more accessible to our extended family members and provided unparalleled opportunities for witnessing. (He held that a very high percentage --he would say "most"--of the persons who become Witnesses after a study with us, even those initially met in door to door, already had a positive connection to a friend or relative who was a Witness.) This brother might have been wrong, of course, on both ideas. Just as the brother I first spoke about above might have been wrong.

When I first heard this, I thought he was right about shunning as I had already been involved in caring for Percy Harding, mentioned earlier. I did not think he was right about blood, and this surprised me at the time, but it made sense considering the changes we were then making to our blood policy. But even the primary Bethel blood-doctrine expert who once handled most of the public discussion on blood for the WTS has now evidently changed his mind about our stand on the blood issue. (I'm speaking of Brother G.Smalley, still alive, not Brother F.Rusk who died a couple years ago, and who handled public questions about blood policy before G.Smalley.)

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Could it be that the phrase "Abstain from Blood", in the minds of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Christians, actually meant " don't murder anyone"?

The fact that it is in the same thought as "... things strangled", causes me to believe not.

But then again ... James said we should not murder our Brothers.

How often does THAT come up in Congregational activities?

Comments?

[JW Insider]

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I'll be happy to start a whole new topic on the subject if you promise not to fill it with too many cartoons.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

How many is too many?

There is a thread of thought evolving here that probably would lose continuity if dissociated from what went before.

...kind of like a free-association chain of logic that wanders afield .... but no harm done.

Either way ... it's not "my" thread, if that counts.

Move it to "questions"?

[Judith Sweeney]

 Put the 'haterade' down, folks.  Children need all the love they can get, Especially in these times.  One should NEVER do wrong for wrong, so to speak...Especially when it comes to loving children in these "Historical" Times that we live in .  Especially now.  

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I'll be happy to start a whole new topic on the subject if you promise not to fill it with too many cartoons.

I'm ready!

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

heard

Sorry, you seem to think I had you in mind with my remarks. I didn't

It is just a general comment on when I hear people carrying on about shunning, not any specific case in particular, which may not follow the proper balance of justice, mercy, and common sense.

I should have made that clear. My bad.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

...sometimes ... things are just Goofy.

[Anna]

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As much as you want to avoid causing upset to people, surely God fits in there somewhere. It is not a 'What is good for General Motors is good for God.' It ought always to be a "Let us make sure it is good for God, and then we'll see what we can do about not ruffling the feathers of General Motors.'

Of course I agree with you there. But really, if we are going to be honest, there are various interpretations on what is "good for God", and I think that's where the problem lies. Terrorists believe what they are doing is "good for God".

[Anna]

Some here probably already know my feelings about shunning family members living outside the home. I completely get shunning those who are not family. And I completely get, and agree with keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. But for the life of me I just cannot feel comfortable with the video that shows the mother completely ignoring her daughter's telephone call. Is that the kind of shunning Jesus, or the apostle Paul had in mind?

Yes, I understand Jesus said that there will be times when we will have to choose between him and family. And that if we lose family members for his sake, then we will get many more back. But I have often wondered if that  means that relatives will be against us, and will threaten US with shunning unless we forsake Jesus. And then it is up to us who we will put first, Jesus or a family member. The official WT understanding seems to be the other way around, that WE are the ones who have to shun family members if they turn away from Jesus. In context, when Jesus says he came to bring not peace but a sword, seems to support more that family members will be in opposition to Jesus and will make us want to follow them.

My husband's son and his wife have made a number of bad life choices and have been in and out of the truth twice, and once disfellowshipped. The second time they made sure they avoided disfellowshipping by staying clear of the elders, not opening their door to them or answering their calls. They became totally inactive 5 years ago. In the meantime, although not fraternizing with them socially, we have helped them with the kids when they needed a sitter, and took them (the grandkids) on trips and to meetings. In other words we kept ourselves in their lives, and kept the lines of communication open with the parents. My husband would even slip them a WT article every now and then he thought they might find helpful. We also made sure we spoke about Jehovah with the grandkids. I don't know whether it is too soon to speak, but the other day my husband's son texted him to say he prayed with his wife, and that they both want to put things right, and come to the meeting on Sunday. They came, and everyone welcomed them with open arms. I don't know if this will lead anywhere, as far as I know they were still smoking last week. Both have done stupid things for which they may have been disfellowshipped for.  But because they avoided the elders, they avoided disfellowshipping. Like I said, we were not associating with them to any great extent, but we also didn't shun them. Now had they been disfellowshipped, would we be under obligation to shun them? (yes). And just because they avoided disfellowshipping, members of the congregation were able to welcomed them. It makes no logical sense to me, because their situation was exactly the same as if they had been disfellowshipped.

My question is, if a family member leaves Jehovah, does Jehovah expect us to show loyalty to him by shunning that member? Or does he expect loyalty that we stick with him (Jehovah) despite the situation of our family member and despite family members trying to take us with them, or giving us such ultimatums as it's Jehovah or me. Isn't that more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke about bringing not peace but a sword?

 

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I should have made that clear. My bad.

Not a problem. I notice the same issue with a lot of threads that just seem to include the assumption that we must be totally wrong about an issue that isn't implemented well (or consistently), when the actual fix does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if someone found an old Watchtower that recommended that we start literally disfellowshipping babies by throwing them out with the bathwater, then I would think it's time to scrap the whole doctrine and start over from scratch.