Sam Herd Compares Shunning your own Children to Casting out Demons.

[Anna]

46 minutes ago, SuziQ1513 said:

I suspect the BoE is not exempt if they are not careful

I know of an elder who had an extramarital affair for 10 years, while serving as an elder. I wonder how he justified it, especially when sitting on judicial committees and disfellowshipping people for immorality. The mind boggles....

He is no longer an elder and has been disfellowshipped. Anything that is hidden will be revealed, sooner or later.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I wonder how he justified it, especially when sitting on judicial committees and disfellowshipping people for immorality. The mind boggles....

This is an excellent point. I often wonder about the same. I even wonder, for example, what goes through a Catholic priest's mind when he has an affair with a parishioner or what goes through the mind of the parishioner when (she or he) has an affair with a priest. So you can imagine my wonderment at the state of affairs in the congregation.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Anything that is hidden will be revealed, sooner or later.

It's a bit of comfort to know that our faith itself and our dependence on Bible training will sharpen our conscience and sense of morality. Undoubtedly these factors help bring the majority of such issues to light.

• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) 12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account.
• (1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. 25 In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.
• (Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.

But why not all things in this life? Why 10 years? The following verse in 1 Cor 4:5 says that some "secret things of darkness" won't become revealed until "the Lord comes."

• (1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.
• (1 Corinthians 3:13) 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire; and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.
• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) [especially v. 13 already quoted above.]

I have struggled with whether Ephesians 5:11 quoted above is saying that we each have a personal responsibility to reveal. I think it creates a divisive spirit in the congregations when everyone is ready to turn others in, yet it seems that sometimes it is up to us to "be reproving them" because the "things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light."

When the ARC was active, I discussed the potential fallout with a friend of mine still at Bethel and he told me that one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed. In one of the very cases used as an example this brother in New York said that the perpetrator was a well-known brother who had also been the Australian Branch Overseer for decades. The brother seemed to have no doubt of his guilt, although I personally would not know, but I still think that using this particular case in the process was purposefully intended to put a kind of fear and humility into the WTS there, because it showed who had the upper hand and who held the "moral high ground." But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

[Evacuated]

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

it showed who had the upper hand and who held the "moral high ground."

Unfortunately, this stance is often a feature of hypocrisy. [cite any number of religio/political examples here].

However, I agree with the concept that humans, whoever they are, do not have the moral high ground ultimately. This belongs to Jehovah alone and I think this particular matter is an example of this.

We must not overlook the sobering fact that, at the present time, the words of Romans 13:3-4 still hold true regarding the secular authorities:

"For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:17 AM, JW Insider said:

It's not a new point. A disfellowshipped, grown child, not living at home should be shunned by the family except for absolutely necessary business that may need to be conducted with the child.

WT magazine quote:

"The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue." source: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

WT and JW members having real problem that coming to be bigger and bigger with every day.

Training Video on JWorg Convention very clear highlighted important point/lesson for JW members, when mum not want to respond on dfd daughter phone call (this act has been presented (showed) as role model that is need to be imitate). Also, there is/are more examples in publications and in public talks in congregations to support what is going on.

So, it is question; What GB means when say -  "blood ties remain and normal family affections and dealings continue."???  

What is "normal family affection" in this ???? when mum not want pick up phone to her flesh and blood?????!!!!!

I am so hurt when see this hypocrisy (not because my family not want speak with me), but because i feel the pain that is inside those (ex) JW people rejected by their families and friends!! because of WT policy.  

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

blood ties remain and normal family affections and dealings continue."???  

Yes, this is a little misleading, because it only applies to members living in the same household.

[The Librarian]

@SuziQ1513 I have to agree with you on this one. Not a great comparison to make.

@Gone Away  Very true words indeed.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Yes, this is a little misleading, because it only applies to members living in the same household.

With all due respect to you Anna, i must, not to You, but to WT who gave such instructions tell this; All that "models" who living where is so Stupid!! Do somebody living under same roof, under same roof but on second or fifth floor, in another house but in the same courtyard, in same courtyard but owner of both house is JW, or owner is dfd JW, in same  street or in same city, village, .........etc. I sound stupid to myself because making so many variables. Don't you think the same Anna? And WT doing exactly The Same Thing!!  

[JOHN BUTLER]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is an excellent point. I often wonder about the same. I even wonder, for example, what goes through a Catholic priest's mind when he has an affair with a parishioner or what goes through the mind of the parishioner when (she or he) has an affair with a priest. So you can imagine my wonderment at the state of affairs in the congregation.

It's a bit of comfort to know that our faith itself and our dependence on Bible training will sharpen our conscience and sense of morality. Undoubtedly these factors help bring the majority of such issues to light.

• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) 12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account.
• (1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. 25 In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.
• (Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.

But why not all things in this life? Why 10 years? The following verse in 1 Cor 4:5 says that some "secret things of darkness" won't become revealed until "the Lord comes."

• (1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.
• (1 Corinthians 3:13) 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire; and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.
• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) [especially v. 13 already quoted above.]

I have struggled with whether Ephesians 5:11 quoted above is saying that we each have a personal responsibility to reveal. I think it creates a divisive spirit in the congregations when everyone is ready to turn others in, yet it seems that sometimes it is up to us to "be reproving them" because the "things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light."

When the ARC was active, I discussed the potential fallout with a friend of mine still at Bethel and he told me that one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed. In one of the very cases used as an example this brother in New York said that the perpetrator was a well-known brother who had also been the Australian Branch Overseer for decades. The brother seemed to have no doubt of his guilt, although I personally would not know, but I still think that using this particular case in the process was purposefully intended to put a kind of fear and humility into the WTS there, because it showed who had the upper hand and who held the "moral high ground." But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

(Eph 5 v11)  So the scriptures tell us to 'make things known', but for anyone that does they get disfellowshipped for 'Causing a division within the congregation'. And the GB has made its own 'rules' telling congregants not to report Child Abuse to the police or outside authorities. But if a member of a congregation reports child abuse to an elder nothing gets done about it, especially if the pedophile is and elder.... This has been proven in court rooms many times now..  Well as the scripture at Luke 8 v 17 says " For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open".  Its good to see so much being revealed. Maybe the GB will answer for their crimes. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

On 8/10/2018 at 11:57 PM, Jack Ryan said:

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.

You have a disfellowshipped grown child. Either a male or female, daughter or son. Disfellowshipped, grown child, not living at home. They have their own place to live. How do you treat them? Do you treat them as disfellowshipped? That’s what the bible says you should do. Now of course thereÂ’s things you can do. Now I donÂ’t have to tell you what you can do, you know what you can do. But think about what you should do. ThatÂ’s the thing you want to be careful of. Well do we have any background on that? Yes. Once the demons were thrown out of JehovahÂ’s house, they were not permitted back in. That tell you something? Nope canÂ’t come back. CanÂ’t spoil the rest. “Not gonna let you do it,” Jehovah says. Out you go, out you stay.

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.

Here we have a fine example of the GB acting like the Pharisees by lumping heavy loads on peoples backs. So many people criticize me when i say this, but this is a good example of the GB making it up as they go along. So, do you really think the GB are the 'faithful and discreet slave' ? Would Jesus have told people to treat their families in this way when he told people to love their enemies ? 

[JOHN BUTLER]

On 8/11/2018 at 12:04 AM, Jack Ryan said:

Strange how he doesn't quote a bible verse, he just states that the Bible "clearly says" you should shun your family members, your own children.

If the Bible clearly says you should do that, why can't you quote any scriptures? Because there are none. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything like that.

So many times the GB make it up as they go along. In my opinion it shows they are not the 'Faithful and discreet slave class'. They are more like the wicked slave class that says 'the master is delaying' and then they start to mistreat the congregation. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

On 8/11/2018 at 12:17 AM, JW Insider said:

It's not a new point. A disfellowshipped, grown child, not living at home should be shunned by the family except for absolutely necessary business that may need to be conducted with the child. This "child" is at least 18. The economy since 2008 has wreaked havoc with this rule, because so many more children in the 18-30 category are no longer able to get out on their own, and more disfellowshipped "children" in that age group claim it's economically necessary to remain at home.

Are you saying that a disfellowshipped child SHOULD be shunned ? If so, what gives you the right to make that decision ? Has God through Jesus Christ given you authority ?  Show me three scriptures that you base your decision on. Not one but three. Jesus said to love our enemies and to even pray for them. Would Jesus tell us to disown our families ? I think not. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that a disfellowshipped child SHOULD be shunned ? If so, what gives you the right to make that decision ? Has God through Jesus Christ given you authority ?  Show me three scriptures that you base your decision on. Not one but three. Jesus said to love our enemies and to even pray for them. Would Jesus tell us to disown our families ? I think not. 

We should shun what is bad and hold on to what is good. I personally have the right to "mark" anyone I wish in the congregation to personally shun them, if I feel that I have tried to make amends with them, yet my association with them is not good for our spiritual goals. I even knew two members of the Governing Body, Brother Ted Jaracz and Brother Lloyd Barry, who had shunned each other since about 1949. They had both served at the Australian Branch where Jaracz had been sent in 1946 to be the new Branch Overseer, only to be rather quickly called back to the United States to serve as a Circuit Overseer for about 20 years starting in Missouri (where my own family had moved in '64 to 'serve where the need was greater' and an uncle of mine also served as a circuit overseer near his circuit). Brother Barry, in 1949 was sent to become the new Branch Overseer in Japan, which he did for the next 25 years, or so. They would barely speak together or be seen together even after both came to Brooklyn to serve on the Governing Body starting in 1975. Some could pick up on the "animosity" that still showed at Annual Meetings and a couple of Gilead Graduations well into the 1980's. (The 1990's too, I'm told, but I was never in a place to see it then.)

This seemed to me to be an even more definitive form of shunning than the purpose of "marking" found in 2 Thess:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15) 13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Now, you might say, but these were grown men, not members of the same family, yet Jesus said, even of family members:

• (Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.

There are good procedures to handle issues of cleanliness and morality that come up in the congregation, and they include a process found in Matthew 18 to discuss issues with a brother who may have sinned against you personally.

• (Matthew 18:15-20) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. 19 Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

So, we personally have a right, and in some cases an obligation to shun others if it is a part of keeping the congregation clean. But this does not mean that we shun to the extent that we are creating emotional blackmail. It means that we don't go out of our way to associate when that type of association could be interpreted as sharing with the brother (or sister) in their wicked works. We would never go out of our way to prove ourselves inhospitable. "Let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" just means that we have gone a little farther than marking them so as to admonish them as a brother. We are trying to not give the appearance that their conduct reflects on the type of conduct that the majority of the congregation condone.

If we go too far, and forget our "natural affection" we have been overreached by Satan:

• (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Assuming the person is no longer practicing a sin that brings reproach if the congregation were to condone it, then the rebuke by the majority was enough. If the person does not wish to come back to the congregation, that is their business. We are not in the business of keeping track of the injury and shunning just because they willingly went out from us. They are as a person of the nations, and we feel no animosity toward persons of the nations.

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

If the person no longer wishes to be a brother, we have no reason to keep shunning that person. They are just like any other person of the world, which we treat respectfully and civilly and with no hard feelings about their past. We simply don't wish to accidentally give the impression that someone who presents himself as a brother is representing the Christian congregation.

Just how formal these processes need to be, might vary from congregation to congregation. Just how quickly a person is forgiven after a rebuke might vary too. The congregation is in a good place to know how a person's reputation and actions reflect on the reputation of the congregation itself.

So, yes, I can think of reasons I might shun even a member of my own family. If he were a child abuser, for example, who drags down the reputation of the congregation I would shun my own family member. I would still deal with him as needed, and never ignore a cry for help or a phone call. I would check up on his well-being and might even make sure he continues to get the material help he needs, even spiritual admonishment. But this is after at least a short period of making my displeasure clear through [probably a short] period of shunning, and thereby making sure that our own conduct doesn't appear to condone the conduct and thereby reflect badly on Jehovah's name and the Christian congregation. That might be an extreme example to make the point, but if it's true of one form of conduct, then it is also true to some extent for other forms of conduct. The rebuke and punishment should fit the crime.