Albert Michelson
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Everything posted by Albert Michelson
-
If the meetings were this open I would consider going back but only to engage in a respectful discussion. Ironically the early Bible students did this very thing.- 213 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- apostasy
- disfellowshipping
- (and 4 more)
-
So quick question and a little off topic but, my opinion is that the other sheep were the gentiles. Is that another doctrine you disagree with or is it one you accept?
-
It is possible but I wouldn't say it's easily avoidable. And again as I've stated many times it requires one to essentially take a vow of silence and live in perpetual fear. I would say that it's more like the Pharisees who encourage their followers to cast the followers of Jesus out of the synagogues. It's more a matter of information control and uniformity then anything else. And yet he was raised without any opportunity to hear or see contrary evidence. I wanted to get baptized at 10 as well because that's all I knew. But this is a lifelong commitment that they are never allowed to retract. And yes it is the organizations goal to get these kids young and to entrap them. As I said before if they can do that then they can ensure that they will either stay in or that they'll keep their mouths shut if they leave. The latter prospect seems to be what you are advocating for and I find it ironic considering the circumstances. As I have already pointed out witnesses regularly go to peoples homes and encourage them to leave their faith systems and join their's. They encourage them to speak out against the false teachings of their former religions and yet for a Jehovah's Witness to do this very thing is met with cruelty.
- 213 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- apostasy
- disfellowshipping
- (and 4 more)
-
https://ad1914.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf Look harder.
-
So you're well aware of how the system is abused. That brings me to my next point. Witnesses are also required to respect the disfellowshiping decision even if they know it was unjustly handled and even if they know the person is innocent. "Willfull, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshiped nonrelatives dispite repeated council."
-
It usually is when it comes to these meetings. That's part of the reason elders can disfellowship someone for basically nothing. No one is privied to the secret elders meetings and judicial hearings. As long as at lest two elders are on board you can be disfellowshiped for anything, even if it's to shut you up. As far as I know it's still in force but I may be wrong.
-
I do not personally believe that the first century Christians had an equivalent to disfellowshiping. But again you're admitting that there is a deviation from scripture and yet for some reason you see this as acceptable or at least tolerable. Once again I'd ask what your personal cut off is. When does it become to much?
-
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. Now you sound like Ray Franz, which is not a bad thing.
-
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. Im sure it depends on who you ask. Ive already posted this letter but I'll post it one more time
-
Hum I highly doubt that. Their opinions are often inventions based on a perceived need. 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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Um freedom and intellectual honesty.
-
Yes we could talk about the people who slip through the cracks but if the policies were applied as they are written in all cases then leaving without being shunned would be even more difficult than it already is and that is the central issue. The policies make it virtually impossible to exercise your conscience without tremendous loss.
-
I would say that he was called out and that Angus Stewart demonstrated that his claim was false. But we don't need to argue about that. Ether way we're back where we started. With people getting punished for leaving. I can think of examples of some making it out without being shunned and many others where they couldn't. The point is that the organization is punishing people for disagreeing with them or in some cases simply stating that they don't want to be a witness.
-
He's fortunate, one of my friends was out for 5 years and then found out that the elders disfellowshiped her. She still has no idea why she only found out because her mom told her. She wasn't doing anything that even qualified as wrong in the eyes of the organization. For every example you can put forward I can guarantee I have another. The fact is that according to the organizations policy's you cannot tell anyone you want your no longer a witness. I refuse to believe you're this dishonest. Don't start resorting to double speak now. The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.
- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
Or the organization protecting itself from scrutiny. And let's not get started on the JWs failure when it comes to pedophiles. I would disagree about your interpretation of Paul's words here. However all I see is you acknowledging the fact that the Bible isn't being followed accurately but then making excuses as to why it's ok. Disfellowshiping is a weapon. It is used to manipulate and control. I was repeatedly threatened with disfellowshiping simply for not following the rules our particular body of elders imposed. But in a broader context the GB uses it to prevent honest biblical examination and discussion. You talked earlier about your experience with the CO. I had experiences like that all the time. Any discussion that deviated from the party line was immediately shut down. It's an extremely anti intellectual environment.
-
But again the real issue isn't joining it's leaving.
-
I have a very different opinion but we don't need to argue about the conduct of witnesses and their personal motivations. I will say however that it's hard to know what their true feelings are when they're not allowed to express them. That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. I agree which is why child baptizm shouldn't be allowed. That's his exact words.
-
Dissasociation The problem of course is what I mentioned earlier. Geoffrey Jackson out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions. In reality if you were to say this to other Jehovah's Witnesses it would be enough for the judicial committee to conclude that you could be disassociated. I have had many friends who didn't even have that much evidence against them and they were still disfellowshipped.
-
I wouldn't call having the freedom to leave without being shunned "a free for all" Most people in other religions are part of a specific group because they personally agree with the teachings. In that sense one could say that many of these groups are just as "unified" ( The members all agree with the central doctrines) as Jehovah's Witnesses the difference being that these groups don't have to blackmail their members into agreeing with them. The way you phrased this makes it seem like the witness method of coercion and blackmail is superior to Christendom's method ( granted this wasn't always the case they too used to use threats and persecution to get what they wanted as well) of allowing people to vote with their feet and to make a decision based on one's conscience. As you said before the core issue is My answer is a definite no.
-
"Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one ofJehovah's Witnesses. If the individual is agreeable, the committee should first try to speak with him and provide spiritual assistance. (GaL 6:1) Does he really desire to disassociate hjmself, or does he simply no longer want to associate actively with the congregation? Is the desire to disassociate prompted by doubts or discouragement? Is he is adamant in his position, he should be encouraged to put his request in writing and sign it. If he does not, then the witnesses to his request should prepare a statement for the confidential files and sign it.  Joining another religious organization and making known his intention to remain with it. If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious organization and thus is identified with it, a committee (not judicial) should be selected to investigate matters and endeavor to provide spiritual assistance. If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself.  .. Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. (it goes on to talk about what to do if the person is repentant from the point of view of the investigating elders) On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation.  Taking a course contrary to the neutral position of the Christian congregation. (lsa. 2:4; John 15:17-19; w99 11/1 pp. 28-29) If he joins a non-neutral organization, he has disassociated himself. If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in non-neutral activities, he should generally be allowed a period of time up to six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.-km 9/76 pp.3-6."  Simply having a different set of religious beliefs and making it clear that one intends to stick with those religious beliefs is grounds for automatic disassociation. This overlaps with apostasy which is filed as a disfellowshipping offense.  The problem is out of the four criteria listed that result in disassociation only one is an action taken by the individual and even that is contestable. For example a written letter of disassociation as in the first example is not necessary, all that is necessary is for the individual to state that they no longer want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to two or more other Jehovah's Witnesses. If the individual then refuses to talk to the elders and does not write a letter of disassociation the elders will then take the testimony of those two witnesses as proof and automatically disassociate the individual without their permission and without them taking steps to show that that is what they want.   The other examples given fall into the same category, they all involve actions taken by the elders without the permission of the individual and without considering whether or not they truly want it to happen. For example someone may join another religion, take a job that would classify as non-neutral or receive a blood transfusion. They may feel that there is nothing wrong with these things and also feel as though they do not wish to disassociate themselves. In the case of a blood transfusion the individual may not feel that such a transfusion is against Bible teachings and they may even still wish to remain part of the congregation or perhaps wish to be inactive. However because they don't believe it's wrong they are by default unrepentant and would automatically be classified as disassociated.  An investigation into an action that classifies someone as disassociated is taken independently of their request. Their feelings and their wishes are irrelevant and the elders if they find these accusations to be true will automatically and without permission of the individual classify them as disassociated. It is for that reason that it cannot be said that disassociation is always an act taken by the individual nor can it ever be said that the individual by being disassociated is choosing to shun the congregation.
-
Yes just not in the way you implied.
-
No it is not
