Okay Tom. Let's test that.
At the end of 1968 this brother would have been studying the following Watchtower in the congregation:
*** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
I encourage you to examine it for yourself as if you were this brother at that time, and then see if you can sustain your response. There are too many highlights to choose from, but the one I was referring to in particular was this one:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.
The entire article was 37 paragraphs of building anticipation for 1975.
Please bear in mind that this was not "an opinion piece". This was a study article which all were expected to learn from and apply. So to say in this assembly video that this brother felt forewarned by what he had learned at the meetings is .... ?
Ah, now you may get picky and say that this was a few years before 1975 and maybe the fervor in print had cooled off by then. In that case please show me the mitigating texts that this brother was supposed to have drawn from. In fact the KM was praising those who sold houses and left jobs right up to the year itself. And this brother says "some even went so far as to sell homes and give up jobs ...". Hmmmm.
I know an elder who cuts out significant soundbites from study articles and sticks it on his wall as a reminder of "current truth". They will stay there for as long as it takes unless that truth is changed. So if this brother in the video had treated the Watchtower as seriously (and most did), then he would not have been "ignoring prevailing opinion at the time" as you suggest, but rather he would have been ignoring food from the FDS.
If you don't care to look up the article and other relevant material in print at the time then I would be happy to supply more quotations. But I imagine that will suffice to at least have you reconsider your assertion that what I wrote "is absolutely incorrect".
OK. But now he's saying how he would apply the letter of the law, rather than what's possible according to the laws and guidelines.
I could give you references to the ks book, letters to BoE and CO's, notes/recordings from elder school, all of which you could take back to your elder and ask him about.
I won't do it of course. I do not have any motivation to convince you that would prompt me to cross that line. And I suspect even if you saw the material with your own eyes you would simply say it was all hypothetical. But that would be to miss the point that measures are in place to enforce belief in this, or any other doctrine, if in someone's opinion the circumstances warrant it.
And I know plenty of other people who are known to have quietly voiced that they don't accept the teaching, and they remain in good standing. I also know others who have paid a price for voicing a difference. As your elder says "it depends". Now he probably means it depends on what other factors there are in the case of the person, but it also depends on the elders themselves. Especially if a particular type of CO gets involved they have the latitude to DF someone for not believing in any unique teaching of JWs.
I agree that there is no scriptural basis for it.
Please don't get me started on this or the librarian will fork me off into another new topic. I'll just say in passing though that they are effectively putting up someone as a good example because he was ignoring what was in Watchtower print at the time in favor of what he understood from the Bible. When someone does that today guess what s/he gets labelled as.
Before you say it wasn't in print, have you never seen the quote "Now is not the time to be toying with Jesus' words about the day or the hour ..."?
There is a lot of truth to that. But what you may not be factoring in is that it takes two to tango. The "unrest" that results can very much depend on the listener rather than the speaker. You may have one congregation which is laid back enough to see this for what it is, and do nothing. But you may have another with some highly strung people who react very quickly to hearing anything that doesn't sound 100% "loyal" to them. And thus the wheels can be put in motion for some serious damage.
In my opinion and experience there is an element of this going on. I don't believe it's motivated by corporate greed though. There are different motivators at work. If you want to start to understand what they are you can look at a local level and work up from there.
There are many good brothers and sisters who do good deeds for no personal advancement. This is true of many people outside of the organization also (it would be wrong/silly to suggest otherwise), but most of us are primarily focused on what happens inside.
At the same time there is a hierarchy. Technically nobody is "greater", but it's implicitly acknowledged that some "privileges" are greater than others. (All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. - Animal Farm)
In recent years the ones being promoted up that hierarchy tend to be younger than they were a decade or two ago. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but most people who see what's going on from inside would say that loyalty is being valued over experience. If anyone cares to argue with that then please go ahead. Loyalty is a valuable quality when applied correctly and directed to the right party. Loyalty to Jehovah God and his Son is essential. But if the organization becomes interchangeably used with Jehovah, with no practical distinction then there is room for loyalty to become abused by those in authority.
When organization becomes the thing that must be preserved at all costs, and individuals are expendable, bad things happen. The word "organization" never occurs in God's Word, and Jesus always stressed the value of individuals. That's not to say that being organized is a bad thing, but not if "unity" and "organization" trump "love".
By all means I would prefer to support my point of view with specific examples. I could do that, but I won't in a public forum.
It should not be necessary though. Those in the hierarchy know the facts even though they may not care to confront them. And for sure if things are going without problem in your corner of the world then I am happy for you. The question is whether the system itself is geared to serve the needs of an organization when it comes to the crunch, or to help individuals.
Elders - what is the order of priority you have been given at school - 1) Jehovah's name, 2) the congregation, and 3) the individual.
Anyone care to argue?
In practice #1 & #2 actually becomes "the organization" and #3 remains as "the individual".
And the scriptural support for this is .... ? See the problem?
(I already know that certain people will not see a problem)
I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)
Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe." But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.
I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.
The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.
On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Peter, it sounds as though you have the facts. Can you share those facts? While I think you are correct, I would like to know myself. This topic instantly brings me to Corporate America and the policy that if you want to remain, you will do and act as "we" say. Corporate America cares not if you believe in the direction or concept of the corporation, just that you obey and conform. That is a hard pill for some to swallow because it shows that the corporation doesn't care about the individual, only the bottom line. Also, in the corporate world there are instances where the policy is not intended to protect anything but the corporation and each employee knows that it is wrong, but what can they do if they are being paid handsomely?
You would be asking the wrong question Anna.
You need to ask him whether someone could be disfellowshipped for NOT believing it after baptism.
If he says no, he is either misinformed, forgetful, or lying.
Now I grant you, not every elder will apply the letter of the law (although in a JC it's more likely because of the group dynamics). But that there are procedures in place to allow for DF'ing someone who refuses to believe in particular teachings is very real.
Let me ask you Anna - if I could prove beyond doubt that this was true would you accept it, or would you continue to make light of it?
If you are determined to see only what you want to see I have no agenda to change that. But I can assure you that I do not speak from a position of ignorance or partial information in this regard.
Olin Richmond Moyle (1887–1966) was legal counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society[1] from 1935 to 1939. He helped represent Jehovah's Witnesses in two cases before the United States Supreme Court, which set new precedents on First Amendment freedoms.[2] A dispute with Watch Tower Society president J. F. Rutherford led to Moyle's expulsion from the religion.[3] Moyle later successfully sued the Watch Tower Society for libel over an article in its magazine, The Watchtower. In his later years, he became one of the leaders of the United Israel World Union, a movement that sought to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism.Watch Tower Society association Moyle began associating with Charles Taze Russell's Bible Students group about 1910.[citation needed] In 1935 Moyle, his wife and son left their home in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin and moved into the Brooklyn, New York headquarters of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to serve as its legal counsel, heading its newly formed Legal Department. The department had been established by Rutherford to help Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the US mount court cases to defend themselves amid increasing opposition to their preaching and stance on flag salute.[4] Rutherford and Moyle jointly represented the Watch Tower Society in various lawsuits.[5] In 1938, Moyle won the Lovell v. City of Griffin case before the Supreme Court of the United States[6] and the same year sent a letter to President Roosevelt condemning his support of "Fascist" Catholicism.[7]
Resignation
On July 21, 1939, Moyle wrote an open letter of resignation to Rutherford, protesting over conditions at "Bethel", the Watch Tower Society's Brooklyn headquarters, including what he described as ill treatment of workers, discrimination by Rutherford, the use and encouragement of "filthy and vulgar language" and a "glorification" of alcohol.[8] Moyle said that Rutherford had "many many homes, to wit, Bethel, Staten Island, California" and deplored "the difference between the accommodations furnished to you, and your personal attendants, compared with those furnished to some of your brethren".[9]
Moyle had been handling the famous Minersville School District v. Gobitis case, and had won at the trial court level as well as at the appellate level. However, after Moyle's removal from the case, the Minersville School District appealed the Gobitis case to the Supreme Court. Rutherford himself argued the case before the Supreme Court in 1940, and the Court ruled against Jehovah's Witnesses by a vote of 8-1. This ruling triggered a nationwide wave of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses that lasted for the next several months.[citation needed] Three years later the Supreme Court overruled this decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), argued by Moyle's successor, Hayden Covington.
Libel lawsuit
Although Moyle had advised his resignation would take effect on September 1, the Watch Tower board dismissed him immediately and he returned to his home congregation in Wisconsin. On October 15, 1939 the directors responded in the pages of The Watchtower,[10] stating that "every paragraph of that letter is false, filled with lies, and is a wicked slander and a libel".[11] The article compared his actions with those of Judas Iscariot.
For four years past the writer of that letter has been entrusted with the confidential matters of the Society. It now appears that the writer of that letter, without excuse, libels the family of God at Bethel, and identifies himself as one who speaks evil against the Lord's organization, and who is a murmurer and complainer, even as the scriptures have foretold. (Jude 4-16; 1Cor. 4:3; Rom 14:4) The members of the board of directors hereby resent the unjust criticism appearing in that letter, disapprove of the writer and his actions, and recommend the president of the Society immediately terminate the relationship of O. R. Moyle to the Society as legal counsel and as a member of the Bethel family. — Joseph F. Rutherford, The Watchtower, 1939-10-15
Moyle was disfellowshipped by his congregation,[4] which wrote a letter to The Watchtower stating that they had not read Moyle's letter, but disapproved of his actions and "never listen to accusations against Brother Rutherford".[4][12] In 1940, Moyle sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York over the response in The Watchtower. Rutherford presented a public resolution at a 1941 convention against Moyle, with reference to the September 15, 1941 issue of The Watchtower.[13] Moyle won his suit, and the court awarded him $30,000 in damages, which was reduced to $15,000 on appeal in 1944.[14]
The initial jury verdict was affirmed twice on appeal; first by the five member Appellate Division, 2nd Department (3-2); and second, unanimously, by the seven members of the state's highest court, The Court of Appeals, in the capitol at Albany.[15]
Later life
Moyle later served as the vice president of the Jefferson County Bar Association in Wisconsin,[16] and was recognized by Rand McNally in its national list of "bank recommended attorneys".[17]
Moyle became involved with David Horowitz and the work of the United Israel World Union, formed in 1944 to "preach a universal Hebraic faith for all humankind".[18] The 1978 edition of The Encyclopedia of American Religions describes "former Jehovah's Witness Olin Moyle" as having been "[a]mong the leaders" of the movement, "a vigorous missionary program to convert people, particularly Christians, to Judaism".[19]
See also
moyle-1938-roosevelt-letter.pdf
Moyle-1941-Watchtower-Resolution.pdf
Part of a series on:
Jehovah's Witnesses employ various levels of congregational discipline as formal controls administered by congregation elders. Guilt and repentance are determined by a tribunal of elders, and hearings concerning what they term "serious sin" are performed by formal judicial committees. A variety of controls can be enforced, from restriction of duties performed in the congregation to excommunication, known as disfellowshipping, and shunning by the congregation. Members who are disfellowshipped have an opportunity to regain membership. The practice of disfellowshipping has been criticized by many non-members and ex-members.
Historical
The first brother officially disfellowshipped publicly was Olin Moyle by public resolution in front of an entire "District assembly" .... and in an even older schism case Paul S.L. Johnson was also "excommunicated". It was in the year 1952 that the Watchtower introduced disfellowshipping as now practiced.
Russell discussed disfellowshipping and avoiding wrongdoers as early as 1893. However, this was not applied to Watchtower followers, but rather that Christians in general should avoid those who show themselves to be untrue to God.
"To be separate does not mean to be friends and companions, or to be in fellowship on any grounds. It means that we are to make a clean-cut division between ourselves and all the unclean, the impure in heart, as manifested by their disloyalty to the truth, and thereby to God, its great Author: and that this separation is to be so marked that the disfellowshipped one will be sure to know it. and that none can mistake our obedience and loyalty to the lord and his truth. There is to be no trifling or half-way obedience in this matter: for we are not only to be separate in spirit from the enemies of the Lord, but we are not to touch the unclean. As the Apostle elsewhere says we are to avoid them-to have no part or lot with them." Watchtower 1893 Oct 15 p.1588
"We are not of those who disfellowship Christian brethren on account of some differences of opinion; but when it comes to the point of denying the very foundation of all christianity we must speak out and withstand all such to the face, for they become the enemies of the cross of Christ." Watchtower 1882 Dec p.423
Later, a procedure was implemented where a congregation as a whole discussed an individual's wrongdoing and if they came to a near unanimous decision to disfellowship, the unrepentant sinner was not shunned but treated as a heathen. It was primarily for a person that rejected the value of Christ's Ransom.
"The administration of discipline is not the function of the elders only, but of the entire Church. Thus it is evident that the Elders were in no sense to be judges of the members-hearing and judgment were left to the local body, or Church. Indeed, even if the transgressor refuse to hear (obey) the decision of the entire Church, no punishment is to be inflicted or even attempted. What then? Merely the Church is to withdraw from him its fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood. Thenceforth the offender is to be treated "as a heathen man and a publican." Matt. 18:17" Studies Series VI - The New Creation (1904) pp.289, 290
"The Scriptural basis of fellowship and disfellowship is both a much broader and a much more simple one. It is simply of two parts: (1) An acceptance of Christ as the Redeemer, and (2) A full consecration to him. Whoever complies with this scriptural formula is entitled to the love, respect, sympathy and care of every other such one; for such, and such only, constitute the church which God recognizes - the church whose names are written in heaven." Watchtower 1905 p.3673
"According to this Scripture the very most that the church could do would be that, after having vainly endeavored to get the brother to repent and reform, it should withdraw special brotherly fellowship from him until such time as he would express willingness thereafter to do right. Then he should be received again into full fellowship.
In the meantime the brother may merely be treated in the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or Gentile, withholding the special rights or privileges or greetings or voting opportunities that belong to the church as a class separate from the world." Watchtower 1919 Mar 1 p.69
Russell and Rutherford were lenient towards doctrinal disagreements, advising that making all followers think alike on doctrine is what originally caused the great apostasy, a tactic of Satan and a method of control.
"Rather, like the church of Rome their ["Religious leaders of today"] influence is exerted to restrain investigation within the sectarian limits. With the implied threat of disfellowship, they urge their ministers and students not to search continually for truth, but to accept the voice of their sect as infallible."Watchtower 1887 Apr p.923
"The great adversary is wily, and at all times is quick to appeal to passion. He persuades some that they must take a radical stand against some secular work or activity, and to proceed at once to disfellowship others who cannot conscientiously take this same stand. Somehow they seem to think that their radical stand entitles them in a very special sense to divine favour and blessing. his attitude leads them to violate principle in various ways: (1) By judging and condemning others who do not see as they do; (2) By refusing to fellowship those who still believe in the ransom, the restitution, the high calling." Watchtower1919 Feb 1 p.6385
"Satan's organization sails under the high-sounding name of "Christendom". It boasts of a membership of over 500,000,000 persons. Its members are in bondage to creeds, customs, rites and ceremonies; they dare not disown these or criticize or expose them. To do so would bring down on their heads taunts, reproaches, disfellowship and persecution. Many thousands of the Lords people are held in these denominations as prisoners, afraid to express their disapproval of the creeds, methods and customs of the organization. Watchtower 1930 Oct 1 p.301
As late as 1947, the Awake described the practice of excommunication as an unscriptural, pagan practice, using Hebrews 10: 26-31 to show it should be left to God to judge individuals.
Quite remarkably, it was in the years surrounding the above article that Knorr was setting up the disfellowshipping arrangement followed to this day. In the Watchtower 1944 May 15 p.151, responsibility to judge an individual was moved from the congregation to judicial committees. The turning point came in 1952, where a Watchtower article dismissed Jesus remarks to refer a wrongdoer to the congregation, although with no explanation as why:
"There is one more scripture quite pertinent here, at Matthew 18:15-17. ... This scripture here has nothing to do with disfellowshiping on a congregational basis. When it says go to the congregation, it means go to the elders or the mature ones in the congregation and discuss your own private difficulties. This scripture has to do with merely a personal disfellowshiping." Watchtower 1952 Mar. 1 p.147
This 1952 Watchtower was devoted to delivering clear guidelines on updated Watchtower disfellowship policy, clarifying what was to become an ever increasing list of offences. It denounced the disfellowshipped person in the strongest of terms.
We might wonder, then, since this congregation which God is developing or bringing into existence is based on love, why anyone should ever want to talk about disfellowshipping or putting people out of this congregation. There certainly must be some reason. Well, the reason for disfellowshipping is that some persons get into this congregation of God that do not love Christ. Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never say Hello or Goodbye to him. He is not welcome in our midst, we avoid him. Such an individual has no place in the clean organization or congregation of God. He should go back to the wicked group that he once came from and die with that wicked group with Satans organization. Watchtower 1952 Mar 1 pp.131,134
This change was later justified as a result of worsening "moral corruption" following World War II.
"Even as early as 1904, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, in his book The New Creation, outlined a Scriptural procedure for dealing with violators, even to the point of withdrawing from them the congregation’s “fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood.” But this extreme measure of excommunication or disfellowshiping was not widely practiced among the congregations and was not made a requirement on congregations until 1952. No longer could Christian conduct be viewed simply as a matter affecting only the individual or individuals involved." Watchtower 1967 Oct 1 p.596
"During the years following World War II the moral corruption of the world began to reach frightful proportions. The possibility existed that God’s clean organization could become contaminated by such corruptive influences. But Jehovah was interested in his people, just as in times past, so through his channel of communication he lovingly brought forward information to counteract the filth that could tarnish or cause his people to become unholy. (Matt. 24:45-47) Particularly from 1946, personal moral cleanness became a matter of much greater concern to the Lord’s people. (2 Cor. 7:1) Starting in 1952, the more formal Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshiping wrongdoers was instituted. Those who committed gross sins such as adultery and fornication were expelled from the congregation, if they did not repent. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) God’s organization would not tolerate persons who refused to keep unspotted, clean and pure in the sight of Jehovah." Watchtower 1976 Feb 15 p.122
In the Watchtower 1955 Oct 1 p.607, even to associate with a disfellowshipped person became a reason to be disfellowshipped:
If a publisher refuses to do this and ignores the prohibition on associating with the disfellowshipped one, that publisher is rebelling against the congregation of Jehovah, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. If after sufficient warning the publisher persists in associating with the disfellowshipped person instead of aligning himself with Jehovah's organization he also should be disfellowshipped.
Shepherd the Flock of God (2011) shows that associating with a disfellowshipped nonrelative continues as a disfellowshipping offence by including such association under the categorization of brazen conduct.
Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped nonrelatives despite repeated counsel." p.60
Members of the congregation are instructed to watch each other and alert the elders to any noticed indiscretions. With a degree of persuasiveness members are told that the Highest Level of authority demands they even break their countries law to report on their brothers.
"This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian must obey God as ruler rather than men. Acts 5:29"Watchtower 1987 Sep 1 p.13
Since the introduction of disfellowshipping, there have been a number of changes in Watchtower doctrine and hence the reasons for being disfellowshipped have also changed back and forth. How can this occur if Jehovah directs an organization's rules? When a situation arises in a congregation that is not clearly specified in the Bible or a Watchtower publication and the elders and branch feel unable to deal with it this is referred to the Governing Body. How does the Governing Body arrive at a new principle for being disfellowshipped? Does the Holy Spirit guide them to examine scripture and arrive at a uniform consensus on what God's standard is? No, the vote does not have to be unanimous. New laws can be introduced with only a two-thirds majority vote.(6) For this reason both the regulation on organ transplants and oral sex was able to be changed back and forth within the space of little over a decade, with huge affect on member's lives. For instance, the practice of smoking did not become a disfellowshipping offence until 1973. Having an organ transplant was an offence worthy of being disfellowshipped for over a decade, but is no longer viewed as wrong. Oral or anal sex between married couples was classified as;
a disfellowshipping offence - Watchtower 1974 Nov 15 p.704
no longer an offence - Watchtower 1978 Feb 15 pp.30-32
once again an offence - Watchtower 1983 Mar 15 p.31
One may have hoped that the draconian system of disfellowshipping may have eased over the years, yet the opposite is true. In 1974 there was a softening of the 1952 stance, with release of the following article, but this was short lived;
"Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. We may note, too, that at 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle warns against mixing in company with one who "is" a fornicator or practicer of some other kind of serious wrongdoing. What, however, of the one who has been disfellowshiped for being that kind of person but who thereafter, either at an early point or at a later point in time, gives consistent evidence of discontinuing such wrong practice, stopping it? Can it be said that he or she still "is" a fornicator or whatever type of wrongdoer such a one was that caused him or her to be as "leaven" toward the congregation? For example, a young person disfellowshiped for fornication may thereafter marry, raise a family and live a respectable life. Or one who was disfellowshiped for drunkenness may abandon such practice and, if drinking at all, may do so in moderation only. By such changes these individuals may now regain the respect of the community. Such ones may not yet have come and formally sought reinstatement by the congregation. Is there, however, not an evident difference between these and others who continue right on in the wrongdoing that brought their disfellowshiping? Those giving up the wrong practice may still manifest some appreciation for Christian truth, perhaps even defending the true Christian congregation when someone speaks evil against it. Should not such circumstances be given due weight and have an effect on our attitude as a congregation toward such ones? Surely if the prodigal son of the parable had returned home in a drunken state, perhaps dragging along one of his harlot companions, the father's reaction would not have been the same. But the father had reason to believe that the son was approaching with a right motive and, rather than suspect the worst, the father hoped the best and went out to meet his errant son." Watchtower 1974 Aug 1 pp.467-469
This more reasonable stance reverted back to strict shunning in 1981, with a comprehensive discussion in the Watchtower Sep 15. The 2008 book Keep Yourself in God's Lovecontinues to refer to the 1981 Watchtower as the standard to be followed.
Correction
Non-judicial situations involve actions that are considered sinful or simply regrettable but are not considered to be of sufficient gravity to necessitate a judicial committee, and cannot result in disfellowshipping from the congregation; specific action by congregation elders is not administered in such situations, but counsel (or correction) may be provided by a mature Witness in addition to self-discipline and family discipline.[1] Elders may also give recommendations or warnings to members in non-judicial situations.
If an active baptized Witness is considered to have committed a "serious sin" for which the sinner must demonstrate formal repentance, correction (or, "discipline") is administered by the congregation’s body of elders. Such situations usually involve a "judicial committee" of three or more elders.[2]
Discipline involving non-judicial situations
At the elders' discretion, "non-judicial" situations may involve discipline of one or more of several types, presented here in escalating seriousness.
Local needs
At conventions and assemblies, and about once each month at a local Service Meeting, a short talk regarding "local needs" is presented.[3] An elder addresses matters that are relevant to the local congregation, with instructions outlining the course of action considered appropriate. No specific individuals are identified during the talk, but the talk may relate to a matter for which a member has recently been "reproved". At times, some temporary policy may be announced that might be seen as disciplinary; for example, it may be that an additional attendant is assigned outside a Kingdom Hall to discourage children from running on the sidewalk.[4]
Shepherding calls
Personal "shepherding visits" are intended to encourage members of the congregation, though may also include counsel and correction, then or on a subsequent visit.[5][6] Two elders (or an elder and a ministerial servant) may schedule and perform a particular shepherding visit on their own or at the direction of the body of elders.[7]
Withheld recommendations or assignments
The body of elders may withhold its recommendation for a member to serve in a new position of responsibility, though still permitting existing responsibilities.[8]
For example, a ministerial servant who consistently seems insufficiently prepared for his meeting parts may have such assignments withheld for a time, even though he may continue serving as a ministerial servant or in some other "special privilege of service".[9]
Loss of "special privileges"
Elders, ministerial servants, pioneers, or other appointed Witnesses can lose their "special privileges of service".[10][11] For example, an elder may be removed or choose to step aside voluntarily from his position if members of his household are not in "good standing".[12] After resignation or removal from an appointed position, an announcement is made during the congregation's Service Meeting indicating that the person is "no longer serving", without elaboration.[13]
Limited "privileges of service"
An active Jehovah's Witness may have their congregational "privileges of service" limited even without having committed a serious sin. For example, the body of elders may feel that a member wronged others by some investment scheme which was not necessarily fraudulent.[14] While Witnesses sometimes refer to field ministry, after-meeting cleanup, and other responsibilities as "privileges", the term "privileges of service" often implies a specific range of assignments assisting elders and ministerial servants with meeting demonstrations and other responsibilities.[15] Such limitations are usually temporary.[16]
Marking
Members who persist in a course considered scripturally wrong after repeated counsel by elders,[17] but who are not guilty of something for which they could be disfellowshipped,[17] can be "marked", based on Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 3:14. Though not shunned, "marked" individuals are looked upon as bad association and social interaction outside of formal worship settings is generally curtailed. This action is intended to "shame" the person into following a particular course of action.[17] "Marking" is indicated by means of a talk given at the Service Meeting outlining the shameful course, but without explicitly naming any particular individual. Members who know whose actions are being discussed may then consider the individual "marked".
Discipline involving "serious sin"
List of "serious sins"
Jehovah's Witnesses consider many actions to be "serious sins", for which baptized Witnesses are subject to disfellowshipping or formal reproof. Actions for which a member can be disfellowshipped include: abortion,[18] adultery, apostasy,[19] bestiality, blood transfusions,[20] "brazen conduct" or "loose conduct",[21][22] drug abuse,[23] drunkenness, extortion,[24] fornication, fraud,[25] gambling,[24] greed,[24] homosexual activity, idolatry, incest, interfaith activity,[26] lying,[27] manslaughter, murder, "perverted sex relations",[28] polygamy,[29] pornography,[30] reviling, sexual abuse,[31] slander,[25] spiritism, theft, and use of tobacco.[23][32][33]
Procedures
Evidence for actions that can result in congregational discipline is obtained by voluntary confession to the elders or by witnesses of the violation. A minimum of two witnesses is required to establish guilt, based on their understanding of Deuteronomy 17:6 and Matthew 18:16, unless the person confesses voluntarily.[34] Members are instructed to report serious sins committed by others members.[35] Failure to report a serious sin of another member is viewed as sharing in the sins of others, a sin before God.[36] Witnesses are instructed that pledges of confidentiality may be broken to report what they believe to be transgressions.[37]
A congregation's body of elders considers confessions or credible allegations of serious sin, and decides whether a judicial committee will be formed to address the matter.[38] A judicial committee, usually consisting of three elders, investigates the details of the alleged sin further. The committee arranges a formal judicial hearing to determine the circumstances of the sin, whether the accused is repentant, and whether disciplinary actions will be taken.[39][40][41]
In certain situations, a body of elders may handle a situation involving "serious sin" by a baptized Witness without a judicial committee:
Minor or newly baptized - A minor or newly baptized Witness might commit one or two acts of "serious sin" involving tobacco or overdrinking;[42][43] repercussions as for 'non-judicial' situations may still be imposed.
Repentance - The body of elders may believe the sinner's repentance has been established and accepted. For example, if a member committed a "serious sin" several years ago, had formally repented in prayer, and the sin did not involve scheming.[44] Witnesses are strongly discouraged from waiting years to resolve such matters;[45] even if years have passed since the serious sin, it is typical for a judicial committee to be formed, and there may still be repercussions as for ‘non-judicial’ situations.
Judicial abeyance - Elders may become aware of a "serious sin" committed by a baptized Witness who has been inactive for some time and is not perceived as a Jehovah’s Witness. If the alleged sinner is not associating with active Witnesses, the elders may indefinitely postpone a judicial committee and formal hearing unless and until the individual renews their association with the congregation.[46]
Judicial committee
A person accused of a serious sin is informed of the allegations and invited to attend a judicial committee meeting. The individual is permitted to bring witnesses who can speak in their defense; observers are not allowed,[47] and the hearing is held privately even if the accused individual requests that it be heard openly so all may witness the evidence.[48][49] Recording devices are not permitted at the hearing.[47] If the accused repeatedly fails to attend an arranged hearing, the committee will proceed but will not make a decision until evidence and testimony by witnesses are considered.[47]
The committee takes the role of prosecutor, judge and jury when handling its cases.[50] After the hearing is opened with a prayer, the accused is invited to make a personal statement. If there is no admission of guilt, the individual is informed of the source of the charges and witnesses are presented one at a time to give evidence. Witnesses do not remain present for the entire hearing. Once all the evidence is presented, the accused and all witnesses are dismissed and the committee reviews the evidence and the attitude of the accused.[47]
The committee may determine that there was no "serious sin", or that mitigating circumstances absolve the accused individual. The committee may then proceed with discipline such as is described for 'non-judicial' situations.[51] Alternatively, the committee may decide that a serious sin was committed, in which case, the committee gives verbal admonitions and gauges the individual's attitude and repentance. The committee then decides whether discipline will involve formal reproof or disfellowshipping.
Reproof
Reproof involves actions for which a person could be disfellowshipped, and is said to be an effort to 'reach the heart' and convince a person of the need to hate the sanctioned actions[52][53] and repent.[54] Reproof is considered sufficient if the individual is deemed repentant.[55][56] Reproof is given before all who are aware of the transgression. If the conduct is known only to the individual and the judicial committee, reproof is given privately. If the sin is known by a small number, they would be invited by the elders, and reproof would be given before the sinner and those with knowledge of the sin. If the action is known generally by the entire congregation or the wider community, an announcement is made that the person "has been reproved".[57] A related local needs talk may be given, separately to the announcement, without naming anyone.[58]
In all cases of reproof, restrictions are imposed,[59] typically prohibiting the individual from sharing in meeting parts, commenting during meetings, and giving group prayers. A reproved Witness cannot enroll as a pioneer or auxiliary pioneer for at least one year after reproof is given.[60][61]
Disfellowshipping
All members are expected to abide by the beliefs and moral standards of Jehovah's Witnesses, and serious violations of these requirements can result in disfellowshipping if not deemed repentant; the term is used in reference to both the act of congregational expulsion (similar to excommunication) and subsequent shunning.[62] When a judicial committee decides that a baptized Witness has committed a serious sin and is unrepentant, the person is disfellowshipped. A person can appeal if they believe that a serious error in judgment has been made. Requests for appeal must be made in writing and within seven days of the decision of the judicial committee. If the decision is not appealed, an announcement is made at the Service Meeting that the named individual "is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", without any further explanation. Shunning starts immediately after the announcement is made.[63]
If a baptized Witness teaches contrary to Witness doctrines, it is considered apostasy and grounds for disfellowshipping. A 1981 letter to overseers—reproduced in a book by former Governing Body member Raymond Franz—directed that a member who "persists in believing other doctrine", even without promoting such beliefs, may also be subject to disfellowshipping.[64] Elders usually try to reason with the individual before such action is taken.[65] If a person believes that a teaching should be adjusted or changed, he is encouraged "to be patient and wait on Jehovah for change".[66]
All members are encouraged to have a detailed understanding of what is expected and the consequences of wrongdoing.[67] The stated purpose of congregation discipline is to help erring ones be restored to spiritual health, to help uphold the organization's reputation, and to keep the congregation clean from wrong conduct.[68]
Shunning
Jehovah's Witnesses shun disfellowshipped individuals, a process Watch Tower Society publications describe as "withholding fellowship".[69] Their shunning policy is based on their interpretation of scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Matthew 18:15-17; and 2 John 9-11.[70][71]
Witnesses state that avoiding interaction with disfellowshipped former adherents helps to:
avoid reproach on God's name and organization by indicating that violations of the Bible's standards in their ranks are not tolerated;
keep the congregation free of possible corrosive influences;[72] and
convince the disfellowshipped individual to re-evaluate their course of action, repent and rejoin the religion.[73]
Shunning is also practiced when a member formally resigns membership or is deemed to indicate, by their actions, a statement, or their association with another religion, that they do not wish to be known as a Witness. Such individuals are said to have disassociated,[74][75] and are described by the Watch Tower Society as "lawless" in a spiritual sense.[76] In either case ("disfellowshipping" or "disassociating"), an announcement is made at the Kingdom Hall that "[full name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." This announcement is made at the congregation the person attends.[77] Congregation members are not informed whether a person is being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", nor on what grounds. The Watchtower states that "apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Timothy 6:3, 4 [NWT]).";[78][79] some have stated that this applies to all individuals who leave the organization.[80][81]
Failure to adhere to the directions on shunning is itself considered a serious offense. Members who continue to speak to or associate with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person are said to be sharing in their "wicked works"[82] and may themselves be punished by disfellowshipping.[83] Exceptions are made in some cases such as business relations and immediate family household situations.[69] If a disfellowshipped person is living in the same home with other baptized family members, religious matters are not discussed, with the exception of minors, for whose training parents are still responsible.[84][85] Disfellowshipped family members outside the home are shunned.[86]
The Watchtower 2013 Jan 1 p.16 even denies family communication by email, stating; "Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail." Interestingly, whilst the translation into most languages is the same, the Spanish edition extends this to "email, phone or text messaging."
Disfellowshipped individuals can continue attending meetings held at the Kingdom Hall, though they are shunned by the congregation. Attending meetings while being shunned is a requirement for eventual reinstatement.[87]
If a person dies in a disfellowshipped state they still are not to be associated with, so Witnesses are persuaded from attending their funeral.
"In "Questions from Readers" (The Watchtower, 1961, p. 544) the position was taken that a funeral for a disfellowshiped person was improper. The comment was made: "We never want to give the impression to outsiders that a disfellowshiped person was acceptable in the congregation when in truth and in fact he was not acceptable but had been disfellowshiped from it." A Christian congregation would not want its good name besmirched by having it associated with any to whom 2 John 9, 10 applied, even in their death." Watchtower 1977 Jun 1 p.347
Under certain circumstances even a parent can be disfellowshipped for associating with their own disfellowshipped children.
"Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course." Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock p.103
The latest elder's book, Shepherd the Flock of God (2010) reconfirms this, explaining that association with a relative can result in losing congregation privileges and even being disfellowshipped.
Assist those having undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives. ... If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures. ... If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, it may be that he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision. pp.114-116
Watchtower has publicly announced to the authorities in Finland a change to the above instructions
Reinstatement
Disfellowshipped individuals may be reinstated into the congregation if they are considered repentant of their previous actions and attitude. When a disassociated or disfellowshipped individual requests reinstatement, a judicial committee, (the committee originally involved, if available) seeks to determine whether the person has repented.[88] Such individuals must demonstrate that they no longer practice the conduct for which they were expelled from the congregation, as well as submission to the religion's regulations.[89][90][91] Individuals disfellowshipped for actions no longer considered serious sins, such as organ transplants, are not automatically reinstated. Meeting attendance while being shunned is considered by the organization as an important step toward eventual reinstatement.[92] Once a decision is made to reinstate, a brief announcement is made to the congregation that the disfellowshipped member is once again one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Elders are instructed to make an attempt each year to remind disfellowshipped ones of the steps they can take to qualify for reinstatement.[69][93] No specific period of time is prescribed before this can happen, however the Watch Tower Society suggests a period of "perhaps many months, a year, or longer."[94] In 1974, the Watch Tower Society stated that about one third of those disfellowshipped eventually return to the group, based on figures gathered from 1963 to 1973.[95]
The following 17 minute recording was taken by a girl attempting to be reinstated, and highlights the procedure well. It starts slowly, but is quite heartbreaking at the end. You will probably agree with the girl's comment regarding the elders lack of heart.
Legality
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, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text … The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs … The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice."[96][97]
Unbaptized publishers
An unbaptized individual who has previously been approved to share in Jehovah's Witnesses' formal ministry or participate in their Theocratic Ministry School, but who subsequently behaves in a manner considered inappropriate may lose privileges, such as commenting at meetings, receiving assignments, or even accompanying the congregation in the public ministry.[98]
If an unbaptized individual is deemed unrepentant of actions for which baptized members might be disfellowshipped, an announcement would be made that the person "is no longer a publisher of the good news."[99] Such individuals were previously shunned, but formal restrictions are no longer imposed on unbaptized individuals, though association is generally curtailed. The elders might privately warn individuals in the congregation if the unbaptized person is considered to pose "an unusual threat".[100]
Critical view
The only way to officially leave Jehovah's Witnesses is to disassociate or be disfellowshipped, and both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties, with no provision for continued normal association. Sociologist Andrew Holden has claimed that fear of family break-up or loss causes people who might otherwise freely leave the religion to remain members.[101] Jehovah's Witnesses state that disfellowshipping is a scripturally documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing.[102] Critics contend that the judicial process itself, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, directly contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organization's own teachings and can be used in an arbitrary manner if there is consensus among just a few to abuse their authority.[103]
According to Raymond Franz, a letter dated September 1, 1980, from the Watch Tower Society to all circuit and district overseers advised that a member who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping."[104] The letter states that one does not have to "promote" different doctrines to be an apostate, adding that elders need to "discern between one who is a trouble-making apostate and a Christian who becomes weak in the faith and has doubts."[104] Watch Tower Society publications indicate that some type of action is required for a member to be disfellowshipped, rather than a 'disagreement in thought'.[105]
Scriptural basis
Though there is Scriptural precedence to limit association with brothers practicing wrongdoing, critics of the Watchtower application of disfellowshipping state that it seriously deviates from Bible guidelines in a number of ways; The word "disfellowship" does not appear in the Bible
2 John 10 says not to greet the Antichrist. The Watchtower uses this single scripture to support not saying hello to a disfellowshipped person.
At Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 5, Paul outlined limiting association with Christians that practice wrongdoing, not strict shunning.
The Watchtower disfellowships for practices never discussed in the Bible such as smoking, gambling and having a blood transfusion.
Disfellowshipping is extended to prevent immediate family members associating with their disfellowshipped relatives.
The punishment applies forever, or until the Watchtower Society formally reinstates the person. It is considered irrelevant whether the person no longer practices the wrongdoing they were disfellowshipped for.
Bible discussion of shunning in 1 Corinthian's 15 and 2 John is limited to just the following areas; Fornication, Greed, idolatry, Revilers, Practicing Drunkenness, Extortion and One who does not remain in the teaching of the Christ.
This list should be the full extent of reasons for which to be disfellowshipped. In fact, Diotrephes was reprimanded for attempting to throw people out of the congregation unnecessarily.
3 John 9,10 "I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being content with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect, and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation."
Following is the vast list of offences the Watchtower has created for which a Jehovah's Witness can be disfellowshipped or disassociated.
Bible discussion of shunning in 1 Corinthian's 15 and 2 John is limited to just the following areas; Fornication, Greed, idolatry, Revilers, Practicing Drunkenness, Extortion and One who does not remain in the teaching of the Christ. This list should be the full extent of reasons for which to be disfellowshipped. In fact, Diotrephes was reprimanded for attempting to throw people out of the congregation unnecessarily.
3 John 9,10 "I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being content with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect, and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation."
Following is the vast list of offences the Watchtower has created for which a Jehovah's Witness can be disfellowshipped or disassociated. The abbreviations refer to the following publications:
Adultery (sexual intercourse with a person other than your marriage mate), includes;
Abandoning wife and eloping with another woman - w79 11/15 31-2, w76 p.728
Planned adultery to break Scriptural marriage ties - w83 3/15 p.29
Remarriage without Scriptural permission - w56 10/1 p.597
Polygamy - jv 176
Dating a person not legally divorced - ks91-E p.135
Apostasy - w83 4/1 pp.22-4, km 8/80 pp.1, 4. includes;
Rebellion against Jehovah's organization - w63 7/1
Promoting sects - it-2 886
Associating with disfellowshipped people including;
Friends - ks91-E p.103, w81 9/15 pp.25-6, w55 10/1 p.607
Family - ks91-E p.103
Blood and blood transfusions - w61 1/15 ks91-E p.95, jv p.183-4
Drug use - ks91-E p.96
Drunkenness - ks91-E p.95, it-1 656
Dishonest business practices - w63 7/1, w86 11/15 14
Employment violating Christian principles - km 9/76 p.6, km 2/74
Working for any religious organization - ks91-E p.95
Working in a gambling institution - ks91-E p.136
Selling tobacco - ks91-E p.96
Contract work at a military establishment
False worship. Includes;
Attending another church ks91-E p.94
Following mourning customs that involve false worship - w85 4/15 p.25
Fornication it-1 863
Bestiality - w83 6/1 p.25
Incestuous marriage - w78 3/15 p.26
Artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood.
"True Christians, therefore, avoid surrogate motherhood as well as any procedures that involve the use of donated sperm, eggs, or embryos" g04 9/22;
"Artificial insemination of a married woman by a donor other than her husband makes her guilty of adultery" g74 8/8 p.28
sexual abuse of children - g93 10/8 p.10Reviling - ks91-E p.94, w96 7/15 pp.17-18; it-1 p.991; it-2 p.802
Fraud - ks91-E p.94, om pp.142-3
Gambling or related employment - w80 9/1, ks91-E p.136
Gluttony - w86 5/1
Greediness, this in used to include;
gambling ks91-E p.95
extortion ks91-E p.95, w89 1/15 22, it-1 p.789
greed in relation to bride-price: w98 9/15 p.25
Homosexuality - w83 6/1 pp.24-6
Idolatry - w52 3/1 p.138
Loose conduct - ks91-E pp.93, 96, w83 3/15 p.31, w73 9/15 p.574, it-2 p.264, ks91-E p.93, w83 3/15 p.31, w73 9/15 pp.574-6, w97 9/1 p.14, it-2 p.246.
Sexual perversion
Disregard for Jehovah's moral standards
Disrespect, disregard or even contempt for standards, laws and authority,
Rather than restricted to the usual definition of sexual perversion, the Watchtower defines "loose conduct" as including "disrespect to elders". This enables this term to be used to disfellowship for a wide range of offences not elsewhere covered, and as such is used to cover all manner of sins, such as refusal to cease fellowship with disfellowshipped people, or even being contemptuous in a judicial meeting where no other sin can be proven.
Lying - ks91-E p.94, g00 2/8 p.21
Non neutral activities (involvement in politics and the military) - ks91-E p.96
Military service and non military service including working casual work (certain civilian work has recently been made a conscience matter w96 5/1 p.20) - ks91-E p.96
Obscene speech - ks91-E p.95
Parents condoning immorality - w56 p.566
Political involvement, including voting or holding a political card in Malawi - ks91-E p.96 (w99 11/1 p.28 made voting a conscience matter)
Porneia. Includes oral and anal sex between married couples, mutual masturbation between persons not married to each other, homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, incest, and bestiality. - ks91-E p.93
Slander - ks91-E p.94, w63 7/1, w89 10/15 p.14, om p.142
Smoking or selling tobacco - km 2/74, ks91-E p.96
Spiritism (includes yoga w02 8/1 p.22) - w55 10/1 p.607
Stealing, thievery - om pp.142-5, ks91-E p.94
Subversive activity - w95 10/1 p.31
Uncleanness
Sexually perverse practices within marriage, such as oral and anal sex - w83 3/15 p.31
Heavy petting and breast fondling - ks91-E p.92
Touching of sexual parts - ks91-E p.91
Practice of viewing abhorrent Pornography - w2012 3/15 p.31
Violation of secular law if flagrant attitude - w86 10/1 p.31
Violence, extreme physical abuse, fits of anger - ks91-E p.96, w75 p.287, g01 11/8 p.12
Includes Boxing w81 7/1 pp.30-1, ks91-E p.142
Wilful non support of family, endangerment of mates spirituality - w88 11/1 pp.22-3, km 9/73 p.8, ks91-E p.95
Worldly celebrations such as Christmas - ks91-E p.95 (It appears celebrating birthdays is not a reason to be disfellowshipped)
Bible guidelines on disfellowshipping
Examining the Scriptures used to justify disfellowshipping, it becomes apparent that Christian writers prescribed marking a Christian wrongdoer but did not provide for the Watchtower practice of disfellowshipping and strict shunning.
Jesus Advice
Jesus commanded that we not judge but love all, particularly those we consider our enemies.
Luke 6:27-37 "But I say to YOU who are listening, Continue to love YOUR enemies, to do good to those hating YOU, to bless those cursing YOU, to pray for those who are insulting YOU. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him that takes away your outer garment, do not withhold even the undergarment.Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things away do not ask [them] back. Also, just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them. And if YOU love those loving YOU, of what credit is it to YOU? For even the sinners love those loving them.And if YOU do good to those doing good to YOU, really of what credit is it to YOU? Even the sinners do the same.Also, if YOU lend [without interest] to those from whom YOU hope to receive, of what credit is it to YOU? Even sinners lend [without interest] to sinners that they may get back as much. To the contrary, continue to love YOUR enemies and to do good and to lend [without interest], not hoping for anything back; and YOUR reward will be great, and YOU will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind toward the unthankful and wicked. Continue becoming merciful, just as YOUR Father is merciful. Moreover, stop judging, and YOU will by no means be judged; and stop condemning, and YOU will by no means be condemned."
Jesus introduced the standard on how Christian wrongdoers should be treated, saying at Matthew 18:15-17:
"Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 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."
Jesus did not say to never utter a word to an unrepentant wrong doer but to treat them as a tax collector. He himself spoke to and ate with tax collectors. (Matthew 9:11).
1 Corinthians 5:11
The majority of information on how to treat wrongdoers within the congregation comes from Paul and the main support the Watchtower uses to enforce shunning is from 1 Corinthians 5. Paul showed a balanced approach to wrongdoers, advising not to socialise with such ones, but to still admonish [them] as a brother. 2 Thessalonians is key to understanding that wrongdoers should be marked, not disfellowshipped.
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us . 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.
Paul did not indicate that marking was only for non-serious sin as the word through this letter at 2 Thessalonians included those not glorifying the name of our Lord Jesus, those refusing to work for a living, and any who had been seduced by apostasy. Paul did not say to disfellowship and shun such people, but rather instructed the congregation to mark or take note of such a person, yet continue admonishing him as a brother. In similar vein the following scriptures do not instruct complete shunning of the person, but rather to take note so as not to be influenced by their wrong ways.
Romans 16:17 "Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on (the word 'mark' is used in many translations) those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them. "
Titus 3:10 "As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned."
At 1 Corinthians 5 Paul specifically outlined practices for which to cease mixing with a brother, yet this too is similar to the advice given when marking a brother.
1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."
1 Corinthians does not say to totally shun a brother who is a wrong doer, rather it says to quit mixing in company with such a person and not eat with such a man and hence refers to socialising. As the Watchtower has explained, this refers to socialising as friends.
"God's Word states that we should 'not even eat with such a man.' (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant." Kingdom Ministry 2002 Aug p.3
This does not state that this type of person must never be spoken to. As Paul explained at 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 (quoted earlier), if they are at a meeting it would be reasonable to encourage them. Most certainly a polite greeting is acceptable. 1 Corinthians is also specific as to who these words apply to. This advice is in regards to a person"called a brother" who "is" a wrongdoer. No indication is given that they should be avoided when they are no longer recognised as a Jehovah's Witness brother. Nor does it say to shun a person who has stopped their wrongdoing. It is regularly the case that a teenage Witness is disfellowshipped for smoking or fornication. Years later they no longer practice what they were disfellowshipped for and are no longer known in the community as a brother, and so their continued shunning is unjustified. It can also be noted that Paul did not insist that everyone participate in the shunning. Later he wrote that the "majority" participate in the rebuke, showing that some in the congregation may choose not to show rebuke to the person.
2 Corinthians 2:5-6 "Now if anyone has caused sadnessM, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent-not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, …"
The New World Translation reference M shows Paul was here referring to the situation discussed at 1 Corinthians 5, (as do Christian scholars). Paul gave similar advice on a number of occasions to 'mark' and 'avoid' wrongdoers. This does not mean that the person must be totally ignored, never uttered a greeting, avoiding eye contact, crossing the street to get away from, all common experiences of disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses.
2 John 10
Watchtower extreme treatment of not even saying "hello" to a disfellowshipped Witnesses is not based on the above scriptures, but rather on a single statement at 2 John 7-11:
For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward. Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
2 John is referring to the antichrist and should not be applied across the board to all forms of sin, as done by the Watchtower Society. In order to justify their stance, the Watchtower describes those that stop being Witnesses as apostate and of the Antichrist, saying that "the word apostasy comes from a Greek word that literally means a standing away from but has the sense of desertion, abandonment or rebellion ... [and included] abandonment of right moral standards ... willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the 'antichrist." Watchtower 1985 Jul 15 p.31 In reality, many who stop being Witnesses continue to follow Jesus and Bible morals, but have come to believe that the Watchtower Society is not directed by Jesus. Interestingly, Johns advice here was not limited to former Christians. It included anyone denying Christ. This included Jews that rejected Jesus and people of the nations worshipping other Gods. Yet the Watchtower stance is to apply this only to Jehovah's Witnesses. The meaning of the phrase never receive him into YOUR homes should be understood in the context of the hospitality of first century Jerusalem. Since Christians held congregation meetings in their homes John possibly felt that inviting a denier of Christ into a home could be viewed as sharing worship with non-Christians. Likewise the term to never "say a greeting" needs to be understood in light of first century practice. In the following article, the Watchtower incorrectly claims that John used the term "greeting" to indicate a simple hello.
"John here used khairo, which was a greeting like good day or hello. (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use aspazomai (as in verse 13), which means to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even hello to such ones." Watchtower 1988 Apr 15 p.27
This article claims the word khairo is used to forbid a simple greeting, instead of aspazomai which means a more affectionate embrace, enfolding in the arms, kiss, greeting or welcome. This is incorrect, and the opposite is true. Strong's Concordance states;
5463 chairo {khah'-ee-ro} 1) to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute
783 aspasmos {as-pas-mos} 1) a salutation, either oral or written
2 John does not indicate a polite greeting is wrong. John here shows that a person is a sharer in the Antichrist's wicked works if he shows acceptance and agreement with the evildoers cause or teachings, or wishes them favour and success. The Watchtower Society uses this single Scripture in 2 John to dictate that every disfellowshipped or disassociated person should not even be politely greeted. This is applied regardless of what the person was disfellowshipped for, including a long list of Society originated rules such as gambling, smoking, or authorising a blood transfusion. Every single one of a disfellowshipped persons Witness friends is told to never greet them again, unless they repent and are formally reinstated by the Watchtower Society. I am aware of friends whose own mothers or their own children have not spoken to them for upwards of 20 years. Yet such shunning is only ever discussed once, was only to apply to the Antichrist, and as such is being misused to its extremity.
I don't know, but has it occurred to anyone that because the Romans were pagan, and it was the Romans who executed Jesus, that perhaps they may have used a pagan symbol, or at least the type of torture device that was popular in those days for THEM, and if the cross was what was popular in those days, then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross. Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else since it wasn't Jesus or Jehovah who were deciding.
Indeed. But the focus of this thread is on how historical and linguistic scholarship can be misused or ignored to influence readers to a preordained conclusion (namely, that Jesus didn't die on a cross). The shape of the stauros Jesus died on shouldn't be an issue, but the Org has stuck its neck out and made it one.
The following post quotes originally came from this thread:
Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.
I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.
Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4
It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization.
It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.
"(2) ... Is there any bias?"
Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.
"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."
The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:
"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376
You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here: https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2up
So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.
There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim.
Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end.
This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.
"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.
See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up
In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).
That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization.
What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.
"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false.
Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses.
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html#
Shocking, hey?
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up
Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.
I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on?
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
Now, this is a whole different issue.
And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:
Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.
No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!
No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.
(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).
(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.
(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)
Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.
I can hardly believe a JW would say this about child abuse, not to mention using as an example partaking of Jesus' body and blood, a command the majority of JWs disobey anyway: "Take eat, this is my body. Drink...this is my blood of the covenant."
Your point being that a law requiring child abuse be reported to law enforcement goes against Jehovah's standards that there has to be two witnesses (other than the victim and the abuser). Talk about straining at a gnat.
A better example is not necessary ... you have confused two different issues.
Anybody can report a missing person .... even "Bro. Bobby", who in this example SAW me kill "Bro. Jack".
But if he talks to the Elders first .. he most likely won't go to the Police ... they will talk him out of it so as to not "sully Jehovah's name".
Keep it hidden, keep it quiet ... that is why as of this date March, 18, 2017 ... the website JW.Org's World News has mentioned nothing, Nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING!, about the Australian Royal commissions investigations ... NEWS .... Real news.
Zero, zip, nada, goose eggs ....
Bro. Bobby is completely free to call the Police and have THEM investigate ANY crime, but because of the Pharisaic APPLICATION of rules that existed thousands of years ago, in a completely different structured civilization and culture, where trials were held in the city gates for all those inside the city and outside the city to be able to see with their own eyes how Justice was administered... we have institutionalized craven cowardice in the REAL application of Justice.
Justice has become a billion words ... but has also BECOME an extreme rarity in real life, because doing what is RIGHT is never, ever considered .... only what one is FORCED to do. (...PLEASE make us do what is right - GB Geoffery Jackson ....).
This is not new.
The Bible records three three Elders that counseled Job in his misery for three days ... but had NOTHING worth recording to say.
Words, word, and more words ... and Justice is aborted.
A child molester in the Congregation today with only ONE witness is, and denies it, can retain his congregational standing ... and because the accusations cannot be acted upon, he or she cannot be reported to the police ... by the Elders.
The instructions are to "Leave it in Jehovah's hands ...".
This is a CRIMINAL activity ... but in 50 years in over 5,000 cases involving 1,006 alleged perpetrators ... in one country alone, at the "bottom of the world", the solution was to keep the details hidden in envelopes in congregational and branch files, and mail copies in special blue envelopes to Bethel in New York.
Like Nixon's Watergate ... the cover-up is what became global news.
In the old Soviet Union, the major newspaper was named "PRAVDA" which means "TRUTH".
All news extolled the wisdom and competence of the Communist leadership, and allegiance and respect for the good job they were doing.
Then their administration collapsed of it's own arrogance, and incompetence.
Just as a person has the natural right to bear arms to defend himself or his family ... there are those that will pervert this into the right of a Bear to HAVE arms, defend the position for short sleeve shirts, and use references to support bare arms, or other irrational goofiness.
When irrational goofyness reaches a certain level it transforms into unadulterated EVIL.
Did you ever see the classic "must see" movie "Deliverance"? Bodies and evidence disappear, or is never found or linked .... all the time.
There are infinite variety scenarios to everything ... including making, in the game of Golf, a "hole in one" that would NEVER have happened if not for a squirrel that dropped an acorn out of its mouth a hundred years ago, it grew into an oak tree, and now in the present day, the golf ball bounced off of the tree ... rolled across the green, and plopped into the little cup.
Add time element to "WOW! What are the chances of THAT ( ... pick anything the mind can imagine ..) happening ?".
It helps to think about such things after three beers, while sitting in a darkened room, in a comfortable chair.
This would be an "Infinite Variety" scenario.
Let's say I murdered "Bro. Jack" ..... "Bro. Bobby" saw me do it, and I took the body several states away and buried it in a corn field ... and denied I had ever been with Bro. Jack and Bro. Bobby that day ... that I had been, say, walking in the woods taking photos somewhere in the other direction.
To everybody else but Bro. Bobby .... Jack just disappeared.
According to the "two witness rule", the elders COULD NOT EVEN REPORT ME TO THE POLICE for investigation.
Why?
Only one Witness.
BRO. BOBBY, however, could report me to the police, as any responsible man with a conscience would and should, and would HAVE to do to avoid MORAL complicity in a CRIMINAL activity, and and deny JUSTICE to Bro. Jack.
If we as claimants to God's special favor, and carry his Name, deny basic, elemental, natural human MORALITY, that even most atheists are born with, and continually pervert Justice ... it is WRONG .. and a great slander and reproach on our God, Jehovah, and his reputation.
... and, it makes the administrators of those policies ..... EVIL.
... and a million published words, spoken and written a thousand times, will not make that go away.
When irrational goofyness reaches a certain level it transforms into unadulterated EVIL.
.
In my mind there is no difference. There is no transparency as to finances in the organisation except at congregation level. The very fact that a financial report is read out at a religious meeting assumes that by so doing those in attendance will be "motivated" to give. It is passing the plate covertly.
They started out with a $3,500 carry-over but by the end of the day they were short $25,000. The speaker eloquently beseeched the audience to go the ATM machines and give their generous contribution or at least their widow's mite. After the sessions were over, our friend who attended walked from one end of the assembly hall and then to the other end and noticed long lines up to both machines with people who couldn't wait to run up their credit cards. Later in the car, even his hard-core JW wife mentioned that she wondered how it cost that much for a one-day assembly in a building that was fully paid for.
I'm guessing maybe a paedophile lawsuit happened during the interval.
It really doesn't matter how nice they make it sound...at the end of the day this "two groups" theory is human extrapolation and it does not have clear, Biblical support. This is the same organization that doesn't use the word "cross" in its translation despite historical records of crucifixion because the Aramaic word "stauros" does not clearly mean cross. And they were correct to do that! Our Bible should be the evidence. Let's not go beyond it. And there is no clear, scriptural evidence that the generation in Matthew 24:34 is two overlapping groups.
Not once did the GB suggest that the generation could be two overlapping groups until after the first theory failed. And the idea that the generation was one group existed for nearly a century. So, is this a case where the generation "evidently" meant two groups, or is it an attempt by the GB to force a square peg in a round hole? Wouldn't it have made more sense to throw out that failed idea and reevaluate our understanding of the prophetic framework? Even if 1914 is a valid prophetic date, why take the risk when it's been interpreted wrong before? In an organization that puts such value on Bible truth, wouldn't it make sense to discontinue a theory that has proven unreliable and has even mislead JWs? The GB did the opposite. They manufactured a new definition for generation that suits their need to keep 1914 a valid date. The GB holds onto 1914/the generation dearly, because it gives people a sense of urgency and makes our organization prophetically significant. Without it, JWs may become disillusioned or not cling to the organization. There are plenty of human motives for keeping this failed theory around, but at the expense of spiritual truth.
It has TTH, and you KNOW that is true, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the medicines you hopefully take, the quality of cars, houses, buildings, streets, bridges, agriculture, animal husbandry, communications, international travel ... and the list is truly endless.
Neither system is perfect, but BOTH systems are incredibly important.
The World is better in EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE compared to what it was when apprenticeship feudal systems predated Universities, which created structured learning for the masses of people.
You are living in a fantasy world of someone elses' creation, TTH ... and millions of actual FACTS from the REAL world prove that.
Â
This is interesting thought!
And also is interesting, significant, when in the magazine Awake interviewed highly educated individuals who have become JW. In our language edition of magazine, Croatian, during the interview, they are addressed with personal pronouns, You (plural). How come that brother interview other brother or sister with plural You. :))) for what reason?
-but this introduction is just for little fun time :))))))
JW redefine education? No, they was redefine the purpose of life today, by telling people what to do and what not. They redefined the "normal" human needs in a way to speak to them, wait, you will be art painter, musician, scientist .... in the near future after Armagedon. Today you need to work some simple job just to have "bread and water", rest money give to Corporation for preaching work. You will be happy that way because bible teaching so.
I am "average" person. Average job. Working since my age of 17, worked various jobs; bookbinder, metal worker, all kind of house jobs that people need, gardener, and last 12 years am janitor in one high school. Last 2 years went to extra education, and last month successfully finished it. Now have diploma for "business secretary" and this last two years working half time as janitor and other half as school administrator. And i like it. Little in school administration with papers and peoples, other part some fixing works, going to town on delivery jobs. Communicate with all sort and age of people. Twice time i was helped and participate in school stage art, performance and went with drama group to few Croatian towns, to Italy, San Remo, take first place twice :)))).
So called "worldly" education is for all people, not only for "worldly" :)))))))))))))
Please note that on each of the Governing Body's passport applications it it crystal clear that it is an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ... and that before Jehovah God they all swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" ... and WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION, AND THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
There is absolutely NO way a SANE person can get around what they did ... with fifty words or a million words.
The Malawi Party card was a national identity card that required NO OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, and was basically, a tax of 25 cents.
I spent time in the Congo .... that was about a half day's pay at the time.
When my boys were growing up, they were members of the U.S. Air Force auxiliary, the Civil Air Patrol, which was basically the Boy Scouts, with airplanes ... and it did not require my sons to swear any oath of allegiance to ANYTHING, or pledge allegiance to any flag, which they also did not do.
I was there at EVERY meeting and exercise and watched, as the peer pressure on them by students and instructors was intense ... and they got to see FIRST HAND how the flag of the United States is literally worshiped in "color guard" ceremonies, and such. My son, Yannick, was expelled from the classroom ( and me with him) for refusing to pledge allegiance to the Flag, and we went outside to see the most magnificent rainbow across the airfield I have EVER seen, in person or in ANY photographs.
It was close up, fully saturated colors, brilliantly lit with sharply defined wide banded spectral bows, went from left horizon to right horizon completely, and was against a background of dark rain clouds.
It is my strong personal opinion, and I am a natural skeptic about such things, that this was Jehovah God showing his pride in my son's actions.
I was so stunned, I ran back to the classroom, and burst in, and told everybody about the rainbow, and they abandoned their teacher to run outside to see it.
Later on, the teacher, a retired Marine aviation mechanic, came and apologized for his losing his temper and throwing Yannick out.
He did not know that I had previously cleared it with the Squadron Commander that my boys could be Cadets without any oath or pledge requirements whatsoever ... and apparently he got chewed out for his demands.
By the way, the Civil Air Patrol has NO weapons, and only does search and rescue of downed aircraft, with airplanes, etc. They would not even allow my boys to have knives, on camping trips ... so I bought them hatchets, and sharpened them.
Oh, and by the way ... when EVERYBODY in a country buys a political party card... and by law ... there is ONLY ONE political party in the entire nation ... what REALITY is, is that the card is a National Identification Card.
THAT IS WHY ... in Malawi, those who were NOT indigenous to Africa, were exempted.
Before you scroll down ... what would you think of a Brother, or a collection of Brothers, who in order to get official government documents, ACTUALLY SWORE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ? Pretty despicable, huh? Especially... ESPECIALLY in light of the Malawi rulings that got PEOPLE KILLED AND TORTURED !
Would you even want to associate with such people, claiming allegiance exclusively to God's Kingdom by Christ Jesus ... while committing TREASON against God, by giving their allegiance to a political nation? And for what?
Now ..... after you have considered these despicable actions by Brothers for selfish, worldly reasons ..... scroll down
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is the old classic "You are damned if you do... and damned if you don't."
If I take personal responsibility according to the dictates of my conscience and am wrong, Wrong WRONG ... I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
I PERSONALLY HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR RUINING MY LIFE.
If I follow the advice of ANYONE , oh...say... a Governing Body of some religious organization, and they are wrong Wrong WRONG ... AGAIN, I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
THEY PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING MY LIFE !
.... and they NEVER, EVER .... even apologize.
This "News" was absolutely true, not fake.
But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico.
When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read.
So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.
Srecko Sostar reacted to PeterR in Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized?
Srecko Sostar got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in JWs Among the Least Educated in the US
