Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Albert Michelson

Recommended Posts

  • Member
7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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

I do not personally believe that the first century Christians had an equivalent to disfellowshiping. But again you're admitting that there is a deviation from scripture and yet for some reason you see this as acceptable or at least tolerable. Once again I'd ask what your personal cut off is. When does it become to much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 15k
  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the

I do get warm feelies here. I don't think that's a bad thing. (I don't mean here, with @The Librarianand all; I mean in Jehovah's organization) I am like most Witnesses who do not have to have ev

Like I really should watch CNN to learn the truth about Trump or Breitbart to learn the truth about Obama? I'll choose what I choose to see in proper context, neither cherry-picked nor skewed.

Posted Images

  • Member
36 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

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

That letter was from 1980 when Bethel held what Bethelites themselves (of good reputation and in good standing) were calling "Inquisitions" and "witch hunts." Brother Schroeder was out for the head of Ray Franz and used his bully pulpit at a couple of Bethel elders meetings to whip up a frenzy of whatever would be the Bethel equivalent of McCarthyism, Loyalism, Jingoism, etc. He worked fast and most of it was secret. He was protecting himself at the same time and he knew it. When it was all over he was not well liked, even though a lot of other people had been maneuvered into doing his dirty work.

But I don't think that the feeling (or lack of it) in this particular letter you posted, was common even 5 years later. (The only exception I would be sure of by that point was Fred Franz, who was all for handling apostasy cases anywhere they might show up, but he was becoming much less active.) Schroeder himself softened after Ray Franz was finally out completely. (Although I'm sure he was disappointed that he could only get him on a couple counts of speaking with a disfellowshipped person.) Schroeder had hoped for a couple things to come out of those moves against Ray Franz, and things actually went the other way for him. I say these things because Brother Schroeder was a very good friend of mine. He was also my overseer at Bethel for research assignments, even for a couple years after I had left Bethel and lived in New York. For several people, this particular bit of information makes me no longer anonymous, and I understand that this creates a very small danger of repercussions. But it is very, very slight compared to what it would have been in the early 1980's. At that time, however, I would not have said anything about doctrinal issues or anything about Schroeder's apparent motives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He worked fast and most of it was secret.

It usually is when it comes to these meetings. That's part of the reason elders can disfellowship someone for basically nothing. No one is privied to the secret elders meetings and judicial hearings. As long as at lest two elders are on board you can be disfellowshiped for anything, even if it's to shut you up.

 

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That letter was from 1980

As far as I know it's still in force but I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He worked fast and most of it was secret. He was protecting himself at the same time and he knew it. When it was all over he was not well liked, even though a lot of other people had been maneuvered into doing his dirty work.

So you're well aware of how the system is abused. That brings me to my next point. Witnesses are also required to respect the disfellowshiping decision even if they know it was unjustly handled and even if they know the person is innocent.

 

"Willfull, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshiped nonrelatives dispite repeated council."

IMG_1720.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Albert, you make altogether too many statements complaining of sinister intentions at Witness headquarters. It borders on paranoia. To me, it indicates you have spent too much time hanging out with the wrong type of people and drinking in their wisdom.

3 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Um freedom and intellectual honesty. 

No. Please. Don't go there. We are, to a great degree, who we hang out with. It's intellectually flattering to think otherwise. But it's also nonsense. That is why some god-awful style will come along and within 5 years we're all wearing it, wondering how we ever thought those geeky styles of yesteryear did anything for us. We run with the herd not just on small things like styles, but on all things. It's well to give thought to who you hang out with.

 

3 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Um freedom

It would be nice if you didn't go there, either. For the sake of the piddling little freedoms that you gain by leaving the Witness faith, none of which ultimately amounts to a hill of beans, you throw away freedoms which are truly significant.

I'll concede, though, that if you were baptized young and later left on bad terms and you find yourself shunned by family because of it, that is not a good place to be. I can empathize with that. Having said that, it is entirely possible for a person baptized young who later decides to leave to do so without triggering shunning. I know several who have done it. Fade. Drift away. Or just tell a few that you don't want to do it anymore. There are some anti-Witness factions who encourage such ones to go out with a splash - tell them all off at the Kingdom Hall! By following their advice, you virtually assure that you will be shunned. Few governments will smilingly see their citizens declare them illegitimate, and it is no different in Jehovah's organization, which is often called a 'nation,' and is more of a nation in many respects than political nations on the globe.

I don't want to get into here whether it should be that way. The point is, it is. Thus, shunning is easily avoidable. One wonders why any outfit - often atheists do this - would recommend such a confrontation, knowing the disruption it will bring on a family. Of course, the lack of 'shunning' doesn't mean palling around as usual, and one who leaves often finds they lose all their Witness friends anyway, and even family, though not in so formal away.

The Witness faith is like the man who found the pearl of high value, and sold everything he had to secure it. Most people today would consider this fellow a fanatic. Jesus indicated his was the example to follow. So if you leave the faith, you'll find most Witnessed lose interest in hanging out with you. Like in most things, people seek out common interests. Just look how many families have been divided over Trump and Hillary. Do you really think that when Kathy Griffin holds aloft the mock, bloodied head of the President, her Republican dad (if he is) says: "that's my lass! She speaks her mind! It won't affect Thanksgiving dinner, though."?

Is it a good idea to allow Witness kids to be baptized at 10? It's a good thing for those who will remain. It's a bad thing for those who will afterwards decide to leave (with a bang). If only you could tell who was who in advance. Contrary to your dark accusation that JWs rope them in as young as possible so as to hold them hostage (sheesh) my son wanted baptism at age 10 and the elders told him to wait. His feelings were hurt over it, but he was baptized the next year. If you find something good, it is never considered wrong to 'dedicate' yourself to it at a young age. Successful businesspeople and even entertainers do that, to say nothing of athletes. I've never heard one criticized for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It would be wonderful if questions during a meeting were more like:

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

If you don't mind, I want to go home after two hours. I don't want each meeting to be like a discussion of the WorldNewsMedia forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

shunning is easily avoidable.

 It is possible but I wouldn't say it's easily avoidable.  And again as I've stated many times it requires one to essentially take a vow of silence and live in perpetual fear.

 

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Witness faith is like the man who found the pearl of high value, and sold everything he had to secure it.

 I would say that it's more like the Pharisees who encourage their followers to cast the followers of Jesus out of the synagogues.  It's more a matter of information control and uniformity then anything else.

 

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Contrary to your dark accusation that JWs rope them in as young as possible so as to hold them hostage (sheesh) my son wanted baptism at age 10 and the elders told him to wait. His feelings were hurt over it, but he was baptized the next year.

 And yet he was raised without any opportunity to hear or see contrary evidence.  I wanted to get baptized at 10 as well because that's all I knew.  But this is a lifelong commitment that they are never allowed to retract.  And yes it is the organizations goal to get these kids young and to entrap them.  As I said before if they can do that then they can ensure that they will either stay in or that they'll keep their mouths shut if they leave.  The latter prospect seems to be what you are advocating for and I find it ironic considering the circumstances.  As I have already pointed out witnesses regularly go to peoples homes and encourage them to leave their faith systems and join their's.  They encourage them to speak out against the false teachings of their former religions and yet for a Jehovah's Witness to do this very thing is met with cruelty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you don't mind, I want to go home after two hours. I don't want each meeting to be like a discussion of the WorldNewsMedia forum.

:)

Notice that I only gave 30 minutes for the "little flock/other sheep" public talk though. I think with works well with the new shorter talk guidelines, but, alas and alack, I couldn't find that topic in any of the new talk outlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

So quick question and a little off topic but, my opinion is that the other sheep were the gentiles. Is that another doctrine you disagree with or is it on you accept?

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet.

Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application.

I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day.

Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this:

  • (Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . .

I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said:

  • (Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
  • (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Linda S.

      Linda S. 4

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Miracle Pete

      Miracle Pete 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.